Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive.

[begbert2]

@magellan01

Wrong about what? What he beleives regarding god or what he believes about the definition of “atheism”? If it’s the latter, aren’t you really arguing that all agnostics are weak atheists, making the word unnecessary? Do you not see a demarcation between atheism (weak) and agnosticism?

He’s wrong about the definition of the word atheist. He thinks that weak atheists do not exist.

All* agnostics are weak atheists.
All weak atheists are strong agnostics**.
Strong atheists are not agnostics.

• Or are we still entertaining the idea of theistic agnostics? I can’t remember.
  ** until the diety is claimed to have interacted with observable reality
  I also think he’s also wrong about the level of credibility arbitrary fictional ideas like Sauron, Santa, and God should be given in the absence of evidence. But that’s not as blatant an error as his definitional problems.

@magellan01

I don’t see that as an insult. I see that as him trying very hard to re-explain things again and again using different words. And in the end, isn’t it really a guess, for everyone. Do you not make for the possibility, however infinitesimal, that you may be wrong?

Of course I may be wrong. But I’m not guessing wildly. Regardless of the insults he slings to defend his incorrect definitions.

@magellan01

It’s an observable fact, by anyone of any stripe, that some strong atheists take a leap similar to that taken by the highly religious. We look at fundamentalists and say, "how can they be so hubristic? Don’t they understand that no man is perfect, they he is flawed, and he may be wrong? Well, those same questions can be asked of many strong atheists. That’s how I took it anyway.

So it’s okay to pretend all atheists are hard atheists - does that mean it’s okay to characterize all religious people as YEC flat earthers?

@magellan01

For what it’s worth, I don’t think he’s being argumentative at all. You seem to be considerably busier in that arena in your exchanges.

Are you reading the same thread as me?

@magellan01

No. You’re not reading closely enough. Look, everything we can point to in our world has a cause for its existence. You cannot point to anything that does not. Zero items out all the universe we know qualifies. So, let’s say there is a thing that caused the BB. Based on the breadth of our experience it is logical that that thing would, in turn, need to have been caused. We keep going back that way. Eventually, we need something that caused what came after it, but it itself did NOT need a cause. That points to god, IMO.

Okay, based on this, would you at least agree that this particle is what we consider “other worldly”, that it, nor anything like it is contained within the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base?

A neutron was once outside the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base. Calling your theorized initial particle “god” is ludicrous and cannot serve any other purpose than to try to load up the otherwise-unknown start event with lots of completely unsubstantiate propertes.

I literally cannot see any reason to call the first cause “god” other than to try and prove the existence of something complete unsupported by the argument prior to the bait-and-switch. Here’s another nifty argument:

“Look, everything we can point to in our world has a cause for its existence. You cannot point to anything that does not. Zero items out all the universe we know qualifies. So, let’s say there is a thing that caused the BB. Based on the breadth of our experience it is logical that that thing would, in turn, need to have been caused. We keep going back that way. Eventually, we need something that caused what came after it, but it itself did NOT need a cause. That points to square circles, IMO.”

I just proved the existence of square circles! Whee!

@Frank_apisa

I am not an atheist…although I understand the compulsion of atheists to want to include me in their ranks.

Of course you’re an atheist.

Though curiously, I can’t understand why you think we’d want you. I mean, labeling you “atheist” isn’t making you any more aggreeable. And we don’t collect a subscription fee.

@Frank_apisa

But no matter how much they want me…I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

@Frank_apisa

If there is a “stigma” against atheism…I am not part of the group who sees the stigma…and if any theist were to assert a stigma against it, I would laugh at him or her for doing so.

Any perceived “stigma” against atheism has nothing whatever to do with why I do not consider myself an atheist. I do not consider myself an atheist or a theist…because I am neither. I am an agnsotic.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. (And the stigma is well dogumented - though it’s lessening. It’s now possible for an open atheist to get elected! …in some areas.)

@Frank_apisa

Absolutely not…but if I cannot use a Websters Dictionary…or a Cambridge dictionary…to define a word, perhaps the problem is with the way the word is defined.

The word’s definition is defined fine - it just has two definitions! Just like agnosticism does.

