Wouldn’t this imply that no atheist (or agnostic, or believer in the wrong god) could be kind or compassionate towards others?
It doesn’t imply anything. Anyone can be kind and compassionate toward others. Those that do will quickly see the benefits of their compassion, and learn: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
If the person doesn’t believe in the dieties in question, then they’re a soft atheist. The difference between a soft atheist and a hard atheist is that the soft atheist has no evidence, but (unlike the hard atheist) does not think it is reasonable to conclude all definitions are impossible. This doesn’t necessarily stop them from being an atheist, though, because just because something is possible doesn’t mean you have to believe in it. For example the FSM is by defintion both possible and undisprovable, but I still don’t believe in him. Do you?
As noted, all soft atheists are also (philosphical) agnostics, which is probably what you actually were hoping to hear here. So yeah, this describes agnostics too.
Keep in mind, though, that you can also in theory be a theist that thinks there is no evidence (including subjective evidence) in support of belief that there’s a god, but has decided to believe in the god anyway. Such people would meet your definition, without qualifying as atheists, soft or otherwise. I have doubts that such people exist, though.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” implies “If you are among the pure in heart, you shall see God.” Which is identical in meaning to “If you shall not see God, then you are not among the pure in heart.”
I don’t see god. What does that say about me?
I don’t see god either, and my heart is pure as the driven snow. Of course, I’ve seen driven snow full of all manner of contaminants, and, come to think of it, my heart is probably composed of muscle and quite a bit of fat, and probably all kinds of trace elements and other stuff that shouldn’t be in there, so…
-XT
If it doesn’t imply anything, then it doesn’t seem to say anything. If your point is that God can be detected by those who act out of love, then it means that those who cannot or do not detect God do not act in such a manner; and vice versa. If athiests and agnostics and otherwise believers can act in a loving manner, and yet not detect God, then your initial point is wrong.
I would consider myself to, in general, be a kind and compassionate person. I’m also an atheist. Under your point, those things contradict one another; if i’m loving, I should have detected God. If i’m an atheist, and so have not detected God, I cannot be loving.
Two things. You will need to practice walking the path of love and compassion for awhile before you can feel God. Then you will have to really do it with your whole person. There can be no fake love or compassion. It really is pretty hard to do, I wrote a piece on it recently.
This will give you start if you wish.
Ah, it’s not that we atheists can’t act in a loving, compassionate manner. It’s just that we’re all faking it. Sneaky little buggers aren’t we?
Well, I know I am. I’m f’ing Machiavellian, in fact!
You know what the first thing I say when I see somebody telling somebody else that they have insufficient quantities of genuine love and compassion is? “I like his hat.” And the second? “Wow, there’s a guy who could use a lesson in genuine love and compassion.”
Which of course immidiately demonstrates that I lack genuine love and compassion. But then I said earler in the thread that the atheists and agnostics should get together and throw rocks at the theists, so maybe a lack of love and compassion on my part shouldn’t be too surprising.
Then it would be correct to amend my point to say that, from your view, it is impossible for any atheist or agnostic or otherwise believer to have practiced loving ways for a period of time wholeheartedly? I, for example, cannot have, due to my atheism?
Well, I wasn’t really hoping to hear anything because I don’t really care too much about the label applied to my beliefs (given that it’s an imperfect mapping at best and given that, an honest analysis shows that my own belief system (and I assume all humans) is full of contradictions and imprecision). But, it’s an interesting topic regardless.
Having said that, I posted those 4 scenarios because in your post on page 1, you stated the following:
My problem with this sequence is the word “impossible” in the Pagnostic, and because you reduced the playing field to Pagnostic and Hathiest (because you said that Cagnostic and Sathiest are both Pagnostic), you didn’t leave any middle ground for someone that thinks it’s possible, but not currently known.
Maybe you didn’t really mean to use the word “impossible”, or maybe you didn’t mean to reduce the playing field as extremely as you did, not sure, either way, it seems like there is a hole in there.
Hey there, why did you truncate/ellipsis the ‘Pagnostic’ definition? Here it is untrimmed:
I’d say that with the full version it’s pretty explicit that I’m including persons who think that it’s unknowable simply due to a present shortage of available/reliable information.
And what’s so contradictory or imprecise about “If you believe in one or more gods, you’re a theist; if you don’t, you’re an atheist”? 
And? I really don’t know any non-believer who says otherwise - and most believers are also included in that group. I don’t want to put words in your mouth but it seems like you’re putting up a strawman definition of atheist.
Yes, we “might classify as god […] an entity” we could discover later. The thing is, we don’t know of any entity that we’ve got any evidence for even existing that might possibly qualify.
As an atheist, I’m not saying we will never find one. Just that we haven’t yet.
There may be more of them than you suspect (I know I was surprised)
While I generally feel the “impossible to know” argument is stupid, it isn’t fallicious; the problem really lies in the definition of gods. Gods can be - and are - so widely defined that it really is impossible to know if they exist. My objection to that is mostly that the “impossible to know” gods are completely useless, and therefore of no interest to me. The ones that we can theoretically know are either unkown at the moment (and hence useless until further evidence is found) or just not there.
The poll says “I’m sure there is a god, but it’s impossible to prove,” but I was specifically trying to refer to people who think there’s not even subjective evidence for them to base their opinion on. Not just no evidence they can show to others, not just insufficient evidence to be certain - No subjective evidence upon which to base their beliefs whatsoever! Belief for literally no reason.
