# How should atheists and agnostics view each other? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762 "2010-04-02T19:14:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/241 "2010-04-18T07:38:14Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So an entirely physical object, then. Definitionally impossible by our definition of Universe. By this I mean it’s definitionally impossible for such to pre-exist the Universe and still have an effect on it - the Universe is definitionally a closed system. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/242 "2010-04-18T12:11:02Z")
Speaking of definitions: > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m asking because the word is a subjective measure, and you clearly have some sort of scale in mind, but aren’t being particularly forthcoming with your standards. That, and you use weasel words like “especially” coupled with it. I explained why I think absolute atheism produces meaningful results for me (in a way that agnosticism wouldn’t) - but clearly you’re taking some sort of “No True Fruit” approach here, which is a game I just don’t want to play. Please define “absolute atheism”. According to a search of this thread, the above quote is the only time in this thread that you’ve said “absolute atheism”. BTW, I asked whether my question – How is an atheist’s behavior different from an agnositic’s behavior? – is especially fruitful. I didn’t question whether atheism (absolute or otherwise) can produce meaningful results for you or for anyone else, nor was I questioning whether this thread as a whole is fruitful. I was suggesting a shift in focus to make it more fruitful. Also, I see that you used the weasel word “particularly”. Please define “forthcoming”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/243 "2010-04-18T13:31:14Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > One possible difference in behavior could be that the agnostic (assuming this is defined as a person that does not have a belief one way or another) spends more time thinking about the question in the hopes of some additional enlightenment. The atheist may not feel the need to keep re-evaluating. I agree, although, I’m not sure that “thinking” (on its own) is considered a behavior. Also, I’d say that an agnostic is more likely to attend a meeting or gathering that deals with “spiritual stuff”. And, an agnostic probably won’t participate in [militant atheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/244 "2010-04-18T16:23:34Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > Speaking of definitions: > Please define “absolute atheism”. Atheism that claims 100% certainty in the nonexistence of any deity. > [@](#): > > According to a search of this thread, the above quote is the only time in this thread that you’ve said “absolute atheism”. The meaning should be clear from context, as I’m the only one here to claim 100% certainty. > [@](#): > > BTW, I asked whether my question – How is an atheist’s behavior different from an agnositic’s behavior? – is especially fruitful. I didn’t question whether atheism (absolute or otherwise) can produce meaningful results for you or for anyone else, nor was I questioning whether this thread as a whole is fruitful. I was suggesting a shift in focus to make it more fruitful. Gotcha, my bad. > [@](#): > > Also, I see that you used the weasel word “particularly”. Please define “forthcoming”. 😉 Cute:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/245 "2010-04-19T17:45:04Z")
First I just have to say: good grief. I assert in advance that I’m not going to play dumbass definitional games to _that_ level. Questioning the definition of ‘atheist’ or ‘agnostic’ is fine. Questioning the definition of “a being/entity” is _not_. So don’t even **try** to go there with me. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Nonsense. I could develop a mathematical system where axiomatically, 1+1=3, but it wouldn’t be as correct as a 1+1=2 system. This is because the 1+1=2 system isn’t \*just \*axiomatically correct, but also ties into the real world system. In fact, it wasn’t developed as a philosophical construct from first principles, but rather a descriptive system with a philosophical veneer overlaid on it. Ditto with logical systems. So in that regard, they don’t differ from your example of the truth of real-world systems, because they \*are \*real-world systems. > > I disagree that that is the case with basic arithmetic (the mathematics type I used in my analogy) - Simple counting is very much tied to real-world systems. Dead wrong, my friend, in every particular. 1+1=3 could be axiomatically true and correct - it would just make the system less parallel with the world as we know it and then less _useful_. (Assuming you didn’t just redefine “3” as “2”, anyway. 01 + 01 = 10, after all.) Math has always been abstract - just very very functional and with the first hundred or so advancements in its development done for purely functional reasons in real-world applications. (Though always with abstract implications; the counting numbers are without limit - they’re infinite. Always have been, so far as I know. But there’s no practical reason to support _infinite_ counting numbers; that’s purely a result of the abtraction.) Unless I’m very mistaken, logic only had three steps in the real world: the language concepts of and, or, and not. _Everything_ that we consider as “logic” nowadays was designed in the abstract, deliberately. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m 100% certain the Sun will rise tomorrow, too. So run with that then. We could have a nice discussion about how genuine “certainty” can and does coexist with a conscious awareness of the possibility of error, possibly due to that being a tolerably low level of cognitive dissonance. But such a discussion is confounded by examples where there _isn’t_ a possibility of error, like in math. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, they’re not. They’re modal statements that have _no_ bearing on reality, only philosophical constructs. Don’t be daft - gods are posited as real things, exactly like you or me, but with mad skills like Neo into the Matrix (usually). > [@MrDibble](#): > > Again, name me a god that can’t. Heh, you forgot to say “that somebody worships” this time, which makes it easy: I’ll give you _four_. That are all undisprovable for completely different reasons! 1. The diest noninterventionist creator god, that touched off the big bang and then walked away. This one has left no evidence of itself in the observable universe because it left before the universe got properly started; any fingerprints it might have left are on the backside of the big explosion and unobservable. I should note that some people _do_ believe in this diety - and perhaps three of them are honest enough to ascribe no other attributes to it at all. 2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is undisprovable because it mucks with and falsifies the evidence as you observe it. Therefore, it’s impossible to prove it exists, because it can erase its noodleprints just as you are about to notice them - or rather, we notice them everywhere, because the laws of physics themselves _are_ its noodleprints. But since it’s completely consistent and impartial in its intervention (excepting regarding pirates and global warming), we don’t classify its intervention as sentient intervention. 3. Me. I’m an author, and to the characters of my books I’m god - creator and all-powerful manipulator. (Be wary of laughing this classification off, until you can prove that _you’re_ not a character in a book.) The reason my characters don’t detect me\* and can’t disprove me is not because I’m noninterventionist or because I’m perfectly consistent; it’s because I control their very thoughts and don’t let them notice my many manipulations and realize there’s a single manipulator behind them. (And yes, they still think they have free will, just like you.) - Okay, one character who I gave a completely and deliberately horrible ability to has concluded (or at least joked) that there’s a god, and that that person hates them, which is probably close enough. (I don’t hate them but I sure ACT like I do. :)) I don’t normally mess with the fourth wall but this was in-universe enough I decided to go for it. 1. My styrofoam cup. It’s a god because I say so! It’s non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnipresent (it _is_ omni-benevolent though), and _is_ interventionistic - it uses its magic materialistic powers to keep my water from pouring all over my desk. And before you scream that it’s not a god, keep in mind that it wouldn’t be the first god to be rather seriously non-omni, and if you want to declare it’s not a god it’s up to _ **you** _ to come up with a mutually-acceptable definition of “god” that excludes it. And which preferably _doesn’t_ exclude the various weaksauce gods in various belief systems that don’t do much either. (Oh, and it’s undisprovable for obvious reasons.) > [@MrDibble](#): > > There’s no one logical system, and logical systems to deal with both possible objects and changing certainties both exist. > > But like I said earlier, I’m heading to the view that this is going nowhere until the definition of “god” we’re using is made absolutely clear. Try throwing out a definition **yourself** and we can discuss it. But beware, it’s going to have to be pretty inclusive. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/246 "2010-04-19T20:47:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I can’t do that unless I know the answers to the definitional questions that are sure to come up. It shouldn’t take 10 posts to get to the meat of things, though, in fact, I think we’re there already. The “god” you’ve just proposed has no supernatural element, and is therefore, definitionally, \*not \*a god. Clearly, on a scale of god-ness, this god is in the minor leagues. And I’m ok to define god however we think makes sense, so, if the god is required to be super-natural, then we need to discuss what it means to be super-natural. This leads to the next question: what are the boundaries of super-natural? Is anything that has the ability to influence/interact with energy/matter considered natural? Even if this thing existed in such a manner that we are unable to describe it using any kind of math/physics, would it still be natural due to the fact that it can interact with energy/matter? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/247 "2010-04-19T21:18:41Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > First I just have to say: good grief. I assert in advance that I’m not going to play dumbass definitional games to _that_ level. Questioning the definition of ‘atheist’ or ‘agnostic’ is fine. Questioning the definition of “a being/entity” is _not_. So don’t even **try** to go there with me. Well, then it’s pretty much a non-starter. If you can’t define “being”, you can’t define anything, IMO. > [@](#): > > Dead wrong, my friend, in every particular. 1+1=3 could be axiomatically true and correct - it would just make the system less parallel with the world as we know it and then less _useful_. Axiomatically true, in my opinion, isn’t the same as “really true”. 1+1=2 is both. > [@](#): > > (Assuming you didn’t just redefine “3” as “2”, anyway. 01 + 01 = 10, after all.) Porting it do the binary notation doesn’t make it any different. You just wrote “1+1=2” in another language, is all. > [@](#): > > Math has always been abstract I absolutely disagree. > [@](#): > > - just very very functional and with the first hundred or so advancements in its development done for purely functional reasons in real-world applications. This is totally inconsistent with the preceding statement. > [@](#): > > (Though always with abstract implications; the counting numbers are without limit - they’re infinite. Always have been, so far as I know. But there’s no practical reason to support _infinite_ counting numbers; that’s purely a result of the abtraction.) I disagree. The idea that you can always count “one bigger” is a concrete idea. > [@](#): > > Unless I’m very mistaken, logic only had three steps in the real world: the language concepts of and, or, and not. _Everything_ that we consider as “logic” nowadays was designed in the abstract, deliberately. I disagree. You leave out the entirety of both modal and fuzzy logics, both of which have real world groundings. > [@](#): > > Don’t be daft - gods are posited as real things, exactly like you or me, but with mad skills like Neo into the Matrix (usually). Is Neo a “real thing”? Possible gods are just that - possible entities, often just philosophical constructs. You hypothetical god, for instance, is not a real construct, in the sense that even a grain of sand is. Much more like Schroedinger’s Cat, or Einstein’s Twins, in fact. > [@](#): > > Heh, you forgot to say “that somebody worships” this time, which makes it easy: I’ll give you _four_. That are all undisprovable for completely different reasons! > > 1. The diest noninterventionist creator god, that touched off the big bang and then walked away. This one has left no evidence of itself in the observable universe because it left before the universe got properly started; any fingerprints it might have left are on the backside of the big explosion and unobservable. …and nonexistent. “Before the Big Bang” is a category error like “Married Bachelor”. Definitionally impossible. > [@](#): > > 1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is undisprovable because it mucks with and falsifies the evidence as you observe it. Therefore, it’s impossible to prove it exists, because it can erase its noodleprints just as you are about to notice them - or rather, we notice them everywhere, because the laws of physics themselves _are_ its noodleprints. But since it’s completely consistent and impartial in its intervention (excepting regarding pirates and global warming), we don’t classify its intervention as sentient intervention. No-one proposes the FSM as anything other than a philosophical gotcha. It’s not worthy of serious consideration - but since it has a physical effect, it is not undisprovable, I’m afraid. > [@](#): > > 1. Me. I’m an author, and to the characters of my books I’m god - creator and all-powerful manipulator. (Be wary of laughing this classification off, until you can prove that _you’re_ not a character in a book.) The reason my characters don’t detect me\* and can’t disprove me is not because I’m noninterventionist or because I’m perfectly consistent; it’s because I control their very thoughts and don’t let them notice my many manipulations and realize there’s a single manipulator behind them. (And yes, they still think they have free will, just like you.) Now you’re reaching. No, you’re not a god. But even if you claim to be, you surely have a physical presence and are not undisprovable. > [@](#): > > 1. My styrofoam cup. It’s a god because I say so! It’s non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnipresent (it _is_ omni-benevolent though), and _is_ interventionistic - it uses its magic materialistic powers to keep my water from pouring all over my desk. And before you scream that it’s not a god, keep in mind that it wouldn’t be the first god to be rather seriously non-omni, and if you want to declare it’s not a god it’s up to _ **you** _ to come up with a mutually-acceptable definition of “god” that excludes it. Is it supernatural, or immortal in any way? No? Sentient? No? Not a god. > [@](#): > > And which preferably _doesn’t_ exclude the various weaksauce gods in various belief systems that don’t do much either. (Oh, and it’s undisprovable for obvious reasons.) How so? I could, presumably, travel to your location and interact with your cup. Not undisproveable. > [@](#): > > Try throwing out a definition **yourself** and we can discuss it. But beware, it’s going to have to be pretty inclusive. I’m happy with the broadest definition from M-W: “any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/248 "2010-04-19T21:26:11Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > This leads to the next question: what are the boundaries of super-natural? Is anything that has the ability to influence/interact with energy/matter considered natural? It would depend on _how it interacted with matter, wouldn’t it? But in general, I’d say no, if it has a physical effect, it’s natural. Supernatural, to me_, is another way of saying “non-existent”. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/249 "2010-04-19T22:45:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Well, then it’s pretty much a non-starter. If you can’t define “being”, you can’t define anything, IMO.Axiomatically true, in my opinion, isn’t the same as “really true”. 1+1=2 is both.Porting it do the binary notation doesn’t make it any different. You just wrote “1+1=2” in another language, is all.I absolutely disagree.This is totally inconsistent with the preceding statement.I disagree. The idea that you can always count “one bigger” is a concrete idea.I disagree. You leave out the entirety of both modal and fuzzy logics, both of which have real world groundings. I’m just going to shovel this into a box and staple it shut. There may be other threads where it would be productive to try and teach you the clear and true fact that math and logic are abstract systems supported only by their own axioms and definitions. (How you missed this when they mentioned it in school is beyond me.) However this is not that thread. All I wanted you to do here was to stop comparing apples to rutabagas - things defined by axiom are _clearly_ not the same sort of knowledge as things based solely on evidence. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Is Neo a “real thing”? Obviously not - but I never said he was. I said gods were _like_ him. Are you deliberately missing my point, or is it a natural gift? > [@MrDibble](#): > > Possible gods are just that - possible entities, often just philosophical constructs. You hypothetical god, for instance, is not a real construct, in the sense that even a grain of sand is. Much more like Schroedinger’s Cat, or Einstein’s Twins, in fact. _My_ hypothetical god? And how in the hell do _you_ know what’s real, if you can’t observe it? Are you God or something? > [@MrDibble](#): > > …and nonexistent. “Before the Big Bang” is a category error like “Married Bachelor”. Definitionally impossible. …in one model of reality. “Once upon a time, there was a big bang. Before it nothing existed, and from it a universe sprang, and eventually imploded, exactly ten-thousand years later. The end.” The content of the prior quote marks is its own mini-universe, with its own timeline (ten thousand years long). Do you claim to have existed before the big bang in my little story? But nothing exists before it. Therefore you’re a category error and don’t exist, right? > [@MrDibble](#): > > No-one proposes the FSM as anything other than a philosophical gotcha. It’s not worthy of serious consideration - but since it has a physical effect, it is not undisprovable, I’m afraid. Afraid, and _wrong_. Did you even bother to read what you responded to? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Things with physical effect can only be disproven if you can _observe_ the physical effect. The FSM cleans up after itself, remaking the universe in an exact simulation of what it would have been if the FSM wasn’t there. It’s like the horse that drags a blanket behind it to disguise its own footprints - there’s nothing left for you to track. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Now you’re reaching. No, you’re not a god. But even if you claim to be, you surely have a physical presence and are not undisprovable. I’m a god to my characters - even by the definition you give below, aside from the retarded and obviously incorrect “worshipped” part. I’m certainly at an external level of reality to their world and “some part of the world or some aspect of life”. (Heck, I explicitly control _all_ of it, down to the last detail.) So I am **definitely** a god. And I have no physical presence inside the book. How are they supposed to prove that I exist? Or rather, since we’re talking about un **dis** provability, how are they supposed to prove I _don’t_ exist? Keep in mind that I simply am not letting the thought occur to them either way. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Is it supernatural, or immortal in any way? No? Sentient? No? Not a god. > > How so? I could, presumably, travel to your location and interact with your cup. Not undisproveable. You can’t disprove the existence of my cup because if you traveled to my location and interacted with it, you’d discover that it in fact exists. I presumed that that would be obvious. Clearly I should make no such assumptions. And who ever said gods had to be immortal? Gods get killed all the time in old myths. Sometimes it even takes! And I _defy_ you to prove that my cup doesn’t have a supernatural side, or that that side isn’t sentient. Go ahead. I await your proof. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m happy with the broadest definition from M-W: “any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force” I reject that on the fact of it because of the term “worshipped”. Supposing all humans died off. Thor might go unworshipped, but that doesn’t retroactively demote him from god status. I also reject that something stops being a god the moment it takes a breather. Which means that it merely needs the _ability or potential_ to control their world or life or be a personified force. Other than that this will do. Problem for you is, with my motifications ancient gods for which all evidence has been lost count, and you can’t disprove them; also you couldn’t disprove a supernatural personification of wind in _any_ case, not even on your best day. It has occured to me that my prior post can be summarized as follows: To be able to prove or disprove the existence of a diety, you have to be able to observe evidence of actions (or expected actions) of the diety on reality, and recognize those actions as the actions (or expected actions) of the diety. The undisprovable dieties I made mapped to the following four exceptions: 1. There is no observable evidence. 2. There is evidence, but the diety makes it unobservable. 3. There is evidence, but the diety makes it unrecognizeable as being of a diety. 4. None of the evidence is recognizeable as being of a diety. Clearly all four cases would be exceptions to disprovability. Seriously man. It’s fine not to believe in the fiction. But you can’t possibly disprove it all. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/250 "2010-04-19T23:48:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Afraid, and wrong. Did you even bother to read what you responded to? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Things with physical effect can only be disproven if you can observe the physical effect. The FSM cleans up after itself, remaking the universe in an exact simulation of what it would have been if the FSM wasn’t there. It’s like the horse that drags a blanket behind it to disguise its own footprints - there’s nothing left for you to track. To have an effect and then be able to clean up after itself such that the effect can not be detected is probably only possible for a subset of all possible states. I would guess that, for many states, the cleanup would require a resulting inconsistency in the state of the universe. For example, a particle whose attributes can not be arrived at when performing calculations based on surrounding particles path/momentum/etc. In the case of the horse, dragging a blanket doesn’t remove the evidence of the compacted area underneath the hoof prints. If the hoof prints are returned to a prior state, then the surrounding environment will have excess heat due to the additional work performed, thus leaving evidence for a detective with the proper tools. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/251 "2010-04-19T23:50:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Seriously man. It’s fine not to believe in the fiction. But you can’t possibly disprove it all. Can we label this the “agnostic” position? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/252 "2010-04-20T00:05:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > To have an effect and then be able to clean up after itself such that the effect can not be detected is probably only possible for a subset of all possible states. I would guess that, for many states, the cleanup would require a resulting inconsistency in the state of the universe. For example, a particle whose attributes can not be arrived at when performing calculations based on surrounding particles path/momentum/etc. > > In the case of the horse, dragging a blanket doesn’t remove the evidence of the compacted area underneath the hoof prints. If the hoof prints are returned to a prior state, then the surrounding environment will have excess heat due to the additional work performed, thus leaving evidence for a detective with the proper tools. That’s why we call him a god - because he’s _awesome_. His cleanups are _perfect_. Though to be precise about the specific case of the FSM, he’s also _lazy_, so technically he _doesn’t_ clean up the footprints; he waits until you actually go and try and observe them, and then changes the results of your observations. He changes your numbers and doctors your photographs in real-time; presumably changing the light as it travels from the evidence to your eyes if that’s what it takes. This is of course more work for him, but then again the point in defining him this way was probably to make him as absurd as possible and still technically be undisprovable and thus a valid competing creation theory. Because, you know, argumentum ad absurdum. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Can we label this the “agnostic” position? Which agnostic position? It’s certainly the _philosophical_ agnostic position, which I maintain all atheists on the planet and in the entire universe (except **MrDibble** ) hold. However it’s certainly not the kind of agnosticism that excludes one from asserting the atheist position. In fact, as I alluded to in a post to **MrDibble** a little while ago, it’s not even inconsistent with a person being 100% certain that no gods exist, due to the human mind being able to tolerate a little cognitive dissonace. Can the FSM be disproven? As a matter of knowability, no. But I’m still 100% certain that he doesn’t exist, as a matter of _belief_. From a belief standpoint I’m a pretty hard atheist about the FSM. (To be a belief-agnostic is to be between your thresholds of belief, as you recall - which is merely a subset of philosophical-agnostic positions.) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/253 "2010-04-20T10:51:11Z")
