I never said there was. That was not my claim at all, go back and re-read it.
Oddly enough, I am not “uncomfortable” by the possible non-existence of God, am not at risk of cognitive dissonance over the matter, and most certainly am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am simply expressing impatience with what I regard as narrow thinking about the nature of what is knowable and the limits of science. I would be happy if we could agree that science will never answer all our questions about the nature of the universe, and that this limitation is intrinsic. No church attendance is required to subscribe to this belief.
Sure. But I’m not religious, and I don’t believe in that crap, so what’s your point? My point is that this is precisely the sort of thing that narrow-minded atheists target, though to what avail I have no idea.
My view of what God could be is actually no wider than some mathematically derived hypotheses in cosmology. The most creative of these, as I said before, are really at the intersection of cosmology and philosophy.
It may be instructive to observe that some of the best scientists of the past and present engaged in pushing the frontiers of fundamental knowledge have embraced philosophy as an integral part of their world-view; Einstein, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger among the many legends of the past in quantum theory, for example. Conversely, it’s curious that crusading atheists like Lawrence Krauss are as quick to condemn philosophy as they are religion, basically advancing the idea that if it doesn’t appear on an oscilloscope or can’t be measured with some sort of figurative ruler, then it’s not worth thinking about. This is precisely the kind of narrow-minded thinking that I steadfastly reject.
I have no idea. But obviously there are some who claim they do, and, having looked in their basements and in their back yards, found that God is not there, and therefore does not exist. Maybe my previous comments above might further elucidate my thinking on the matter, such as it is.
What’s the relevance here, exactly? Are you claiming that all cosmology is impugned by the existence of a speculative wing? That’s patently absurd.
My objection, specifically, was that the article insisted on a Christian interpretation of cosmology, rather than a broader, “spiritual” basis. What reason do they have for discarding all other religions? That’s circular reasoning, beginning by the assumption of the author’s own religion.
What about Indian cosmologists of Hindu faith? Their opinions are to be discarded because…why? Because they aren’t of the “right” faith, the one the author holds and defends?
But, of course, much more to the point: what evidence is there for a “spiritual” component of cosmology? I don’t care if you want to attribute it to Jehovah, or Vishnu, or Gaia: what actual evidence is there that the cosmos is ordered by “spirit.”
(How is “spirit” even defined? What is “spirit?” How do I observe it?)
So the article fails in two ways: first by ugly chauvinism, and secondly by undefined terms.
The intersection of cosmology and myth has some sociological interest, and folklore is often worth studying for its cultural value. But Jehovah, Vishnu, and Gaia have no scientific value at all.
No, you’re not - you’re reversing antecedent and consequent. Question-begging. When I say “decay means no causality”, you do not then get to use causality as a premise at all in disproving it. Which is all that your magic determinism rebuttal does.
Give me one cite for someone proving decay is predictable. Or even saying their particular QM model says so. Because Copenhagen certainly seems to think it isn’t. Many-Worlds agrees. So where does DB-B say it is? Can’t seem to find anywhere it says that…
And the reason you say it’s “quite probably false” is? Let me guess…does it start with a “D”? Ends with “ism”? Tip of my tongue…
Look, I get that you don’t understand what causality entails, you don’t have to keep proving it.
Naah, I’ll stand by the one I made - your argument is circular.
Who are these other “crusading atheists” who are like Krauss (who only you keep citing, BTW.) Dennett certainly doesn’t condemn philosophy. Neither does Dawkins (although IMO he sucks at actually doing it well)
Ah! You are becoming enlightened. What do I think about gods I’ve never even heard of? I can’t say I believe they don’t exist, but I certainly lack belief in them. So, I’m a weak atheist wrt to them. Some gods I have heard about I might know enough about to do anything but lack belief, but gods that people insist on blathering about to me deserve more attention. I started out just lacking belief, then told myself who am I fooling, and admitted to myself I believed they did not exist. But that is still a subset, since even in Christianity there seems to be multiple flavors of God. Criticize a god belief to a moderate Christian (the kind who is not creation, does not hate gays, and is usually a good person) and they will tell you that isn’t the god they believe in. I don’t think I can honestly say I believe that god does not exist, since its definition has never been narrowed down enough.
Less certain makes sense because belief comes in different flavors, harder and weaker. That I have varying levels of certainty should tell you your definition of atheism as being sure there is no god is incorrect. But it is loved by theists.
