The probably don’t post that because they’re not suffering under terminal comprehension problems.
Atheism is not a club (or a church, either). You do not “join” atheism. I can’t make you an atheist by claiming you are one, any more than you can make yourself not-an-atheist by claiming you’re not one, and if I stop talking about it altogether, that’s not going to protect you from the dread label “atheist”. An atheist is simply what you are. You can’t will yourself not to be an atheist any more than you can will yourself not to be 73.
As for you personally, I don’t care if you’re an agnostic or not, or an atheist or not, and I don’t care if you suddenly trasform into a raving young earth creationist or Richard Dawkins or whichever. I don’t care about what you believe. What I’m arguing here is what the word means. It’s a word. It has meanings. And you are blatantly misrepresenting them.
And you have no excuse for doing so. Sure there are some dictionaries with sparse and too-short definitions, but sources that expound in more depth on the concept and its history have been laid open to you. (To say nothing of the reams of explanation that’s washed over you in this thread alone.)
No, you’re not interested in the truth of the matter - you’re instead devoted to dogmatically defending your incorrect definition on the grounds that you don’t wanna be an atheist. I don’t want to be a mammal, momma, I’m not a mammal anymore, I’m a reptile 'cause I say so! Well, that’s nice for you. But reality begs to differ.
I have a better idea. He can stop claiming that (non-theist) agnostics aren’t atheists, and we’ll stop trying to correct his incorrect definition. Nobody’s going to bother to hunt him down and keep correcting him if he stops vomiting out his false definition.
Frank, as someone who thinks you’re right in much of this, I have to point out that you’re wrong here. Wrong by one word.
Wrong: “lack of evidence of “x” is not evidence that “x” doesn’t exist”
Correct: “lack of evidence of “x” is not proof that “x” doesn’t exist”
Following the example of the coin toss that cmosdes offered. Even if that coin comes up 1 billion times heads, that is not proof that there is no tails side. But as you progress from 0 out of 10 to 0 out a a billion, the evidence that points to there not being a tails side increases.
It doesn’t particularly–so I’ll take you up on your offer.
As I read your response, it points out that you use the term ‘gods’ (but multiple gods is not inconsistent with Czarcasm being one), and that if you were a god and Czarcasm was one, he wouldn’t be able to compel you to believe he was a god.
I’m asking a different question: You’ve made your stance on agnosticism clear. I’m asking how you would apply it to a specific example, namely:
I assert Czarcasm is a god, of awesome power, and he’s just choosing not to use it right now.
I think it’s easy to agree that there is no evidence he isn’t. First, neither you nor I know him apart from his posts here. Second, an all-powerful god is surely capable of posting on a message board. Third, an all-powerful god is surely capable of choosing not to claim he’s a god, or to use any ability other than the ability to post on a message board in a way that was indistinguishable from the posts of an ordinary human.
So, given that, are you agnostic that Czarcasm is or is not a god? Is your position on that proposition consistent with the arguments you make about “gods” more generally, and if not, why not?
I’m not sure where the meme started that lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking, but I’m having a hard time coming up with a situation in which this is actually true. Michelson provided all the anecdotal evidence you need to show that a lack of something was evidence enough it didn’t exist.
Suppose that there were precisely one hundred billion places that a green swan might be hiding. (Perhaps the entire planet has been divided up into searchable squares.) Suppose you look at one square. No swan. Is that evidence? You say no.
But what if you look at another square. Still no swan. Is that evidence? You say no.
Suppose that, one by one you keep looking at squares, and keep finding no swans. Each square you check, is it evidence? You say no.
Suppose you eventually have checked all the squares, having piled up a whole lot of not-evidence. But wait! We’ve now proved there are no green swans! Without any evidence whatsoever!
No. Failure to find something when you look for it is certainly evidence. It’s just not ironclad certain proof, not until you’ve finished checking everywhere.
No, not necessarily. My argument stands on its own apart from this.
But I certainly would be willing to discuss whether or not the premise is true with you if you like. And if you show my premise to be not true…and if it proves to be a fatal flaw…I will consider the possibility my “entire argument falls apart” as a result.
What are you talking about. I am saying I DO NOT KNOW. Are you suggesting that I cannot make a guess on stuff that I do not know? If a coin came up a billion times “heads”…I certainly would be willing to make a guess that it has no tails side. But I most certainly would not say it cannot have a tails sides…especially under the conditions I cited.
I know I am using a keyboard to type these words. I know I am typing them with my fingers. I know my cat is trying her level best to get me to pet her…and doesn’t give a rat’s ass that I am trying to type. I know my wife is gonna give me lots of shit because I was supposed to do the honey do list after having the endoscopy and colonoscopy this morning…and instead of doing them, I have been arguing here in this forum and playing on-line poker.
Well…I do not see that as a logical conclusion…but if you do, you do.
