I could be missing something, but if you were looking at G-d from a purely scientific standpoint, you would say there is no evidence of his existence. That would be a true statement. If science went on to say “G-d does not exist”, that would not be a supportable conclusion. It seems that agnostics are going with the information available and atheists are taking one more step and reaching a conclusion that can’t be determined. Requiring a full committment to the statement “There is no G-d”, seems to be more of an emotional statement than anything factual. Now why does not endorsing something that cannot be known equal laziness?
Point out another belief that could have the same potential impact, depending on it’s veracity.
That depends entirely on how you frame the issue. Science offers no evidence for god, and depending on how you define god personally, science may disprove your god. Just as an example, if you’re a biblical literalist, science does indeed contradict the thing that you say is god’s revealed word and proof of his existence. If you give god any kind of specific characteristics (especially if you think he gets involved with creation regularly), I think science can disprove that. If you take the view that god is totally non-interventionist, science can’t do anything, but I think Occam’s Razor dices that argument pretty thoroughly.
I think that would be how an agnostic or someone who believes in god would probably look at it. I feel bad for saying it, IWLN, but I think you’re out of your depth. You’re not an atheist, so you’re not in a very good position to explain the emotions of atheists. The ones calling agnostics lazy are atheists, and atheists obviously disagree that they are “endorsing something that cannot be known.”
I’ve never been one of the “agnostics are cowardly atheists” camp, but I think the arguments Apos has Aposted (sorry) are very good. It’s not my problem, though.
I do agree with you on the biblical literalist. I don’t agree with conclusions based on any assessment of G-d’s potential or past involvement in creation, since that would be something not definable. OR is merely a tool used to come to the most likely conclusion, though and has nothing to do with anything particularly factual.
I was simply making an observation about atheists, kind of like they were making about agnostics. Don’t feel bad for telling me I’m out of my depth. I think it’s a very nice way of telling me you think I’m full of sh*t. I can cheerfully accept that. I’m usually wrong at least as much as I’m right, but hey, it’s a good way to learn. I still don’t agree on this one, though. “Endorsing something that cannot be known”, is exactly what I’m doing and what the hard atheist is doing. The agnostic is the only one that can be sure that he won’t be proved wrong.
If you accept one religion, you must, at least on some level, deny the validity of all the other religions. You can’t just say all the religions are right because contradictions abound.
When you do this, you can’t even support your argument with statements like “so many experiences in my life have strengthened my belief in God.” For every experience you have had that has validated a Christian God in your mind, I could offer you a dozen experiences that have validated the existence of Hindu gods, for example. I could offer you reams of Roman literature that have claimed validation of contact with an Olympian god based on their experiences as well.
Religion is teeming with anthroporphism and culture-centric properties. Why is it that someone raised in a strictly Muslim household never magically finds Jesus, but instead finds Allah, when they have religious experiences? Why doesn’t a religious person here ever find Allah if they were born and raised and exposed only to Jesus?
Religion offers a lot of things, so I’m not vitriolic to people who choose to believe in it, but there is so much hypocricy, cultural influences and obvious signs of human involvement in something that should be divine that I find the whole concept to be likely to be an invention of our minds. Of course, I don’t know this for sure, just like I don’t know anything for sure. I don’t know that what I’m seeing is really there or is just random radiation hitting parts of my brain as I lie dead in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust either.
Once again, who made you arbitrator? How do you know what is someone else’s mind or heart? Many agnostics are not on the fence at all, and even if they haven’t been convinced one way or they other, it is not a matter of cowardice. Moreover, many people, Buddhists for example, do not place such importance on realizing the ultimate truth of the divine. Have you never had a moment of indecision in your life? Are you 100% convinced that everything you believe is absolute truth? That your stance on the major issues of the day, gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, etc., are the only correct conclusion? If so, then you are a domineering, arrogant bigot.
I don’t see where you are getting all this fear from. If from your agnostic friends (though the goblin comment makes one question whether they are really friends), I don’t see how you make the leap to a blanket statement about all agnostics. I know agnostics who find the fears you listed as irrelevant. I’m reading your statements as disgust, that other people haven’t come to the same conclusion as you. Not as an atheist, but that agnosticism is limbo or fear of making a commitment. You haven’t proven to me that agnostics are full of fear, or that they haven’t weighed the possibilities and come to a logical conclusion, rather than an indecisive limbo.
OK. I see where you’re coming from, and it’s not exactly where I thought. An agnostic’s claim that he lacks the information to prove or disprove God means nothing to you, because that same logic can apply to anything- we don’t really know that the sun will come up tomorrow, for example, we just believe it. An agnostic who holds onto “the fence” when it comes to divinity is, in that sense, a hypocrite because he/she will commit to belief in other things based on rationality, like the sun rising daily. Am I reading you right so far?
Never mind. The Great Unwashed, I see, asks the question directly:
Perhaps the question should be asked, why is is that in the case of religion, uncertainty is an invalid position? No one has ever asked me whether I was a true believer in the sunrise, or demanded that I choose a position. I’m not a true believer as I see it defined here. My non-committal applies to everything, in varying degree. The strength of my belief is directly proportional to the strength of the evidence as I see it. In the case of the sunrise, I’ve lived 21 years and it has occurred every morning. This strengthens the evidence in favor of a sunrise tomorrow. I’ve never seen a morning without a sunrise, so I lean strongly towards believing it will happen. This is not an absolute commitment as I would define it. If I had to bet my life one way or the other, I would bet on the sunrise. That is not to say that I find it outside the realm of possibility that the sun rise late, or never. In the parlance of this thread, apparently, I am a craven, lazy coward, through and through. From my perspective, though, I wonder why when it comes to the existence of God, there are only two acceptable answers, even though the rest of the world is a question of degree.
The Great Unwashed and Ex Machina, in case either of you is planning to continue to insult agonstics, do bear in mind (for what it may or may not be worth) that should it continue I for one have no qualms in inviting you to a brief stay here. Enough is enough, and enough was before this thread got moved:)
On the chance that I’m parsing this correctly:
I have not currently committed to a firm stance on the existence of God/s/Goddess/es/gods/etc. because I do not believe that I have enough evidence to either prove, to myself or to anyone else, the existence of any deity or deities … or to disprove that. It’s not a matter of being craven or having a demented opinion or being lazy; I simply do not know. And it is an issue that is important enough (to me, to others, etc.) that I want to be well and truly sure that I have a sound case before I go forth with it. It’s not like “do you believe an apple is on the table?” or something more trivial than, to many, the existence of a deity or deities. Even if I found it to be a trivial manner, I would consider it disrespectful to too many people to treat it as such were I to present either an argument for or against the existence of one or more deities.
On the chance that I am not parsing this correctly:
Care to clarify?
Lastly, Ex Machina, “If a person entertains even the slightest possibility of God’s existence he is compelled to believe.”
By compell here do you mean “forced” or “it is strongly suggested that he”? I have entertained the possibility of God’s existence, but I am not forced to believe. I am not strongly urged to believe. If we assume that the construct of God that some here believe in is accurate, then I will never be forced, by Him, to believe anything. If, on the other hand, we believe any number of other constructs are accurate, then perhaps something less enjoyable will happen.
Well, the definition is litterally dead on correct, so why not? The problem is people’s confusion in thinking that non-belief requires some positive position. It doesn’t: neither in babies nor in adults.
Maybe the simplest way to express it is that an atheist says “I *do not * admit the possibility of an absurdity.” (And it is an atheists prerogative to define what is absurd in the same way that it is a believer’s prerogative to define God.) But an agnostic says “I *do * admit the possibility of an absurdity.”
