Atheism versus Agnostism
First of all i would like to say Agnosticism is completely acceptable due to the mass corruption in many churches and religions. That being said i believe many atheists are just really angry (and rightly so) but are unwilling to admit that they are in fact agnostic and not atheist. Several comedians have commented on this. I believe most of the world's population is intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that they can't prove for sure that there is no extra-natural (my term) or super-natural deity or entity. Most Atheists aren't stupid, they are just angry. Like i said before agnosticism is completely acceptable in many cases.
A careful study of online forums such as this will reveal i am not trolling but just being fair and philosophizing. Lets not be over sensitive.
A careful study of online forums such as this will reveal i am not trolling but just being fair and philosophizing. Lets not be over sensitive.
Comments (53)
Empirical claims are not provable period. So that "There is no god" isn't provable is a red herring. "There is no invisible, massless 1976 Corvette in my kitchen" isn't provable, either, but I'm not about to "only" be an agnostic about it. Rather I'd say that I'm certain it's the case.
The conventional definition of "empirical" said it.
Are you an agnostic about every empirical claim, such as whether you have an automobile?
There is a distinction between weak/negative and strong/positive atheism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Weak atheism seems to me to be a kind of agnosticism - a lack of believe in any deity rather than the positive belief that no deities exist.
Strong atheism is a positive belief that no deities exist. How anyone can be 100% sure of that, I do not see.
So it could be reasonably argued there are no strong atheists and the weak atheists are actually agnostic as per your OP.
So would you say that you're not 100% sure when it comes to denying any arbitrary, absurd/fantastical claim that anyone makes? Are you not 100% sure that there's no Zeus hanging out at Mount Olympus? Are you not 100% sure that Kim Jong-un isn't an alien who created the Earth 15 years ago as a science fair project on his home planet of Floopappy?
I have no problem saying that I'm 100% sure that ridiculous, incoherent shit that people fantasize isn't the case. (I enjoy that sort of stuff as fiction, though . . . well, as long as it isn't so incoherent that it just seems like a string of random nonsense.)
I have no reason to believe our modes of access to the universe are comprehensive.
I guess to be precise, we have to give God a definition.
I have a deist view of God in mind as a non-interventional entity that create the universe through non-magical means. I do not believe it is possible to rule out such a God with 100% certainty, so by this definition, there are no atheists.
Your definition of God as something outlandish and unbelievable seems would seem to lead to virtually 100% certainty that such a God does not exist. So with that definition, there are atheists.
I guess your usage of the word athiest is closer to common usage of the word. But I feel my usage is the technically correct usage.
Are you an agnostic about that, too?
I'm an atheist about there being an entity that created the universe through non-magical means, too, because I'd say the idea of that is incoherent. There can't be something that exists somehow aside from the universe. The universe is everything that exists.
If we want to just name any arbitrary thing "God," then sure, some of those things I'd say I'm not an atheist about, but that's a silly tactic that we could take with all words. In that case, everyone believes and doesn't believe and isn't sure about every single proposition--depending on just how we define the terms involved. We could say, "Oh, you're an atheist. If we define 'atheist' as 'something that is identical to itself.'" And then you could say, "No, I'm not an atheist in that regard if we define 'identical to itself' as the negation of that--'nonidentical to itself.'" And so on. It's silly. Good if we're writing a Monty Python-style sketch, though.
At any rate, if you wanted to propose some limited set of things that first existed (as the universe, I'd say) that somehow had a causal role in creating additional materials, then yeah, I'd be an agnostic on that. We should have good reasons to bother considering it, though.
The idea of an existent that's somehow external to "spacetime" is incoherent on my view. I'm 100% certain in ruling that out.
Remember, by the way, that quite a few ideas floated theoretically in the sciences are complete poppycock on my view.
1. Can't get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence (because if there ever was a state of nothingness, nothingness would persist to today)
3. Something cannot exist permanently in time ('always' existing in time implies no temporal start which implies it does not exist)
4. So there must exist a permanent timeless something. This is identical to the necessary being that philosophers have argued for down the ages.
5. The permanent timeless something is the cause of the Big Bang.
6. Timeless things are permanent (they just 'are' - no tense). They are beyond causality so do not in themselves need creating.
I believe the above represents the only credible metaphysical explanation for the origin of everything.
