|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: SeaShrooms]
#17800542 - 02/14/13 11:29 AM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: agnosticism is saying you don't know, atheism is saying you know there is no god,
Again, I keep repeating myself. But it is you who insists on misrepresenting my position after I have explained it over and over again. How many times in this thread have I said that I don't "know there is no god"? Probably 50 times.
Now really think this through. And I actually want you to give me answers to this question (this goes for you too, teknix):
Which term would you choose to describe your position on the existence of the tooth fairy: "Atoothfairyest", or "agnostic on the existence of the toothfairy"?
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (02/14/13 11:30 AM)
|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended


Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17800568 - 02/14/13 11:36 AM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why not just call it unknowing instead of anything else...??
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: FishOilTheKid]
#17800586 - 02/14/13 11:39 AM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said: Why not just call it unknowing instead of anything else...??
This goes back to what I was asking in my last post. Would you be happy "just calling is unknowing" with regards to the tooth fairy?
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17800664 - 02/14/13 11:58 AM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Like I said, nothing but philosophical wanking.
--------------------
|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended


Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17800671 - 02/14/13 12:00 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well fuck.
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17800720 - 02/14/13 12:13 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: Like I said, nothing but philosophical wanking.
How so? It matters what labels we choose for ourselves and how those labels are perceived. I would have no problem dropping the word "atheist" and going with "agnostic" instead. But when I think about how that's perceived, I don't want to use the word. I do believe "god" to be incredibly unlikely, and am therefore an atheist. I don't want to be called an agnostic, yet I also don't claim to know that "god doesn't exist." It should really be pretty east to understand my position. In which case, the philosophical wanking will stop.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: FishOilTheKid]
#17800721 - 02/14/13 12:14 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
clam_dude makes perfect sense here. In fact, his argument is one I've made here many times over the years.
I never say "The Tooth Fairy does not exist" because I can't know that (or anything) with complete certainty. I've even codified this in the Fallacies sticky at the top of the forum post list under Proving a Negative thus:
Quote:
Let's assume for argument's sake that it is true the Tooth Fairy does NOT exist. What would proof of that look like?
If you look in your closet and she's not there, is that proof of her non-existence? No, she might not be in that closet but maybe she's in some other closet.
If you look in every closet in the world and she's not there, is that proof of her non-existence? No, she might be in your bathroom instead.
If you search every bathroom on the planet? No, she might live on Mars. You may begin to see the impossibility of proving that something doesn't exist.
That said, I don't for one second believe the Tooth Fairy exists even though I have to tacitly accept that from an epistemological point of view, it is strictly possible that she does. And I don't arrange my life as if she exists; that would be psychotic.
Similarly, believing in god for whom there is exactly as much supporting evidence as there is for the Tooth Fairy is equally psychotic even though, here also, I tacitly acknowledge the epistemological possibility that he does exist.
As for First Cause, the problem is twofold:
1) Although physics has no current way to know the origin of the universe, it has posited a number of plausible explanations for an ex nihilo universe. Indeed, virtual particles are known to be constantly popping into existence ex nihilo and then immediately vanishing from existence continuously in a seething soup of creation-annihilation all around us. We don't notice this normally because of the enormous distances of scale. But if virtual particles can appear "out of nowhere" then there is precedent for the universe to have similar origins.
2) If we ignore the fruits of modern physics and insist that the universe must obey the preconceptions of the human psyche which demands a cause for every effect, then why can't we then insist on foisting those same preconceptions on First Cause and demand that it itself must have a Zeroth Cause. And so on to infinity?
Neither one requires a god for the universe to have arisen.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17800893 - 02/14/13 12:55 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: Like I said, nothing but philosophical wanking.
How so? It matters what labels we choose for ourselves and how those labels are perceived. I would have no problem dropping the word "atheist" and going with "agnostic" instead. But when I think about how that's perceived, I don't want to use the word. I do believe "god" to be incredibly unlikely, and am therefore an atheist. I don't want to be called an agnostic, yet I also don't claim to know that "god doesn't exist." It should really be pretty east to understand my position. In which case, the philosophical wanking will stop.
