Logical Agnosticism is just non-commital pedantry.

[Sage_Rat]

@cosmosdan

I don’t agree at all. People believe for various reasons. Some of those reasons are very real personal subjective experiences. That’s not objective evidence and those experiences have other possible explanations but it’s not the same as anything you could make up. I don’t think you could safely call that person an atheist.

Yes but that’s “belief”, which is what I put in as my definition of an agnostic. A person who simply says “well it could be” but doesn’t believe it is, is an atheist. Accepting something as a viable option given any lack of evidence one way or the other is a different thing from believing something in spite of the lack of evidence.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Sage_Rat

True to some extent, but I think that when someone admits that there isn’t any evidence for something and that any other thing you could make up be it the tooth fairy, reincarnation, or surviving a dip on the surface of the sun as being equally plausible given the complete lack of reason to believe in any of those, that can safely be said to be being an atheist.

If I understand you correctly, Dawkins called such people De facto atheists: “'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

Voyager: Nice response. I’ll have to reflect on it.

[Sage_Rat]

@Measure_for_Measure

If I understand you correctly, Dawkins called such people De facto atheists: “'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

Which, as he notes, is where he and pretty much all sane atheists fall.

[cosmosdan]

@Sage_Rat

Yes but that’s “belief”, which is what I put in as my definition of an agnostic. A person who simply says “well it could be” but doesn’t believe it is, is an atheist. Accepting something as a viable option given any lack of evidence one way or the other is a different thing from believing something in spite of the lack of evidence.

Okay, I guess I was misunderstanding your choice of words. One can also be in the “well it could be” and “I tend to believe it is” camp.

[raindog]

@Lobsang

I think there are at least to kinds of Angostic…

Those who are genuinelly unsure of God’s existence.

Those who assert that Atheism is invalid because it’s not possible to prove God doesn’t exist, therefore Agnosticism is the way to go.
In my opinion the former is a true Agnostic. and the latter is just a pedantic argument of logic. The latter does not indicate whether the person saying it believes God exists or believes God doesn’t exist. It says nothing about what the sayer actually believes. If you are to take the argument further then the very idea of belief is ‘invalid’ we shouldn’t believe in anything there is no absolute proof of. There’s no absolute proof of anything, therefore nothing is true or false. Or it is, but we humans have no right to make statements of truth or falsehood, because we are incapable of knowing anything absolutely.

I don’t discount the latter statement. It may be technically/logically true, but it may also be technically true that it’s not possible to prove that things in front of us exist. That’s no reason to behave as if they don’t.

I think Atheism is valid because you can add the words ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to the above phrase and make it false.

I believe God doesn’t exist because there is overwhelming evidence that God is a human invention, and it would have to be such a massive coincidence for something made up by humans to happen to exist that it is safe to assume it doesn’t.

I apologise if this is offensive. In my defence I get annoyed when people make Atheism out to be just as dellusional as theism because it is wrong to be sure about something technically unprovable. I think it is unreasonable to live your life with such a pedantic outlook.

I applaud you for doing your witnessing in the right forum.

The mods get testy over such things

[MrDibble]

@Sage_Rat

I’m expounding on the meaning of a- in atheism. It doesn’t mean “against” theism, it means “without”.

Not originally. This redefinition of the sense of meaning of atheism is a relatively new thing.

@Sage_Rat

Atheism isn’t a process of denial, it’s simply an issue of not believing in something for which there is no evidence.

For you. I would still be an atheist even if God existed.

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

Interesting. Under a strict definition I suppose I might be an agnostic. I’m not completely sure it can’t be known but I acknowledge there is no objective evidence and the subjective experience is not conclusive. I hadn’t considered myself an agnostic before.

You would only be an agnostic if you claimed it to be unknowable regardless of what future evidence might come to light. This would include if a god came down and walked the earth doing miracles for the common man and scientists alike. If that would convince you, you’re not an agnostic in the classic sense (as I understand the term).

@MrDibble

For you. I would still be an atheist even if God existed.

Regardless of what evidence the god might demonstrate to prove its existence? :eek:

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

You would only be an agnostic if you claimed it to be unknowable regardless of what future evidence might come to light. This would include if a god came down and walked the earth doing miracles for the common man and scientists alike. If that would convince you, you’re not an agnostic in the classic sense (as I understand the term).

Hmmmmm I’m not sure that makes sense. I think currently unknowable is enough to qualify. Wikki lists several types including

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism, spiritual agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

I’d even reword that a bit. Those who acknowledge that we currently can’t know but tend to believe in some form of higher power.

I can easily see an agnostic leaning heavily toward atheism or an agnostic leaning heavily toward theism and shades in between.

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

Hmmmmm I’m not sure that makes sense. I think currently unknowable is enough to qualify. Wikki lists several types including

I’d even reword that a bit. Those who acknowledge that we currently can’t know but tend to believe in some form of higher power.

