What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece (2 Viewers)

Slapdash said:
mr roboto said:
Slapdash said:
Hooper31 said:
IvanKaramazov said:
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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
Click to expand...
But you cannot know whether there is a god or not, so all atheists would be agnostic.
Click to expand...
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
Click to expand...
A lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in nothing. No matter how much you want it to be the case.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I said they were equivalent. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. But both of those assertions are different than agnosticism.
 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
IvanKaramazov said:
JZilla said:
Apple Jack said:
JZilla said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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'.

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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

The distinction/definition of an atheist by the these people is an attempt to remove the burden of proof from the ones actually making the claim. Framing the debate on religious terms is the only way the debate can even be had.

 
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.

In the scientific secular rational mind, there is nothing that is 100% certain or beyond change in the face of new evidence. The fact that an atheist cannot be 100% certain about the nature of our existence does not undermine the rationality of his position, nor does it make him an agnostic; rather, it is simply consistent with traditional scientific inquiry in which conclusions/theories are developed based on the realm of existing evidence and are continually open to change based on newly-discovered evidence. This is not a weakness of a position, but rather a strength of the person holding the position.

 
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
JZilla said:
Juxtatarot said:
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Click to expand...
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
Click to expand...
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
Click to expand...
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Click to expand...
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
Click to expand...
You're right 5 years from now Atheism might be different. Currently our definition is very simple. So if we have this argument sometime in the future it might be completely different.
Click to expand...
Definition? Singular? Come on, now. Pull out a dictionary. Do a Google search. Ask 10 random people. Re-read this thread. I guarantee you'll find more than one definition.
Click to expand...
Please find a legitimate dictionary definition that says atheism is anything other than a lack of a belief in a god. As far as I know that is the current meaning of the word. I don't care what Joe Blow in an internet thread says because he is probably wrong.
Click to expand...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

If I recall correctly, my old Webster's hardcopy from about 1990 had definition 1.

 
matuski said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
IvanKaramazov said:
JZilla said:
Apple Jack said:
JZilla said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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'.

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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

The distinction/definition of an atheist by the these people is an attempt to remove the burden of proof from the ones actually making the claim. Framing the debate on religious terms is the only way the debate can even be had.
Click to expand...
Why are you so up in arms over the definition of these two words?

 
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
JZilla said:
Juxtatarot said:
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Click to expand...
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
Click to expand...
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
Click to expand...
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Click to expand...
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
Click to expand...
You're right 5 years from now Atheism might be different. Currently our definition is very simple. So if we have this argument sometime in the future it might be completely different.
Click to expand...
Definition? Singular? Come on, now. Pull out a dictionary. Do a Google search. Ask 10 random people. Re-read this thread. I guarantee you'll find more than one definition.
Click to expand...
Please find a legitimate dictionary definition that says atheism is anything other than a lack of a belief in a god. As far as I know that is the current meaning of the word. I don't care what Joe Blow in an internet thread says because he is probably wrong.
Click to expand...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

If I recall correctly, my old Webster's hardcopy from about 1990 had definition 1.
Click to expand...
Help me here because I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction.

Both of those definitions are a lack of belief in a god... at least to my reading.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
I'd also be curious to know what the actual rules to knowing are, since your Solitaire example seems to imply that they are simple, straightforward, and settled. But I'm pretty sure epistemology has been debated for centuries. Plantinga is just one voice on the subject.
Click to expand...
I'm not a philosopher, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for a departure from materialism. YMMV.
Click to expand...
How do you handle the mind/mental and everything that encompasses (i.e. consciousness, purpose, sensory experience, etc)?

 
Notorious T.R.E. said:
Captain Quinoa said:
Notorious T.R.E. said:
Captain Quinoa said:
Jayrod said:
joffer said:
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Click to expand...
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
What religion do/did your parents follow? Grandparents? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
All Catholic.
Click to expand...
And where did you end up on your spirit journey?
Click to expand...
Pro-Jesus, anti-Church

 
Captain Quinoa said:
Notorious T.R.E. said:
Captain Quinoa said:
Notorious T.R.E. said:
Captain Quinoa said:
Jayrod said:
joffer said:
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
Click to expand...
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
What religion do/did your parents follow? Grandparents? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
All Catholic.
Click to expand...
And where did you end up on your spirit journey?
Click to expand...
Pro-Jesus, anti-Church
Click to expand...
:thumbup: Half way home. ;)

Always a big fan of you, gb. Thx.