I am not aware of any sound metaphysical arguments that support strong atheism. It is the general incredulity over the possibility of a deity that is used as an argument for strong atheism and there is no logic to back that argument.
I don't agree with any one of those statements. We've talked about most of them in other threads. Probably no need to rehash it here, because we're just going to end up in the same place we both started from.
Adding this to my journal.
I don't think It's as simple as stating that "noone can disprove it". For one, argument would be required as to why "disproving" it is the standard to apply here. It certainly is not if we're talking about a physical God, because the standard there is pretty clear: Whatever has no predictive or explanatory value does not exist. This applies to God or gods (given their common definitions), so in that sense it's entirely rational to be atheistic.
If we're talking about a metaphysical concept of "God", things get less clear. But it doesn't follow that basic agnosticism is therefore the only position one can take. For one, there'd need to be a consistent concept of a metaphysical God in the first place that we can talk about. But that runs into thorny problems, from the basic question of how attributes like omniscience and omnipotence are supposed to be conceptualized to the theodicy issue. I think that, in light of these factors, one can reasonably claim to be not just agnostic, but an atheist.
Deism is a subset of theism but you could argue that deists are atheistic with regard to a traditional definition of God.
Likewise, because of the more moderate definition of God (no 3Os) employed by deists, you could say atheists are agnostic with respect to a deistic god - in that disproving the existence of such a god is beyond the power of science and reason - so to deny the possibility completely would seem unreasonable.
I'm not sure everyone will agree with this; Dawkins head would explode I'd imagine. But his sort of caustic atheism does the debate no favours IMO.
Ignosticism
Theological Noncognitivism
I think the Hitchensian dictum "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" holds true in this case. No faith is required.
I would say agnostics are more faith orientated. They suspend judgement just in case, because they have faith God is not only possible, but also real.
If you ask, are there things which are Real which I am not able to imagine, the answer would have to be yes. Trivially, the history of science illustrates this (paradigm shifts). So if you base your 'negative affirmation' (God does not exist) on your own inability to conceptualize God, well, that is a personal limitation. I saw a video where Dan Dennet made exactly such an argument.
If, on the other hand, we were asking, what might be the nature of a God that really exists, that is a much more interesting discussion. I would say that atheism is...unnecessary.
If 3 people claim to have seen something supernatural or extra-natural (ofcourse they could be lying)
then i believe for someone to say there are no extra-natural nor supernatural occurences or god like entities, then the notion of gods or a God cannot be dismissed without evidence. Atleast not completely. I believe Agnosticism is acceptable because of the uncertain world we live in and it appears God or the gods are in a constant game of hide and seek.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you define a god as an omnipotent, and omniscient conscious being, then one absolutely can be an atheist with regards to it with 100% certainty since this definition of god is a paradox. If god is all knowing, then he knows the future, and if he knows the future and attempts to change it, he would have been wrong about knowing the future and thus not be all knowing. If he can't change the future due to his omniscience needing to be kept in check, hes therefore not all powerful.
A god defined as such cannot therefore exist.
Yes, specifically we'd need a clear definition of a metaphysical entity "God".
Quoting Devans99
Disproving the existence of things doesn't usually involve ruling out the possibility of it's existence. Rather, it is sufficient to point out that there is no good reason to posit some existence. This is how empirical science goes about "disproving" and I think the same principle ought more or less to apply to metaphysics. Unless there is a reason to posit some metaphysical entity, we might as well consider it nonexistent.
Quoting Devans99
Depends on the context. If you run a drug trial and detect no difference compared to the control group, that is evidence of absence (in that case absence of a pharmaceutical effect).
Aside from the conflation of the supernatural and god(-like entities), that's basically an endorsement of argumentum ad populums.
based on previous conversations between me and you specifically: no comment.
To completely dismiss the opinions of others at all times is a sign of narcisism. We should all value atleast somebody else's opinion.
"Either I'm going to endorse argumentum ad populums rather than consider them a fallacy, or I'm going to completely dismiss the opinions of others at all times."
Now there's a fine example of nuance.
ok
who said that? Its not all or nothing.
Disproving the existence of something means ruling out the possibility of its existence. I know what you mean, but still it is strictly speaking a contradiction.