Belief only makes sense in the context of something you don’t know. That might be a future thing, or a present thing you lack knowledge of. Makes no difference. But in both case you might find out. Now, if they refused to show you the cat, you will never know if your belief was true or not, But that is far different from saying that you cannot know. If God never shows himself, you won’t know for sure if he exists. But if God showed himself, then you will know - so knowledge of god is indeed possible. The trick is when to stop waiting for God[ot] and decide he isn’t there and so will never come. But if he does, you can admit you were premature.
(I wonder if Godot shows up when churches stage that wonderful play. He should. )
.
Since I don’t have a spiritual bone in my body this does not bother me. The vastness of the universe, and the tiny percentage of it on which life can exist seems to indicate that it wasn’t built for us. However, that we are outliers, the even tinier percentage of matter which can wonder about these things, is far more cool than if the books were cooked and we were designed.
Occam’s Razor is a heuristic, and I didn’t mention it on purpose. The null hypothesis is far more important. With the vast number of possibilities, which do you go with if the evidence is not strong to indicate a particular one. Each potential god implies certain things about the universe. The null hypothesis of no god does not. If you don’t use it, some god is privileged.
Papers on this will provide a measure of the probability that the results that vaccines do not cause autism is due to chance. That’s how you compare them. To high a probability, and the paper gets rejected. Or most likely never submitted.
What it suggests to me is that you have an idiosyncratic definition of atheism. I’m okay with you calling yourself an atheist. The problem is that I can’t clearly distinguish your version of atheism from my version agnosticism.
Fine, but I still maintain that my analogy is less confusing than yours. That you can find a way to justify equating present facts with future facts doesn’t change the fact that the argument would be easier to follow if you would refrain from doing it. These conversations are hard enough to keep on track without piling on tangential sources of confusion.
This keeps happening over and over. I say, “I have no idea whether there is/are God(s).” And then you say, “When are you going to stop waiting for God?”
I am not waiting for God. I am also not waiting for beings from another world to land in my backyard. I have no idea whether either exist, but I am not ready to conclude that there are no other intelligent beings in the universe simply because they have not yet landed in my backyard.
We have been able to find no evidence that there are other intelligent beings in the universe, so, based on your argument, we should assume they don’t exist. Who knows? Maybe one day will be advanced enough to be better able to perform an effective search for aliens and draw a more meaningful conclusion. Maybe we’ll figure out a way to effectively search for evidence of God. But, as far as I’m concerned the jury is still out on both, and I don’t “believe” they exist and I don’t “believe” they don’t exist. I simply don’t know.
FWIW, I am a lot more optimistic about our ability to someday reach a stage of advancement where we can perform an effective search for evidence of aliens than I am about our future ability to look for evidence of God.
Maybe I’m terribly confused, but I believe this to match up very well with accepted definitions of agnosticism. You seem to be saying essentially the same thing and calling it atheism.
As far as I know, I don’t either. I suspect they would provide little structural support.
I appreciate your honesty in revealing your bias.
The null hypothesis is an example of using the Occam’s Razor heuristic. It is pragmatic to proceed as if something doesn’t exist if you can find no evidence. If you don’t do this, science grinds to a halt. But it doesn’t qualify as proof. It would be silly to proceed as if we are surrounded by aliens when we can find no evidence that this is the case. But to say that we’ve established that there are no intelligent aliens anywhere in the universe is arrogance masquerading as logic.
By the way, atheists keep demanding that everyone define God so they can look for evidence of It. It is similarly difficult (in kind, not scale) to define the intelligent aliens in a way that makes them easy to look for and identify.
So, on the question of whether God(s) exist(s), I have seen no credible evidence of It/Them. However, I also don’t think that our ability to look for God is on a level that makes me comfortable saying I believe we’ve confirmed God’s nonexistence. Agnostic.
I think this one is pretty good:
Theist: There are aliens out there. A whole ship-full of them landed in my backyard and stuck a probe in my butt. Atheist: You have never presented a single shred of valid evidence that aliens have been in your backyard or done anything to your butt. The very notion of butt-obsessed aliens is laughable. I don’t see how anyone could possibly believe that there might be intelligent aliens anywhere in the universe. Agnostic: I’m not even convinced that there are intelligent beings on this planet.
I understand the basic workings of scientific inquiry. The point is, based on my(admittedly not exhaustive) knowledge of the research that has been done–and the evaluations of that research by relevant experts–I am persuaded to believe that vaccines don’t cause autism. But pragmatic science will never be able to prove this–it can only fail to reject the null hypothesis and move on to the next thing. And to be very clear: I am not saying that I–in any way–disagree that this is an appropriate way for science to proceed.
On the subject of vaccines and autism, science has convinced me. On the subject of God(s), science has not convinced me one way or another. Agnostic.
Based on the evidence collected so far on the existence of God, I am not persuaded to believe that we know enough to even discuss the subject rationally. I offer up every God-based thread in this forum as supporting evidence.
You should read a thread on the definition of atheism. My definition is quite standard - among atheists. Those who are not atheists often want to impose a different definition which makes no sense, in that no reasonable person could hold it. Like being certain there are no gods, for instance.
I’m not talking about who you are waiting for at all. I’m talking about the definition of agnosticism. Do you admit that knowing of God exists is possible if God would show up? These terms refer to all possible gods, not just the subset a person is comfortable with. If you admit that some god can show up and be known, you are not an agnostic. Saying I don’t know at the moment is not agnosticism, and is very weak. (In the philosophical sense.) None of us really knows (except perhaps some theists who think they do) but we might know.
We also either have a belief in god or no belief in god - and so are either a theist or an atheist. (Perhaps a weak one who does not believe that God does not exist. Which is a perfectly legitimate position. ) This has little to do with knowledge.
Yeah, that’s the null hypothesis, and should hold until we have evidence to the contrary. However it is legitimate to believe that they exist, and take steps to
validate that belief. That’s how science works. No one believing the goal of an experiment is not true does the experiment, unless they are trying to replicate someone else’s work which they don’t buy.
But I can’t just assume aliens exist. Which aliens? Vulcans? Little green men from Arcturus?
The null hypothesis has nothing to do with proof. It is the default which you revert to when an attempt to verify the hypothesis fails. It is perfectly reasonable to hold that there are no aliens until proven otherwise. But it is okay to hold a hypothesis that there are and try to demonstrate it through SETI. Think Martians instead of aliens in general and it may be clearer.
.
Scientist doing SETI kind of define the aliens they are looking for as ones technological enough to have radio and aware of the universe enough to broadcast on a certain band. Which is not a claim that they exist. God is closer to the aliens of the UFO nuts. Contradictory versions, no evidence inconsistent in behavior, and when you fully disprove one (like Adamski’s Venusians) five more versions pop up.
Which God? You seem to have trouble understanding there are many possible gods. How could you say that anyone is comfortable confirming the nonexistence of any possible god? That’s an absurd position that no one actually holds, the very definition of strawman.
It seems to work for either of our positions on what atheism means.
Given that you seem surprised by the revelation that so many people who consider themselves to be atheists don’t match with the definition you consider atheism to hold, does this have any effect on your interpretation of those-claiming-to-be-athiests as a whole?
And how would you differentiate the philosophical viewpoints of a person who holds that we cannot know whether any gods exist, and that of a person who holds that there are some gods that we can know don’t exist? Beyond that very unwieldy sentence of mine, obviously. As I’m understanding your arguments, you’d hold that we must simply declare each person an agnostic - but there seem to be a significant difference to recognise there.
I mean, if absolutely nothing else, if we say that a person with uncertainty towards at least one god - no matter their certainty towards any others - then the natural end result would seem to be that there are truly very few believers, too. Any that question, in any way, are agnostics and nothing else.
I guess I’m being inadvertently subtle here. So let me try to be more clear. If you say that you are “atheist” and I say that I am “agnostic”, can you please tell me, in your opinion, in what way we are claiming to be different? Because I haven’t got a clue. Every time I think I’m starting to get it nailed down, I find that I’m misrepresenting the other side. Here’s what I have in terms of working theories:
Atheists “believe” that none of the Gods worshipped by organized religions exist. As far as the potential infinite multitude of gods that might exist, they don’t believe or not believe.
Agnostics “believe” that none of the Gods worshipped by organized religions exist. As far as the potential infinite multitude of gods that might exist, they don’t believe or not believe.