 
Buckfast 1 said:
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.

In the scientific secular rational mind, there is nothing that is 100% certain or beyond change in the face of new evidence. The fact that an atheist cannot be 100% certain about the nature of our existence does not undermine the rationality of his position, nor does it make him an agnostic; rather, it is simply consistent with traditional scientific inquiry in which conclusions/theories are developed based on the realm of existing evidence and are continually open to change based on newly-discovered evidence. This is not a weakness of a position, but rather a strength of the person holding the position.
Click to expand...
That is some sanctimonious BS right there.

I am a religious person, and I don't argue that you should assign 100% certainty to anything.

Every religious person has their own level of uncertainty. You have those arguing that they are 100% certain that God is real. That's great for them if true, but I believe that most faithful people, including clergy themselves, have moments of doubt. But, at the end of the day, they still believe.

Likewise, atheists don't have to be 100% scientifically certain that there is no God. But if that is their prevailing belief, then I think the title 'atheist' applies.

Arguing that religious thinking and scientific thinking are mutually exclusive is disingenuous and, frankly, uninformed.

 
igbomb said:
matuski said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
IvanKaramazov said:
JZilla said:
Apple Jack said:
JZilla said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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'.

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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

The distinction/definition of an atheist by the these people is an attempt to remove the burden of proof from the ones actually making the claim. Framing the debate on religious terms is the only way the debate can even be had.
Click to expand...
Why are you so up in arms over the definition of these two words?
Click to expand...
I don't get up in arms about anything in here, but i think the post above about covers it.

 
Niles Standish said:
cstu said:
Niles Standish said:
timschochet said:
"Where will you be in an hour from now?"

"I'm having lunch with a friend."

"That's not correct. Suppose you have an emergency? Suppose your friend has an emergency? Can you GUARANTEE that lunch?"

"Well no..."

" the next time I ask that question, or any question in which you don't know the answer to be 100% true, you must say you're not sure. Otherwise you're being dishonest."
Click to expand...
That's a stupid argument. Everyone understands that things change and nothing is 100% in the real world.

In academic practice sometimes things are 100%. And the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is that 100% since they're just academic concepts.
Click to expand...
Get this through your head - no one knows 100% that something doesn't exist. If someone calls themselves an atheist they aren't truly saying that they believe 100% that there's no God, just 99.99% or whatever. This semantic argument is stupid.
Click to expand...
Well if it makes you feel better we can pretend that Atheism is what makes you feel all warm and fluffy.

Or you can admit that there is a difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Click to expand...
Of course there's a difference - but I'd rather simply call myself an atheist than say, a pragmatic agnostic, which is probably the closest to my beliefs.

 
Buckfast 1 said:
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.

In the scientific secular rational mind, there is nothing that is 100% certain or beyond change in the face of new evidence. The fact that an atheist cannot be 100% certain about the nature of our existence does not undermine the rationality of his position, nor does it make him an agnostic; rather, it is simply consistent with traditional scientific inquiry in which conclusions/theories are developed based on the realm of existing evidence and are continually open to change based on newly-discovered evidence. This is not a weakness of a position, but rather a strength of the person holding the position.
Click to expand...
I can only speak for myself, but I don't attack the atheists position nor do I require them to hold 100% certainty. I'm nowhere near 100% certain myself about my theism. Epistemologically, you can't be. So in that sense, everyone is agnostic. But really, at least one major definition of atheism is very much exactly opposite to theism (hard or positive atheism). But even holding that position, you can't be 100% certain. I just want everyone to play by the same rules. If you don't believe a God or gods exist, you're an atheist. I don't need you to be 100% on it (even though some theists do because as you and others have astutely pointed out, it's an easy position to attack). I'm a theistic Christian. I don't know 100% that God exists. I think you would be ok granting me my theism in that context.

But when you try to blend atheism and agnosticism together it just serves to broaden your position and shape shift depending on what's easier or more useful. That's all that bothers me. (and by 'you' I don't necessarily mean buckfast)

 
igbomb said:
I am a religious person, and I don't argue that you should assign 100% certainty to anything.