You're right - it does matter what labels we choose for ourselves. "Atheist" and "agnostic" are terms of social identity, and that's the reason that I think you're wrong to define the terms in such a way that a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. At the level of precision you're using, anyone who's halfway cognitively honest would have to say that they're agnostic - and since your definition of atheism doesn't require positive belief, they'd also be atheists. A person could be a Muslim, an agnostic, and an atheist all at the same time. You've defined all the piss out of the words.
It's not incorrect to identify as an atheist while still admitting the possibility you could be wrong. If you went up to Billy Graham and told him, "You're not a Christian because you can't be absolutely certain that God exists - you're agnostic" he would spit in your face (or turn the other cheek, if he's got his Christian shit down), or if you went to Al Sharpton and told him, "You're not an African American because you can't prove with certainty that your ancestors came from Africa - you should be agnostic about your race" he would smack you. In the same way, you can be an atheist even if your belief isn't certain...and to conflate that identity with agnosticism based on technical definitions seems to me to be nothing but an excuse to make hay.
And it's not only that you're misusing these word - if we're going to be this level of precise, it seems to me that your definition of agnostic fails you. Can you prove that you don't know with certainty that God exists? Maybe you're just fooling yourself, and you really do know, in your heart of hearts, with absolute certainty that God does not exist - in which case you're not an agnostic. In fact, you should be agnostic about your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism...you don't see the absurdity with this level of technicality?
--------------------
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17800919 - 02/14/13 01:00 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Bertrand Russell:
Quote:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
If you want to only say you ought to be called an agnostic, that would be fine...
--------------------
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17801171 - 02/14/13 01:49 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: And it's not only that you're misusing these word - if we're going to be this level of precise, it seems to me that your definition of agnostic fails you. Can you prove that you don't know with certainty that God exists? Maybe you're just fooling yourself, and you really do know, in your heart of hearts, with absolute certainty that God does not exist - in which case you're not an agnostic. In fact, you should be agnostic about your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism...you don't see the absurdity with this level of technicality?
No, I'm telling you - I am not predisposed to disbelief in "god." Just like you are not predisposed to disbelief in the tooth fairy. If evidence came along for it, you would change your mind. But that doesn't mean there is any reason right now, to believe in the tooth fairy. I keep repeating myself with the tooth fairy analogy, but just think about it for a minute and everything I say will make sense.
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: You're right - it does matter what labels we choose for ourselves. "Atheist" and "agnostic" are terms of social identity, and that's the reason that I think you're wrong to define the terms in such a way that a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. At the level of precision you're using, anyone who's halfway cognitively honest would have to say that they're agnostic - and since your definition of atheism doesn't require positive belief, they'd also be atheists. A person could be a Muslim, an agnostic, and an atheist all at the same time. You've defined all the piss out of the words.
I have not defined the piss out of the words, as those words are not mutually exclusive. I can imagine somebody calling themselves a muslim and an atheist at the same time. A lot of people are culturally religious - they go to temple/church, say the prayers, sing the songs, etc...but don't really believe in the god of their religion. Some other muslims wouldn't call that person a muslim. So it is just semantics.
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: It's not incorrect to identify as an atheist while still admitting the possibility you could be wrong. If you went up to Billy Graham and told him, "You're not a Christian because you can't be absolutely certain that God exists - you're agnostic" he would spit in your face (or turn the other cheek, if he's got his Christian shit down), or if you went to Al Sharpton and told him, "You're not an African American because you can't prove with certainty that your ancestors came from Africa - you should be agnostic about your race" he would smack you. In the same way, you can be an atheist even if your belief isn't certain...and to conflate that identity with agnosticism based on technical definitions seems to me to be nothing but an excuse to make hay.
I think there are really two uses/definitions of the word "agnostic." There is the technical sense. Technically, we have to be agnostic about everything. We have to be agnostic about the tooth fairy, technically.
But the word, in our culture, is taken a certain way. It implies, or is understood to imply that the person is completely undecided about the existence of god. I am agnostic in a technical sense, but not in a practical sense.