Quoting Echarmion
There are many arguments for the existence of God. So there is some (debated) evidence of presence and also no evidence of absence. I do not see now on this basis a fully rational person could dismiss the existence of a deist god with 100% certainty - that leads to a conclusion (with the deist definition of God) that there are no fully rational atheists.
Quoting Echarmion
I think this is a different situation. Here we have changed something (put drugs into a patient) and noted no effect. So we have positive evidence (that the drug is not working).
You did, by responding to a critical comment about endorsing argumentum ad populums as if it implied completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times.
Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times?
ok
i disagree with that.
don't pretend you would listen to any of my arguments either.
Then you answer "Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times? "
It's only strictly speaking a contradiction if possibility of existence is equivalent to actual existence.
Quoting Devans99
Arguments are not evidence though. Just the fact that there are arguments doesn't mean one has to agree with them. Without looking at the arguments themselves, you cannot say that disagreeing with all of them is per se irrational.
Quoting Devans99
I agree we have evidence of absence. But this evidence is based on absence of evidence - quite literally nothing happening.
i dismiss your opinion everytime. Not everyone else.
At least you care enough to respond to tell me this.
Weak/negative atheism is lack of belief in any particular deity. I think it falls under the wider category of of agnosticism. To justify weak atheism, nothing is required because it is a negative belief.
Strong/positive atheism is a belief that no deities at all exist (strong atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false according to Wikipedia). To justify that belief/assertion, strictly speaking, one has to be sure that no deities exist at all. That requires a proof that no deities at all exist. That is surely unprovable for a deist deity (=no 3Os).
But maybe the above is unreasonable. I think a proof that the universe is not a creation would be sufficient for most people to adopt strong atheism. But no such prove exists.
So strong/positive atheism is a positive belief/assertion - which requires proof - else it is classed as belief without evidence - which is irrational.
Quoting Echarmion
But in the drug trial example, you expect something to happen if the drug is effective and it does not so you can reach the conclusion that the drug is not effective.
In terms of God, it would be a like building a God detection device, turning it on and getting a negative result.
In both cases there is evidence of absence (of drug effects / God) rather than absence of evidence.
your welcome. as you can tell i'm so compassionate. lol
It’s not evidence of anything.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that "atheist/agnostic" in this context are merely more or less arbitrary groups of related beliefs. They are useful to indicate the direction your thoughts go into, but what ultimately matters are the specific reasons.
Quoting Devans99
I don't really see what you mean by "proof" here. A "proof" in the strict sense only exists in purely deductive systems like formal logic or mathematics. There is no "proof" of that kind for empirical science, and I don't believe very much can be deduced about metaphysics other than that something exists that thinks my thoughts. But since the possibility of metaphysics are essentially unlimited, it doesn't make sense to call this "being agnostic". Because it would follow that one is agnostic towards everything, from naive realism to the simulation hypothesis.
Quoting Devans99
Well, the quality of the evidence will depend on the circumstances, as I already stated. With God, the problem isn't really about whether the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence but more about how God can even be imagined as a physical entity in the first place and what predictive power such a theory of God would have. Rules such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are only true for purely deductive formal logic, not for inductive empirical science, and are useful shorthands rather than actual rules in the latter.
'Proof' is the wrong word - sorry. Strong atheists hold a positive belief in the non-existence of any deities. What I'm suggesting is they need a justification for that belief (as in Justified True Belief). Evidence/a strong argument for the non-existence of a deist God is what is required to rationally hold the strong atheist viewpoint. I am not aware that any such evidence/strong arguments exist.
Quoting Echarmion
It is a fair point, but I think there is a natural tendency for humans to limit their consideration of what is possible to what they are familiar with when in fact what they are familiar could be only a tiny subset of what is actually possible. It seems God must be timeless so straight away we are in very unfamiliar / non-earth-like territory. God maybe extra dimensional. God may not be a physical entity. These things could be possible but are completely alien to us.
I listen to your arguments, christian2017. They bring me great happiness.
Speaking of which, I truly grieve for the loss of the thread with all the snakes and lizards and small vaginas. I think the forum is a poorer place without it.
You seem very intelligent. I'm not sure what to say. I don't usually do this but if you would like send me a private message. No wrong answer.
:)
Recognition!
Finally... :roll: