Wait, say what? So you are saying that if I posit that leprechauns created the universe, you will be agnostic about leprechauns? Is this really all it takes?
Do you understand the meaning of the sentiment “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”?
Call him/her/it a leprechaun if you wish, it’s the meaning that matters, not whatever you want to call it. But I think the general consensus behind the “creator of the universe” is a God.
Don’t play word games, it’s kinda boring. And I might butt out on this one, I just don’t really feel that strongly to make a case for agnosticism. Apparently atheism/theism/agnosticism has become somewhat of a turf war for figuring out where the crazy or weak minded is? I was just laying my thoughts out there. GEEZ! I’m sorry for ever being BORN!
runs out sobbing
I hope I undersood correctly: Cmyk is talking solely about the idea of something unknown and unprovable creating the universe and doing nothing measurable afterward. By saying he doesnt know if god exists or not, he is saying that he realizes such a god is impossible to know about so he is agnostic to that idea.
My question then, is what is your belief in the Judeo-Christian God? Does this belief affect your position at all?
The problem is that people arent parsing the two ideas together. God who does miracles, or using God to explain our existence. The two are quite separate.
Just coming back in, because I forgot my cell phone.
But I didn’t catch Cecil’s latest column until just now, I suppose this couldn’t be more timely.
You’re correct. In fact, I find Cecil’s latest article on this very matter to be uncanny to my thinking, so to speak.
But yeh, miracles and crap? Uhh… nope.
Actually, I didn’t see where the original thread that spawned this one was. Linky?
Agnosticism is merely watered down theism.
ALL claims about reality are provisional. When I make a statement like “There’s a table over there.” what I really mean is “All the sensory traces I have received are consistent with a model of the universe in which a table is over there.” However, there’s always a chance that my interpretation of the evidence of my senses is incorrect. I thought I saw a table, but it was merely a trick of the light. I thought I saw a table, but I’m dreaming. I thought I saw a table, but I’m really a brain in a jar. And so on.
So when I say something like “There’s not a unicorn in my garage.” That doesn’t mean “There’s unequivocally not a unicorn in my garage.” It means “All of the sensory traces I have received are consistent with a model of the universe in which unicorns don’t exist, hence it is extremely unlikely that there is a unicorn in my garage.” My claim about the nonexistence of unicorns, is well-justified, but provisional.
Agnosticism is the practice of arbitrarily choosing one hypothetical (“God exists.”) for special treatment. It’s not even the most important hypothetical. “That truck heading toward me exists.” is a far more important hypothetical, since whether it is true or not has immediate bearing on my continued existence. The only reason to be agnostic about God and not about the looming truck is that there a cultural tradition of believing in God, but there’s not a cultural tradition of disbelieving in trucks.
This is really weak. What does “general consensus” have to do with it? If there is a general consensus, it is that God has magical properties that are discernible. You can use the same word to describe “the reason things exist”, but it just confuses the issue.
Do you have a point beyond “There might be a reason things exists, if there is I’ll call it God”.
Well, there is now.
The interesting thing about this thread is the apparent confusion that thread atheists are experiencing when talking to a real agnostic.
If atheism is/was technically the same as agnosticism, there should be no divide between cmyk and Czarcasm et al.
But even though cmyk has made his skepticism regarding the likelihood of the Capital G existing clear, and even went so far to say that, as a practical matter, he lives his life as an atheist, there is still a divide.
If qualitatively they are the same, why the dichotomy?
The difference between them is belief; it’s a set of subjective inferences about the universe.
The agnostic looks at the same objective data and-----for whatever the reason; lack of proof, incomplete data, etc------chooses not to believe. (and that would include choosing to believe in God, or not)
Note that agnosticism doesn’t require a Swiss-like neutrality. You can be as skeptical as you can be. But the divide between “there is no evidence of [a] God[s]” and “there is no god” is the divide between objectivity and subjectivity and that divide is huge.
Yet we’ve received a steady diet of MB atheists proffering the idea that atheism is simply “non-belief.” (cue up Abbott & Costello) *That describes agnosticism *, not atheism.
Epilogue: The divide between “there is no evidence of God” and “there is no god”----like all things subjective-----is conceptual. For many, no such divide exists.
At least 3 things can bridge----if no obliterate—the divide between objectivity and subjectivity; to the point one can no longer see the difference.
1) Faith. It would likely make some of the atheists blanch at the notion that they share more in common with kanicbird than they do with cmyk, but they do. The more convicted you are about a set of subjective beliefs, the more you ascribe objective qualities to subjective things.
2) Ignorance I’m not trying to be demeaning, I swear. But I think that some of the more impressionable atheists have been fed this line often enough that they’ve never taken the time to think about it critically. If you’re spouting the line “there is no god!”, I’m here to tell you that this a subjective assessment and you can’t/won’t be able to prove that. Trust me on this one. Further, you’ve made an affirmative statement of fact that really is nothing more than your opinion. (no matter how rational, logical or fact based.) You are, in effect, witnessing for your beliefs.
3) Chicanery I have to believe that at least some of these people know the difference between agnosticism and atheism but find some utility in being Abbott & Costello obtuse. You know who you are. And shame on you.
I think your post is for a different thread. I think it’s fairly well understood in this thread that we implicitly accept certain premises (like we’re not all characters in Ed Zotti’s dreams).
I would simply point out that for the man wearing a vest full of explosives, the impending truck is much less important than the 72 virgins he will soon be cavorting with. (although that truck is necessary at that moment)
You cannot impute your meaning/values to anyone’s hypothetical circumstances.
The difference is that no one, outside of debate forums, gives a fig about cmyk’s deist god. No one writes laws banning gay marriage because that god may have created the universe. No one tries to get prayer in school because that god may be the ultimate cause.
The god or gods that people care about are about morality, restrictions, worship, prayer, miracles. Cmyk – are you agnostic about those gods?
There is effectively no difference between cmyk and atheists in action – he says himself that he acts no differently than he would if he were an atheist.
How was the universe created? I don’t know. If there was a cause, can you call that cause God? Sure, knock yourself out.
Is there a personal god that demands worship and prayer, performs miracles, changes the weather, causes crops to grow or volcanoes to erupt, has a personality and interacts with prophets? There is no credible evidence that that god or those gods exist.
Is the cause of the universe in principle unknowable? Maybe, but at this point, I’ll say we don’t know yet – so, I’m not agnostic. I don’t think it’s in principle unknowable.
Do I lack belief in a deity or deities? Yes, I lack that belief. Is my hobby not collecting stamps? Yes, that’s one of my many hobbies.
You have misunderstood the atheists here. This is not a matter of subjectivity or objectivity, though i know you like those topics. It is simply an all round misunderstanding or inability to parse two concepts.
They thought cmyk was defending the Judeo-Christian God while simplifying it down to a non Judeo-Christian God, and that is their complaint. They were unclear as to his definition of God in the first place, and thought he was making an absurd argument because of this.
Cmyk stated that he believes any God which exists would have to be one which we can not measure and has no direct impact in our daily lives, and a God which is not defined under these terms does not exist. Myself, as an atheist, agrees wholeheartedly with him. Cmyk chooses to define himself as an agnostic likely because not only is it a more friendly term, but he is specifically agnostic to the God stated above. He is atheist with regard to the Judeo-Christian version.
I define myself as an atheist because I see the only useful definition of a God to be that of the common religions, and I see that as an impossibility. There is no difference between many agnostics and many atheists, and specifically in your response Raindog, I feel you have misinterpreted what has been said along with the others.
I feel I should rehash my argument of the non-existence of God. For all intents and purposes, a God which impacts our earth or universe in any noticeable way does not exist. Whether or not this is truly the case has become irrelevant until it becomes true that the God has impacted our lives in some way. Until then, I am an atheist and it is an objective position. There is no evidence to show that such a God exists, so it is only an assumption to say that it does (theism). To say it could (agnosticism) is highly irrelevant and meaningless.
This would all be solved if people clearly put their definitions of the terms they were using up front..
You are objectively atheist, but your atheism is subjective.
Is it objective to say there are no martians living on the surface of the moon?
What kind of proof do you need to have an objective position on the matter?
Is this proof attainable with reference to God, using your definition of objectivity (specifically free of opinion, evidence is not included in your definition of objectivity)
My point is that with your position you must be agnostic with reference to every single possiblity. It is meaningless to hold such a position, and I am taking the much more useful stance that nothing exists until it is proven.
Subjective? Sure, if you want to use the definition of subjectivity as “has any opinion at all.” I use the definition of objectivity being “based on evidence,” and subjectivity being “based on opinion.” There are times when you must rely on evidence and opinion, of course, and in those cases the just about any position is subjective.
I feel, however, that in our daily experience of lives we have enough evidence about whether or not god exists that we can make a truly objective position. Is it subjective in that we do not know 100% God never has, or never will exist? Yes! Is it objective that for all useful history, and our current time of living God has not existed? Yes!
You are using a specific definition of subjectivity/objectivity in which there is no meaningful position which is objective. The whole example has become pointless now, and it is no longer necessary to talk about objectivity and subjectivity.
How do you distinguish between premises you “implicitly accept” and those you don’t?
As for me, I prefer epistemological consistency. I believe in things that are supported by evidence. I don’t believe in things that aren’t. I see no reason that a question like “Does God exist?” should be approached any differently than a question like “Is there a tiger in my house?”
I believe in tigers. I believe in houses. A tiger could conceivably find a place to hide somewhere in my house. So the proposition that there’s a tiger in my house isn’t impossible. Only extremely unlikely.
But if you ask me if there’s a tiger in my house, I won’t say: “You know, I’m not really sure! I’ve never seen one, but maybe tigers are just very good at hiding! I’m sure there are some places I haven’t looked, and even if I’ve looked everywhere, I can’t look everywhere at once, so maybe I’ve just narrowly missed seeing it! I guess the question is unanswerable. Sigh.”
Instead I’ll say: “No, there’s not a tiger in my house.”
And so: “No, God doesn’t exist.”
I trust that you know your post was witnessing to me.
Don’t get me wrong, I own one of the biggest glass houses on the block.
Why are you obsessing over subjects you have made irrelevant? I feel like you are pushing this point just because you know people dont like you saying it. And they rightfully dont, because you are holding such a twisted definition that every position is now subjective. Now opinions which are true and based on evidence are lumped with those which are based on feelings, which is why people get upset.
Subjectivity and objectivity dont matter under your definitions, as objectivity is too exclusionary to be of any use at all with regard to any subject, and subjectivity is now too broad.
The only difference between us is our definition of objective is “based on our evidence” and your objective is “has no opinion at all.”
I would add that the tiring references to Santa Clause (et al!) miss a fundamental point; a point that cmyk tried to make at least once.
I cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but there is enough empirical, objective data for me draw some fairly good inferences. The evidence for his non-existence is overwhelming.
The idea that there is no intelligent force (without regard to whether it is the Judeo-Christian God or some other) is an infinitely more complicated affair.
The fundamental question of “how did we get here?” (and those that flow from it) has perplexed lovers, scientists, philosophers, artists, and thinkers of all stripes for long as we’ve been a species.
To suggest that the evidence that there is no god is as compelling as the evidence that there’s no tiger in my laundry room -----not to mention to the import of human kind----- suggests that either you have the greatest of faiths, or you’re ignorant about the evidence.