Atheist or Agnostic?

Zillah · 11-03-2010 2:10pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

All beliefs have SOME evidence.

Agnosticism is the very definition of neither side making a conclusive argument.

You have rejected (as have I) the evidence that religious people accept.

And you know what, they reject your evidence.

As their is NO definitive evidence, you have belief that your evidence is superior.

I find it very hard to believe that you all think that "atheism is a proven fact".

Gravity isn't even a proven fact. Evolution is just a theory. Science is MOSTLY theories.

There's nothing illogical with believing a theory that has evidence, but it's a belief.

In a single post you establish quite clearly to many people who are far better at this than you that you are severely deficient in the understanding of the following things:

- The most basic principles of science.
- The relevance of the burden of proof.
- The definition of 'theory'.
- The definition of 'fact'.
- Atheism
- Agnosticism

Not to mention that you are so carelessly mixing terminology from different schools of thought that it's a bit like trying to build a house using meters, feet, pounds, kilos, French, English and Swahili all at the same time.

If you really have some opinions on these matters I suggest you go do a whole lot of research before embarrassing yourself like this.

iUseVi · 11-03-2010 2:41pm

Zillah wrote: »

"Must...counter....fallacies....aagh..."

Ickle Magoo · 11-03-2010 2:49pm

That's brilliant iUseVi, my other half wants the poster.

iUseVi · 11-03-2010 3:20pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's brilliant iUseVi, my other half wants the poster.

From here: http://xkcd.com/386/, I forgot the credit earlier, oops. I'm sure posters can be made/bought.

MrPudding · 11-03-2010 8:53pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I gotta say, after being booted from the Christianity forum for mocking the beliefs of Christians, I am tempted to call for a banning of Christians from the AG/AT forum if they mock Athiests or Agnostics.

More double standards I suppose. Not enough to control almost every facet of life...

Having been recently, and quite unreasonably IMHO, banned from the christianity forum myself I can safely say I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

The best threads we have in this forum are those where we have the faithful representing their positions and questioning ours. Most of us here are secure enough to not need over zealous moderation or a big ban stick to prevent questioning of our positions. And long may that last.

MrP

Tigger · 11-03-2010 9:31pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Having been recently, and quite unreasonably IMHO, banned from the christianity forum myself I can safely say I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

The best threads we have in this forum are those where we have the faithful representing their positions and questioning ours. Most of us here are secure enough to not need over zealous moderation or a big ban stick to prevent questioning of our positions. And long may that last.

MrP

also we will miss out on gems like "and i ****ing quote"

gravity isn't proven

i quote my favorite poster on this matter

Tigger wrote: »

other wise it'd be a boring forum here with

op; i dont believe in god

tigger; me neither wanna go for a pint

op; i don't believe in drinking before lunch time

tigger; but look at all the evidence of drinking before lunchtime how can you dispute it.

op; i'm off to talk to the godbotherers

Dades · 11-03-2010 11:57pm

No more talk of moderation from the other forum.

That is all.

kelly1 · 12-03-2010 6:33pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Even if I grant you that the universe had a cause, all that means is that the universe had a cause, the nature of that cause would still remain a mystery and "I don't know so it must be god" would not be any more valid then than it is today.

In theory it would have to have been "immaterial" as we understand the term because there was no such thing material as we understand the term (we think) but it must then be pointed out that what we understand of the term is not necessarily complete; what appears immaterial to us is not necessarily totally immaterial in the way you understand a god to be. Just because something does not follow the laws of our universe as they currently are does not mean it's a god and it certainly does not mean it's the catholic god

The way I see it, we have a couple of possible scenarios.

1. The universe is actually eternal which implies an infinite series of causes and events.

2. The universe/time began at a finite time in the past.

In scenario 1, we are faced with the problem of an actual infinity. From my limited knowledge of maths an actually infinity is impossible to define. We can only ever approach infinity, but never reach it. What is infinity minus infinity for example. It's nonsensical. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be inclined to rule out this option.

In scenario 2, space-time/matter is finite in age meaning that there was no matter beforehand with with which to make it. So the "source" cannot be matter as we know it. If you're going to postulate an immaterial cause, why can't we define this as God? Why presume it's not God?

It stands to reason that what caused the big-bang must be very powerful. I could also be argued that the immaterial cause must be infinitely powerful because a finite amount of power would require an explanation. Finite power would imply that somethings were impossible and the restriction would have to be explained. Infinte power is a far simpler hypothesis because it requires less explanation. And we all know how science prefers the simplest explanation.

strobe · 12-03-2010 6:50pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The way I see it, we have a couple of possible scenarios.

1. The universe is actually eternal which implies an infinite series of causes and events.

In scenario 1, we are faced with the problem of an actual infinity. From my limited knowledge of maths an actually infinity is impossible to define. We can only ever approach infinity, but never reach it. What is infinity minus infinity for example. It's nonsensical. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be inclined to rule out this option.

Ok Noel, this right here.

Do you believe God had a finite starting point? If not then by your reasoning he can't possibly exist as "It's nonsensical. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be inclined to rule out this option". So either you believe God had a finite starting point, you believe the idea of God is non-sensical or you made a really big typo above. Which is it?

kelly1 · 12-03-2010 6:58pm

strobe wrote: »

Ok Noel, this right here.

Do you believe God had a finite starting point? If not then by your reasoning he can't possibly exist as "It's nonsensical. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be inclined to rule out this option". So either you believe God had a finite starting point, you believe the idea of God is non-sensical or you made a really big typo above. Which is it?

I don't really get your point. I'm saying that God is eternal, that He transcends time. He only exists in the eternal timeless now - no past, no future, only now. What infinite quantity does that involve? Or have I missed your point?

iUseVi · 12-03-2010 6:58pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The way I see it, we have a couple of possible scenarios.

1. The universe is actually eternal which implies an infinite series of causes and events.

2. The universe/time began at a finite time in the past.

In scenario 1, we are faced with the problem of an actual infinity. From my limited knowledge of maths an actually infinity is impossible to define. We can only ever approach infinity, but never reach it. What is infinity minus infinity for example. It's nonsensical. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be inclined to rule out this option.

Infinity is not a problem. It is defined in mathematics and in fact modern mathematics is impossible to do without the concept of infinity. Just because our brain cannot comprehend the notion of for example "infinity + infinity" does not mean infinity is nonsense.

"I'm not a mathematician but I'd be inclined to rule out this option." You don't understand it so you dismiss it out of hand. This is a mistake. Thinking like this would throw out all sorts of things, quantum mechanics etc.

kelly1 wrote: »

In scenario 2, space-time/matter is finite in age meaning that there was no matter beforehand with with which to make it. So the "source" cannot be matter as we know it. If you're going to postulate an immaterial cause, why can't we define this as God? Why presume it's not God?

It stands to reason that what caused the big-bang must be very powerful. I could also be argued that the immaterial cause must be infinitely powerful because a finite amount of power would require an explanation. Finite power would imply that somethings were impossible and the restriction would have to be explained. Infinte power is a far simpler hypothesis because it requires less explanation. And we all know how science prefers the simplest explanation.

I can only facepalm this. Pure wishful thinking. You jump from a finite start to an immaterial creator, then you jump from this to an infinitely powerful immaterial creator. This is not logical reasoning, this is just wishful make-uppery.

kelly1 · 12-03-2010 7:11pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Infinity is not a problem. It is defined in mathematics and in fact modern mathematics is impossible to do without the concept of infinity.

How do you define infinity? I would have thought it can only be defined by what it's not i.e. not finite.

What the difference between infinity and infinity + 1? If infinity is defined, there must be a difference between these 2 quantities. How are they different?

