|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
Heh, I have no problem admitting when I'm mistaken. My objective is the pursuit of the truth, arrogance and pride just get in the way and slow the process.
Skorpivo is a smart guy, I knew something had to be fishy about either how I or he was defining our terms, I couldn't imagine him committing such a logical fallacy.
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer


Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
I would like to say that I suspect you are agnostic, because we interpret the word differently. You and I both conclude that there is no credible evidence of a god. Yet it would be unscientific to claim that there is no god. Even if, hypothetically, the universe had its own consciousness, yet could not carry out any action willingly, this could fit a definition of a god. There would be no way for humans to test for this.
you said, "I am completely and logically justified in not believing in such an oddity [god] until it is proven to exist." You don't believe in god, but I bet you would not claim to know with 100% certainty that god does not exist. I'm sure you don't feel you are 100% sure that there is absolutely no life anywhere in the universe besides planet earth. How could you be 100% sure? Isn't god the same situation? The term for this state of mind is "agnostic". I suspect there is no god of any sort, but I do not claim to have proof of my suspicion.
--------------------
Namaste
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5276605 - 02/08/06 09:06 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.
Well presented
Not quite.
Theism and Atheism exist as fundamentalist opposites under a religious scope. It has to do with belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism, on the other hand, exist as a philosophical stance about the knowable god. It has to do with knowledge. Both definitions reside in different planes, agnosticism does not represent some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. Not only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes being either an atheist or a theist.
Limiting oneself to discussing agnosticism as an isolated position fails to do it justice. Agnosticism is a skeptical challenge to the notion that any religious conclusion can really be "known" in the first place. How such can be "a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness" ?
One of the problems with your new achieved conception of agnosticism as lack of ?commitment? is that it relies upon a mistaken understanding of belief. Indeed, it arguably relies upon a very christian understanding of belief because it seems to assume that being either a theist or an atheist requires a person to ?commit? to some proposition through an act of will which carries ethical implications. This makes atheism and theism acts of will for which you can be held accountable ? thus the supposedly superior morality of this non-committal agnosticism.
Belief is not, however simply a matter of commitment. A person can certainly commit to a cause, an ideal, or an agenda, but beliefs are a bit different. In order to believe something, you don?t have to make any sort of commitment. If you believe a proposition, all this says is that your mind accepts that proposition as true. If you do not currently accept that proposition as true, then it necessarily follows that you do not believe it. This doesn?t mean that you accept that the proposition is false, either ? that?s a different question.
The point is, however, that while an agnostic might justifiably refuse to commit to any theistic or atheistic agendas, that isn?t the same as a refusal to ?commit? to atheism or theism. This means, then, that agnosticism cannot be reasonably regarded as an alternative to atheism or theism in this manner. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of commitment ? agnostics still either have a belief in the existence of at least one god or they lack any positive belief in the existence of any gods. The first would make them an agnostic theist while the latter would make them an agnostic atheist.
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
#5276689 - 02/08/06 09:34 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Isn't that the long version of what I posted earlier?
Quote:
Agnosticism is a purely epistemological position. In other words, Gnosticism and Agnosticism aren't polar opposites.
Quote:
Agnosticism doesn't really have a polar opposite. It's sort of perpendicular to the atheism/theism argument.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5276723 - 02/08/06 09:48 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: Isn't that the long version of what I posted earlier?
Part of it, yes. Well, i guess i developed this concept because it helps to explain my argument a bit better. Back on topic, what are your thoughts about it ?
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
#5276773 - 02/08/06 10:11 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, Skorpivo says that Agnosticism (be it a perpendicular to the atheism/theism debate) is irrational. I would have to agree to a certain extent. However, he then concludes that Agnosticism is a copout of sorts (I'm paraphrasing). This is where I take slight issue.
I don't believe in God, but I don't know if there is one and I'm not sure if I can ever know that there isn't one. Maybe it is slightly irrational to leave the door open to a possibility. But what's the point of shutting it if it doesn't change anything for you? It doesn't bother me to live with a few uncertainties... in fact, I've grown fond of loose ends and remainders.
I don't know where my thoughts on this fit. It's not strong atheism and it's not weak atheism. So I've just called it Atheist-leaning Agnosticism. Is there a better term?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5276790 - 02/08/06 10:17 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: I don't believe in God, but I don't know if there is one and I'm not sure if I can ever know that there isn't one. Maybe it is slightly irrational to leave the door open to a possibility. But what's the point of shutting it if it doesn't change anything for you? It doesn't bother me to live with a few uncertainties... in fact, I've grown fond of loose ends and remainders.
In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5276954 - 02/08/06 11:00 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well, Skorpivo says that Agnosticism (be it a perpendicular to the atheism/theism debate) is irrational. I would have to agree to a certain extent. However, he then concludes that Agnosticism is a copout of sorts (I'm paraphrasing). This is where I take slight issue.
If you take the term "irrational" as the concept addressed by rationalism, then neither atheism nor agnosticism are "rational". From wiki:
>"Atheism, a disbelief or lack of belief in God, can be on any basis, or none at all, so it doesn't require rationalism. Furthermore, rationalism does not, in itself, affirm or deny atheism, although it does reject any belief based on faith alone. Historically, many rationalists were not atheists. Presumably, people who are rationalists today generally do not believe that theism can be rationally justified, because modern-day rationalism is strongly correlated with atheism."<
Quote:
I don't know where my thoughts on this fit. It's not strong atheism and it's not weak atheism. So I've just called it Atheist-leaning Agnosticism. Is there a better term?
Since we conclude atheism and agnosticism are perpendicular concepts, we can coordinate both to achieve a proper definition. I'd say you're an agnostic-atheist.
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most


Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said: In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.
And why not? In the vastness of space, over the millenniums of times, before and after human existence, there could, very well, be just about anything.
-------------------- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Ekstaza]
#5277957 - 02/08/06 03:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ekstaza said:
Quote:
itstarssaddam said: In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.
And why not? In the vastness of space, over the millenniums of times, before and after human existence, there could, very well, be just about anything.
If you reread my post, you'll notice that I specified that I was referring to the Western conception of God, which is a being seperate from reality (a notion which is utterly untestable). Sure, we don't know what lies beyond the far reaches of space, but this is exactly why we shouldn't be throwing out blind speculations until we develop the tools to explore further and gather evidence of the truth.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said:
Quote:
Sclorch said: I don't believe in God, but I don't know if there is one and I'm not sure if I can ever know that there isn't one. Maybe it is slightly irrational to leave the door open to a possibility. But what's the point of shutting it if it doesn't change anything for you? It doesn't bother me to live with a few uncertainties... in fact, I've grown fond of loose ends and remainders.
In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.
Yeah, I know... I work with loose ends. It's not so bad, really. It's a bootstrapping philosophy.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most


Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said: If you reread my post, you'll notice that I specified that I was referring to the Western conception of God, which is a being seperate from reality (a notion which is utterly untestable).
Any concept of god in western society describes it a real entity. Therefore it must exist on some real plane of existence. Or in short, it must be part of our reality. If god created existence and man to live in it, then god is intimately a part of our existence and therefore intimately a part of our reality. Whether we have the proper knowledge at this time to observe and measure this phenomena is irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote:
itstarssaddam said: Sure, we don't know what lies beyond the far reaches of space, but this is exactly why we shouldn't be throwing out blind speculations until we develop the tools to explore further and gather evidence of the truth.
As an agnostic atheist, I couldn't have said it better.
-------------------- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Ekstaza]
#5282704 - 02/09/06 05:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ekstaza said:
Quote:
itstarssaddam said: If you reread my post, you'll notice that I specified that I was referring to the Western conception of God, which is a being seperate from reality (a notion which is utterly untestable).
Any concept of god in western society describes it a real entity. Therefore it must exist on some real plane of existence. Or in short, it must be part of our reality. If god created existence and man to live in it, then god is intimately a part of our existence and therefore intimately a part of our reality.
True. I should've used the phrase "independent of" rather than "seperate from."
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
Hehe, yes.
G*d as independent of reality is hard to 'believe', if reality is dependent of/on g*d
|
|