When you reduce the argument to logical sophistry about nothing being able to be proved and claiming that agnosticism is a reasoned position you are engaging in pure theory. But when you look at the real world you see that the admission of the possibility of absurdity is rationally equivalent to openly believing that absurdity.
An atheist has to reject the views of an agnostic just as a believer must reject the possibility of non-existence posited by the agnostic.
Agnosticism = possibility of absurdity = irrationalism.
*“Are you 100% convinced that everything you believe is absolute truth? That your stance on the major issues of the day, gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, etc., are the only correct conclusion? If so, then you are a domineering, arrogant bigot.” * - CairaJade On the other hand I might just be absolutely right in all of my opinions. A good agnostic like yourself would allow me the possibility of omniscience without becoming snippy. In fact… I, myself, just might be the author of the universe. (Just admit you don’t know, that it is possible that you are addressing an immortal communicating His true intentions through these forums, and save us the evaluation process concerning your sanity.)
I grew up believing in God. I expect many if not most atheists did. Isn’t there a period between theism and atheism where a person is agnostic?
I think there was a period (many years ago) when I wasn’t sure either way. Ex Machina I haven’t read everything you’ve posted in this thread but in what I have read you seem to be saying that it is silly to have a ‘not sure’ stance about things. Isn’t it completely understandable to be unsure about something’s existence if we haven’t [yet] seen evidence of it’s existence.
If there are people who swear blind that this person exists then why can’t there be people who are simply not sure?
You know, you’re not particularly good at defining other people’s beliefs, be it agnostic or “believer”. I believe in G-d and have some very strong personal experiences(to me) to back it up. But I do not 100% reject the possiblility of non-existence. That would be absurd. I could be delusional, have a brain chemical imbalance or maybe even some form of epilepsy that manifests itself, not as seizures; but as hallucinations. What I’m not is arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers. Not all believers are sure anymore than non-believer’s are. Most of us are still fallible humans. Some just don’t know it. :rolleyes:
Lobsang, I believe that one can be as sure that there is not a God as one can be sure about anything one experiences or contemplates.
I was a born non-believer raised to believe. But nothing made sense to me or was consistent with my observations about the world. I spent my time trying to reconcile gods with nature. For a period everyone will be an agnostic if their minds question what they are told. But I believe this is a transitional stage which is not rationally tenable. I tried in the above post to explain why you can’t entertain the possibility of absurdities and remain rational. There *is * a line of delineation. There are only two possibilities: God exists. God does not exist. If you conclude that “God exists” is an absurdity and that absurdities are not believable then you cannot admit the possibility of existence.
If you are a believer you cannot admit the possibility of non-existence. If you are a non-believer you cannot admit the possibility of existence. You cannot say, as the agnostic does, “I’m rational but I accept the possibility of an irrational world.” If you take that position then you are irrational. Once you admit the possibility of salvation by a god you will have to follow through with that belief. To not follow through would be insanity. And I believe that people who admit the possibility of existence but don’t follow through to full commitment are afraid of something (losing their identity, their ego, perhaps?) or maybe, as has been suggested, they are intellectually lazy. In any event agnosticism is not a final position of reason.
I understand the arguments being made by the agnostics. I have made them myself thousands of times. But in the end you can’t deny that you must believe one of two things. Vacillation and uncertainty contribute nothing. That is the sin, being non-committal and calling it a valid final resting place, which I can’t stomach. If someone says “I’m not sure, I’m still thinking about it” that is fine to my ear, but if someone says “I’m not sure and that’s good enough for me” then I get disgusted.
But there is no need for this binary. We need not believe that unicorns do not orbit Saturn. This is not required of us simply because we lack evidence for us. All that is required is to NOT BELIEVE it. To go further is to commit an error. This isn’t a logic specific to god, but to any claim. Let the burden of proof do its work: don’t overstep your bounds by making assertions you can’t support.