Infinity is only an idea which does not exist in reality.

strobe · 12-03-2010 7:19pm

I'm just trying to understand how you can say "God is eternal" and then three mintues later say "Infinity is only an idea which does not exist in reality". Eternity and infinity both mean everlasting/without end, eternity usually applied strictly in reference to time while infinity has a looser definition. You have just said you believe that infinity doesn't exist and then you say God is infinite. I'm just trying to put myself in your frame of mind to try and understand your argument.

kelly1 · 12-03-2010 7:27pm

strobe wrote: »

I'm just trying to understand how you can say "God is eternal" and then three mintues later say "Infinity is only an idea which does not exist in reality". Eternity and infinity both mean everlasting/without end, eternity usually applied strictly in reference to time while infinity has a looser definition. You have just said you believe that infinity doesn't exist and then you say God is infinite. I'm just trying to put myself in your frame of mind to try and understand your argument.

I'm saying that eternity isn't everlasting time. It's the absence of time, no past or future, only the present. Maybe eternity is the wrong word?

iUseVi · 12-03-2010 7:41pm

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you define infinity? I would have thought it can only be defined by what it's not i.e. not finite.

What the difference between infinity and infinity + 1? If infinity is defined, there must be a difference between these 2 quantities. How are they different?

Infinity is only an idea which does not exist in reality.

Well the whole concept of infinity is counter-intuitive, which seems to be why you cannot accept it. In fact infinity + 1 is infinity. There see counter-intuitive.

I cannot prove to you that it exists, just like I can't prove to you the colour "red" exists. I could talk to you about Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Cantor's slash etc but I would be wasting my breath.

Strobe makes a good point, you say things like "God is infinitely powerful" or has that he has existed forever, and when challenged you move the goal posts and say "Oh god is outside time" or whatever. How do we expect us to debate anything with you when you define something like this that cannot be shown to be either true or false? Don't bring out the logical big guns and then redefine your definitions half way through, you can't expect a proper debate that way.

Please, without making excuses about god being outside the universe (how could he effect it if he was outside it), please explain why god can exist forever but the universe cannot.

kelly1 · 12-03-2010 8:16pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Well the whole concept of infinity is counter-intuitive, which seems to be why you cannot accept it. In fact infinity + 1 is infinity. There see counter-intuitive.

And it's undefined because x+1 cannot equal x.

iUseVi wrote: »

Strobe makes a good point, you say things like "God is infinitely powerful" or has that he has existed forever, and when challenged you move the goal posts and say "Oh god is outside time" or whatever. How do we expect us to debate anything with you when you define something like this that cannot be shown to be either true or false? Don't bring out the logical big guns and then redefine your definitions half way through, you can't expect a proper debate that way.

I'm not a philosopher so I'm having to refine my language because you're forcing me to - which is good.

iUseVi wrote: »

Please, without making excuses about god being outside the universe (how could he effect it if he was outside it), please explain why god can exist forever but the universe cannot.

Because time was created by God and as I've argued earlier, an actual infinite regression of causes and effects cannot exist. That might not be rigorous enough for you but it's the best I can do for now.

==========================================================================================

Just getting back to the original point of this thread, I asked why people call themselves atheists rather than agnostics.

The general consensus seems to be that atheists don't believe in any gods as opposed to my perception which was that atheists believe that no gods exist. So in this sense, you could say atheism, as defined by yourselves, is not actually a belief (that something doesn't exist).

Have I understood correctly?

ColmDawson · 12-03-2010 8:24pm

kelly1 wrote: »

you could say atheism, as defined by yourselves, is not actually a belief

Bingo.

robindch · 12-03-2010 8:33pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Well the whole concept of infinity is counter-intuitive, which seems to be why you cannot accept it. In fact infinity + 1 is infinity. There see counter-intuitive. [...] I could talk to you about Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Cantor's slash etc but I would be wasting my breath.

A few years ago, I asked a religious relative whether this god of hers was infinite in aleph-null, or aleph-one. I was told not to be so closed-minded and reductive and that "infinity means infinity". Oh, the irony!

Some Guy wrote:

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph-null bottles of beer, Take one down, and pass it around, Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall
Etc.

iUseVi · 12-03-2010 8:40pm

kelly1 wrote: »

And it's undefined because x+1 cannot equal x.