If that sounds nitpicky, let me ask you the question I have asked other people here and never received an answer. You will see why I feel the need to differentiate.
Would you feel comfortable telling someone you're "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy?
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17801212 - 02/14/13 01:57 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If the word "agnostic" was generally understood to mean someone who does not believe in " " until they see evidence for it, I would use the word "agnostic." And of course, that is what agnostic means. But if society understood it to mean that, then the word "agnostic" would have the same negative connotation as atheism. Society takes "agnostic" to mean "well ya never know." That's why you wouldn't feel comfortable (I'm assuming) calling yourself "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy, even though you are one. You wouldn't feel comfortable saying "You never know" regarding the tooth fairy, even though you are agnostic about it. Yet you do feel comfortable saying you "don't believe" in the tooth fairy.
Now imagine someone coming along and trying to pigeonhole your beliefs - either you label yourself as "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy, or you have an unreasonable disbelief in the tooth fairy. That's what it feels like to be an atheist.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (02/14/13 02:03 PM)
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 1 day
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17801285 - 02/14/13 02:14 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, I don't have a problem with saying there is an "original condition," or "origin to existence," though I'm not sure exactly what that means. And yes, there is no denying ultimate reality. I just don't see the point in, as you say, personifying it.
I don't either, except that I recognize a certain type of religious experience in which one experiences oneself as being in the presence of, or being silently addressed by the very sky - literally. Like the ancient Indian sky-god Varuna which eventually evolved conceptually into the Ground of Being - Brahman, the ancient mountain deity YHWH evolved into the very Creator of heaven and earth. Of course the deity didn't evolve, but rather the conceptual mind of humanity developed to the point of abstract ideas. I am reading about these parallel processes in the second of four of Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God series ('Oriental Religion').
The East had the wisdom to recognize (like the much smaller subset of Westerners, called Gnostics), that different temperaments conceptualized Ultimate Reality with differing degrees of cognition and/or emotion. The more emotionally predisposed people necessarily experienced deity as personal, with whom S[He} could be spoken to in prayer, or sung to in devotional song. This 'Bhakti' style is seen today among the devotees of Krishna in India. It is "The Divine Personality of the Godhead" in the Bhagavad Gita. Indian thought, the Gita included, also recognizes the "impersonalist" - the solitary, non-social-emotional yogi. The personal and impersonal forms of God are referred to as Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman, respectively. It would seem that the Buddha elaborated the psychological implications of the latter form on his followers. There is nothing comparable in Christianity, or even in Islamic Sufism. In Kabbalistic Judaism, there is a category of deity that is not experienced by the human being, and it is designated as "Ayin" which, like the mathematical glyph 1/0, is undefinable. The Buddhist, however, systematically divorces one's mundane mind from transcendental mind, and teaches one to identify one's True Nature as the latter, which is Empty of self. Some schools say that one's True Nature is not even consciousness or mind, taking one to another point of undefinable Reality.
It is the mundane, non-transcendental mind of human beings, at least from a Buddhist perspective, that imbues ourselves and our deity with selfhood, with personality. This goes back to paleolithic times when the various 'Venus' figures of the Great Mother were carved. These primitive and unarticulated notions in clay were later elaborated into the more expansive archetype of The Great Goddess: Ishtar, Inanna, Mari-Isis, Mary (the Mother and the consort), etc. Today, moderns still personify Mother Nature, hurricanes, ships (Mare means sea, Mari-Mary, maritime, etc.), and many languages ascribe feminine and masculine genders to different words. It is human nature to project. Look at the constellations and their names. Egoic-mind is prominent among mundane humanity. Supramundane mind is transpersonal (including but transcending the personal). As nodal points in space-time, most people experience themselves as persons, embodied-egos, which are easily offended. That self-importance prevents the development of an insight that sees our True Nature as being the True Nature which transcends personhood. It is helpful and compassionate to enter into different peoples' world-view without being judgmental. One should be able to communicate with people where they're at. Even the Dalai Lama used the word God, when lecturing at Harvard University.