Which sort of agnostic are you talking about though? I am a (weak) agnostic, in that I don’t know whether or not there is a god. I certainly don’t believe there is a god, but I’m not running around claiming for sure that there isn’t either.
You are assuming that all concepts of a meaningful theistic God end in absurdity. But surely this is too strong.
Wrong. You must either believe something or not, but that’s not the same thing as having TO believe either one of two things. Either you believe in god or you don’t, but just because you don’t believe in god doesn’t mean you MUST believe there is no god. Logics of knowledge and belief are not exactly like logics of empirical existence and truth. You can not believe X AND not believe not X at the same time.
Agnosticism deals with a different schema anyway: knowledge as opposed to belief.
This is impossible since God is defined as existing. If you accept the possibility of non-existence then you are not a believer. You are as non-committal as an agnostic.
I consider myself an atheistic agnostic. I cannot prove or disprove, and indeed do not believe that it is possible to prove or disprove, God’s existence. However, as evidence for God’s existence is lacking, I operate under the default assumption of non-existence.
Thus I must conclude that atheists need not reject the views of agnostics.
Now you’re contradicting yourself. Previously, you said:
…and you were correct. Pascal’s Wager is not logical. Therefore it is not Pascal’s Imperative, and no one is compelled by it to believe anything.
Agnosticism does not entail admitting the possibility of absurdities. In fact, if one finds something absurd, then they are obviously not going to be agnostic in relation to that particular issue.
Please show how the existence of some sort of God would entail an irrational world.
I can easily deny it. Will the next car that you pass on the highway be blue? Must you believe that it will or won’t? Or will you take the more logical approach and say “I don’t know”?
An agnostic looks at God in the same light. They believe that one can not know if God exists or not. Many (myself included) decide to operate under the assumption that God does not exist. Others operate under the assumption that God does exist. Still others suspend their decision pending more information. Doing so is no more craven than your suspending your decision on whether or not to believe that the next car you pass will be blue until you have passed it.
Rat’s, there goes eternal life.:rolleyes: Come on Ex Machina, how can you possibly know about my beliefs. We are not working with any sort of absolutes here. I have no real doubt about G-d’s existence. Some of my experiences have been rather strange. I believe that I would be somewhat delusional if I didn’t admit there was a one in a million chance that my judgment or perception was wrong. It is ridiculous to make assertions about anything that could possibly have more than one explanation and then say there is no chance I could be wrong, even if I believe that chance is miniscule. I don’t know how you perceive your world, but in mine there are not very many things that have a zero possibility attached to them, without some sort of empirical evidence at least.
I think you’ve added even more confusion to this. Before we were talking about two different spectrums: knowledge and belief. That was confusing enough: and now you’ve added “operating under the assumption that…” !!
I don’t believe in god. However, that does not mean that I operate under the assumption that there is no god, because I make no such assumption.
As I said, it is the prerogative of the atheist to determine what is absurd. Maybe you don’t understand this because you are agnostic.
What you define as an “assumption” I define as my “belief”. And that belief is precisely that any concept of a theistic God is an absurdity. That is the very nature of being an atheist.
I stand by my original statement to Lobsang that you can be as sure of disbelief as you can be about anything.
**Apos ** said “*Either you believe in god or you don’t, but just because you don’t believe in god doesn’t mean you MUST believe there is no god. *”
This statement is false. Listen: I either have a penny in my closed fist or I have nothing in my fist. If you **don’t believe ** that I have a penny in my hand then you **must believe ** that there is **no ** penny in my hand.
The rationale leading to the belief has nothing to do with the logical consequences of the belief. Apos is trying to insert intimations of uncertainty and provability where they don’t belong. Choose your belief and accept the consequences. Retreating to the position of “unknowability” is not an argument against the consequences of committed beliefs.
I still don’t agree on this one, though. “Endorsing something that cannot be known”, is exactly what I’m doing and what the hard atheist is doing. The agnostic is the only one that can be sure that he won’t be proved wrong.