Maybe you need to go to a movie. Seriously, dude, you know damn well what he means. Can you describe him as an atheist by parsing the word in a technical vein? Yes. Can he parse the word another way? Yes. And the way he is using it is the way most people use it in discussions like this… There’s a continuum:
Theist > Weak Atheist > Strong Atheist
Agnostic isn’t part of that continuum, as they don’t think man can know one way or the other. But if you must put him on the continuum, he belongs between Theist and Weak Atheist.
When someone identifies his spot on the continuum, he is simultaneously rejecting all the other classifications. Based on what he believes, which I think he knows better than you, he disassociates himself from the classification of all except agnostic. As someone who really isn’t involved in the discussion, you’re really coming off as rather unpleasant, although I don’t think you intend to.
My 2 cents, anyway. And now, I really do have to run.
And on this, you are exactly right. I’d point out that it should be taken a step further still–that there is some level of probability, some weight of evidence, above which the difference between evidence and proof is only interesting to mathematicians and philosophers.
This is obviously true in our ordinary lives (and in many other contexts). I saw a quarter on the street today–all I could see is the head. Obviously, I have no proof there’s a tails side. It looked like an ordinary quarter–but it’s only a very high probability, not a certainty, that it has a tails side. That was enough for me.
Similarly, it’s surely possible that somewhere in the earth’s crust, or mantle, there is a blob of stone about the size of a fist that works in a way completely incomprehensible under our current understanding of chemistry and geology–that could turn lead into gold by magic. We can’t prove, by frank’s standard, that such a thing doesn’t exist. However, the fact that nobody has ever found such a thing, or identified (or even proposed) any mechanism by which such a substance could work, makes it crazy for serious scientists to even suggest looking for such a thing.
But that is enough evidence for Stanford to disband the team of chemists it had looking for the Philosopher’s stone (it took them a while, but give them credit, they do work at a junior college). In all seriousness, you’d be (quite correctly) laughed at if you applied to the chemistry or geology department at any U.S. university with the thesis proposal of finding the philosopher’s stone. So for scientists, sufficient evidence of absence of a phenomenon is more than enough to justify the practical conclusion that the phenomenon doesn’t exist.
So, at least to the extent I can think of examples, for every practical purpose in the world, sufficient evidence of absence can and often does justify a belief that a phenomenon doesn’t exist.
Begbert…a lack of evidence of “x” IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT “x” does not exist…it is merely “evidence” that there is no evidence that “x” exists.
If you do not get that…no amount of going over it will ever get it through to you.
If you truly think that a lack of evidence that “x” exists IS EVIDENCE that “x” does not exist…in my example you would have to say: Yes, Frank, the fact that we do not have any evidence whatsoever that sentient life exists on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol…IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO SENTIENT LIFE THERE.
But that would be an idiotic statement to make…and you realize that.
The reason it is idiotic, begbert, is that a lack of evidence that “x” exists IS NOT EVIDENCE that “x” does not exist.
There isn’t anyhere between Theist and Weak Atheist - Atheism has claimed the 0 on the numberline. Babies with no beliefs at all are atheists. Rocks are atheists. (Truly, atheists are an intellectual bunch.)
Frank would like the ‘0’ on the numberline between asserted positive belief in a god and asserted negative belief in a god to be unclaimed - or rather claimed by “agnostic” - he wants to put agnositic on the numberline. Heck, as best I can tell he wants to give it weak atheism’s place on the numberline. Which is all well and good, except it’s completely wrong.
And I’m not worried about coming of rather unpleasant. He’s coming off as completely insulting - and constantly misrepresenting my very words to boot! (‘Recruit’ him, my ass.)
Sure…it’s is evidence that there is a lack of evidence. Completely with you there, assuming I am understanding what you are getting at. As I said earlier (before the thread started getting really ugly), I’ve looked at the lack of evidence and concluded that, to me, there is no God or gods. I can’t categorically state definitively that there were, are or never will be such beings, only that I see no evidence for their existence, and so am able to reach a satisfactory working world view wrt theism. If further evidence comes forth at some future time then I’ll be more than happy to re-evaluate my position, stance and world view, but I don’t expect it to be necessary in the same way I don’t expect to change my stance on 9/11, the Easter Bunny, Santa or the JFK assassination.
I wish I could understand the hostility towards an agnostic stance on this board, but I’ve read through this entire thread (and participated in several before) and I still don’t get it. I’d think atheists would be happy to live and let live, especially with folks who are for all intents and purposes ‘on their side’ wrt theologists and a theistic world view (at least for non-theistic agnostics), but such isn’t the case. In the last few months I’ve come to realize that, at least on this board, ANY middle of the road or centrist type stance seems to, in some cases, generate more ire and animosity than people of a completely opposite view does, at least with some posters. Ah well…
I’m sorry, Whorfin…but a lack of evidence that “x” exists…IS NOT EVIDENCE that it does not exist. It is merely evidence that no evidence exists for “x” existing.
That is not the same thing.
If you want to…you can probably google the “lack of evidence” fallacy…and read through what will probably be a billion references on this.
Lack of evidence for “x” simply is not evidence of any kind for the non-existence of “x.” That notion is a logical fallacy.
Don’t move the goalposts to the stupid sentient life scenario - answer the hypothetical I gave. Swans. Green ones. In a grid. Check all the squares. No swans. evidence or not?
Also, this absence of evidence thing? It’s not really why atheists don’t believe in gods. What it is, is why theists are full of crap. Their belief (almost universally) relies on claims that their god-of-choice has messed with the world in some way. By demonstrating the lack of divine intervention, we yank the rug out from under the specific dieties of the theists are claiming exist. Without evidence we can be quite certain that the theists are making things up - because they’d have to be guessing too. Even if they guessed right, it would have to be by pure luck, if there is no evidence for them to go on.
But the lack of evidence isn’t why we think there aren’t other unnamed unworshipped gods. The reason for that is that such gods are as a class defined to be existing in defiance of the laws of physics. Super-natural, right? While everying that’s real is natural-natural. So we dismiss them out of hand.
Of course if there were evidence for them that’d be different. But there isn’t, so we naturally default to not believing in magic.
What argument are you making other than stating that lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist? Seriously. I think I’m missing it.
You yourself said you’d guess the next toss would be heads. Why would you make that guess? According to you, you have no evidence the coin doesn’t have a tail side.
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. There is no proof that anything ever existed at any time. Strong evidence, but no proof. Most people would look at a coin coming up 1,000,000,000 heads in a row to be as strong a proof of as “no tails” as we’ve ever known for anything. Your cat, keyboard and everything else around you could be part of a dream. You can’t possibly know they are real, according to what you’ve said so far, because there is always the possibility that there is something else to explain what your seeing, feeling and otherwise experiencing.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are agnostic as to whether Czarcasm is an all-powerful god, and it would be perfectly sensible for Stanford’s geology department to grant a PhD for a candidate whose thesis is on a search for the philosopher’s stone?
Or, as I asked in the last thread, should we be agnostic as to whether Gravity will exist tomorrow (or by analogy, at any future point)? After all, there is NO EVIDENCE that there isn’t any phenomenon that will be undetectable until tomorrow at 9 AM, but at that point, will suddenly change the law of gravity in a gross way–such that (for example) the force is reduced to a level at which we can all jump 100’ in the air?
If you read my post, I do in fact understand the distinction between absolute, mathematical proof, and extreme weight of the evidence. That is my point–that the difference between difference between infinitely improbable and actually disproved is irrelevant in any meaningful context. That is why I picked up the quarter, Czarcasm isn’t a god, Stanford doesn’t have a “philosopher’s stone” track in its Geology PhD program, and I can go camping without worrying about whether gravity will cease to exist overnight (and so the lack of a roof will have dire consequences).
The first and third sentence don’t seem to be consistent to me. Either a lack of evidence is enough to reach a conclusion or it meaningless. You can’t have it both ways.
I apologize if I’ve come across as being hostile towards agnostics. I don’t mean to. As far as I’m concerned live and let live.
It all depends on the conclusion reached and the level of certainty placed on it. If one places absolute certainty on a conclusion reached solely from a lack of evidence then I think that’s a problem. But to say no conclusion can be reached at all is equally a problem. Certainly, based on the evidence or lack there of, SOME conclusions can be confidently asserted IMHO. The crux, to me, comes in taking what to me is a reasonable conclusion and then asserting certainty. And this doesn’t just go for the whole God/No God thingy, but for life in general. Probably why I’m a born skeptic, I guess.
I don’t think you were one of the more egregious posters in this regard. And, to a certain degree, it’s been a heated debate, both in this thread and in the past, which is why I think the Mods allowed a bit more leeway than they normally do when people were skating on thinner ice.
All that we can be certain of in this life are abstract self-contained systems, where you get to define the axioms. 1+1=2, is asserted, therefore, it’s true. Will I be eaten by a grue if somebody turns the light off?..well, I’m pretty sure I can leave the lantern at home.
Of course, modern language is kind of forgiving of those exceptional probabilities. I’m allowed to “know” that I’m human, merely because the fallible evidence of my eyes and ears and so forth over my entire life stored in my fallible memory supports the conclusion. Sure, I may wake up from the simulator tomorrow as a hyperintelligenr gerbil, but despite that I don’t have to go around saying “I’m probably a human, I think.” Levels of certainty above “pretty sure” get a pass as being “knowledge” - and in fact that’s what 99.99% of our knowledge is.
Another way to say it is, when you “know” something? That just means you believe it without significant doubt. It doesn’t mean you can’t be wrong - and you can even be aware of the theoretical possibility that you might be wrong, and still “know” it if that possibility doesn’t engender uncertainty in you.
It’s me, ain’t it!
But I don’t mind that he’s an agnostic. Heck, I’m an agnostic. I’m bothered by the fact that to stake a place for agnosticism as a special exclusive status, he’s felt the need to grossly misrepresent atheism, to turn it into a stupid position that he can feel superior to.