Agnostics will talk about the infinite multitude of possible gods as a group, using statements like, “I don’t know whether there is a god.” For agnostics, this statement does not exclude the possibility of multiple gods, because if there are any gods, then it stands to reason that “There is a god” would also be true. Thus, “I don’t know if any gods actually exist,” is covered by “I don’t know if there is a god.”
Atheists really do not like to talk about the infinite multitude of possible gods as a category. They much prefer to discuss hypothetical gods on a case by case basis. So, when an agnostic says, “I don’t know whether there is a god”, they insist on knowing which god you are referring to and repeatedly tell you that you’ve ignored the possibility that there might be more than one.
Atheists believe that agnostics are really deists, but are refusing to admit it for some reason.
Atheists believe that agnostics are weak-minded fools who don’t understand words that end with “ology”.
Yes, I freely admit that. I also freely admit that God could show up but conceal Itself so that I might still not know. Or I could just be too stupid to notice.
I suspect that you THINK you know which Gods would make me comfortable, but you really don’t.
If I would not be an agnostic in that case, what would I be? And what would a proper agnostic think?
I’ve tried to be very careful about not saying “know” when I mean “believe” and not saying “believe” when I mean “know”. However, you are responding as if I use those words interchangeably. The whole point of the thing about vaccines was to make this distinction.
Trying to leave behind the simple observation that we can’t know or prove anything, there is a threshold of evidence beyond which we choose to believe (and no, I do NOT need a thesis on ways that one might set this threshold).
I’m telling you that in the case of vaccines causing autism, the evidence available (well, lack of evidence) has crossed my personal threshold such that I *believe *that they do not.
I’m also telling you that on the question of whether any gods exists, the (lack of) evidence available has not crossed my personal threshold, so I don’t *believe *one way or the other. I don’t *believe *that there definitely are any gods. I don’t *believe *that there definitely are not any gods. I DO believe that this matches pretty closely with the way most people define the word “agnostic”.
I thought that the atheist position was that the lack of evidence had crossed their personal thresholds and that they, therefore, believe that there are no gods. Can’t seem to get an atheist to clarify where I’ve gotten this wrong. And when I try figure it out, I get lectured about epistemology and told to stop “special pleading” on behalf of my Deist god.
So, I’m still lost: I can’t nail down how atheists differ from agnostics, and, failing that, I certainly haven’t figured out why atheists seem to despise agnostics so.
You’re creating a set of polar opposites in which agnostics don’t exist (we left to be be with Gods), but what I *thought *we were talking about includes three possibilities:
A person believes that there is/are god(s) is a theist. This includes Christians, Hindus, and Deists, among others.
A person believes that there are no gods. I thought this was the atheist position.
A person does not believe either of the first 2. While the first two have drawn a conclusion about whether gods exist, the agnostic has not and therefore cannot be said to “believe” anything. This person also suspects that we will never (while living in this universe) know whether there are any gods. I thought this was the agnostic position. For me, this is pretty much the same as your “has no belief in god” and I was surprised that you labeled it “atheist”.
If you had included “agnostic” in your list, how would you have defined it?
Well, they’re sure tangled up in this discussion. There are things that I think I know, and I also believe them. There are things that I don’t know, but I also believe them. I would say that atheists don’t know that there aren’t any gods, but they believe that there aren’t any gods. However, I may be wrong, because I sure can’t get an atheist to admit to this. Agnostics don’t know whether there are any gods and don’t have a “belief” on the subject one way or the other.
You most certainly CAN assume they exist. You can arbitrarily choose to believe that Vulcans exist. The problem is that if I try to ask you whether you believe that any intelligent aliens exist in the universe, you start demanding that I tell you what kind of aliens on which planet I’m inquiring about. So, for me, the analogy looks like
Theist: I believe there are intelligent aliens out there. (Some theists believe they have been visited and probed by them.) Agnostic: I don’t know what to believe. I think it’s possible, but really can’t say that I believe or don’t believe we’ll find any.
**Atheist **(I thought): I believe there are no intelligent aliens out there.
**Atheist **(in this debate): Which planet are we talking about? What kind of aliens?
I can’t figure out what I might have said that convinced you that I need you to explain the null hypotheses or experimental design to me.
And this is part where I get to say, which God are you talking about? If you’ll tell me, then I’ll know whether I agree with you.