Firstly, check your tone. I’ve been perfectly civil with you so far, do me the same courtesy. > [@begbert2](#): > > I’m just going to shovel this into a box and staple it shut. There may be other threads where it would be productive to try and teach you the clear and true fact that math and logic are abstract systems supported only by their own axioms and definitions. (How you missed this when they mentioned it in school is beyond me.) However this is not that thread. All I wanted you to do here was to stop comparing apples to rutabagas - things defined by axiom are _clearly_ not the same sort of knowledge as things based solely on evidence. A…and I’m saying common arithmetic is neither. > [@](#): > > Obviously not - but I never said he was. I said gods were _like_ him. “Like him” how? In their “mad skills”, you say? But Neo is a fictional character - we can assign him any mad skills we like and not worry about consistency. This is what separates the real from the fictional, IMO. So my point, perhaps too subtly put, was that pointing to how gods are like other fictional characters is a point against them. > [@](#): > > Are you deliberately missing my point, or is it a natural gift? No, I’m using a little thing called “rhetoric”. Making my point sometimes by the way I say things in as much as what I say, and not just making my point to persuade _you_. You seem to prefer pure dialectic, but nothing compels me to debate your way. > [@](#): > > _My_ hypothetical god? Yes, the one _you_ proposed in the debate. That makes it _yours_, in one common sense of the possessive. > [@](#): > > And how in the hell do _you_ know what’s real, if you can’t observe it? Are you God or something? No, just human. With a functioning brain. > [@](#): > > …in one model of reality. Yes. The one that works. > [@](#): > > “Once upon a time, there was a big bang. Before it nothing existed, and from it a universe sprang, and eventually imploded, exactly ten-thousand years later. The end.” The content of the prior quote marks is its own mini-universe, with its own timeline (ten thousand years long). Do you claim to have existed before the big bang in my little story? But nothing exists before it. Therefore you’re a category error and don’t exist, right? Cute. But your little fictional Universe isn’t real. > [@](#): > > Afraid, and _wrong_. Did you even bother to read what you responded to? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Things with physical effect can only be disproven if you can _observe_ the physical effect. Not true. The lack thereof would also count. But irrelevant. The point isn’t whether I have or can currently observe the FSM. The point is whether observation of the FSM is even possible, and I say, if it interacts with the physical realm (to place fossils, to alter C14 readings), then it is, in fact, possible to detect. Baldly asserting that it isn’t, by definition, is no counter-argument. > [@](#): > > t’s like the horse that drags a blanket behind it to disguise its own footprints - there’s nothing left for you to track. Of course there is - there’s a blanket trail. Short of bald assertion, there’s no other evidence for a FSM. Like I said about the other god, a cute little thought experiment, but not a real god. > [@](#): > > I’m a god to my characters - even by the definition you give below, aside from the retarded and obviously incorrect “worshipped” part. Take it up with the dictionaries. “Worshipped” is an integral part of what makes a god a god. And so what if you’re a god to a bunch of fictional characters? That doesn’t make it real. I roleplay gods all the time as a DM, doesn’t make them any more real. > [@](#): > > I’m certainly at an external level of reality to their world and “some part of the world or some aspect of life”. (Heck, I explicitly control _all_ of it, down to the last detail.) So I am **definitely** a god. “their world” is not “the world”. You’re a god to them, doesn’t make you “a god” for real. > [@](#): > > And I have no physical presence inside the book. How are they supposed to prove that I exist? Or rather, since we’re talking about un **dis** provability, how are they supposed to prove I _don’t_ exist? Keep in mind that I simply am not letting the thought occur to them either way. I could give a toss whether you’re undisproveable to them. What matters is whether you’re undisproveable _to me_. And you’re not. > [@](#): > > You can’t disprove the existence of my cup because if you traveled to my location and interacted with it, you’d discover that it in fact exists. I presumed that that would be obvious. Clearly I should make no such assumptions. If something can be proven to exist, it is just as disproveable as if it doesn’t. The disproof is just negative. That’s what “undisproveable” means - that you can’t say either way. But if you can, either yeah or nay, then the thing _is_ disproveable. Have you been labouring under the assumption that undisproveability only works for the positive case? > [@](#): > > And who ever said gods had to be immortal? Gods get killed all the time in old myths. Sometimes it even takes! “All the time”? Some do, it’s true, but a) there are different kinds of immortality. Absolute immunity to death is only one kind. Merely being very long-lived, or eternally youthful but subject to trauma, is another. b) it’s not my definition, it’s the generally accepted definition of a god. “Immortality” is right up there with “supernatural” as a defining trait of deity. See, this is why definitions are important. If you’re not going to agree with even the most basic, commonly-held properties of deity, we may as well be speaking different languages. > [@](#): > > And I _defy_ you to prove that my cup doesn’t have a supernatural side, or that that side isn’t sentient. Go ahead. I await your proof. Oh, FFS! It’s a polystyrene cup. Get real. Anyway, mine is not the burden of proof. Foam cups are notorious for _not_ exhibiting any signs of sentience, or supernatural behaviour. Only the person asserting otherwise has something to prove. > [@](#): > > I reject that on the fact of it because of the term “worshipped”. Supposing all humans died off. Thor might go unworshipped, but that doesn’t retroactively demote him from god status. You can see the word “currently” in there? Your eyesight is better than mine, then. > [@](#): > > I also reject that something stops being a god the moment it takes a breather. Which means that it merely needs the _ability or potential_ to control their world or life or be a personified force. Gods are as gods do. If it’s possible to be promoted to godhood, it’s just as possible to stop being one, even temporarily, IMO. > [@](#): > > Other than that this will do. Problem for you is, with my motifications I don’t know what “motifications” means, but if you mean your objections, you can see I don’t agree with all of them, so where does that leave us? > [@](#): > > ancient gods for which all evidence has been lost count, and you can’t disprove them; Wait, I can’t disprove a god that you can’t even provide the slightest evidence for existing or being worshipped? Not even a crude cave painting or the like? I don’t think you understand how this “burden of proof” thing works, can you? > [@](#): > > also you couldn’t disprove a supernatural personification of wind in _any_ case, not even on your best day. “Supernatural personification of wind” is not a complete description of any entity. It’s just a job title. What are its properties? > [@](#): > > It has occured to me that my prior post can be summarized as follows: To be able to prove or disprove the existence of a diety, you have to be able to observe evidence of actions (or expected actions) of the diety on reality, and recognize those actions as the actions (or expected actions) of the diety. The undisprovable dieties I made mapped to the following four exceptions: > > 1. There is no observable evidence. > 2. There is evidence, but the diety makes it unobservable. > 3. There is evidence, but the diety makes it unrecognizeable as being of a diety. > 4. None of the evidence is recognizeable as being of a diety. > > Clearly all four cases would be exceptions to disprovability. They also line up nicely with total non-existence, or fictional existence. I mean, seriously - _All 4_ boil down to the point that I can’t disprove a god _for whom there’s no evidence!