I can easily see an agnostic leaning heavily toward atheism or an agnostic leaning heavily toward theism and shades in between.

Well, firstly I’m only speaking of the ‘classic’ definition of the term, which as I understand it is specifically about knowability, not about what’s known. Certainly the definition of the word has morphed to now generically include anyone who isn’t willing to commit to a specifically theistic or atheistic position, for whatever reason, even if their actual beliefs are the same as those of a staunch theist or atheist.

And secondly, I never said I thought that agnosticism was a valid position for all dieties. Clearly, if the diety is interventionist, then the only way to be an agnostic (in the classic sense) is to decide that the interventions could possibly have other explanations, which becomes an increasingly tenuous position when the god is moving continents around at will and the like. Eventually you’d be backed into the position of claiming that superpowered aliens were doing it, or something like that, which soon would force you to make assertions as unlikely as the one you were denying.

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

Well, firstly I’m only speaking of the ‘classic’ definition of the term, which as I understand it is specifically about knowability, not about what’s known. Certainly the definition of the word has morphed to now generically include anyone who isn’t willing to commit to a specifically theistic or atheistic position, for whatever reason, even if their actual beliefs are the same as those of a staunch theist or atheist.

And secondly, I never said I thought that agnosticism was a valid position for all dieties. Clearly, if the diety is interventionist, then the only way to be an agnostic (in the classic sense) is to decide that the interventions could possibly have other explanations, which becomes an increasingly tenuous position when the god is moving continents around at will and the like. Eventually you’d be backed into the position of claiming that superpowered aliens were doing it, or something like that, which soon would force you to make assertions as unlikely as the one you were denying.

I just think that even in the classic definition the idea of unknowable contains an implied “currently” rather than, “and always will be”

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I just think that even in the classic definition the idea of unknowable contains an implied “currently” rather than, “and always will be”

Really? The mass of the third planet of a star in Andromeda is unknowable at the moment, but I wouldn’t call someone accepting this an agnostic about it. I’ve always taken agnosticism to be a philosophical position about knowledge; and I’ve actually read some of Huxley.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Really? The mass of the third planet of a star in Andromeda is unknowable at the moment, but I wouldn’t call someone accepting this an agnostic about it. I’ve always taken agnosticism to be a philosophical position about knowledge; and I’ve actually read some of Huxley.

I was speaking of the use of the word in regard to spiritual belief.

btw there’s a new band called the Agnostics and their first single is a remake of “Jesus is Just Alright With Me”

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I was speaking of the use of the word in regard to spiritual belief.

btw there’s a new band called the Agnostics and their first single is a remake of “Jesus is Just Alright With Me”

I know, but it being impossible to know assumes that it is also impossible to get evidence sufficient to know. Is your claim that this evidence might show up later? I don’t that even believers think there is sufficient evidence now, so they believe on faith, and many believe that Jesus returning will provide plenty.

I have a bootleg of the Byrds doing that same song. Maybe the Agnostics should retitle it “Jesus is Just Alright With Me, But I’m Not Sure”

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

I was speaking of the use of the word in regard to spiritual belief.

I’m fairly sure that the use of the word in regard to spiritual belief was a philosophical position about knowledge.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

I know, but it being impossible to know assumes that it is also impossible to get evidence sufficient to know. Is your claim that this evidence might show up later? I don’t that even believers think there is sufficient evidence now, so they believe on faith, and many believe that Jesus returning will provide plenty.

I have a bootleg of the Byrds doing that same song. Maybe the Agnostics should retitle it “Jesus is Just Alright With Me, But I’m Not Sure”

I’m thinking more along the lines of advancing knowledge.
The Agnostics joke is in how it’s said I guess. it’s more like
What do you and the band think about Jesus?

“{shrug} eh he’s alright”

As opposed to the songs of all praise and glory be thy name etc.

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

The Agnostics joke is in how it’s said I guess. it’s more like
What do you and the band think about Jesus?

“{shrug} eh he’s alright”

As opposed to the songs of all praise and glory be thy name etc.

Naw, it’s “{shrug} eh, I dunno the guy.”

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

Naw, it’s “{shrug} eh, I dunno the guy.”

[MrDibble]

@begbert2

Regardless of what evidence the god might demonstrate to prove its existence? :eek:

Yes. I am a Classic atheist.

[Grumman]

@MrDibble

Yes. I am a Clasic atheist.

I think the phrase you are looking for is “Flat Earth Atheist”.

[MrDibble]

@Grumman

I think the phrase you are looking for is “Flat Earth Atheist”.

No, you misunderstand. Even if God were proven to exist, I would still not worship it. I would be against it. That is Classic atheism. None of this wishy-washy lack-of-belief crap.