I also can’t figure out where I demonstrated this failure to allow for the possibility of multiple gods. What I am struggling to understand is what the hell the atheist position is on the existence of any gods. So far, it sounds like the atheist position is pretty much exactly the same as the agnostic position. And if that’s the case, I’m STILL trying to figure out why atheists have such obvious disdain for agnostics.
Maybe I’m as stupid as you keep implying, but I’ll say this: When I’m talking about being a libertarian, I try very hard to make it clear what I believe and why, so the other person has a chance to argue against my actual position. When I try to understand yours, you’re too busy treating me like a Deist for me to even figure out where we disagree. If I’m attacking straw men, it’s because I can’t FIND the real one.
I’m starting to believe that talking to atheists has a lot in common with praying: There is a chance that there’s a God somewhere listening, but I can’t find any evidence of it.
Not really. I still am of the impression that atheists generally despise agnostics. The only thing that’s really changed is that I am even more mystified as to why this might be.
Since they both seem to be trying to answer a different question, I don’t think I can. Based on this description, I can imagine two different people who disagree making these statements. But I also can imagine one person (namely me) making both of them.
I’m not saying there isn’t a difference. I’m saying I can’t identify it.
In fact, I might say that I am “agnostic” on whether there is a meaningful difference of opinion between agnostics and atheists (ignoring the tangential observation that agnostics like agnostics and atheists don’t like agnostics).
However, prior to joining this thread, I thought that there was a difference and that I knew what it was.
I’m not following why we would say this. It seems like, if I were to use the words “uncertainty toward the existence of any gods” that you would be comfortable replacing those words with “uncertainty towards the existence of a particular god”. Since I don’t see these as equivalent statements, everything that follows after that just seems like a random changing of the subject.
As an aside, it seems like atheists really like to make these sorts of not-quite-equivalent substitutions. Maybe I need to add an item to my working theory: Atheists like to make their arguments hopelessly confusing.
Smartass, I don’t claim to follow some of the finer points that you and Voyager and others are ironing out, not even sure if I’m following you on those I’m about to comment a bit on, and if so, I’ll just admit right now, it’s probably more my fault than yours.
Many a scientists think that mathematically speaking there is a chance of some other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Intelligent aliens possibly existing in the universe is not a theist, agnostic or atheist issue, is it? As far as theists being probed, they just target theists, do they? Those people that claimed to be probed by aliens are full of horseshit, and there are better explanations other than they actually got probed by an alien. But I suppose this is just an example to maybe try explain the different positions better. Not sure I would have used it.
Outside of most traditional believers, I had always assumed most did this, including you, when you’ve mentioned upthread that you were confident there is no God conceived by any of the major religions, and you also inventing another God concept of your own of one having intention, which you also say you seriously doubt exits too, but that you still prefer the term agnostic.
Seems like any reasonable person deals in probabilities of certainty and uncertainty. You criticized another for saying he said the more honest position is that there is no God, but that he’d revise his opinion if evidence to the contrary comes along. You made it sound like that was a bad thing and that he really shouldn’t call himself an atheist then, and that he was misrepresenting his position, because you want it defined a certain way or the way wiki defines it.
Since you’re using wiki as a referee for the term atheism, here is the first line is says about agnosticism:
For now, let’s leave out God and gods, and put in leprechauns, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, Tooth Fairy, Santa in its place, you get the idea. Since we don’t have a negation for what we would define ourselves by not believing in these entities, let’s go with believer, agnostic or atheist for such entities. But in the strange likelihood the evidence came in to show one did exist, would you feel like you misrepresented your position by claiming agnostic all along?
If the new evidence came in for a God, and it was an overwhelming amount of it for there actually being a God, and it turns out the atheist and agnostic position were wrong, surely, you’d do the same thing as an atheist, and change your mind. And what’s wrong with that?
Many, many years ago, I remember the definition of agnostic didn’t have “perhaps”, and said it was “unknown, and unknowable” for the agnostic. I think that too, still describes a group of agnostics. You clarified your agnostic position further by saying it’s probably not knowable. Of course, when no definition is ever given, no descriptive terms or attributes ever talked about, not limiting the search of the domain, how would one even know what they are talking about when they say God and refuse to give it any definition or attributes? It means different things to different people, and if others want to use vague, ambiguous, and general terms, it opens up the barn door with the cows never coming home.
The ultimate definition that I could give God, would be all the Big O’s, since that is how most want to describe Him, anyway: Omnipotent, Omniscience, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, and I would give Him Sentience. Without ever leaving the room, I can know there are many logical inconsistencies and contradictions which show why such a Being like that can’t exist and is impossible, even if he doesn’t have all of those attributes but just some of those. Der Trihs was quite good in this department. I can list some of them as well, but I’m sure you already get why this Being can’t exist.
So without God having all or some of those attributes, why even call it God? Remember what Epicurus said.
I have developed another theory on the atheist position:
I really can’t say whether I believe any of the infinite multitude of possible gods exist, since I don’t actually know anything. However, if you will select one of that multitude of possible gods, I will tell you why I believe it doesn’t exist.
Actually, I’m finding your post very helpful, and it’s making me think about how to clarify my own position. So thanks.
It was meant as an analogy. I used it specifically because I think we all have an easier time agreeing on the general definition of “intelligent alien” (but that could turn into a quagmire pretty quickly). So, we could agree on some defining characteristics of intelligent aliens without necessarily predicting which planet they are on, how many arms they have, or whether they prefer snarfel over ungfiszd.
Oh, yeah? Then how did the horseshit get inside them, huh?
Sorry, couldn’t resist. I rarely can.
I find that this phrasing makes me uncomfortable, because I don’t think of it as “defining a God concept”. Here is what I would say: Of the infinite possible beings that might exist, the subset that are causing the universe to exist on purpose, would–if one or more of them existed–fall into the category that I think of as “Possible God Beings”. This specifically does NOT exclude Possible God Beings (PGBs) that I haven’t or am incapable of imagining.
Maybe this is splitting hairs…at this point, I’m not really sure. So, for me, if someone asked, “Do you believe that any PGBs actually exist?” I would say no. If someone asked, “Do you believe that no PGBs actually exist?” I would say no. If someone asked, “Do you think you are ever likely to know whether any PGBs actually exist?” I would say no. If someone asked, “Would you like to know if any PGBs actually exist?” I would say yes. And if there is/are PGB(s), I’ve got a few bones to pick with it/them.
This is where I think it starts to get whacky. If you say, “There is no God”, you’re making a statement that you can’t meaningfully prove as if it were fact. So, I assume you mean to say, “I strongly believe that there is no God.” But when I pursued this, it turned into something more like, “I have no reason to believe that there is a God, so I don’t. For now.”
If you say, “There are no particular gods that I believe in”, I think that’s different from “I believe that there are no gods that exist” and WAY different from “I am so convinced that there are no gods that I am comfortable saying ‘There is no god’ as if it were a proven fact.” However, these kinds of statements keep being used interchangeably in ways that–rather than clarifying anything for me–just make me think that atheists like playing word games.
I don’t know that I can add much to my previous paragraph that would help here. However, I will say that it’s not that I WANT atheists to be what Wikipedia says they are; rather, if they are not, I want them to clarify what they actually are. And the reason I want to know is so that I can try to understand the disdain that so many atheists seem to have for agnostics–which leads them to do things like imply agnostics aren’t even honest with themselves.
My understanding of atheists is that they are not exactly keeping an eye peeled in case evidence of God turns up. But the phrasing you’re providing sure suggests that they are.
Okay, but I don’t actually know what the agnostic position is on any of those things.
Here’s the thing about these entities. I am not agnostic about any of them. I am atheistic (as I understand the term): I believe that none of these entities exist. I believe it so strongly that I feel comfortable saying “There is no actual living Santa Claus” as if it were actually proven. Needless to say, I’d be very surprised if one turned up. In fact, since several of them could not turn up without “breaking” science, my surprise would be nothing short of utter astonishment. So, claiming to be agnostic on these entities would be misrepresenting my position.
Of course, if they did turn up, then yes, I’d stop disbelieving in them immediately, probably even before the CAT scan was finished.
As I think on this, what just occurred to me may be relevant: There are PGBs that could exist without breaking science (although the “turning up” part might). And I think that has a lot to do with why I would say that I have not reached the threshold of “belief” that there are no PGBs. The Deist PGB is an example, but one that I am specifically NOT, um, rooting for.
Nothing, BUT the theist would get to do a lot of “I told you so” at the atheist that wouldn’t bother the agnostic at all.