Every religious person has their own level of uncertainty. You have those arguing that they are 100% certain that God is real. That's great for them if true, but I believe that most faithful people, including clergy themselves, have moments of doubt. But, at the end of the day, they still believe.

Likewise, atheists don't have to be 100% scientifically certain that there is no God. But if that is their prevailing belief, then I think the title 'atheist' applies.

Arguing that religious thinking and scientific thinking are mutually exclusive is disingenuous and, frankly, uninformed.
Click to expand...
Good post, but being a religious and scientific person requires ignoring either certain parts of your religious text or parts of science.

 
The problem with turning to the dictionary for the meaning of words like atheism/agnosticism is that they cut right down to one's theory of truth, meaning, and/or knowledge. A dictionary isn't going to settle that kind of thing.

 
cstu said:
igbomb said:
I am a religious person, and I don't argue that you should assign 100% certainty to anything.

Every religious person has their own level of uncertainty. You have those arguing that they are 100% certain that God is real. That's great for them if true, but I believe that most faithful people, including clergy themselves, have moments of doubt. But, at the end of the day, they still believe.

Likewise, atheists don't have to be 100% scientifically certain that there is no God. But if that is their prevailing belief, then I think the title 'atheist' applies.

Arguing that religious thinking and scientific thinking are mutually exclusive is disingenuous and, frankly, uninformed.
Click to expand...
Good post, but being a religious and scientific person requires ignoring either certain parts of your religious text or parts of science.
Click to expand...
Example?

 
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
JZilla said:
Juxtatarot said:
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Click to expand...
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
Click to expand...
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
Click to expand...
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Click to expand...
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
Click to expand...
You're right 5 years from now Atheism might be different. Currently our definition is very simple. So if we have this argument sometime in the future it might be completely different.
Click to expand...
Definition? Singular? Come on, now. Pull out a dictionary. Do a Google search. Ask 10 random people. Re-read this thread. I guarantee you'll find more than one definition.
Click to expand...
Please find a legitimate dictionary definition that says atheism is anything other than a lack of a belief in a god. As far as I know that is the current meaning of the word. I don't care what Joe Blow in an internet thread says because he is probably wrong.
Click to expand...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

If I recall correctly, my old Webster's hardcopy from about 1990 had definition 1.
Click to expand...
Help me here because I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction.

Both of those definitions are a lack of belief in a god... at least to my reading.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.
Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I
Click to expand...
Then they are playing loose with the definition of belief because that's exactly what a belief is. When you go beyond what the evidence requires you are in belief territory. That's why I will never understand the "give me evidence for why you believe X".

This thread has been done a million times here and it always ends up in an argument of what it means to be "atheist" and/or what "beliefs" are. Every single time.

 
Niles Standish said:
Help me here because I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction.

Both of those definitions are a lack of belief in a god... at least to my reading.
Click to expand...
a·the·ism/ˈeɪ
thinsp.png
θiˌɪz
thinsp.png
əm/ Show Spelled

noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

First definition requires the assertion that "God" doesn't exist. Second definition is yours.

 
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.

 
Black Box said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
I'd also be curious to know what the actual rules to knowing are, since your Solitaire example seems to imply that they are simple, straightforward, and settled. But I'm pretty sure epistemology has been debated for centuries. Plantinga is just one voice on the subject.
Click to expand...
I'm not a philosopher, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for a departure from materialism. YMMV.
Click to expand...
How do you handle the mind/mental and everything that encompasses (i.e. consciousness, purpose, sensory experience, etc)?
Click to expand...
Mostly by calling philosophers weenies.. Words are imprecise measures of phenomena. Even physical phenomena. I suppose you could say that I'm agnostic about whether my sensory experience is real or an illusion. But so what? Because it makes absolutely no difference to me either way. If I'm trapped in the Matrix and gravity is just an artificial construct of the Matrix, I would still act in such a way that I acknowledge gravity.

 
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Help me here because I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction.

Both of those definitions are a lack of belief in a god... at least to my reading.
Click to expand...
a·the·ism/ˈeɪ
thinsp.png
θiˌɪz
thinsp.png
əm/ Show Spelled

noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

First definition requires the assertion that "God" doesn't exist. Second definition is yours.
Click to expand...
So one's a specific God and the other is all Gods?