_ Seriously? Why would I need to? You’ve already done my job for me. > [@](#): > > Seriously man. It’s fine not to believe in the fiction. But you can’t possibly disprove it all. _I don’t have to_ disprove _fictional gods. You can keep making up as many as you like. It proves nothing about disproveability of the gods people actually worship_, not a one of which is even remotely as undisproveable as your examples. I’m not an atheist when it comes to Cthulhu, or the FSM, or the Great Green Arkleseizure. That would be using the word atheist quite wrongly. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/254 "2010-04-20T11:04:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It has occured to me that my prior post can be summarized as follows: To be able to prove or disprove the existence of a diety, you have to be able to observe evidence of actions (or expected actions) of the diety on reality, and recognize those actions as the actions (or expected actions) of the diety. Forgot this bit - I disagree. I can also show that the given or ennumerated properties of the deity are logically inconsistent, either internally or with the real world, regardless of any actual evidence or lack thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/255 "2010-04-20T13:11:27Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The meaning [of “absolute atheism”] should be clear from context, as I’m the only one here to claim 100% certainty. So, it’s MrDibblism? :dubious: Anyway, I’m wondering how you reconcile your 100% certainty with the fact that many people are 100% certain that some particular version of God/god exists. This is not an appeal to popularity. I am not arguing that God exists because many people believe that God exists. I’m just wondering how you explain the certainty of people who hold a belief that is the opposite of yours. In other words, how you can you be 100% certain that their 100% certainty is wrong? I’ll even throw in what appears to be an appeal to authority (but, it’s not): Your viewpoint is different from that of many highly intelligent people, including various highly regarded scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. Is there any possibility that they have an argument that could introduce some doubt into your 100% certainty? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/256 "2010-04-20T15:16:07Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It would depend on _how it interacted with matter, wouldn’t it? But in general, I’d say no, if it has a physical effect, it’s natural. Supernatural, to me_, is another way of saying “non-existent”. What if we consider it to be super-natural because it goes beyond our current understanding of physics, but can interact with matter/energy and on a scale we would assign to god status. Maybe it’s a 7 dimensional thing and we live in a 4 dimensional ant-farm in it’s 3rd grade class. And, due to the fact that we are constrained to our 4 dimensional world/universe, our brains will never be able to really comprehend this 7 dimensional being and it’s abilities. So, it’s natural in one sense, but from our perspective it appears super-natural. It seems fair to me to call it a god. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/257 "2010-04-20T17:10:30Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > A…and I’m saying common arithmetic is neither. Odin only knows what you think it _is_ then. Regardless, back to the topic at hand… > [@MrDibble](#): > > “Like him” how? In their “mad skills”, you say? But Neo is a fictional character - we can assign him any mad skills we like and not worry about consistency. This is what separates the real from the fictional, IMO. So my point, perhaps too subtly put, was that pointing to how gods are like other fictional characters is a point against them. Of course it’s a point against them - the evidence against gods includes the fact they sound very, very made up. But then again, so did playtypuses; sounding very, very made up is not **proof** they don’t exist. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes, the one _you_ proposed in the debate. That makes it _yours_, in one common sense of the possessive. Who do you think you’re responding to? I’ve proposed four gods: mister non-intervention, the FSM, myself, and Ricardo the styrofoam cup. You are pretty obviously thinking of something and somebody else. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, just human. With a functioning brain. Then you don’t have the evidence-collecting powers to back up your assertions. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes. The one that works. > > Cute. But your little fictional Universe isn’t real. And now we get to the crux of the disagreement - which is largely your apparent lack of imagination. The “supernatural”, if it exists, which I doubt, would be referring to something on a “higher plane” of reality. This term is not referring to a 747 versus a cessna; it’s presuming the existence of something called ‘planes of reality’ and that there are more than one, arranged in a heirarchy. Until you can grok that term, you will personally be incapable of even comprehending the remainder of the debate, obviously. The relation between two-dimensional space and three-dimensional space is a good place to start thinking about heirarchal planes of reality. Have you ever read _Flatland_? The flatland space is an entirely contained subset of the higher-dimensional space, which due to structural limitations of the flatland universe is incapable of directly observing the external space. This would be one example of herarchal universes. It’s my considered opinion that fiction is another - it has all the properties necessary to match the model. The sprawling Star Trek universe exists entirely within our material universe, contained in books, movies, internet resources and people’s heads and imaginations. You baldly assert that this means the universe isn’t “real” - but that just shows that you’re completely missing the point. Nobody’s saying that the subordinate realities are real in the same sense as our realities are, or that our universe would seem ‘real’ from the perspective of a supernatural plane. (In fact the opposite is regularly asserted.) Their differing types of reality, and the fact that different rules govern these universes at different levels of the heirarchy, is _part of the model_. Do try to assimilate that, so that your protests and arguments will be on point? Now, back to the supernatural in question. Claiming that there’s a supernatural plane or universe outside ours is equivalent to claiming that we’re all part of a book, characters in a play, avatars in a MMORPG, or rats in a maze. Are we? I think not. (Though there apparently _is_ some scientific evidence supporting the idea that the universe is digital, not analog, and thus possibly a simulation.) But until you can _prove_ you’re not part of a simulation or some otherwise subsidiary universe, you can’t _prove_ there is no supernatural reality containing our reality in some way. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Not true. The lack thereof would also count. So I missed writing “(or expected actions)” once or twice - sue me. It gets monotonous repeating that. It’s obvious what I meant anyway. > [@MrDibble](#): > > But irrelevant. The point isn’t whether I have or can currently observe the FSM. The point is whether observation of the FSM is even possible, and I say, if it interacts with the physical realm (to place fossils, to alter C14 readings), then it is, in fact, possible to detect. Baldly asserting that it isn’t, by definition, is no counter-argument. > > Of course there is - there’s a blanket trail. Unless the intervention is comprehensive and perfect, intercepting _every_ hint of evidence of itself or the corrections before it can be percieved. You’re claiming that this is impossible, but that’s a silly claim; it’s quite obviously not _theoretically_ impossible. The universe has a natural arrangement of atoms and energy that it would have if there was not a FSM. This natural arrangement could be artificially created by the FSM, and how would you tell different? I’ll answer for you, before you make some outraged (and outrageous) claim: you couldn’t tell. And of course, he wouldn’t even have to go that far, because you wouldn’t be able to tell if a few atoms were out of place - and if someday we learned how to, he could go and clean things up better at that point. What you’re doing here is rejecting the defined properties of the FSM, not because they’re impossible or logically inconsistent, but **only** because you don’t like the result. This is exactly like denying that 1+1=2 because you don’t like the idea of things adding up to 2. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Short of bald assertion, there’s no other evidence for a FSM. Like I said about the other god, a cute little thought experiment, but not a real god. > > Take it up with the dictionaries. “Worshipped” is an integral part of what makes a god a god. Take it up with reality - people have been talking about theoretically provable but unworshipped gods for hundreds of years. Sure, the ontological arguments and the watchmaker argument and the like were originally developed to prove christianity, but when they were (rapidly) shown to fail to prove the Christian god specifically, they were repurposed by people to prove that _something_ exists/created the universe/eats babies or whatever their argument proved, even if they couldn’t further identify it, and **didn’t worship it**. This isn’t new. M-W knows about it; it’s why two of their four definitions about god don’t even _mention_ worship, even if they’re a bit _too_ inclusive, even for my tastes. (Hey, my cup’s valuable! M-W agrees it’s a god!) > [@MrDibble](#): > > And so what if you’re a god to a bunch of fictional characters? That doesn’t make it real. I roleplay gods all the time as a DM, doesn’t make them any more real.“their world” is not “the world”. You’re a god to them, doesn’t make you “a god” for real.I could give a toss whether you’re undisproveable to them. What matters is whether you’re undisproveable _to me_. And you’re not. Again, you gotta comprehend heirarchal realities before you can even _discuss_ the supernatural. > [@MrDibble](#): > > If something can be proven to exist, it is just as disproveable as if it doesn’t. The disproof is just negative. That’s what “undisproveable” means - that you can’t say either way. But if you can, either yeah or nay, then the thing _is_ disproveable. Have you been labouring under the assumption that undisproveability only works for the positive case? Most things that are undisprovable are also unproveable, because people usually only whip out the ten-dollar word when arguing against people demanding they prove a negative, to which they have to explain why they don’t have to (since unlike you they never said they could prove it). However, the word still has that **dis** in it, whether you like it or not. > [@MrDibble](#): > > “All the time”? Some do, it’s true, but a) there are different kinds of immortality. Absolute immunity to death is only one kind. Merely being very long-lived, or eternally youthful but subject to trauma, is another. > b) it’s not my definition, it’s the generally accepted definition of a god. “Immortality” is right up there with “supernatural” as a defining trait of deity. > > See, this is why definitions are important. If you’re not going to agree with even the most basic, commonly-held properties of deity, we may as well be speaking different languages. Right - and I reject any definition of “god” that is so historically ignorant as to think that all or even the majority of gods are unkillable. Get real. Also, it’s pretty lame of you to declare “Immortality” is right up there with “supernatural” as a defining trait of deity, when _your own definition_ includes ‘supernatural’ but not ‘immortality’. **Very** lame, in fact. Moving goalposts much? > [@MrDibble](#): > > Oh, FFS! It’s a polystyrene cup. Get real. Some gods really are quite lame, aren’t they? My personal favorite is Cardea - goddess of the door hinge. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Anyway, mine is not the burden of proof. Foam cups are notorious for _not_ exhibiting any signs of sentience, or supernatural behaviour. Only the person asserting otherwise has something to prove. Au contraire, mon frere. **YOU** are declaring that gods can be **known** not to exist. That’s not the default hypothesis; the default hypothesis is merely that we should assume they don’t until it’s shown that they do, which ain’t gonna happen. And since I am arguing the default hypothesis and you are not, you’re the one shouldering the burden of proof in this little debate. Though I can see why you’d want to push it off on me - you haven’t a _prayer_ of proving your thesis. > [@MrDibble](#): > > You can see the word “currently” in there? Your eyesight is better than mine, then. > > Gods are as gods do. If it’s possible to be promoted to godhood, it’s just as possible to stop being one, even temporarily, IMO. > > I don’t know what “motifications” means, but if you mean your objections, you can see I don’t agree with all of them, so where does that leave us? It leaves you unable to prove your thesis that gods can be proven not to exist. Which is a shame, because I was hoping to move on to your proof of whether P=NP or not. Since a lack of evidence either way apparently isn’t a problem for you, I assume it would have been a snap for you. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Wait, I can’t disprove a god that you can’t even provide the slightest evidence for existing or being worshipped? Not even a crude cave painting or the like? I don’t think you understand how this “burden of proof” thing works, can you?" No, you can’t sit on your laurels and prove or disprove things from a complete lack of evidence. How can you write that, with the word “disprove” right in the sentence, and then accuse _me_ of not understanding burden of proof? :dubious: > [@MrDibble](#): > > Supernatural personification of wind" is not a complete description of any entity. It’s just a job title. What are its properties? If they don’t include anything you can detect from where you’re sitting, who cares? > [@MrDibble](#): > > They also line up nicely with total non-existence, or fictional existence. Sure, which is why we don’t give them an ounce of credibility until we see some evidence in favor. But that doesn’t mean we’ve definitively disproved the existence of the platypus. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I mean, seriously - _All 4_ boil down to the point that I can’t disprove a god _for whom there’s no evidence!_ Seriously? Why would I need to? You’ve already done my job for me. > > _I don’t have to_ disprove _fictional gods. You can keep making up as many as you like. It proves nothing about disproveability of the gods people actually worship_, not a one of which is even remotely as undisproveable as your examples. You don’t have to do anything - unless you’re asserting that you can **know** and/or **prove** that all gods don’t exist, which you have. In which case you’ve just hitched your wagon to a two-ton weight. And as an atheist who likes disproving gods I can say with confidence that some of these gods have gotten so wishy-washy lately that they’re functionally disprovable. You simply can’t gather sufficiently comprehensive stats to prove that the god isn’t deliberately avoiding your studies and sneaking off and doing anecdotes when nobody else is looking. And the texts are suddenly all metaphoric so evolution and the flood and internal inconsistencies are no longer a problem, etc, etc. It’s to be expected given the advance so science; not **all** theists are completely ignorant, after all, and so they wouldn’t all leave their gods standing in the middle of the firing range. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m not an atheist when it comes to Cthulhu, or the FSM, or the Great Green Arkleseizure. That would be using the word atheist quite wrongly. You’re the one tossing around “absolute atheism”, buddy. But otherwise, this line sounds like a complete concession of your position. Is it meant to? (And what _is_ your position on the FSM, then? I’m confused.) > [@MrDibble](#): > > Forgot this bit - I disagree. I can also show that the given or ennumerated properties of the deity are logically inconsistent, either internally or with the real world, regardless of any actual evidence or lack thereof. Presuming the diety’s description is logically inconsistent, sure. I certainly do love the POE myself! But not all dieties are omni (or even benevolent), making them immune to this. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/258 "2010-04-21T06:27:00Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > So, it’s MrDibblism? :dubious: > > Anyway, I’m wondering how you reconcile your 100% certainty with the fact that many people are 100% certain that some particular version of God/god exists. I have \*all \*the evidence on my side? > [@](#): > > I’m just wondering how you explain the certainty of people who hold a belief that is the opposite of yours. Many people are either stupid, desperate, memetically-bound or uneducated? > [@](#): > > In other words, how you can you be 100% certain that their 100% certainty is wrong? Their complete lack of evidence. > [@](#): > > I’ll even throw in what appears to be an appeal to authority (but, it’s not): > Your viewpoint is different from that of many highly intelligent people, including various highly regarded scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. Is there any possibility that they have an argument that could introduce some doubt into your 100% certainty? Not at this stage, no. Maybe 5-10 years ago, but my own studies since then have solidified my thinking that divinity is an incoherent idea, at best. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/259 "2010-04-21T08:43:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > What if we consider it to be super-natural because it goes beyond our current understanding of physics, but can interact with matter/energy and on a scale we would assign to god status. Maybe it’s a 7 dimensional thing and we live in a 4 dimensional ant-farm in it’s 3rd grade class. > > And, due to the fact that we are constrained to our 4 dimensional world/universe, our brains will never be able to really comprehend this 7 dimensional being and it’s abilities. > > So, it’s natural in one sense, but from our perspective it appears super-natural. It seems fair to me to call it a god. I’d just call it a more-powerful being. And if it interacts with our Universe, then it is, by definition, part of our universe, 7 dimensions or no. Does it have a personality? Is it sentient? Does it interact with humanity? How? Why? These, to me, are the definitional questions that are of interest in talking about gods. Not pure hypothetical “what if” gods. Such do not affect my certainty in the slightest. > [@begbert2](#): > > Odin only knows what you think it _is_ then. An evolved system of cognition developed for dealing with quantifying real-world items, mostly in order to communicate these quantities with others (“There were 2 buck and now there is one”) and handle inventory management (“I have 1 spear, there are 1 + 1 lions. Oh Og!”), with an abstraction layer over that developed because people always seem to need justification for their actions. > [@](#): > > Of course it’s a point against them - the evidence against gods includes the fact they sound very, very made up. But then again, so did playtypuses; Platypuses don’t sound made-up at all to me. Curious, yes, made-up, no. > [@](#): > > sounding very, very made up is not **proof** they don’t exist. I didn’t say it was “proof”, I said it was a point against them. You agree. So what’s your beef? > [@](#): > > Who do you think you’re responding to? I’ve proposed four gods: mister non-intervention, the FSM, myself, and Ricardo the styrofoam cup. You are pretty obviously thinking of something and somebody else. Nope - I was referring to your first example. > [@](#): > > Then you don’t have the evidence-collecting powers to back up your assertions. I don’t need powers outside my brain. I didn’t say I was going to \*prove \*anything, merely that I can safely discount your hypothetical god without it raising any crack _in my certainty_. We’re not (I thought) discussing proofs here, merely my claim to certainty. And since my starting axioms include [materialism/physicalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism), anti-Cartesianism, and most especially [verificationism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism), I don’t see the need to argue every little esoteric hypothetical intellectual nitpick. Many, many, many conceptions of gods can be discarded out of hand because they violate verificationism, for instance. > [@](#): > > And now we get to the crux of the disagreement - which is largely your apparent lack of imagination. I can imagine plenty. Not agreeing with you is not a lack of imagination, it’s a grounding in pragmatism. I’m perfectly capable of esoteric debate and lapsing into symbolic logic. I just don’t want to, anymore. Haven’t really felt the need since \*\*Liberal \*\*left. Your confrontational methodology certainly isn’t going to make me change my mind. > [@](#): > > The “supernatural”, if it exists, which I doubt, would be referring to something on a “higher plane” of reality. This term is not referring to a 747 versus a cessna; it’s presuming the existence of something called ‘planes of reality’ and that there are more than one, arranged in a heirarchy. Until you can grok that term, you will personally be incapable of even comprehending the remainder of the debate, obviously. Oh, I “grok” them, I just reject their practicality in this thread. They’re a fiction. Convenient for some discussions, but not one on the hardness of my atheism. They’ve already been dealt with in the foundational aspects of my world-view, I see no need to revisit them everytime someone thinks they need to point out my supposed clay feet. > [@](#): > > The relation between two-dimensional space and three-dimensional space is a good place to start thinking about heirarchal planes of reality. Have you ever read _Flatland_? Yes. You’re aware it’s a work of _fiction_, right? Flatland is a metaphor (and a satire), not a science text. > [@](#): > > The flatland space is an entirely contained subset of the higher-dimensional space, which due to structural limitations of the flatland universe is incapable of directly observing the external space. This would be one example of herarchal universes. Flatland is a universe like the Federation or Narnia is a Universe. i.e. not really. > [@](#): > > It’s my considered opinion that fiction is another Your opinion is bunk. > [@](#): > > - it has all the properties necessary to match the model. Such as? > [@](#): > > The sprawling Star Trek universe exists entirely within our material universe, You could have stopped here. > [@](#): > > contained in books, movies, internet resources and people’s heads and imaginations. You baldly assert that this means the universe isn’t “real” - but that just shows that you’re completely missing the point. Missing the point =/= denying the “point”. > [@](#): > > Nobody’s saying that the subordinate realities are real in the same sense as our realities are, Again, you could have stopped here. > [@](#): > > or that our universe would seem ‘real’ from the perspective of a supernatural plane. (In fact the opposite is regularly asserted.) Their differing types of reality, Yes. The non-existent kind. Hastur’s sake, man, a word like “reality” has deep meaning, you know. You can’t just use whichever variant meaning you like without completely arguing past someone who is clearly using a much more restricted meaning. > [@](#): > > and the fact that different rules govern these universes at different levels of the heirarchy, is _part of the model_. What “model”? What, exactly, is your point? That we should consider every fictional possible world as a case against hard atheism? I’m missing the point, then, clearly. Perhaps you could rephrase rather than just questioning either my intellect or abilities? > [@](#): > > Do try to assimilate that, so that your protests and arguments will be on point? I’m not the one using the “reality” of the frigging Star Trek universe to question someone’s hard atheist stance, Mr “On Point”:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Now, back to the supernatural in question. Claiming that there’s a supernatural plane or universe outside ours is equivalent to claiming that we’re all part of a book, characters in a play, avatars in a MMORPG, or rats in a maze. YEs - just as absurd, just as pointless. > [@](#): > > Are we? I think not. (Though there apparently _is_ some scientific evidence supporting the idea that the universe is digital, not analog, and thus possibly a simulation.) Cite? > [@](#): > > But until you can _prove_ you’re not part of a simulation or some otherwise subsidiary universe, you can’t _prove_ there is no supernatural reality containing our reality in some way. I don’t have to prove anything. I reject the idea that I even need to, _a priori._ > [@](#): > > So I missed writing “(or expected actions)” once or twice - sue me. It gets monotonous repeating that. It’s obvious what I meant anyway. Clearly not. I’m having real difficulty following you, the way you jump from one fictional deity to another > [@](#): > > Unless the intervention is comprehensive and perfect, intercepting _every_ hint of evidence of itself or the corrections before it can be percieved. You’re claiming that this is impossible, but that’s a silly claim; it’s quite obviously not _theoretically_ impossible. Actually, yes, it is. Perfection is not possible - Heisenberg and Gödel saw to that > [@](#): > > The universe has a natural arrangement of atoms and energy that it would have if there was not a FSM. This natural arrangement could be artificially created by the FSM, and how would you tell different? I’ll answer for you, before you make some outraged (and