Umm well infinity is not a normal number, lets just say that

But mathematical infinity is probably not what you mean, its a different concept from infinity in physics, which I suspect is what you are talking about? Because you (and I), don't fully understand mathematical infinity is no reason to poo poo the concept altogether.

kelly1 wrote: »

Because time was created by God and as I've argued earlier, an actual infinite regression of causes and effects cannot exist. That might not be rigorous enough for you but it's the best I can do for now.

I also dislike an infinite regression of causes and effects, but theres no need to go one step further to make a god. And theres no (physical) evidence for it. I could arbitrarily go two steps back and say the universe was created by a being that was created a two other more powerful beings. Theres the same amount of proof for this made up scenario. You can presume as you like, but until evidence comes along....

kelly1 wrote: »

The general consensus seems to be that atheists don't believe in any gods as opposed to my perception which was that atheists believe that no gods exist. So in this sense, you could say atheism, as defined by yourselves, is not actually a belief (that something doesn't exist).

Have I understood correctly?

Yes! Hooray, break out the champagne.

kelly1 · 12-03-2010 8:55pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Yes! Hooray, break out the champagne.

Before we go off and buy bottles of bubbly, if someone says "I do not believe in (any) God(s)", that sounds an awful lot like agnosticism to me.

Someone would only make such a claim because they have no evidence either way - they're sitting on the fence between atheism and theism. That's why I'm claiming that most atheists are actually agnostics!

If we define the following:

atheism - the belief that god(s) don't exist.
agnosticism - Lack of belief in god(s)
Theism - belief in God.

Then what the heck is agnostic atheism?? That's just muddying the waters, isn't it?

--amadeus-- · 12-03-2010 9:40pm

An athiest is someone who is satisfied - beyond resonable doubt - that god(s) aren't real. It's the standard used in criminal trials, it's good enough for me.

Now if you want to redefine things to say that the standard applied for hundreds of years in courts around teh world is a little lax and want to redefine us all against our will and turn us into secretive fence sitters you need something better than "infinity <> infinity+1"

ColmDawson · 12-03-2010 9:40pm

I don't like the term 'agnostic'. It seems to me that it doesn't really help in any discussion of this sort.

With regard to anything which cannot be proven, I am agnostic.
I don't know whether or not the tooth fairy exists. I can't know.
This might seem like a silly example, but it's true. So it's not exactly a useful term, in my opinion.

'Atheist' gives a far more accurate depiction of my position.

Valmont · 12-03-2010 9:58pm

I don't like sitting on the fence and if I analyse the evidence rationally, I am completely certain that such a being/idea/thing as farcical as God does not exist. We can engage in radical epistemological skepticism all we like but sometimes you just have to look at the evidence and make your decision. I'm sure everyone here, atheist or agnostic lives their lives as if they were atheists. Atheism is the functional and rational position to take; agnosticism, more of a epistemological technicality really. Taking agnosticism to its logical conclusion implies reserving judgement for any untestable assertion, however crazy.

Tell me, that cup of tea in front of you right now, does it have cyanide in it? It might. You just don't know do you? Oh bother, what will I do? I don't like how agnosticism makes non-believers look like vacillating morons. If we are to stand up for our beliefs in a society dominated by religion we need to voice the certainty of our convictions, unwaveringly.

I'm sure everyone will agree with me;)

bnt · 12-03-2010 10:03pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Before we go off and buy bottles of bubbly, if someone says "I do not believe in (any) God(s)", that sounds an awful lot like agnosticism to me.

Someone would only make such a claim because they have no evidence either way - they're sitting on the fence between atheism and theism. That's why I'm claiming that most atheists are actually agnostics!

If we define the following:

atheism - the belief that god(s) don't exist.
agnosticism - Lack of belief in god(s)
Theism - belief in God.

Then what the heck is agnostic atheism?? That's just muddying the waters, isn't it?

That's because your definition of Agnosticism is wrong. It's apparently a popular fallacy to think it means "I don't know", but - as I keep saying - no-one knows, though some claim to know. The word was invented by T H Huxley to describe his opinion that the answers to such questions could never and would never be found. See: Thomas Henry Huxley and Agnosticism. Since he thus had no positive belief in a religion, he would be called an atheist today, though the term was also used incorrectly in his day and he didn't like it.

