It’s very surprising to me that people feel the need to be so disparaging toward agnosticism when it’s such a simple concept. If it’s special pleading, it’s no more so than it needs to be because of the preposterous nature of theistic claims.
From my perspective, the question of theism is, in essence, “Is this crazy-ass thing that is completely unprovable and you wouldn’t have any way of knowing whether it were true or not if were true actually true?” I’m bound by the nature of the question to say well, shit, I guess I don’t know. I certainly don’t believe it is true – atheism – but I’m also constrained by somebody else’s definition to admit that it’s a thing that’s unknowable. Agnosticism. It’s not intellectually dishonest to answer the question on the question’s own terms. If you’ve got a problem with it, your problem’s with the question, not my answer.
Sure, and it’s understandable. Any group that’s been put down for a long time and is finally able to air their views AND have some like minded folks around them to share those views with, to reinforce them and validate them is going to start feeling froggy and also feel like they should be able to start pushing back. They are also going to feel a bit down on folks that they believe SHOULD be part of their group by don’t adopt the same labels and really join up to march alongside.
I DO have more sympathy towards atheists than I do towards theists, since it’s closer to my own world view. I don’t have a major chip on my shoulder about theists, or about religion (as long as it’s not being shoved down my throat…I’m generally a live and let live kind of guy), but intellectually I just don’t believe in God or the gods. I’m highly skeptical by nature, and I think a skeptical mindset almost precludes theism at a fundamental level.
But in the end I’m simply not an atheist. That label just doesn’t fit with my own conceptions of myself, just like ‘conservative’ doesn’t fit with my conceptions of myself…so, I don’t self choose to adopt that label. Agnostic DOES fit my conceptions of self, and it’s a label I’m comfortable with self identifying with.
So, you think that scientists who speculate about stuff like Higgs Boson, String Theory or M-Theory or multiple universes (or the myriad other things scientists speculate on, spend their careers on, etc) are taking a ‘dishonest stance’ as well? Right?
God is inconsistent with the universe. Therefore I believe in God, but I don’t believe in the universe. What we see as the universe is merely a simulation on a computer designed by God. By the way, there is a secret bonus stage where God put a pink unicorn just to mess with anyone who finds it.
I swear to your god, if there was even HALF the evidence/testing/provability/falsifiability for a supreme being as the stuff you just mentioned you might have a point.
Well at least he is a credentialed scientist and in this case it applies
I assume that you are not or you may have forgotten the basic ideas of the Scientific Method.
Mainly that no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.
Your claim “There is no god” is quite certain, you are claiming as fact.
Your charge of “Intellectual Dishonesty” is well intellectually dishonest. As I have stated before, acting as if there was evidence of god at this point in time is, “an act of faith” and I have personally decided there is no current credible evidence as presented to me.
Those who are open to evidence, who think that we do not know now but may be able to know at some point in the future are actually holding themselves to a much higher scientific and intellectual standard than you argument.
It’s not like scientists are just idly sitting around speculating that things exist for no reason. It’s the math and testable science that has led to these things being good candidates for further venture/prediction.
Even now, they’re testing the Higgs for five sigma confidence levels. Can you say theists tests their claims with nearly this level of rigorous scrutiny? Hardly.
Most atheists I know, even the vocal ones, do not argue that they KNOW God doesn’t exist. Most of the time, atheists argue that they simply lack the belief and need more evidence if they are to be convinced.
As I stated up the thread, I do not think nor have I seen ANY credible evidence that anything supernatural exists. I am utterly indifferent to the idea of a god, but I would look at credible evidence of the supernatural if it was found in the future.
Do I think it will be found, or in my lifetime, no.
But saying “There is NO god” is Gnostic, and presupposes knowledge that does not exist.
I am an Atheist, I am just not a a Gnostic Atheist,
So your question about current theists tests is irrelevant to my claims.
It appears you want your one sentence paragraphs to mimic pillars of your argument, very well, lets take them one at a time. You cited him not as a scientist, but as an pronounced atheist, you could have mentioned millions of other scientists, however my position doesn’t require an Appeal to Authority.
No. YOU are claiming there might be a god. I claim nothing. I stand as an atheist saying, in effect, no one has proven or provided evidence promoting anything. (I’m ignoring your misunderstanding of the word ‘theory’ because it has no current bearing on our discussion)
I’m sorry you think that’s how the scientific method works.
I think this is fairly close to my stance as well. If defining God is strictly done through the tenets of a religion, I’d have to say I’m an atheist. But I have to admit that the life-force behind existence is far beyond what A). I can understand B). Is far from understood from a scientific standpoint
Just because we don’t yet have evidence to prove the existence of a greater power, or force (call it God if you will) doesn’t prove it’s nonexistence.
Worked quite hard to build up a straw-man there didn’t ya.
I think the issue may be that you have a misunderstanding how broad the the term “agnostic” is.
I believe there is NO known evidence of any god, as I have stated before, and at this current time.
It seems that your artificially narrow definition of “agnostic” includes those who say “we can’t possibly know” or “we don’t know so hey lets have wine and crackers”
Agnostic is a very very broad term, thus the “painting with a broad brush” statement I made before.
Atheist is not exclusive of Agnostic, they are two different terms with different implications.
They have been completely independent concepts for well over 100 years as evidenced by:
,As an Agnostic, I allow for the possibility of God. I mean, why not? Clearly something spectacular has happened here. If there is a creator to blame for life, the universe and everything in it, then were talking about an entity or entities so fantastically complex that it would be unknowable to us simple humans. Certainly no-one has stepped up and given an adequate explanation. So why not God? Not any more far-fetched a concept as infinity.
Atheism is just so damn boring. A lot of atheists are as tiresome and dickish as those zealots armed with pamphlets and righteousness, ringing your doorbell on a Saturday morning.
I think a lot of self-declared agnostics in this thread need to look up the definition of ‘agnostic’, then immediately look up the definition of ‘weak atheist’.
I call bullshit. Can you provide a cite please. I often hear this statement imputed to atheists, but I have yet to actually see it made by one. The statement always, or almost always, is that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that god exists, hence it is useful to live your life by assuming there isn’t one, but that this position is open to change if convincing evidence is presented.
If there is indeed a vocal minority of atheists around saying that they KNOW there is no god and nothing will convince them otherwise, please guide me to their statements(which must be plentiful, seeing how VOCAL they are), and I will admit that you have a point. Otherwise, you’re just going around tilting at strawmen to feel good about yourself.
I don’t see why I can’t say that I know an Abrahamic God does not exist. The Problem of Evil, as far as I’m aware, has not been satisfactorily responded to. At least, I’ve never heard a decent response from theists.
“Atheists: “The odds are so ridiculously absurd of a specific being existing we’d have to give each of the infinite lotto ticket numbers an ‘ism’, therefore, accept the null hypothesis””
An agnostic would ask ‘how can you claim to know the odds’? That might work with Christianity or specific religions with detailed claims, but doesnt really work when it comes to more open-ended ‘is there a creator’ type questions.
You funny, bro)