-------------------- Ξ³Ξ½αΏΆΞΈΞΉ ΟΞ±α½ΟΟΞ½ - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17801349 - 02/14/13 02:26 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: And it's not only that you're misusing these word - if we're going to be this level of precise, it seems to me that your definition of agnostic fails you. Can you prove that you don't know with certainty that God exists? Maybe you're just fooling yourself, and you really do know, in your heart of hearts, with absolute certainty that God does not exist - in which case you're not an agnostic. In fact, you should be agnostic about your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism...you don't see the absurdity with this level of technicality?
No, I'm telling you - I am not predisposed to disbelief in "god." Just like you are not predisposed to disbelief in the tooth fairy. If evidence came along for it, you would change your mind. But that doesn't mean there is any reason right now, to believe in the tooth fairy. I keep repeating myself with the tooth fairy analogy, but just think about it for a minute and everything I say will make sense.
I don't see how this is a response to that paragraph...
Quote:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: You're right - it does matter what labels we choose for ourselves. "Atheist" and "agnostic" are terms of social identity, and that's the reason that I think you're wrong to define the terms in such a way that a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. At the level of precision you're using, anyone who's halfway cognitively honest would have to say that they're agnostic - and since your definition of atheism doesn't require positive belief, they'd also be atheists. A person could be a Muslim, an agnostic, and an atheist all at the same time. You've defined all the piss out of the words.
I have not defined the piss out of the words, as those words are not mutually exclusive. I can imagine somebody calling themselves a muslim and an atheist at the same time. A lot of people are culturally religious - they go to temple/church, say the prayers, sing the songs, etc...but don't really believe in the god of their religion. Some other muslims wouldn't call that person a muslim. So it is just semantics.
Yes, there are some cultural muslims. But please go to your nearest imam and tell him that his being a Muslim and his being an atheist are not mutually exclusive and see how far it gets you.
Quote:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: It's not incorrect to identify as an atheist while still admitting the possibility you could be wrong. If you went up to Billy Graham and told him, "You're not a Christian because you can't be absolutely certain that God exists - you're agnostic" he would spit in your face (or turn the other cheek, if he's got his Christian shit down), or if you went to Al Sharpton and told him, "You're not an African American because you can't prove with certainty that your ancestors came from Africa - you should be agnostic about your race" he would smack you. In the same way, you can be an atheist even if your belief isn't certain...and to conflate that identity with agnosticism based on technical definitions seems to me to be nothing but an excuse to make hay.
I think there are really two uses/definitions of the word "agnostic." There is the technical sense. Technically, we have to be agnostic about everything. We have to be agnostic about the tooth fairy, technically.
This is what the paragraph you first quoted, at the top of this post, was talking about...claiming no belief in anything is an absurdity - you couldn't even hold that you don't believe anything - and an impossibility as a human being...it would take the mind of a Buddha to really, truly, not believe in anything. While it may be accurate to say that it's impossible to be sure about something, to then label yourself as an agnostic is to make a claim...and you can't claim things and then at the same level of technicality go around saying that nothing is certain.
Quote:
But the word, in our culture, is taken a certain way. It implies, or is understood to imply that the person is completely undecided about the existence of god. I am agnostic in a technical sense, but not in a practical sense.
I agree with this. If you want to make a technical distinction, you can, but - and this is the thing - you can't then also say that being an atheist technically means only a lack of belief, passive or active. Then you run into the problem of defining the distinctive meanings out of words.
Quote:
If that sounds nitpicky, let me ask you the question I have asked other people here and never received an answer. You will see why I feel the need to differentiate.
Would you feel comfortable telling someone you're "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy?
I believe I was the one who first mentioned the tooth fairy in this thread, though I could be wrong - and as I said then, I am an a-toothfairy-ist. I am not agnostic about the tooth fairy in any sense. I would not feel comfortable saying I was an agnostic about the tooth fairy to a man on the street, nor would I feel comfortable saying I was agnostic about the tooth fairy to a philosophy professor. Agnosticism, even in its technical sense, requires active belief that an issue is either undecided or undecidable. Admitting you could be wrong about something doesn't make you an agnostic - it only makes you intellectually honest.