Also: your definition of atheism is wrong. Haven't you been reading the replies in this thread? It is not the "negative" belief, it is the absence of "positive" belief, and no, they are not the same thing. The way --amadeus-- puts it above is also good: "satisfied" with that conclusion is not meant to indicate strong belief in that conclusion, because strong belief in something requires evidence for that something. (Or, it should.)

I don't have evidence that there are no gods. That would be "proving a negative", which is a non-starter. Too bad there is no concrete evidence for the correctness of your religion either: plenty of testimony (scriptures, personal statements, etc.), but testimony alone does not constitute evidence in support of a case, since people can (and do) say anything. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. :cool:

Dades · 12-03-2010 10:26pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Then what the heck is agnostic atheism??

An agnostic atheist declares a lack belief in god(s) but concedes that due to the vague nature of the term god, the answer is inherently unknowable.

That's my take on it anyway.

Daftendirekt · 12-03-2010 11:23pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Before we go off and buy bottles of bubbly, if someone says "I do not believe in (any) God(s)", that sounds an awful lot like agnosticism to me.

Someone would only make such a claim because they have no evidence either way - they're sitting on the fence between atheism and theism. That's why I'm claiming that most atheists are actually agnostics!

If we define the following:

atheism - the belief that god(s) don't exist.
agnosticism - Lack of belief in god(s)
Theism - belief in God.

Then what the heck is agnostic atheism?? That's just muddying the waters, isn't it?

So close, yet so far away.

Atheism - Lack of belief

Agnosticism - Lack of knowledge

Agnostic atheism - Lack of belief and lack of knowledge

Theism relates to belief, and gnosticism relates to knowledge.

iUseVi · 13-03-2010 1:39am

Daftendirekt wrote: »

So close, yet so far away.

Atheism - Lack of belief

Agnosticism - Lack of knowledge

Agnostic atheism - Lack of belief and lack of knowledge

Theism relates to belief, and gnosticism relates to knowledge.

This. Please read and understand this Noel, there will be a test.

Zombrex · 13-03-2010 2:08am

kelly1 wrote: »

Because time was created by God and as I've argued earlier, an actual infinite regression of causes and effects cannot exist. That might not be rigorous enough for you but it's the best I can do for now.

For God to create time there must be a point where God existed but time didn't. Then God did something and then time existed.

Ok, but how are you measuring these two points?

If there is a point where time doesn't exist, then a creation point and then a point where time does exist you have a time line.

Except you can't have a time line because time does exist.

For God to create something there must be a time line where God is that he is on. And this time line must just exist in the way God just exists. God can't create it because by definition a creation event requires a time line.

So not only do you have the trouble of something complex like God (and YES for the last time he must be complex by definition) just exist, but you also have some sort of time just existing.

Reason #142523 why the Christian concept of God is illogical.

Zombrex · 13-03-2010 2:12am

kelly1 wrote: »

Before we go off and buy bottles of bubbly, if someone says "I do not believe in (any) God(s)", that sounds an awful lot like agnosticism to me.

Someone would only make such a claim because they have no evidence either way - they're sitting on the fence between atheism and theism. That's why I'm claiming that most atheists are actually agnostics!

If we define the following:

atheism - the belief that god(s) don't exist.
agnosticism - Lack of belief in god(s)
Theism - belief in God.

Then what the heck is agnostic atheism?? That's just muddying the waters, isn't it?

Atheists reject theism.
Agnostics don't reject theism

An atheist says to a theist "I'm convinced you are making that up or delusional"

An agnostic says to a theist "You might be making that up/delusional or you might be talking to supernatural deities, I'm not sure enough either way"

Zillah · 13-03-2010 2:17am

Huh. I've never made that observation myself. If God is to have created the Big Bang, including time itself, and God has always existed, then how can there be a moment at which he created it? Then again, the problem could be with our temporally anchored temporal lobes rather than the concept itself.

(That may have been the cleverest thing I have ever said, considering that the temporal lobe is the region of the brain tied to semantics. I'm glad to have shared it with you.)

Atheist or Agnostic?

Comments