Is there a name for me?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

But using the analogy of something that has a possibility by virtue of any form of evidence, is contrary to the point. The point of the dragon analogy is that there is no basis in logic to believe it exists.

The credentials of US politics or the Drake Equation could be viewed as evidence of sorts for JFK or aliens.

There's no concrete undisputed evidence of aliens or a JFK conspiracy - same for God. People believe in these things without evidence, primarily by reading the "testimony" of others - same for God. Such testimonies find large audiences and have inspired a huge body of literature/media - same for God. People feel they personally have been affected by aliens, or experienced aliens - same for God.

Any of these things true of green gnomes? Nope. Fair analogy? Nope. It's worse than that - virtually everywhere humans are found, there is some sort of building dedicated to some deity or other.

There is no "basis in logic" for pizza. Or for anything much, really. That's why philosophers don't build bridges (although they are frequently found making, or at least serving, pizza). The attempt to found philosophy on a basis free from a priori assumptions, and get somewhere useful from there by logic, has not been fruitful.

People are addicted to the idea that logic will justify their position rather than their opponent's, when both are equally logical, but have different assumptions. The existence/non-existence of God can only be established by observation, because it is an assumption, and no amount of non-observation disproves a God - it can merely disprove specifically described deities, or aspects of a deity.

Once a theist has made the assumption that God exists, they can build a perfectly logical case from there (although they usually don't). The assumption of God's existence is (pardon me!) the rock on which they build their church.

The atheist does not assume God exists, and therefore his position appears more justifiable, as involving the fewer assumptions. It does not, however, discredit the theistic position, because it does not address it - that is, it does not disprove the theistic assumption, it just doesn't make it.

Now, that leaves the atheist ahead by a whisker until we come to explaining the universe. To the atheist, it looks like his position (assuming a scientific worldview) wins again, because it does not involve this unnecessary assumption of God's existence, but explains the universe.

To the theist, on the other hand, it appears completely to the contrary - the scientific "explanation" of the universe involves hundreds of assumptions (uniformitarianism being the big one, causality being another, natural causes being another, the world being entirely real and so on) that the theist does not have to make. Not only that, but the scientific worldview does not explain other "facts" like Man's Special Place In The Cosmos, and is therefore clearly faulty.

As an atheist, with a scientific worldview, one claims that these are small assumptions compared to assuming the existence of God - but there is no independent way of measuring the size of assumptions. Both sides are content that the evidence supports their position, because they weigh and interpret evidence differently. Neither side can compel the other to "come in", because the root assumptions are not disprovable, either logically or empirically.

Dragons and pizzas are not logically differentiable, but one has evidentiary support.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

All of the above.....

Excellent post, I enjoyed every bit of that. Thats a keeper. Now lay all that on Capt. Capslock.

mountainyman

A skeptical deist?

An adeist?

MM

Tar.Aldarion

I don't feel thatn quite captures that I lean to the atheistic side more. Maybe a slightly skeptical atheist? A Saatheist.

scrattletrap

To me as a wholehearted atheist I always defined it as someone who has no belief in god and an agnostic was someone who had the belief in a possibility of a god or in a none orthodox religious defined god.
To me if you believe in the possibility then you are agnostic, none of this weak atheist malarkey that's just a weak excuse.

Funsterdelux

scrattletrap wrote:

To me as a wholehearted atheist I always defined it as someone who has no belief in god and an agnostic was someone who had the belief in a possibility of a god or in a none orthodox religious defined god.
To me if you believe in the possibility then you are agnostic, none of this weak atheist malarkey that's just a weak excuse.

I hear that

Tar.Aldarion

So do you believe in people being philosophically agnostics but functional atheists?

scrattletrap

Atheists can also have philosophy behind their non-believing (but it is non-believing, once it over steps into questioning that belief then it is agnosticism)
Just as you can have functional Agnostics, believing in the possibility and quite happy with that decision, it being a desision on their part.

Your either one or the other.

Tar.Aldarion

scrattletrap wrote:

Atheists can also have philosophy behind their non-believing (but it is non-believing, once it over steps into questioning that belief then it is agnosticism)
Just as you can have functional Agnostics, believing in the possibility and quite happy with that decision, it being a desision on their part.

Your either one or the other.

As far as I know, there is no philosophical thought that can make you an atheist over an agnostic but functionally, atheists are atheists.
As in, the probabilities and lack of evidence being the functional side with solipsism being the philosophical side.

scrattletrap

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

As far as I know, there is no philosophical thought that can make you an atheist over an agnostic but functionally, atheists are atheists.
As in, the probabilities and lack of evidence being the functional side with solipsism being the philosophical side.

