OminousPoultry Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Everything that is wrong in the world is done by our own hand, we do it to ourselves unfortunately - and only we can save us from us... so you are an atheist - no mention of a god at all! anyway - "to completely disregard something without scientifically proving or debunking is being a little short sighted." The scientific method suggests "It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation." Given that we've had about 6000 years to scientifically prove or disprove a god, I reckon that's almost full time for the unfounded intuitions and revelations of organised religion. Isn't it about time we stopped building churches and starting wars and started providing clean water and sanitation for large parts of the world? See - Chaddy's got the right idea.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 so you are an atheist - no mention of a god at all! That's a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. Rummy does not mention god therefore Rummy equals atheist. Just because I do not mention god does not mean I am an atheist. The scientific method suggests "It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation." Given that we've had about 6000 years to scientifically prove or disprove a god, I reckon that's almost full time for the unfounded intuitions and revelations of organised religion. Very true. Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of scepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees of scepticism) in at least one. Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the non-existence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called non-theism. Although atheism is often equated with some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach non-theism. Many self-described atheists are sceptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviours to which all atheists adhere. Clearly I fall into the former category - which gives theists enough rope to hang themselves. Do we have any facts on God? Or is He still just a hypothesis? I think god is a hypothesis - there is not enough scientific evidence to prove god's existence - however I will not close the door on theists providing some proof as and when it arises. Is that a picture of Santa Maria on that piece of toast? lol! Next... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OminousPoultry Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think god is a hypothesis - there is not enough scientific evidence to prove god's existence - however I will not close the door on theists providing some proof as and when it arises. back to my question - when does an agnostic cease to be agnostic? Until death (when - presumably we get to find out), or for ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 After death the agnostic may well still be without knowledge of gods existence - we do not know - , therefore the agnostc can remain so. The agnostics death does not qualify atheism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OminousPoultry Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 After death the agnostic may well still be without knowledge of gods existence - we do not know - , therefore the agnostc can remain so. The agnostics death does not qualify atheism. That's a logical fallacy from our (living) point of view. The agnostic does not (dis)believe in god even when presented with the evidence upon which the hypothesis is based - that of god and the afterlife? The fact that the living agnostic doesn't have insight into the knowledge of god's existence doesn't affect the logical outcome of this point of view. "Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. " Therefore - logically - agnosticism must end at death unless the rules are being changed again by the theists. I reckon an agnostic's death leads to either an atheist (affirms the nonexistence of gods - source Wikipedia) or a theist - (believes in the existence of one or more divinities or deities). Anyway - I had 6 winners on the horses today - rather more interesting than the afterlife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Which logical fallacy is it? The agnostic does not (dis)believe in god even when presented with the evidence upon which the hypothesis is based I can see what you are saying, however I'm not sure about the agnostic being presented with evidence - where is this evidence? I reckon an agnostic's death leads to either an atheist or a theist - (believes in the existence of one or more divinities or deities). That's the confusing cause and effect fallacy. In death the philosophy/criteria of agnosticism remains unfulfilled - the agnostic still does not have the knowledge to affirm or dispel the agenda. The individual dies, agnosticism does not. The effect of death does not cause a change in philosophy. Good work on the gee-gees O_P... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfatjoe1 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 'I like cheese.' Ralp Wigam on philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 'I like cheese.' Ralph Wigam on philosophy. Seconded! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't like cheese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't like cheese. How about Fish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't like cheese. I love cheese, but I’m not keen on the notion of agnosticism. It seems to me to create a different level of scepticism reserved for one particular area of knowledge/belief. There is no term that I am aware of that describes the position of not believing in the tooth fairy but leaving the door open for someone to provide evidence at a later stage, and I can’t see why we should be any different with regards to God. As there is no evidence of God’s existence there is no reason to believe that She exists, it is incorrect to equate “extreme atheism” with “extreme theism.” In so far as we cannot be 100% certain of anything except that we (I) exist in some form or another, we should in fact always be ever so slightly sceptical about everything, but religion gets no special credit for doubt in my book. I suspect that agnosticism gets it’s own name because people have a lingering desire to believe in some higher being or are slightly afraid of the effects of getting it wrong. I can’t remember the who it was off the top of my head that said it made sense to believe, as you’ve lost nothing if you die and there’s nothing there, whereas you’ll feel pretty stupid in the Atheists queue outside the Pearly Gates, but I think the idea is actually quite prevalent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I can't remember the who it was off the top of my head that said it made sense to believe, as you've lost nothing if you die and there's nothing there, whereas you'll feel pretty stupid in the Atheists queue outside the Pearly Gates, but I think the idea is actually quite prevalent. I love this argument... if God does exist and he's a Christian God, who will have pissed him off more? Me who's lived a good life, and not believed. Or the 'insert other religion' who's lived a good life but believed in a different God!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I love this argument... if God does exist and he's a Christian God, who will have pissed him off more? Me who's lived a good life, and not believed. Or the 'insert other religion' who's lived a good life but believed in a different God!?! Well, despite my atheism, I’m so convinced that Protestants are going to be torched in Satan’s fires for all eternity that it would be almost a kindness to put them on a bonfire on Earth to prepare them for their second sulphury death. That’s the great thing about my philosophical training, it enables me to remain entirely consistent through the whole course of an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I love cheese, but I’m not keen on the notion of agnosticism. It seems to me to create a different level of scepticism reserved for one particular area of knowledge/belief. There is no term that I am aware of that describes the position of not believing in the tooth fairy but leaving the door open for someone to provide evidence at a later stage, and I can’t see why we should be any different with regards to God. As there is no evidence of God’s existence there is no reason to believe that She exists, it is incorrect to equate “extreme atheism” with “extreme theism.” In so far as we cannot be 100% certain of anything except that we (I) exist in some form or another, we should in fact always be ever so slightly sceptical about everything, but religion gets no special credit for doubt in my book. I suspect that agnosticism gets it’s own name because people have a lingering desire to believe in some higher being or are slightly afraid of the effects of getting it wrong. I can’t remember the who it was off the top of my head that said it made sense to believe, as you’ve lost nothing if you die and there’s nothing there, whereas you’ll feel pretty stupid in the Atheists queue outside the Pearly Gates, but I think the idea is actually quite prevalent. Agnosticism is about the existence of the unknowable. Since we have no basis on which to base either a belief in the existence of God or belief in his non-existence, we're better off not proffering an opinion on it. Also, atheists are boring. I'm not a piano player and I'm not a footballer, but I do not introduce myself to people by saying, "I'm not a footballer" or "I'm not a piano player". What makes atheists think that their position is anything other than the dead end of a boring converstation? Speaking of which... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Agnosticism is about the existence of the unknowable. Since we have no basis on which to base either a belief in the existence of God or belief in his non-existence, we're better off not proffering an opinion on it. Also, atheists are boring. I'm not a piano player and I'm not a footballer, but I do not introduce myself to people by saying, "I'm not a footballer" or "I'm not a piano player". What makes atheists think that their position is anything other than the dead end of a boring converstation? Speaking of which... And yet people introduce themselves as Christian... I don't introduce myself as a Newton-ian or a Einstein-ior or a Darwin-ian do I? And no conversation in the world ends quicker than the one with a Christian about the Crusades! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Agnosticism is about the existence of the unknowable. Since we have no basis on which to base either a belief in the existence of God or belief in his non-existence, we're better off not proffering an opinion on it. Also, atheists are boring. I'm not a piano player and I'm not a footballer, but I do not introduce myself to people by saying, "I'm not a footballer" or "I'm not a piano player". What makes atheists think that their position is anything other than the dead end of a boring converstation? Speaking of which... Neither do people introduce themselves as, “I’ve got no reason to think I’m a footballer, and all the evidence suggests that I’m not, but it’s just possible that I actually am.” Neither do they have a special word for their position regarding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 It is incorrect to equate “extreme atheism” with “extreme theism.” In so far as we cannot be 100% certain of anything except that we (I) exist in some form or another, we should in fact always be ever so slightly sceptical about everything, but religion gets no special credit for doubt in my book. I suspect that agnosticism gets it’s own name because people have a lingering desire to believe in some higher being or are slightly afraid of the effects of getting it wrong. I can’t remember the who it was off the top of my head that said it made sense to believe, as you’ve lost nothing if you die and there’s nothing there, whereas you’ll feel pretty stupid in the Atheists queue outside the Pearly Gates, but I think the idea is actually quite prevalent. I do think there is a correlation between extreme atheism/strong scepticism and extreme theism. They are both extremely flawed positions, shrouded in ignorance. Agnosticism and constructive scepticism allows for evidence however remote, atheism does not - the book is closed and there's nothing that can sway the atheist away from that. Similar could be said for the extreme theist. Agnosticism isn't a cop out, it's just the a-typical stance of a true sceptic. I'm willing to change if someone can prove it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Neither do people introduce themselves as, “I’ve got no reason to think I’m a footballer, and all the evidence suggests that I’m not, but it’s just possible that I actually am.” Neither do they have a special word for their position regarding it. Big deal, but my point was that it's not quite rational to define yourself as not believing in something that doesn't exist. For the atheist, God exists in at least one sense--they don't believe in Him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I do think there is a correlation between extreme atheism/strong scepticism and extreme theism. They are both extremely flawed positions, shrouded in ignorance. Agnosticism and constructive scepticism allows for evidence however remote, atheism does not - the book is closed and there's nothing that can sway the atheist away from that. Similar could be said for the extreme theist. Agnosticism isn't a cop out, it's just the a-typical stance of a true sceptic. I'm willing to change if someone can prove it to me. That’s not a million miles away from the position that Intelligent Design merchants adopt though – there’s no saying that evolution is definitely correct so why not teach ID as well? It confuses the nature of scientific “belief.” Evolution is the best theory we have, whereas there is no reason at all to believe that ID is correct. I think that militant atheism is a reaction to this lack of understanding, whilst it does go a little beyond the bounds of logical scepticism it cannot IMO be compared to the militant belief in something for which there is no reason to believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I do think there is a correlation between extreme atheism/strong scepticism and extreme theism. They are both extremely flawed positions, shrouded in ignorance. Agnosticism and constructive scepticism allows for evidence however remote, atheism does not - the book is closed and there's nothing that can sway the atheist away from that. Similar could be said for the extreme theist. Agnosticism isn't a cop out, it's just the a-typical stance of a true sceptic. I'm willing to change if someone can prove it to me. Finally, some sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 For the atheist, God exists in at least one sense--they don't believe in Him. Likewise the Tooth Fairy. That's as bad as the Cartesian crap that started this off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Big deal, but my point was that it's not quite rational to define yourself as not believing in something that doesn't exist. For the atheist, God exists in at least one sense--they don't believe in Him. That makes so little sense I'm not even going to bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 That makes so little sense I'm not even going to bother. Semantically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 That's not a million miles away from the position that Intelligent Design merchants adopt though theres no saying that evolution is definitely correct... Don't agree with that at all. ID and creationism are just plain kooky. Watch this.... I can't wait for him to explain a pineapple.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Big deal, but my point was that it's not quite rational to define yourself as not believing in something that doesn't exist. For the atheist, God exists in at least one sense--they don't believe in Him. Semantically. OK then... do you belive that I can fly to the moon, without the aid of any technollogy? Totally naked (as awful as that image is), with nothing touching my body could I fly to the moon?? I'll assume your answer to be no. But you therefor belive that I can fly to the moon. Awesome isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.