--------------------
Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/14/13 02:45 PM)
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17801372 - 02/14/13 02:32 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said: If the word "agnostic" was generally understood to mean someone who does not believe in " " until they see evidence for it, I would use the word "agnostic." And of course, that is what agnostic means. But if society understood it to mean that, then the word "agnostic" would have the same negative connotation as atheism. Society takes "agnostic" to mean "well ya never know." That's why you wouldn't feel comfortable (I'm assuming) calling yourself "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy, even though you are one. You wouldn't feel comfortable saying "You never know" regarding the tooth fairy, even though you are agnostic about it. Yet you do feel comfortable saying you "don't believe" in the tooth fairy.
Now imagine someone coming along and trying to pigeonhole your beliefs - either you label yourself as "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy, or you have an unreasonable disbelief in the tooth fairy. That's what it feels like to be an atheist.
I think most people would be alright if you said - "I'm an atheist, but I'm a reasonable one - tell me why you think God exists and I'll consider it."
I think you'll also find that there are a fair amount of reasonable deists out there who believe in God but are open to being shown that they are wrong. But they don't go around claiming to be agnostics.
--------------------
Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/14/13 02:45 PM)
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17801424 - 02/14/13 02:42 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Look at this another way, it's normal usage to say something like, "We have to be agnostic about the existence of Big Foot" but it's not normal usage to say "we have to be agnostics about Big Foot". Check out the respective amount of google search results for each:
"We have to be agnostics about"
"We have to be agnostic about"
It's possible to be atheist or deist but to label some of your beliefs as agnostic - that's simply a description of them. But to claim to actually be an agnostic is to make a claim of identity, and that identity requires that your beliefs are only agnostic.
--------------------
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17801510 - 02/14/13 03:04 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:
clam_dude said: But the word, in our culture, is taken a certain way. It implies, or is understood to imply that the person is completely undecided about the existence of god. I am agnostic in a technical sense, but not in a practical sense.
I agree with this. If you want to make a technical distinction, you can, but - and this is the thing - you can't then also say that being an atheist technically means only a lack of belief, passive or active. Then you run into the problem of defining the distinctive meanings out of words.
Quote:
If that sounds nitpicky, let me ask you the question I have asked other people here and never received an answer. You will see why I feel the need to differentiate.
Would you feel comfortable telling someone you're "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy?
I believe I was the one who first mentioned the tooth fairy in this thread, though I could be wrong - and as I said then, I am an a-toothfairy-ist. I am not agnostic about the tooth fairy in any sense. I would not feel comfortable saying I was an agnostic about the tooth fairy to a man on the street, nor would I feel comfortable saying I was agnostic about the tooth fairy to a philosophy professor. Agnosticism, even in its technical sense, requires active belief that an issue is either undecided or undecidable. Admitting you could be wrong about something doesn't make you an agnostic - it only makes you intellectually honest.
I think this is where the rubber meets the road. When you say "I am not agnostic about the tooth fairy in any sense," that is the exact same kind of absolutist statement I am accused of making with regards to "god". How do you know for sure there is no tooth fairy? Yes, you and I assume there is no tooth fairy. That is because we can only assume things don't exist until there is evidence for them. But technically speaking, I am agnostic about the existence of the tooth fairy. But like you, I wouldn't feel comfortable telling someone I'm "agnostic about the tooth fairy."
So it does come down to definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist." Yes, atheism can be defined as an active disbelief in god. But my point is that most atheists don't have that view. The general atheist position is the one I have laid out. I understand that society might not see it that way. But most atheists will define their atheism as a lack of belief, just like they have a lack of belief in the tooth fairy.