This is a fair point, and one that I may be too quick to overlook. However, in my defense, I have tried to name at least one defining attribute, which was immediately interpreted as an admission that I am a Deist. And it sure seemed like if I was not ready to define a particular god, rather than identify a set of PGBs, then I was “special pleading” for the existence of the Deist god, when all I thought I was doing was acknowledging that the Deist god might exist (and again, NOT in favor).
I get what you’re saying, and while I don’t exactly agree, I also don’t vigorously object. I’d be willing to leave it at that, except for the fact that so many atheists are so disdainful of agnostics, and I still would like to understand why. However, since you don’t appear to be one of that group, you probably can’t answer the question.
I agree that the particular god you’re describing doesn’t exist. However, I don’t agree that it represents the entire set of PGBs.
I also am astonished that you think you’re in a position to give such a god sentience. (Sorry, it’s like a reflex.)
I think you may be speaking rhetorically, but since you’re definition of God was so over-the-top compared to mine, I’m going to play it straight. Not that it informs the discussion, but maybe it clarifies my position…
To the extent that my existence has purpose, I think that it is up to me to define it (or decline to define it). To the extent that your existence has purpose (that is, assuming you really exist and I’m not a brain in a jar), it is up to you to define it.
As far as the universe goes, we’re not influential enough to define its purpose, and we inhabit too small a portion of its time and space to even have much chance of guessing what it might be. By the definition of God that I offered, if any PGBs exist, then there is a purpose to be guessed at. If no PGBs exist, then there isn’t.
Even recognizing that I don’t know the answer and probably never will, I find the question of whether there is a purpose too interesting to just dismiss it out of hand.
I don’t believe that’s correct. I know of no such despising. At worst, atheists disdain agnostics slightly for being both lukewarm and pointlessly pedantic. At best, atheists consider agnostics to have figured out 98% of the truth.
Despise? No.
But the ones that go about claiming that God is unknown and unknowable I rank with children that just don’t want to hear that there is no Santa Claus. “I don’t know, and I don’t wanna know! No, don’t try to find out-as far as I’m concerned that door is nailed shut.” I guess it’s the fault of science for making the universe so damn large it’s easy to hide a god, and now they have concepts of possible alternate universes to hide God in.
I would agree with this.
Also the following is telling, I think.
[QUOTE=Smartass]
Nothing, BUT the theist would get to do a lot of “I told you so” at the atheist that wouldn’t bother the agnostic at all.
[/QUOTE]
Atheists often see agnostics as being somehow afraid of what the theists might think of them. That they don’t identify as atheist (which we think they actually are) because of the repercussions it would have.
I have a deeper problem with “unknowable.” It’s quite an assertive declaration. It’s making a positive claim about the universe. It not only says that there is no evidence at this time for God’s existence, but that no evidence will – or even can – be uncovered in the future.
I got no beef with “I don’t know” agnostics. But “No one can ever know” agnostics are functionally indistinguishable from atheists. The former are willing to admit that God might pop up some day and reveal himself in almighty glory, but the latter are making a positive claim that this will never happen. Same as us atheists.
No, it’s not the same-it’s worse. As an atheist, I say that there are no gods because no one has come forward with verifiable evidence for any god they happen to believe in…but I don’t go around saying that such evidence cannot exist and that it cannot be found. I am still open to changing my mind and putting “gods” as a possibility back on the table if and when something solid is brought forth.
Despise isn’t the right word - when I was an atheist, I pitied agnostics - the reason being, the were playing right into the theist’s hands. By agreeing to the unspoken contract that theism is the uniquely-privileged fairytale, they were selling us out. But they weren’t doing it out of animus, they were doing it because they (ironically enough) didn’t know any better. Hence pity.
I still feel the same way, even though I’m not an atheist in that sense anymore.
What do I think about gods I’ve never even heard of? I can’t say I believe they don’t exist, but I certainly lack belief in them. So, I’m a weak atheist wrt to them. Some gods I have heard about I might know enough about to do anything but lack belief, but gods that people insist on blathering about to me deserve more attention. I started out just lacking belief, then told myself who am I fooling, and admitted to myself I believed they did not exist. But that is still a subset, since even in Christianity there seems to be multiple flavors of God. Criticize a god belief to a moderate Christian (the kind who is not creation, does not hate gays, and is usually a good person) and they will tell you that isn’t the god they believe in. I don’t think I can honestly say I believe that god does not exist, since its definition has never been narrowed down enough.