outrageous) claim: you couldn’t tell. And of course, he wouldn’t even have to go that far, because you wouldn’t be able to tell if a few atoms were out of place - and if someday we learned how to, he could go and clean things up better at that point. > > What you’re doing here is rejecting the defined properties of the FSM, not because they’re impossible or logically inconsistent, but **only** because you don’t like the result. Claiming perfect fraud for the FSM is, in fact, what causes me to reject the idea out of hand. It is inconsistent with physicalism. > [@](#): > > This is exactly like denying that 1+1=2 because you don’t like the idea of things adding up to 2. No, it’s like me rejecting the idea that 1+1=Elephant, because it’s a fatuous exercise. > [@](#): > > Take it up with reality - people have been talking about theoretically provable but unworshipped gods for hundreds of years. That’s as may be, bt such gods remain just that - hypothetical constructs. I don’t have to consider them in my atheism anymore than I have to consider Nyarlothep or Crom. > [@](#): > > Sure, the ontological arguments and the watchmaker argument and the like were originally developed to prove christianity, but when they were (rapidly) shown to fail to prove the Christian god specifically, they were repurposed by people to prove that _something_ exists/created the universe/eats babies or whatever their argument proved, even if they couldn’t further identify it, and **didn’t worship it**. …and all the logical arguments against them still work, regardless. But that doesn’t mean I have to bother with arguing against each one when it comes to the roots of my atheism. If you’ve argued against one hypothetical god, you’ve argued against them all. Especially the completely non-evidential ones. I’m a hard atheist when it comes to actual beliefs, not philosophical arguments. Especially ones where my opponents refuse to assign a set of properties to their proposed “god”. > [@](#): > > This isn’t new. M-W knows about it; it’s why two of their four definitions about god don’t even _mention_ worship, even if they’re a bit _too_ inclusive, even for my tastes. (Hey, my cup’s valuable! M-W agrees it’s a god!) So use Wiki. Use Stanford. Whatever. Just give me a fricken defintion, youself. You don’t like my definition? Give me a complete one of your own, and I’ll tell you if I’m 100% certain. Not another \*interminable \*example, **a definition**. > [@](#): > > Again, you gotta comprehend heirarchal realities before you can even _discuss_ the supernatural. I comprehend fiction quite well. > [@](#): > > Most things that are undisprovable are also unproveable, because people usually only whip out the ten-dollar word when arguing against people demanding they prove a negative, to which they have to explain why they don’t have to (since unlike you they never said they could prove it). Most people =/= **MrDibble** > [@](#): > > However, the word still has that **dis** in it, whether you like it or not. Semantics. :rolleyes: That always wins arguments… > [@](#): > > Right - and I reject any definition of “god” that is so historically ignorant as to think that all or even the majority of gods are unkillable. Once again, immortal =/= unkillable. > [@](#): > > Get real. Is that really real, or “heirarchal[sub][sic][/sub] real” > [@](#): > > Also, it’s pretty lame of you to declare “Immortality” is right up there with “supernatural” as a defining trait of deity, when _your own definition_ includes ‘supernatural’ but not ‘immortality’. I didn’t include it in my definition, no. Call it an oversight or, you know… > [@](#): > > Moving goalposts … [/quote] whichever makes you happier. > [@](#): > > Some gods really are quite lame, aren’t they? My personal favorite is Cardea - goddess of the door hinge. Note that she’s not _a_ door hinge. She oversees \*all \*door hinges. > [@](#): > > Au contraire, mon frere. **YOU** are declaring that gods can be **known** not to exist. That’s not the default hypothesis; the default hypothesis is merely that we should assume they don’t until it’s shown that they do, which ain’t gonna happen. And since I am arguing the default hypothesis and you are not, you’re the one shouldering the burden of proof in this little debate. Not the whole debate, the burden of proof that your cup is sentient. > [@](#): > > Though I can see why you’d want to push it off on me - you haven’t a _prayer_ of proving your thesis. What is my thesis, exactly? > [@](#): > > It leaves you unable to prove your thesis that gods can be proven not to exist. No, what it does is leave us unable to agree on the defintion of “god” - which brings us right back to [theological noncognitivism](Theological noncognitivist). If two avowed atheists of various stripes can’t even agree on what exactly the mean by deity, the whole exercise is pointless. > [@](#): > > Which is a shame, because I was hoping to move on to your proof of whether P=NP or not. Since a lack of evidence either way apparently isn’t a problem for you, I assume it would have been a snap for you. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > No, you can’t sit on your laurels and prove or disprove things from a complete lack of evidence. “Complete” being the operative word there. I’m under no \*geas \* to argue against every cockamamie \*possible \*god. Verificationism serves me well enough there. > [@](#): > > How can you write that, with the word “disprove” right in the sentence, and then accuse _me_ of not understanding burden of proof? :dubious: Like I said, if you propose a “god”, but don’t elaborate on his nature or properties, all you’re doing is ..? I don’t even know! > [@](#): > > If they don’t include anything you can detect from where you’re sitting, who cares? Again, I don’t think you understand how provability works, do you? > [@](#): > > Sure, which is why we don’t give them an ounce of credibility until we see some evidence in favor. So, that’s what I’m doing. > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t mean we’ve definitively disproved the existence of the platypus. What does this _non sequitur_ even mean? Platypuses were never a purely theoretical construct made up to prove a point. > [@](#): > > You don’t have to do anything - unless you’re asserting that you can **know** and/or **prove** that all gods don’t exist, which you have. In which case you’ve just hitched your wagon to a two-ton weight. Provability is an established field. All it requires is an enumeration of properties. > [@](#): > > You’re the one tossing around “absolute atheism”, buddy. You’re no buddy of mine. Cut it out. > [@](#): > > But otherwise, this line sounds like a complete concession of your position. Is it meant to? Only if you confuse fictional with real.\* I’d \*speak to a psychiatrist if _I_ did that, though. > [@](#): > > (And what _is_ your position on the FSM, then? I’m confused.) I think he’s a once-amusing, long-overstretched satirical device. And a shit for co-opting Talk Like A Pirate Day. Get your own holiday, slacker. > [@](#): > > Presuming the diety’s description is logically inconsistent, sure. I certainly do love the POE myself! But not all dieties are omni (or even benevolent), making them immune to this. Omnimax is not the only inconsistency. And the PoE works against the merely super-powerful as well as it does against the omni. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762/260 "2010-04-21T14:38:56Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’d just call it a more-powerful being. And if it interacts with our Universe, then it is, by definition, part of our universe, 7 dimensions or no. Are you saying that anything that interacts with our universe is not a god? That seems to go against the grain of the standard definition of an omnipotent god. Maybe your issue is with the way in which it interacts? > [@](#): > > Does it have a personality? Is it sentient? Does it interact with humanity? How? Why? > > These, to me, are the definitional questions that are of interest in talking about gods. Not pure hypothetical “what if” gods. Such do not affect my certainty in the slightest. Do you think a god would have a “yes” next to those questions and if not then not a god? To me it seems more the opposite: if you can answer yes to the first 2 questions then it is not a god because those both seem like animal/human/physical characteristics (although I realize this is in direct contradiction to my 7 dimensional minor league “god”, but for me that’s ok because all of this is an exercise in definitions and mappings, there is really 1 key question: is it possible to interact with/control matter/energy without being considered part of our universe ). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-atheists-and-agnostics-view-each-other/534762.md?page=14)