Given that I see "god" as being in the same category as the tooth fairy, in terms of it's possibility of existence, what word do you suggest I use to describe my beliefs? Because we both agree that "agnostic" is not appropriate to describe our views on the tooth fairy.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (02/14/13 03:06 PM)
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17801653 - 02/14/13 03:36 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't just assume the tooth fairy doesn't exist - I have evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist: I got a quarter for my teeth, while other kids I knew got up to $5, I hid a tooth under my pillow without telling my parents and got no money, etc. These things may not rise up to the level of absolute proof, but they are enough for me to justify my belief that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. And since I feel okay saying I'm an a-toothfairy-ist, I feel okay saying that you can be an atheist without having certain proof. There is no need to also identify yourself as an agnostic in order to clarify that. If you are worried about issues of identity, the simple phrase I posted above - "I'm an atheist, but I'm open to discussion" is enough to deal with anyone who sees you as unreasonable simply for being an atheist.
I don't think most atheists would say that their views are as simple as saying that they don't believe in God. Perhaps there are people who call themselves atheists because they were raised in atheist households and simply don't care and don't have an opinion. I don't know any of these, however. I do know a lot of atheists who were formerly religious, and they all have some story that ends with "...and that's when I stopped believing in God." They don't mean that they suddenly stopped having thoughts about the issue, that phrase comes right after they were shown something made them think that what they had been taught was wrong. That's active disbelief, even if it wouldn't be justified to say that that disbelief was certain.
And even the people who weren't raised in religious households, who call themselves atheists but don't really ever think about it or hold active beliefs about the nonexistence of God, if we're willing to call them atheists, I think it is merely because they identify more with a group of people who do have active disbelief, and who are generally viewed as reactionaries to the normal state of affairs in human history, not simply people who haven't bought into something. Calling these "cultural atheists" atheists would be the same sort of sloppiness that happens when you say, "I am a Muslim" simply because you are from a Muslim culture - but all that means is that we've been fast and loose with our definition of Muslim. It does not mean that our more precise definition should be inclusive of these people. We can easily cut out those people when we are more precise, and we should. You don't get to be a Muslim just because you don't deny the existence of Allah.
Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/14/13 03:42 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17801794 - 02/14/13 04:00 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said: This might also help you to understand my position:
In a court of law, the defendant is found either 'guilty or not guilty.' Not 'guilty or innocent.' This is because there is a claim being made that the defendant is guilty. This claim is either true or untrue. You could also make the claim that the defendant is innocent. And that claim is either true or untrue. So there are four potential positions to take, not two.
Of course, you can't prove someone's innocence. In finding someone 'not guilty,' it is not a statement that they are innocent. A jury member might have their hunch (with varying certainty depending on the case/evidence).
I find god "not guilty" of existing. That is, there is not enough evidence to verify the claim that "god" exists. As for the claim that "god" does not exists, the jury is still out. But that is not the claim I am addressing. I am addressing those who claim that god does exist. The burden of proof is on them (you?) to show god's existence.
Not guilty would be the null hypothesis and guilty would be the predicition. Then there is a degree of certainty in which you can conclude something about things you know by the evidence that you have, never is it 100% certain, even DNA analysis isn't 100%, the only reason it works is because we don't have enough people on the planet that 2 unrelated people have the same DNA. As the population increases and given enough time, eventually the DNA analysis would reject the null hypothesis for the predicition and be wrong.
|
lolwut
bad motherfucker


Registered: 08/14/10
Posts: 2,782
Loc: back in black
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said: Sure, I don't have a problem with saying there is an "original condition," or "origin to existence," though I'm not sure exactly what that means. And yes, there is no denying ultimate reality. I just don't see the point in, as you say, personifying it.
I don't either, except that I recognize a certain type of religious experience in which one experiences oneself as being in the presence of, or being silently addressed by the very sky - literally. Like the ancient Indian sky-god Varuna which eventually evolved conceptually into the Ground of Being - Brahman, the ancient mountain deity YHWH evolved into the very Creator of heaven and earth. Of course the deity didn't evolve, but rather the conceptual mind of humanity developed to the point of abstract ideas. I am reading about these parallel processes in the second of four of Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God series ('Oriental Religion').