@Frank_apisa

I am an agnostic…no matter how much you want me to be one of you atheists.

I don’t want you. But I’m stuck with you anyway. Unless you’d like to say that you believe in a sky fairy? :hopeful:

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

I gave you my answer-what part of it are you having trouble understanding?

@Czarcasm

I gave you my answer-what part of it are you having trouble understanding?

Actually, I am not sure of what your answer is, Czarcasm.

I proposed my question in post #389

The question was: You have no evidence that there are no sentient beings living on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol…none at all. So should the default position be “There is no sentient life there” or “We do not know if there is life there?”

In post #390 you wrote: “I’ve seen $1000. I’ve seen sentient beings.Invisible sentient beings that defy science and logic-not so much.”

That does not answer the question in any way.

In post #393, you wrote: “$1000000 diamonds exist. It is possible that someone walking past your house accidentally dropped one. Though it wouldn’t take much effort on your part, how much time are you going to waste looking for that theoretical diamond, or even contemplating the possibility that there might be a $1000000 diamond in front of your house?
Are you agnostic towards that possibility, or do you dismiss that possibility out of hand?”

That does not answer the question in any way.

In post #394, you wrote: “I’m open minded towards the possibility that what has been observed to happen here might happen elsewhere. Start giving these hypothetical critters abilities that defy science and/or logic, and we’ve got problems.”

That seems to be saying that the answer is, “We do not know if there is sentient life on any of those planets…which would be the default.”

If so, we are in agreement that lack of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” does not exist.

If “x” is “gods”…then evidence that gods do not exist is not evidence gods do not exist.

If I understand that correctly…no problem. We are in agreement…a lack of evidence of “x” IS NOT evidence of the non-existence of “x.”

[Frank_apisa]

@begbert2

He’s wrong about the definition of the word atheist. He thinks that weak atheists do not exist.

All* agnostics are weak atheists.
All weak atheists are strong agnostics**.
Strong atheists are not agnostics.

• Or are we still entertaining the idea of theistic agnostics? I can’t remember.
  ** until the diety is claimed to have interacted with observable reality
  I also think he’s also wrong about the level of credibility arbitrary fictional ideas like Sauron, Santa, and God should be given in the absence of evidence. But that’s not as blatant an error as his definitional problems.

Of course I may be wrong. But I’m not guessing wildly. Regardless of the insults he slings to defend his incorrect definitions.

So it’s okay to pretend all atheists are hard atheists - does that mean it’s okay to characterize all religious people as YEC flat earthers?

Are you reading the same thread as me?

A neutron was once outside the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base. Calling your theorized initial particle “god” is ludicrous and cannot serve any other purpose than to try to load up the otherwise-unknown start event with lots of completely unsubstantiate propertes.

I literally cannot see any reason to call the first cause “god” other than to try and prove the existence of something complete unsupported by the argument prior to the bait-and-switch. Here’s another nifty argument:

“Look, everything we can point to in our world has a cause for its existence. You cannot point to anything that does not. Zero items out all the universe we know qualifies. So, let’s say there is a thing that caused the BB. Based on the breadth of our experience it is logical that that thing would, in turn, need to have been caused. We keep going back that way. Eventually, we need something that caused what came after it, but it itself did NOT need a cause. That points to square circles, IMO.”

I just proved the existence of square circles! Whee!

Of course you’re an atheist.

Though curiously, I can’t understand why you think we’d want you. I mean, labeling you “atheist” isn’t making you any more aggreeable. And we don’t collect a subscription fee.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. (And the stigma is well dogumented - though it’s lessening. It’s now possible for an open atheist to get elected! …in some areas.)

The word’s definition is defined fine - it just has two definitions! Just like agnosticism does.

I don’t want you. But I’m stuck with you anyway. Unless you’d like to say that you believe in a sky fairy? :hopeful:

Still trying to get me to be an atheist, huh, Begbert.

Nope. I am an agnostic…not an atheist.

Sorry…you have to recruit somewhere else.

[begbert2]

@Frank_apisa

Still trying to get me to be an atheist, huh, Begbert.

Nope. I am an agnostic…not an atheist.

Sorry…you have to recruit somewhere else.

Right. Next up, I’m going to try to recruit you to be a mammal. Because we need more mammals. To meet our mammal quota. And if I don’t recruit you, you won’t be a mammal.
Look son. Unless you’ve lied about your beliefs, you’re an atheist, by the pervasive definition of the term. You’re not a hard atheist, but you are a soft atheist. There is no recruitment involved, any more than I’ve been recruited into the ranks of maledom or of people with beards.

Do you realize that “atheist” is a description? It’s not a club. You don’t join it; you are it - or not. Either you meet the decription, or you don’t. And in your case, you do.

[cmosdes]

Frank -
Suppose a coin is flipped 1000 times and every time it came up heads. Would you still consider it a possibility that the coin has a tail side? What about after 1,000,000 straight flips? 1,000,000,000? What number would make you pretty damn sure the coin doesn’t have a tail side?

You cling to your 5 stars/sol and “lack of evidence” arguments like they are the final decrees. They aren’t. Sometimes lack of evidence really is evidence that something doesn’t exist. Not one single characteristic of god that has ever been posited has ever held up to scrutiny.

Let me ask you… is there life on Saturn?

You seem to feel the answer to the questions about 5 stars/sol and “is there a god” are the same. We have proof life can and does exist. Therefore, it is possible life exists elsewhere, but it isn’t certain. Thus, “I don’t know.” For god, there is 0 evidence any god anywhere has ever existed. Just because there are unexplained things in this world isn’t really evidence of anything. It doesn’t even open the possibility of a god.

[Gustav]

If I wanted you classified as anything, I’d want you to be defined as a theist. You’re an atheist for all the wrong reasons, you don’t believe in god yet you haven’t the slightest idea why. People like you are the reason why some people think atheism is just another kind of religion. You disbelieve in god the same way theists believe in him.

[Czarcasm]

@Frank_apisa

In post #394, you wrote: “I’m open minded towards the possibility that what has been observed to happen here might happen elsewhere. Start giving these hypothetical critters abilities that defy science and/or logic, and we’ve got problems.”

That seems to be saying that the answer is, “We do not know if there is sentient life on any of those planets…which would be the default.”

If so, we are in agreement that lack of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” does not exist.

If “x” is “gods”…then evidence that gods do not exist is not evidence gods do not exist.

If I understand that correctly…no problem. We are in agreement…a lack of evidence of “x” IS NOT evidence of the non-existence of “x.”

Way to read and respond to half a post, bucky. You totally glossed over this:

@Czarcasm

Start giving these hypothetical critters abilities that defy science and/or logic, and we’ve got problems

I am willing to admit to the possibility of creatures existing elsewhere as long as their proposed nature do not defy known laws of science and logic.

[Frank_apisa]

@begbert2

Right. Next up, I’m going to try to recruit you to be a mammal. Because we need more mammals. To meet our mammal quota. And if I don’t recruit you, you won’t be a mammal.
Look son. Unless you’ve lied about your beliefs, you’re an atheist, by the pervasive definition of the term. You’re not a hard atheist, but you are a soft atheist. There is no recruitment involved, any more than I’ve been recruited into the ranks of maledom or of people with beards.

Do you realize that “atheist” is a description? It’s not a club. You don’t join it; you are it - or not. Either you meet the decription, or you don’t. And in your case, you do.

One…I am 73 years old…and I do not need you calling me son.

Two…you are trying to sell the idea that you don’t want me

I can’t understand why you think we’d want you

…that you don’t want me again,

I don’t want you.

…and that you are stuck with me,

But I’m stuck with you anyway.

But I keep insisting that I am not an atheist…and you keep coming back and insisting that I am an atheist. And you are using definitions that you do not have to use (others are available) in order to do that insisting.

You are not going to sell that “I don’t want you, I am stuck with you” pap to anyone but an idiot, Begbert.

If you truly do not want me…if truly do not want to be stuck with me…

…you would simply take me at my word that I am not one of you and leave it at that.

