MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Look up Positive Atheism. They even have their own website. Or maybe it's awebsite?I am a unicorn ist.
But in ancient Greek that doesn't mean what it means.
Last edited by a moderator:
Look up Positive Atheism. They even have their own website. Or maybe it's awebsite?I am a unicorn ist.
But in ancient Greek that doesn't mean what it means.
Exactly.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
I'm a believer and follower of Christ and I don't care about the distinction at all.Exactly.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
You've always seemed very confident about your Christianity. There are some people here who seem less so, or at least they feel they have the need to "prove" it in scientific terms, and, failing that, to demonstrate that no alternatives can be proven either.I'm a believer and follower of Christ and I don't care about the distinction at all.Exactly.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
I don't really care, but they do actually mean different things.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.You've always seemed very confident about your Christianity. There are some people here who seem less so, or at least they feel they have the need to "prove" it in scientific terms, and, failing that, to demonstrate that no alternatives can be proven either.I'm a believer and follower of Christ and I don't care about the distinction at all.Exactly.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
Would love to invite you back, to defend this absurd positionAgnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.
That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
Curious as to why you think that.That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.Curious as to why you think that.That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.Curious as to why you think that.That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
That's easy, for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous. Read it again.I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.Curious as to why you think that.That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
Read what again.That's easy, for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous. Read it again.I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.Curious as to why you think that.That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Your term, not mine. And yes.so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Maybe we don't know 100%, but I have capital-F Faith that gods don't exist. That's enough for me to bump it up to 100%.Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.
I think saying "nothing can change my mind" is more of a prediction that no evidence will come across his path in life that will lead him to believe that Jesus is not legit rather than a hard stance that he won't change his mind regardless of what evidence he comes across. In fact, he can't just choose to never change his beliefs. Either they will be changed or they won't be changed based on the evidence he encounters.Your term, not mine. And yes.so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Probably because they mean different things.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
I don't think its sad at all. I don't agree with him, but I'm not saddened when people look at world differently than I do and think/believe different things.That's just sadAt this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
Sure they do. The issue is that they're NOT mutually exclusive yet most assume they are.Probably because they mean different things.Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
Why do so many agnostics insist on being considered atheist when they are not?Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
It's as pointless a conversation as splitting hairs about atheism/agnosticism. No such evidence will ever exist, so Jayrod is safe in his cocoon.Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
I'm not assuming anything beyond the commonly understood definitions of the words in his post. What's the point in saying "nothing could convince me" if that's not what he meant? I don't mean to pick on him, but it's only because others are claiming to speak for him and declaring that he meant something that is the opposite of what he said.Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."No.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
I don't think that's the case at all. It's certainly not when I discuss it. Plenty of people believe the Bible is a work of fiction but still believe in the possibility of a deity.No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
On a side note, the bolded part is wrong. Even if a theistic deity exists, it's not logically necessary that that deity be the one that's described in the Bible. (It would be nice for people like me if you were right about that part, but unfortunately you're not).No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."
It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
Even based on the excerpt that Mr. Roboto posted, atheism didn't mean "someone who denies the possibility of a God." In that excerpt, atheist is clearly being defined more akin to "one who does not worship god." In some cases, as when the worshippers of the Greek pantheon and the Early Christians were each calling the other atheists, it meant "one who does not worship the right [in our opinion] gods." That's a lot closer to matsuki's definition in this thread than any of his critics'.This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."No.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
Exactly. Atheists have more in common with theists in their decision-making than they do agnostics. Atheists and theists think the information is there for an absolute yes/no. Agnostics do not.This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."
It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
Agreed. I don't even understand why this is a debate.This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."
It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
atheistI don't believe that God exists. Could something happen that could change my mind about this? Of course. But until it does, I don't believe in a god. I am NOT unsure about this lack of belief. In fact I have no doubts whatsoever, because I don't believe that anything will ever change my mind. It could, theoretically, but I don't think it will ever happen, and I'm not unsure about that either. I'm extremely confident.
Atheist or agnostic?
Both.I don't believe that God exists. Could something happen that could change my mind about this? Of course. But until it does, I don't believe in a god. I am NOT unsure about this lack of belief. In fact I have no doubts whatsoever, because I don't believe that anything will ever change my mind. It could, theoretically, but I don't think it will ever happen, and I'm not unsure about that either. I'm extremely confident.
Atheist or agnostic?
Is a deity a deity if that deity is not recognized or defined as such? Now you're getting into the definition of deity. More hairsplitting.I don't think that's the case at all. It's certainly not when I discuss it. Plenty of people believe the Bible is a work of fiction but still believe in the possibility of a deity.No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
This has always been my opinion. I don't care if you believe or don't believe. To each his own. If something makes you feel better about life that's great. Nothing wrong with doing what makes you happy. But it seems like religious devotion and atheism are about the same. You take an absolute position on something you cannot know absolutely.Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.
I really hate when people say this.Exactly. Atheists have more in common with theists in their decision-making than they do agnostics. Atheists and theists think the information is there for an absolute yes/no. Agnostics do not.This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."
It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
I don't think this is a fair summary of Plantinga. I'm no expert on him, but from what I understand, he argues that there are certain beliefs that are accepted sans evidence. I think his primary example is "others' minds", but he also refers to belief in the past in the article. Other beliefs are accepted based on evidence or based on these other, more basic beliefs. He then argues that belief in God falls under the type of belief that is accepted sans evidence.The reason why the distinction between agnosticism is meaningless is because it means nothing to construct a truth claim that is literally incapable of rational analysis and then claim it is as rational to accept it or not. That's the classic argument from ignorance, and it's exactly what Russell's teapot is meant to illustrate. And it's exactly why Plantinga's interview (and what little I've read of him from other sources) is irrational. He essentially argues that insisting on evidence is inappropriate as a matter of epistemology. So he defines his own appropriate standard and declares belief in God rational. Kind of like forgetting the rules to solitaire, but dividing the cards into random piles and declaring yourself the winner.
I think you're being a bit close minded. There are many religions in the world. And there are many ideas of god or gods or even just some higher power just in this country. Many more outside of this country.Is a deity a deity if that deity is not recognized or defined as such? Now you're getting into the definition of deity. More hairsplitting.I don't think that's the case at all. It's certainly not when I discuss it. Plenty of people believe the Bible is a work of fiction but still believe in the possibility of a deity.No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?
In reality we are talking about God here. In any case, it is all Bronze Age mythology.
Is your definition of deity a "divine creator"? Because I don't think that's really the definition of deity. I think the definition of deity is some guy who's already been fabricated and worshipped and killed for and all that good stuff.