The East had the wisdom to recognize (like the much smaller subset of Westerners, called Gnostics), that different temperaments conceptualized Ultimate Reality with differing degrees of cognition and/or emotion. The more emotionally predisposed people necessarily experienced deity as personal, with whom S[He} could be spoken to in prayer, or sung to in devotional song. This 'Bhakti' style is seen today among the devotees of Krishna in India. It is "The Divine Personality of the Godhead" in the Bhagavad Gita. Indian thought, the Gita included, also recognizes the "impersonalist" - the solitary, non-social-emotional yogi. The personal and impersonal forms of God are referred to as Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman, respectively. It would seem that the Buddha elaborated the psychological implications of the latter form on his followers. There is nothing comparable in Christianity, or even in Islamic Sufism. In Kabbalistic Judaism, there is a category of deity that is not experienced by the human being, and it is designated as "Ayin" which, like the mathematical glyph 1/0, is undefinable. The Buddhist, however, systematically divorces one's mundane mind from transcendental mind, and teaches one to identify one's True Nature as the latter, which is Empty of self. Some schools say that one's True Nature is not even consciousness or mind, taking one to another point of undefinable Reality.
It is the mundane, non-transcendental mind of human beings, at least from a Buddhist perspective, that imbues ourselves and our deity with selfhood, with personality. This goes back to paleolithic times when the various 'Venus' figures of the Great Mother were carved. These primitive and unarticulated notions in clay were later elaborated into the more expansive archetype of The Great Goddess: Ishtar, Inanna, Mari-Isis, Mary (the Mother and the consort), etc. Today, moderns still personify Mother Nature, hurricanes, ships (Mare means sea, Mari-Mary, maritime, etc.), and many languages ascribe feminine and masculine genders to different words. It is human nature to project. Look at the constellations and their names. Egoic-mind is prominent among mundane humanity. Supramundane mind is transpersonal (including but transcending the personal). As nodal points in space-time, most people experience themselves as persons, embodied-egos, which are easily offended. That self-importance prevents the development of an insight that sees our True Nature as being the True Nature which transcends personhood. It is helpful and compassionate to enter into different peoples' world-view without being judgmental. One should be able to communicate with people where they're at. Even the Dalai Lama used the word God, when lecturing at Harvard University.
Very interesting and makes sense..cheers
-------------------- Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth, and taste...
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17802273 - 02/14/13 05:30 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: Perhaps there are people who call themselves atheists because they were raised in atheist households and simply don't care and don't have an opinion. I don't know any of these, however. I do know a lot of atheists who were formerly religious, and they all have some story that ends with "...and that's when I stopped believing in God." They don't mean that they suddenly stopped having thoughts about the issue, that phrase comes right after they were shown something made them think that what they had been taught was wrong. That's active disbelief, even if it wouldn't be justified to say that that disbelief was certain.
Just because someone used to believe something and then stopped, that does not equate with disbelief.
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: And even the people who weren't raised in religious households, who call themselves atheists but don't really ever think about it or hold active beliefs about the nonexistence of God, if we're willing to call them atheists, I think it is merely because they identify more with a group of people who do have active disbelief, and who are generally viewed as reactionaries to the normal state of affairs in human history, not simply people who haven't bought into something. Calling these "cultural atheists" atheists would be the same sort of sloppiness that happens when you say, "I am a Muslim" simply because you are from a Muslim culture - but all that means is that we've been fast and loose with our definition of Muslim. It does not mean that our more precise definition should be inclusive of these people. We can easily cut out those people when we are more precise, and we should. You don't get to be a Muslim just because you don't deny the existence of Allah.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but you're staying that people with strong atheistic views/positions, necessarily have an active disbelief. And it is only people who don't think about/care about atheism who simply lack a belief.
While I understand how you might think that, it doesn't follow. Most of the strident atheists - Dawkins, Hitchens, etc... really couldn't care less about atheism itself. The thing that unites and drives them is their dislike of religion. Of course, it seems strange to hold meetings and conferences based around the idea that there is no god. If religion wasn't around in the first place, they wouldn't be going around calling themselves atheists.
I see the new atheists as being comparable to the abolitionists. Now that we have gotten rid of slavery, there is no more use for the word "abolitionist."
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
|