But do keep on insisting that I am one of you…I am actually getting to the point where I am enjoying being wanted as much as you want me.
The thing that amazes me is that some of the people who ARE “one of you” don’t post a note asking you to stop…or else be on somebody else’s side!

[Frank_apisa]

@cmosdes

Frank -
Suppose a coin is flipped 1000 times and every time it came up heads. Would you still consider it a possibility that the coin has a tail side? What about after 1,000,000 straight flips? 1,000,000,000? What number would make you pretty damn sure the coin doesn’t have a tail side?

You cling to your 5 stars/sol and “lack of evidence” arguments like they are the final decrees. They aren’t. Sometimes lack of evidence really is evidence that something doesn’t exist. Not one single characteristic of god that has ever been posited has ever held up to scrutiny.

Let me ask you… is there life on Saturn?

You seem to feel the answer to the questions about 5 stars/sol and “is there a god” are the same. We have proof life can and does exist. Therefore, it is possible life exists elsewhere, but it isn’t certain. Thus, “I don’t know.” For god, there is 0 evidence any god anywhere has ever existed. Just because there are unexplained things in this world isn’t really evidence of anything. It doesn’t even open the possibility of a god.

I am not saying what you want me to be saying…I am saying what I am saying.

And what I am saying is that lack of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” doesn’t exist.

Not sure why that bothers you as much as it apparently does…but I am correct. A lack of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” does not exist.

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

Way to read and respond to half a post, bucky. You totally glossed over this: I am willing to admit to the possibility of creatures existing elsewhere as long as their proposed nature do not defy known laws of science and logic.

And evidence. There is no reason to believe in a middle ages level alien culture around these stars - but no real reason to believe that they do not exist. Make it an alien culture who swoops down in their flying saucers on alternate Saturdays and kidnap our women - those are alien we can believe don’t exist.

I’d say God is closer to the second than to the first.

[Frank_apisa]

@Gustav

If I wanted you classified as anything, I’d want you to be defined as a theist. You’re an atheist for all the wrong reasons, you don’t believe in god yet you haven’t the slightest idea why. People like you are the reason why some people think atheism is just another kind of religion. You disbelieve in god the same way theists believe in him.

Sorry I am giving atheism a bad name, Gustav. But I am doing everything in my power to tell you all that I am not an atheist.

This is goddam funny at this point.

You are going to insist that I am an atheist…even though I insist I am not…just so that you can say I am the kind of atheist giving atheism a bad name!!!

This is one for the books.

And the theists have the audacity to say atheism makes no sense!

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

Way to read and respond to half a post, bucky. You totally glossed over this: I am willing to admit to the possibility of creatures existing elsewhere as long as their proposed nature do not defy known laws of science and logic.

You claimed you were answering my question…so I only dealt with the parts of your answers that actually went to that question.

My question had to do only with sentient life on one of the planets circling the 5 nearest stars to our Sol.

What does all that other stuff have to do with that question?

If your answer is that we do not know if there is sentient life on any of those planets…I think that is a pretty good case that the absence of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” does not exist.

(We have no evidence whatsoever of life on any of those planets…and you are not asserting that is evidence that such life is not there.)

In any case, the fact that you have no evidence of creatures that defy known laws of science and logic is not evidence that such creatures do not exist…so it doesn’t much matter what you are or are not willing to do with them.

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

And evidence. There is no reason to believe in a middle ages level alien culture around these stars - but no real reason to believe that they do not exist. Make it an alien culture who swoops down in their flying saucers on alternate Saturdays and kidnap our women - those are alien we can believe don’t exist.

I’d say God is closer to the second than to the first.

I’d say God is way beyond the second. Frank keeps trying to equate the “X” that is the possibility of aliens existing elsewhere to the “X” that is the possibility of God existing, and I ain’t buying it. We are dealing with two unknowns here, but while the first example(as long as said aliens don’t defy the laws of science and logic) are possible, the second example isn’t even worth considering at all until it can be established that said laws can be broken.

[cmosdes]

@Frank_apisa

And what I am saying is that lack of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” doesn’t exist.

Yeah, I’ve read that a lot from you. The problem is that is isn’t true.

You also didn’t answer any of my questions. Does a coin coming up heads 1,000,000,000 times in a row indicate that there isn’t a tail side to it? Does life exist on Saturn?

What do you think I’m saying you are saying? Are you denying trying to equate the answer to “5 stars/sol” and “is there a god”? If you aren’t equating them, why bring up the 5 stars/sol question at all?

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

I’d say God is way beyond the second. Frank keeps trying to equate the “X” that is the possibility of aliens existing elsewhere to the “X” that is the possibility of God existing, and I ain’t buying it. We are dealing with two unknowns here, but while the first example(as long as said aliens don’t defy the laws of science and logic) are possible, the second example isn’t even worth considering at all until it can be established that said laws can be broken.

I don’t even have to get to the breaking natural laws part. Religions keep telling us that their gods intervened in human affairs and laid down all these rules and told all these stories, but the stories are exactly what primitive cultures would have written down, the rules make no sense, and there is no trace of them intervening.

There is a thread about Chariots of the Gods running in GQ now. The cases are similar. Before you provide good evidence that aliens intervened thousands of years ago, we don’t have to worry about the details of the propulsion of their UFOs.

It is all kind of like doing a wind tunnel study to determine the angle Washington used to throw his dollar across the Potomac. Without evidence it happened, why bother?

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@Frank_apisa

Sorry I am giving atheism a bad name, Gustav. But I am doing everything in my power to tell you all that I am not an atheist.

This is goddam funny at this point.

You are going to insist that I am an atheist…even though I insist I am not…just so that you can say I am the kind of atheist giving atheism a bad name!!!

This is one for the books.

And the theists have the audacity to say atheism makes no sense!

Howbout a truce. We’ll stop insisting you’re an atheist if you stop insisting that all atheists are as crazy as theists.

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

I’d say God is way beyond the second. Frank keeps trying to equate the “X” that is the possibility of aliens existing elsewhere to the “X” that is the possibility of God existing, and I ain’t buying it. We are dealing with two unknowns here, but while the first example(as long as said aliens don’t defy the laws of science and logic) are possible, the second example isn’t even worth considering at all until it can be established that said laws can be broken.

Actually, I am dealing only with the notion that a lack of evidence is evidence that something does not exist.

You seem to be extending that (what I consider false) reasoning to say that since there is no evidence that beings that defy the laws of science and logic …that means that they do not exist.

But that is not how the logic works.

[Frank_apisa]

@cmosdes

Yeah, I’ve read that a lot from you. The problem is that is isn’t true.

Yeah it is, actually. Which is the reason I am bringing up the 5 star Sol question.

You also didn’t answer any of my questions. Does a coin coming up heads 1,000,000,000 times in a row indicate that there isn’t a tail side to it?

I would certainly make a guess that it has no tail side. But in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of time…and with some people I know having time to “tweak” the coin…I suppose a billion heads in a row could be possible even with a coin having both heads and tails.

Does life exist on Saturn?

I do not know.

What do you think I’m saying you are saying? Are you denying trying to equate the answer to “5 stars/sol” and “is there a god”? If you aren’t equating them, why bring up the 5 stars/sol question at all?

Please refer to my answer up above.

[Gustav]

@Frank_apisa

You seem to be extending that (what I consider false) reasoning to say that since there is no evidence that beings that defy the laws of science and logic …that means that they do not exist.

Well no. No one is saying just because there is evidence that indicates there isn’t a god, that means he doesn’t exist. It is what it is. But there IS evidence. You don’t get to just dismiss it completely just because it’s not a rock solid 100% proof.

[Frank_apisa]

@pedescribe

Howbout a truce. We’ll stop insisting you’re an atheist if you stop insisting that all atheists are as crazy as theists.

I’d love a truce…and since I have never suggested that all atheists are as crazy as theists…I have no problem with my part.

Fact is, I’ve never even suggested that theists are crazy…or that atheists are crazy. I did suggest that some of the way atheists argue reminds me of the way theists argue…that’s all.

But I am more than willing to put that aside if you can bring about a truce.

Why don’t you give it a try…and see if you can get the atheists who keep insisting I am an atheist to sign on.