That’s a fair bit more restrictive than suggested by the answer in the poll, I think - someone who really was believing completely abitrarily would indeed check the last option, but others with some level of subjective support for their beliefs might as well - and in my opinion are a lot likelier to exist.
I’m not so sure. But I misread your intent, and you’re right that the poll doesn’t show what I suggested if you exclude subjective evidence.
Well, it’s no fun if you don’t exclude subjective evidence; buttloads of overt theists admit that the objective evidence for their god of choice is somewhere between sketchy and nonexistent. (Decades of failing to be able to convert everyone are somewhat difficult to ignore. Plus, evolution and stuff.) Subjective evidence is the backbone of belief; everything else is cake and jesus cheetos.
I cut out the other part because the part of the statement that is a problem is the “impossible”. I’m not trying to pull a fast one here. If Pagnostic’s think it’s impossible then you have left out an option.
Are you really saying that Pagnostics fall into 2 groups?:
- Those that think it is impossible
- Those that think it’s possible, but no evidence currently exists
My statement about contradictory and imprecise beliefs has to do with self reporting of what beliefs one has. It seems to me that the human brain does not operate on a binary belief system, but rather a mapping of inputs to outputs that often lead to fuzziness when the details are inspected.
As for your specific question, it’s imprecise in that you’ve allowed for 2 options when 3 are possible:
- Theist
- Unknown (as in actively believes the answer is not known, not just that the question has never been considered)
- Athiest
I think that Pagnostics fall into one group - ones that think it’s impossible to know whether or not any god exists. I do not specify why they think it’s impossible - anything that legitimately prevents them from being able to reach a conclusion is sufficient. Well, presuming it’s not something they can correct, anyway. A person who is agnostic about wether God is standing behind a door because they haven’t bothered to turn the doorknob isn’t much of an agnostic. If the door is impossible for them to open - like, say, it’s on the far side of alpha centauri or in another dimension, then that would be sufficient reason to claim unknowability.
Seriously, I’m not trying to play gotcha word games here. I don’t see any benefit in doing so.
Whoa whoa whoa. What is unknown? Theism/Atheism is about belief, not knowledge. You either believe, or you don’t.
Perhaps a concrete example would help - let’s talk about the transcendent king of all gods, the FSM. By definition, you can’t prove it exists or not - it manipulates your perceptions with its noodly appendages, in the manner of Descartes’ evil wizard. No evidence is reliable. So if the FSM is real you won’t know it - and if it’s not real you can’t tell it’s not just hiding. So, by definition, you must be agnostic about it. (Unless you’ve actually seen it, I guess - though that is debatable too.)
So. I’m agnostic about the FSM. That’s a statement about knowability. But what about belief? That answer’s easy: I don’t believe in him. There’s nothing unknowable about that - my beliefs are within the realm of human ken (or at least my ken, and as best I can tell I’m human). The two positions are not contradictory in any way; as has been said, they’re orthognal to one another. It’s like color and shape - I’m talking about whether it’s white or black, and you’re complaining I haven’t included the option of “round”. The reason I haven’t is because you’re talking about something else entirely.
Ok. In which category would place a person that thinks it is possible to know whether a god exists, under some definitions of god, but does not currently have evidence for the existence of any of the possible gods?
I have read your statement and understand it, but I don’t think it’s correct to think that “belief” is binary.
The word belief is representing something that is going on in our heads, the retrieval of either some state or some conclusion based on state. It’s a messy process (but good enough to keep us alive), and based on my own personal experience, can quite easily return a conclusion of “unknown” when attempting to resolve a specific question.
If I asked you whether my computer is black or silver, what is your belief in that case?
Define “possible to know whether a god exists”. A dude who thinks that there is a trivial process by which he could resolve the question with certainty, but hasn’t bothered to do it, probably isn’t an agnostic. Just for him, and just for you, I will make a new category: the Lazyassnostic. This would normally fall under the category of “apatheist”, except I’m betting you’re going to cling with all eleven fingernails to the notion that he might actually believe in the thing, making this state independent of belief/disbelief/theism/atheism. So purely from the question of knowledge and certainty, he would indeed be a new category. Congratulations.
If you were talking about something other than somebody who is deliberately avoiding acquiring evidence, but instead is devoid of evidence despite is best efforts (whatever those may be), then he’s a Pagnostic, of course. Unavailable evidence isn’t evidence from a decision-making standpoint.
Seriously man. NOBODY thinks that the Christian God, or any god worth the label, would be incapable of providing at least some amount of fairly convincing evidence for it’s existence. Nobody! Yet we still have Pagnostics. So Pagnosticism isn’t about the incabapility of the theorized entity to provide evidence. It’s about the lack of available evidence - any lack that makes it impossible to come to a certain conclusion one way or the other.
I believe your computer doesn’t exist.
Here’s why your analogy was flawed. First - there are more options than black or silver. So that’s kind of dodgy there - should have said black or non-black.
Secondly, atheism cheats - it goes big-tent regarding agnositicism. If you don’t actively believe and know it, then we’ll take ya. Have no opinion at all? We’ll take ya. Never even heard of gods? You’re ours. We’ll take pretty much anything except theists. So there’s no fuzzy middle - we claimed that already. You are ours. Welcome to the fold. Your membership card and beanie are in the mail and will be arriving any day now.