Isn't 1 covered by 2 then?

 
mr roboto said:
Slapdash said:
mr roboto said:
Slapdash said:
Hooper31 said:
IvanKaramazov said:
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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
Click to expand...
But you cannot know whether there is a god or not, so all atheists would be agnostic.
Click to expand...
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
Click to expand...
A lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in nothing. No matter how much you want it to be the case.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I said they were equivalent. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. But both of those assertions are different than agnosticism.
Click to expand...
You said both agnosticism and athiesism are systems of belief like theism. That is not the case. Lacking a belief is not the same thing as belief in nothing.

 
Niles Standish said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're the one abusing language and logic. Do you think that the only logically tenable position with regard to whether FroYo causes AIDS is agnosticism? Do you think that the two propositions (Fro Yo cause AIDS or Fro Yo does not cause AIDS) are equally rational?

 
Buckfast 1 said:
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.
Click to expand...
I think the disconnect is a conscious effort by the religious side.

 
Slapdash said:
mr roboto said:
Slapdash said:
mr roboto said:
Slapdash said:
Hooper31 said:
IvanKaramazov said:
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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
Click to expand...
But you cannot know whether there is a god or not, so all atheists would be agnostic.
Click to expand...
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
Click to expand...
A lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in nothing. No matter how much you want it to be the case.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I said they were equivalent. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. But both of those assertions are different than agnosticism.
Click to expand...
You said both agnosticism and athiesism are systems of belief like theism. That is not the case. Lacking a belief is not the same thing as belief in nothing.
Click to expand...
So putting them in the same category or type is making them equivalent? (And maybe I should remove 'system of' but I stand firm that agnosticism is a belief)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.
Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence OR CONCEDE THAT THEY ARE IRRATIONAL.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I
Click to expand...
Then they are playing loose with the definition of belief because that's exactly what a belief is.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. They aren't saying that theism isn't a belief. They're saying it's an irrational belief. You have every right to hold irrational beliefs. Most of us hold several.

EDIT: Which means I should edit my original post as the ALL CAPS edit shows.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buckfast 1 said:
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.
Click to expand...
I neither assign certainty to their beliefs nor criticize them for their beliefs. I know full well that no one else has lived with identical experiences to mine so I know full well they may believe differently than I do.

In the scientific secular rational mind, there is nothing that is 100% certain or beyond change in the face of new evidence. The fact that an atheist cannot be 100% certain about the nature of our existence does not undermine the rationality of his position, nor does it make him an agnostic; rather, it is simply consistent with traditional scientific inquiry in which conclusions/theories are developed based on the realm of existing evidence and are continually open to change based on newly-discovered evidence. This is not a weakness of a position, but rather a strength of the person holding the position.
Click to expand...
Perhaps one idea that I prescribe to that the average atheist does not is the concept of the spirit and spiritual things. I do not believe simply because I have rationally thought out a position with my mind and logic. To be completely honest I find the complete reliance on one's mind to determine truth about unknowable things as pointless as trying to hear a song with your tongue. Certainly a tongue can neither confirm nor deny the presence of music. It can maybe feel vibrations of sound waves, but a lot of things can make vibrations that aren't music and there is nothing in music to taste so it can never know.

To expect our physical abilities and rational thoughts to be able to detect and confirm or deny the existence of something that is beyond physicality and human thought is a pointless endeavor. Not to get all mystical on you all, but you have to look beyond the world into your spirit and soul to find out about God. Is there something more to this life than just the random collision of molecules? Is there a God out there? Does he/she/it care about us and why are we here? Has he/she/it tried to communicate to us in some fashion? These are all questions I have asked and answered in my spirit and soul, henceforth my steadfast belief in their truth.

Like love and beauty, faith in God is something you just know when you see it and there is no explanation that will ever satisfy a scientific experiment.


 
DiStefano said:
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.
Click to expand...
Asserting God certainly doesn't exist is no more absurd that asserting that God certainly does exist.

 
[icon] said:
DiStefano said:
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.
Click to expand...
Asserting God certainly doesn't exist is no more absurd that asserting that God certainly does exist.
Click to expand...
And vice versa.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
The Commish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.
Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I
Click to expand...
Then they are playing loose with the definition of belief because that's exactly what a belief is.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. They aren't saying that theism isn't a belief. They're saying it's an irrational belief. You have every right to hold irrational beliefs. Most of us hold several.
Click to expand...
What makes it irrational? That there is no evidence? If that's the case, "irrational belief" is redundant. All belief is irrational since going beyond what the evidence requires is the crux of what beliefs are. I.E. "I believe the earth is flat" is improper use of "belief" as we are using it here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're the one abusing language and logic. Do you think that the only logically tenable position with regard to whether FroYo causes AIDS is agnosticism? Do you think that the two propositions (Fro Yo cause AIDS or Fro Yo does not cause AIDS) are equally rational?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that's a fair comparison?

I'm not religious myself but there are more than a billion people in the world who believe in some type of higher power. Many of those more intelligent than me and maybe even one or two more intelligent than you.

I don't think anyone in the world believes Froyo causes AIDS. And I'd bet we probably have science that says it doesn't.

 
mr roboto said:
Buckfast 1 said:
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.

In the scientific secular rational mind, there is nothing that is 100% certain or beyond change in the face of new evidence. The fact that an atheist cannot be 100% certain about the nature of our existence does not undermine the rationality of his position, nor does it make him an agnostic; rather, it is simply consistent with traditional scientific inquiry in which conclusions/theories are developed based on the realm of existing evidence and are continually open to change based on newly-discovered evidence. This is not a weakness of a position, but rather a strength of the person holding the position.
Click to expand...
I can only speak for myself, but I don't attack the atheists position nor do I require them to hold 100% certainty. I'm nowhere near 100% certain myself about my theism. Epistemologically, you can't be. So in that sense, everyone is agnostic.But really, at least one major definition of atheism is very much exactly opposite to theism (hard or positive atheism). But even holding that position, you can't be 100% certain. I just want everyone to play by the same rules. If you don't believe a God or gods exist, you're an atheist. I don't need you to be 100% on it (even though some theists do because as you and others have astutely pointed out, it's an easy position to attack). I'm a theistic Christian. I don't know 100% that God exists. I think you would be ok granting me my theism in that context.

But when you try to blend atheism and agnosticism together it just serves to broaden your position and shape shift depending on what's easier or more useful. That's all that bothers me. (and by 'you' I don't necessarily mean buckfast)
Click to expand...
Sounds like after the whole game of semantics earlier, you and I are on exactly the same page here.

I was only arguing Distefano's attempt to put an assertion of certainty in the atheist's lap.

 
Niles Standish said:
Juxtatarot said:
Niles Standish said:
Help me here because I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction.

Both of those definitions are a lack of belief in a god... at least to my reading.
Click to expand...
a·the·ism/ˈeɪ
thinsp.png
θiˌɪz
thinsp.png
əm/ Show Spelled

noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

First definition requires the assertion that "God" doesn't exist. Second definition is yours.
Click to expand...
So one's a specific God and the other is all Gods?

Isn't 1 covered by 2 then?
Click to expand...
1 refers to the Judeo-Christian God which perhaps is silly from our prespective, but that's not my takeway for the difference. Beliving that there is no God (or gods) is not the same as not believing in God (or gods). This is what gets us in these stupid debates on semantics.

 
Apple Jack said:
[icon] said:
DiStefano said:
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.
Click to expand...
Asserting God certainly doesn't exist is no more absurd that asserting that God certainly does exist.
Click to expand...
And vice versa.
Click to expand...
No, asserting the latter is far more absurd

 
Apple Jack said:
[icon] said:
DiStefano said:
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.
Click to expand...
Asserting God certainly doesn't exist is no more absurd that asserting that God certainly does exist.
Click to expand...
And vice versa.
Click to expand...
I'd say the utter lack of evidence supporting the latter would perhaps lend itself an advantage to the former. :yes:

If I claimed with certainty an invisible dragon did not live in my garage, I'd hold a stronger position than if I claimed with certainty one did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
I'd also be curious to know what the actual rules to knowing are, since your Solitaire example seems to imply that they are simple, straightforward, and settled. But I'm pretty sure epistemology has been debated for centuries. Plantinga is just one voice on the subject.
Click to expand...
I'm not a philosopher, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for a departure from materialism. YMMV.
Click to expand...
How do you handle the mind/mental and everything that encompasses (i.e. consciousness, purpose, sensory experience, etc)?
Click to expand...
Mostly by calling philosophers weenies.. Words are imprecise measures of phenomena. Even physical phenomena. I suppose you could say that I'm agnostic about whether my sensory experience is real or an illusion. But so what? Because it makes absolutely no difference to me either way. If I'm trapped in the Matrix and gravity is just an artificial construct of the Matrix, I would still act in such a way that I acknowledge gravity.
Click to expand...
You know how you feel when someone asserts that the earth is only 6000 years old, but who cares because it doesn't affect them?

This is like the issue in philosophy right now. I don't think materialism fares very well at all. YMMV.

 
JZilla said:
Apple Jack said:
[icon] said:
DiStefano said:
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.
Click to expand...
Asserting God certainly doesn't exist is no more absurd that asserting that God certainly does exist.
Click to expand...
And vice versa.
Click to expand...
No, asserting the latter is far more absurd
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Both are flawed assertions, but those asserting there is an "all powerful magic being up in the sky" are a going a LITTLE farther out on a limb than the "There is NO an all powerful magic being up in the sky" crowd. :lol:

 
Niles Standish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're the one abusing language and logic. Do you think that the only logically tenable position with regard to whether FroYo causes AIDS is agnosticism? Do you think that the two propositions (Fro Yo cause AIDS or Fro Yo does not cause AIDS) are equally rational?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that's a fair comparison?

I'm not religious myself but there are more than a billion people in the world who believe in some type of higher power. Many of those more intelligent than me and maybe even one or two more intelligent than you.

I don't think anyone in the world believes Froyo causes AIDS. And I'd bet we probably have science that says it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Do you have any argument other than argumentum ad populum for why it isn't fair? The popularity of a belief is not a rational argument for the truth of a belief. Or do you believe that the Sun once revolved around the Earth?

 
Buckfast 1 said:
It's strange how religious people insist on assigning the same level of 100% certainty of belief to atheists as their own religious belief (i.e., Jayrod and Ken Ham's belief that nothing could change their mind about the existence of God), while simultaneously criticizing atheists for this degree of positive belief. It is demonstrative of the deep disconnect between religious thinking and scientific thinking.
Click to expand...
The assert that so that they can do the criticism. It is not hard to see.

 
Black Box said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
I'd also be curious to know what the actual rules to knowing are, since your Solitaire example seems to imply that they are simple, straightforward, and settled. But I'm pretty sure epistemology has been debated for centuries. Plantinga is just one voice on the subject.
Click to expand...
I'm not a philosopher, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for a departure from materialism. YMMV.
Click to expand...
How do you handle the mind/mental and everything that encompasses (i.e. consciousness, purpose, sensory experience, etc)?
Click to expand...
Mostly by calling philosophers weenies.. Words are imprecise measures of phenomena. Even physical phenomena. I suppose you could say that I'm agnostic about whether my sensory experience is real or an illusion. But so what? Because it makes absolutely no difference to me either way. If I'm trapped in the Matrix and gravity is just an artificial construct of the Matrix, I would still act in such a way that I acknowledge gravity.
Click to expand...
You know how you feel when someone asserts that the earth is only 6000 years old, but who cares because it doesn't affect them?

This is like the issue in philosophy right now. I don't think materialism fares very well at all. YMMV.
Click to expand...
That's fair. And if you'd like to enlighten us, that's fine.

I promise I won't rail against the philosopher's lobby.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're the one abusing language and logic. Do you think that the only logically tenable position with regard to whether FroYo causes AIDS is agnosticism? Do you think that the two propositions (Fro Yo cause AIDS or Fro Yo does not cause AIDS) are equally rational?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that's a fair comparison?

I'm not religious myself but there are more than a billion people in the world who believe in some type of higher power. Many of those more intelligent than me and maybe even one or two more intelligent than you.

I don't think anyone in the world believes Froyo causes AIDS. And I'd bet we probably have science that says it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Do you have any argument other than argumentum ad populum for why it isn't fair? The popularity of a belief is not a rational argument for the truth of a belief. Or do you believe that the Sun once revolved around the Earth?
Click to expand...
You're not making a reasonable argument and you know that as well as I do.

 
Niles Standish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're the one abusing language and logic. Do you think that the only logically tenable position with regard to whether FroYo causes AIDS is agnosticism? Do you think that the two propositions (Fro Yo cause AIDS or Fro Yo does not cause AIDS) are equally rational?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that's a fair comparison?

I'm not religious myself but there are more than a billion people in the world who believe in some type of higher power. Many of those more intelligent than me and maybe even one or two more intelligent than you.

I don't think anyone in the world believes Froyo causes AIDS. And I'd bet we probably have science that says it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Do you have any argument other than argumentum ad populum for why it isn't fair? The popularity of a belief is not a rational argument for the truth of a belief. Or do you believe that the Sun once revolved around the Earth?
Click to expand...
You're not making a reasonable argument and you know that as well as I do.
Click to expand...
I don't know that. And I don't think you recognize what a rational argument is because you keep using logical fallacies.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Niles Standish said:
I honestly don't understand why you're going down this rabbit hole. It gets you no where.

Let's accept that atheist should mean one who does not believe in gods as opposed to one who does not worship gods. That's fine.

I still don't see how that makes any difference at all.

Without speaking for all atheists, I think it's fair to say that most atheists would agree with the following assertion: "It is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of evidence." Plantinga would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that isn't really responsive to the original proposition. Which is that, as a rule, we should hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.

This is how we routinely live our lives. We don't say that "absence of evidence that frozen yogurt causes AIDS is not evidence that frozen yogurt DOESN'T cause AIDS" and then refuse to eat frozen yogurt. But I'm every bit as agnostic on the question of whether frozen yogurt causes AIDS as I am on the question of whether God exists. I

I'm mainly going down the rabbit hole because I think people often misuse the word Atheist. On one end of the spectrum you have a Theist or whatever you want to call the religious folk. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist. And in the middle you have Agnostic.

There really is no difference between Atheist and Theist other than what they believe. The thought process is the same.

I'd imagine most people in here calling themseleves Atheist are actually Agnostic. But I could be wrong.

So Atheism is irrational at least as irrational as Theism. Agnosticism might also be irrational but it's irrational in a different way than Theism and Atheism.

Plus I'm bored at work.

Sorry messed up quote. Bolded quoted language.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're the one abusing language and logic. Do you think that the only logically tenable position with regard to whether FroYo causes AIDS is agnosticism? Do you think that the two propositions (Fro Yo cause AIDS or Fro Yo does not cause AIDS) are equally rational?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that's a fair comparison?

I'm not religious myself but there are more than a billion people in the world who believe in some type of higher power. Many of those more intelligent than me and maybe even one or two more intelligent than you.

I don't think anyone in the world believes Froyo causes AIDS. And I'd bet we probably have science that says it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Do you have any argument other than argumentum ad populum for why it isn't fair? The popularity of a belief is not a rational argument for the truth of a belief. Or do you believe that the Sun once revolved around the Earth?
Click to expand...
You're not making a reasonable argument and you know that as well as I do.
Click to expand...
I don't know that. And I don't think you recognize what a rational argument is because you keep using logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
Such as?

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Black Box said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I'm not a philosopher, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for a departure from materialism. YMMV.
Click to expand...
How do you handle the mind/mental and everything that encompasses (i.e. consciousness, purpose, sensory experience, etc)?
Click to expand...
Mostly by calling philosophers weenies.. Words are imprecise measures of phenomena. Even physical phenomena. I suppose you could say that I'm agnostic about whether my sensory experience is real or an illusion. But so what? Because it makes absolutely no difference to me either way. If I'm trapped in the Matrix and gravity is just an artificial construct of the Matrix, I would still act in such a way that I acknowledge gravity.
Click to expand...
You know how you feel when someone asserts that the earth is only 6000 years old, but who cares because it doesn't affect them?

This is like the issue in philosophy right now. I don't think materialism fares very well at all. YMMV.
Click to expand...
That's fair. And if you'd like to enlighten us, that's fine.

I promise I won't rail against the philosopher's lobby.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I think you recognize the difficulty from your response of "so what".

Materialism got off the ground because of dualism--being able to sweep away the subjective, the mind, purpose, etc. under the rug, as it were, and ignore it. Now materialism has come of age, and is trying to get rid of the lump under the rug. Some assert the lump doesn't exist. Some say it pops up under the correct physical conditions. Some don't care. Either way, I don't think it is going to turn out well in the end for materialism.

 
Denying the possibility that a higher power might not exist is also naïve.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bob Magaw
Roots Of Western Thought Primer
Replies
32
Views
2K
Man of Constant Sorrow
Man of Constant Sorrow
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top