Of course philosophical thought can make you an atheist, deciding the correct course of action (for you) to take on the basis of probability and lack of evidence is in it self a philosophical debate with ones self. Although ones course of actions I agree are functional.

Tar.Aldarion

scrattletrap wrote:

Of course philosophical thought can make you an atheist, deciding the correct course of action (for you) to take on the basis of probability and lack of evidence is in it self a philosophical debate with ones self.

Philosophically, all you can know for certain is that you exist.
As most atheists admit, agnosticism is technically the most logical position but fuctionally because of no evidence, they believe there is no god.

scrattletrap

So technically agnosticism is the most logical and most hence the most functional position, where as aethist have to decide on the bases of lack of evidence at the non-existance of god.
I take your point on the philosophy but not on the functionality.

Tar.Aldarion

scrattletrap wrote:

So technically agnosticism is the most logical and most hence the most functional position, where as aethist have to decide on the bases of lack of evidence at the non-existance of god.
I take your point on the philosophy but not on the functionality.

You see, the most philosophically tenable position is not always the most functional. With aforementioned solipsism, you cannot be sure a car will hit you or that it is actually there. Funtionally, it is very likely, in your belief, that it is, so you should act thusly and avoid it.
This is where Atheists and I differ, they go for the lack of evidence route and I, the, there could possibly be route.

scrattletrap

So by the powers of deduction you have answered your own question, you are not in fact an atheist but an agnostic.

Tar.Aldarion

Indeed that is what I decided, basically.
There are other niggling things like the definition of a god and if something can actually be a god to me, if the answer was no to that, I would be an atheist. However, I like to keep things simple, obviously, agnostic will do just fine.

Doomspell

Ok,tar has chosen his path time to close thread

Tar.Aldarion

Doomspell wrote:

Ok,tar has chosen his path time to close thread

Haha, and not let people try to dissuade me? :P

Doomspell

nope, closè la threadè

Dirk Gently

where have all these sexy green haired avatars come from all of a sudden.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't know but my penis sensed them. To paranormal!

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Haha, and not let people try to dissuade me? :P

Aha! You're flirting with religion, then? Or atheism. Or both! You tart!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

A gentleman/lady never tells...
Although Hindu works it's hands well and Atheism is pretty hot.

Doomspell

lol

Scofflaw

You're probably an "alatrist".

Monolatrist being apparently a person who acknowledges the existence (or possible existence) of other gods, but only worships one, so an alatrist would be someone who acknowledges the existence (or possible existence) of many gods, but doesn't worship any.

pleased,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

So that would make all agnostics alatrists? Or not...Would agnostics and alatrists be just very similar but if a god was definitely found to exist somehow, an alatrist would not worship it but an agnostic might?

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

So that would make all agnostics alatrists? Or not...Would agnostics and alatrists be just very similar but if a god was definitely found to exist somehow, an alatrist would not worship it but an agnostic might?

I would imagine the definite existence of a god would split the agnostics into theists and alatrists. Atheists, presumably, would mostly become alatrists, except for a few who became theists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hagar

It's all academic really, have a look who's on the ban list.
Third from bottom at the moment, but that will change.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/banlist.php

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

I would imagine the definite existence of a god would split the agnostics into theists and alatrists. Atheists, presumably, would mostly become alatrists, except for a few who became theists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I mean atm, there is no god proven. So, at the moment, my same question.
I think I got it right there...

Almighty god. :eek:

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I mean atm, there is no god proven. So, at the moment, my same question.
I think I got it right there...

Sorry, yes, you had it right. There is a difference - agnostics might worship a god if one were proven - which makes them unconvinced theists. Alatrists wouldn't worship a god even if one were proven to exist.

I'm pretty firmly in the alatrist camp, I think. I don't think we can disprove God, and I think, once posited, we cannot simply dismiss God as a silly proposition (I've had this argument with Wicknight several times).

Nevertheless, the only kind of God I could think of worshipping would be one that didn't want or require worship, so, alatrist me. If the Biblical deity turns out to exist, then I'll be going dowwwwn - hopefully with some kind of jaunty wave.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

I don't hink we can dismiss a god either, maybe one that we would worship though. Although, how do we know there is not one we would not worship.
I'll see you on that day, jaunty wave at hand.

I guess it is agnostic/alatrist/Tartheist Aldariongnostic Maximus then. Bring on the next census, I'm ready!