Why agnosticism fails

Rev Hellfire

Morbert wrote: »

What definition of godhood have we decided is the only valid one?

Well for the purposes of that video youtube has helpfully provided us one in the thumbnail, lets go with that one.

Morbert

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well for the purposes of that video youtube has helpfully provided us one in the thumbnail, lets go with that one.

Well I hereby dissociate myself with that particular version of atheism.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Fundamentalist religious people are never a good counterpart to vocal atheists due to their inherent immunity to reasonable discussion. Second of all at the very least we'd need to be in a society dominated by atheists who suppress and discriminate against the religious for centuries, and have a small amount of religious people speaking out against such tyranny.

Of course, the fundamental religous person would make precisely the same argument as you do, merely in reverse; that you do not respond to reasonable discussion. In addition, while we may have done so in the past, we no longer live in a society dominated by the religous, far from it.

In any case, there is little logic in the statement that, in today's Ireland, the existence of extreme atheists "softens up" the moderate religous person but the existence of extreme religous does not "soften up" the moderate atheist.

Extremists almosts always merely encourage extremism. I dont deny the point that, at certain stages of a struggle, there may be a need for an extremist (crude example: Pearse et al circa 1916) but that ultimately the centre ground will take over, but that is not the position we currently find ourselves in. We do not live in a theocracy. That stage has well passed.

Zombrex

These discussions always fall down over what exactly is an agnostic.

In my experience most agnostics are actually what we would call weak atheists. They say things like "I don't believe in any religion but I'm open to the idea that the universe may have been created by something" Which is basically atheism, at least how I define it.

They get annoyed then because atheists ridicule them when they say they are agnostic with neither party realising they share very similar views.

To me an agnostic is someone who says "I'm not really sure about religion X, or the claims it makes, but I'm open to the idea that it all could have happened"

Which to me is even sillier than theism, given how many religions have both ridiculous claims and claims that would contradict the claims of other religions. Even if one is right they can't all be right. Sitting on the fence and saying that you are not 100% convinced but are open to the idea that Jesus may have been resurrected and Muhammand may have talked to angels seems rather silly.

Flamed Diving

Is there a clear definition of agnosticism?

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there a clear definition of agnosticism?

I'm not sure.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, the fundamental religous person would make precisely the same argument as you do, merely in reverse; that you do not respond to reasonable discussion.

Well they'd be wrong, I'd have thought you'd see that. If I'm walking down the street and some homeless guy starts shouting about how the cars are dinosaurs and I explain that he is just hallucinating and he turns it right back on me and says that I'm hallucinating...sure we're making the same argument but he's wrong.

In addition, while we may have done so in the past, we no longer live in a society dominated by the religous, far from it.

Yes it is. We still have pro-religious laws in effect, coming out as an atheist is often political suicide, especially in the US. But it's a minor point anyway.

In any case, there is little logic in the statement that, in today's Ireland, the existence of extreme atheists "softens up" the moderate religous person but the existence of extreme religous does not "soften up" the moderate atheist.

Extremists almosts always merely encourage extremism. I dont deny the point that, at certain stages of a struggle, there may be a need for an extremist (crude example: Pearse et al circa 1916) but that ultimately the centre ground will take over, but that is not the position we currently find ourselves in. We do not live in a theocracy. That stage has well passed.

I can't believe you're using the single term "extremist" to refer to both religious fundamentalists and vocal atheists. It absolutely absurd.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure.

I don't think we can ever be sure. So while you and I have very similar opinions we're not exactly in agreement.

ChocolateSauce

Strictly speaking, all non-fundamentalist atheists are agnostic. I don't think there is (or should be) anything at all to stop agnostics from being militant anti-theists. It seems to me that, like "atheist", the term agnostic is usually used to describe how people view religion rather than the claims religion makes.

Flamed Diving

So, what would the statement 'god/s is unknown' come under?

Shane_C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You'll find that atheists spend a lot of their time reminding theists that human perception is not perfect, especially when they talk about things like miracles

It all comes down to evolution, to say we are both advanced enough to make models for everything and similarly on the highest plain of conciousness is quite presumptuous.

Morbert wrote: »

similar to the way there are aspects of the universe cannot be understood by a dog.

booya....

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there a clear definition of agnosticism?

Its out in the ether with 2 + 2 = "some gobsh1te on the internet"

ChocolateSauce

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, what would the statement 'god/s is unknown' come under?

Honesty and a bit too much modesty...I think that just because it is unknowable does not mean it is in any way remotely probable. But agnostic is the answer...this lop-sided probability is why I prefer the term atheist though; agnostic conjures up the thought of people sitting on the fence, which I think most of us are certainly not doing.

Shane_C

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

agnostic conjures up the thought of people sitting on the fence, which I think most of us are certainly not doing.

Even worse Agnosticism conjures up an image of the bat from asop's fables. Not picking sides until judgement day and being the first up to kiss buddah's belly at the end of it all.
I usually use the term atheist: even though it isn't correct it is more similar to how people perceive my views.

Flamed Diving

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Honesty and a bit too much modesty...I think that just because it is unknowable does not mean it is in any way remotely probable. But agnostic is the answer...this lop-sided probability is why I prefer the term atheist though; agnostic conjures up the thought of people sitting on the fence, which I think most of us are certainly not doing.

I agree with all of the above, but I'm turned off by the arrogance of Atheism. Much like any POV that makes strong statements about unanswerable (at this time) questions. I think it to be far more enlightened to state that god/FSM/fairies as unknown (not unknowable), hence putting them onto a dusty shelf, and focusing the resource of human thought on other topics.

Flamed Diving

Shane_C wrote: »

Even worse Agnosticism conjures up an image of the bat from asop's fables. Not picking sides until judgement day and being the first up to kiss buddah's belly at the end of it all.
I usually use the term atheist: even though it isn't correct it is more similar to how people perceive my views.

Why is it about picking sides? How juvenile a statement is that?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

I can't believe you're using the single term "extremist" to refer to both religious fundamentalists and vocal atheists. It absolutely absurd.

Oh come on, Zillah, you know precisely what I am talking about. Vocal/extreme, whatever, dont purposely get caught up in nomenclature when we have been over and back on this point. I used the term "extreme athesist" twice in a contention I made on a previous post and you didnt seem to take issue with it then, in fact you said something along the lines of "that is exactly what I mean" in response....!!

And as for your religous domination point, Im not going to get into US politics, but in Ireland, the domination of the Church is all but over and one's religous views are close to irrelevent in politics. I couldnt tell you who is particularly devout in Irish politics. I only heard recently that Ivan Yates was protestant and he was in frontline politics for a couple of decades.

Sure, being a vocal atheist might still be problematic for many politicians but I think that is less to do with the politician not believing in God but more to do with the view that many have about atheism; a view I believe is solidified by the attitudes of many "extreme" atheists, which is pretty much my point.

drkpower

Wicknight wrote: »

To me an agnostic is someone who says "I'm not really sure about religion X, or the claims it makes, but I'm open to the idea that it all could have happened"

Which to me is even sillier than theism, given how many religions have both ridiculous claims and claims that would contradict the claims of other religions. Even if one is right they can't all be right. Sitting on the fence and saying that you are not 100% convinced but are open to the idea that Jesus may have been resurrected and Muhammand may have talked to angels seems rather silly.

You are defining agnosticism by reference to certain claims of a religon rather than, properly, by reference to the ultimate issue of God(s). There are, of course, different definitions but that is what an agnostic tends to be "open-minded"/"unsure"/"uncaring"/"unknowing" about.

ChocolateSauce

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I agree with all of the above, but I'm turned off by the arrogance of Atheism. Much like any POV that makes strong statements about unanswerable (at this time) questions. I think it to be far more enlightened to state that god/FSM/fairies as unknown (not unknowable), hence putting them onto a dusty shelf, and focusing the resource of human thought on other topics.

I have put a great deal of thought into the problem of arrogance...while I would be uncomfortable acting and speaking the way Dawkins does, he's never actually said anything I disagree with, and indeed I find he just says what I think. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think arrogance is actually a bad thing in and of itself, especially when you're not talking about god but about people and organised religion. I also think that by focusing on organised religion, we are focusing on one of humanity's problems.

Flamed Diving

drkpower wrote: »

You are defining agnosticism by reference to the claims of a religon rather than, properly, by reference to God. There are, of course, different definitions but that is what an agnostic tends to be "open-minded"/"unsure"/"uncaring" about.

Exactly. Given the restricted nature of our senses, the way we experience the universe I find it quite remarkable that people see someone saying 'I really don't know' as being so 'stupid' or 'silly'. We understand that there could be multiple universes, maybe infinite universes. Infinite dimensions. We cannot detect most of our universe, defined by matter and energy, and yet we sit here and state to KNOW how the universe came to be.

Of course, I think it unlikely that a being created the universe. But we have to accept that the answer to it is unknown, just like fairies.

Shane_C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why is it about picking sides? How juvenile a statement is that?

I didn't say it was my opinion, if I say "atheist" average joe has a better understanding of what I am about.
Why is it about putting labels on things? How juvenile is that?

Flamed Diving

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I have put a great deal of thought into the problem of arrogance...while I would be uncomfortable acting and speaking the way Dawkins does, he's never actually said anything I disagree with, and indeed I find he just says what I think. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think arrogance is actually a bad thing in and of itself, especially when you're not talking about god but about people and organised religion. I also think that by focusing on organised religion, we are focusing on one of humanity's problems.

1) I'm not talking about arrogance, in the sense of behaving so. I think it is arrogant to make claims that really can't be proven, religious and non-religious alike.

2) Arrogance is merely fear with an attitude.

3) Atheism need not be anti-theist or anti-religion. This, if anything, is my problem with Dawkins.

Flamed Diving

Shane_C wrote: »

I didn't say it was my opinion, if I say "atheist" average joe has a better understanding of what I am about.
Why is it about putting labels on things? How juvenile is that?

You aren't making any sense.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

Oh come on, Zillah, you know precisely what I am talking about. Vocal/extreme, whatever, dont purposely get caught up in nomenclature when we have been over and back on this point. I used the term "extreme athesist" twice in a contention I made on a previous post and you didnt seem to take issue with it then, in fact you said something along the lines of "that is exactly what I mean" in response....!!

No you come on drkpower (get a name that sounds like a name!). It's not irrelevant nomenclature, you're equating offensive/argumentative atheists with the kind of people who build Creationist museums and fly planes into buildings! They're nothing alike and I'll call you on it if you conflate them.

Especially when the difference between them was my entire point. A religious fundamentalist is immune to rational persuasion because of their dogmatic faith. They have an answer and ignore anything to the contrary, whereas an atheist such as myself considers evidence, then forms conclusions, which is the essence of reasonable discussion. Sure, a religious person could say I'm no better than they but they'd be wrong.

And as for your religous domination point, Im not going to get into US politics, but in Ireland, the domination of the Church is all but over and one's religous views are close to irrelevent in politics.

Seriously what alternate dimension did you fall into? Did you fail to notice the part when our constitution references God as the ultimate authority? Where judges have to take a religious oath? Where kids can be denied entry to a school for not being baptised? Where we just got a brand new BLASPHEMY law?

Honestly it's like they've managed to pull the wool over your eyes and you don't even notice how ridiculous it is to have this cult interfere in so many aspects of our society.

And while you might not want to get into US politics for some reason, they're still relevant...what with them being the world's only superpower and all.

Sure, being a vocal atheist might still be problematic for many politicians but I think that is less to do with the politician not believing in God but more to do with the view that many have about atheism; a view I believe is solidified by the attitudes of many "extreme" atheists, which is pretty much my point.

And like I've said all along, a politician should be far more devious about how they go about things than I. I have the luxury of being irrelevant.

Zombrex

drkpower wrote: »

You are defining agnosticism by reference to certain claims of a religon rather than, properly, by reference to the ultimate issue of God(s).

There is no ultimate issue of God independent of certain claims of religion.

That is the point, that is what God is, a claim of a religion(s).

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

3) Atheism need not be anti-theist or anti-religion. This, if anything, is my problem with Dawkins.

But he's not just an atheist. He has for many years (recently retired) been in charge of popularising science. He is also a secular advocate. And he has strong moral and philosophical objections against religion.

If you want to label all those things as 'atheism' then it's your problem if you then object.

Shane_C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You aren't making any sense.

.....OK,
if i say atheist, people THINK one thing
if I say agnostic, people THINK another thing.

Through various conversations I have learned a lot of people would regard me, and I'm sure a lot of people, as atheist even though they are not.

I don't particularly care for clarifying my position in these pub conversatons, let people put whatever label they want on it.

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

But he's not just an atheist. He has for many years (recently retired) been in charge of popularising science. He is also a secular advocate. And he has strong moral and philosophical objections against religion.

If you want to label all those things as 'atheism' then it's your problem if you then object.

In my opinion, Dawkins has turned as many people away from science as he has attracted. He seems to think that evolution disproves God and explains the creation of life (in those awesome video where he attacked schoolchildren). He thinks that those who simply don't believe in God should hate religion and ridicule the religious.

Arrogance of the highest order, and misguided.

drkpower

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no ultimate issue of God independent of certain claims of religion.

That is the point, that is what God is, a claim of a religion(s).

"Gods" were present before religon.

But, in any case, I was taking issue with your suggestion that agnostics are silly for being unsure about whether Jesus performed miracles (or something like that). You can be an agnostic while believing nothing that everything in the Bible is utter nonsense.

Zillah

Shane_C wrote: »

.....OK,
if i say atheist, people THINK one thing
if I say agnostic, people THINK another thing.

Through various conversations I have learned a lot of people would regard me, and I'm sure a lot of people, as atheist even though they are not.

I don't particularly care for clarifying my position in these pub conversatons, let people put whatever label they want on it.

Do you believe in God?

If the answer is anything but "Yes" you are an atheist.

Shane_C

Zillah wrote: »

Do you believe in God?

If the answer is anything but "Yes" you are an atheist.

1: thats totally wrong, an agnostic doesn't believe in anything, god or not

2: I know what I am, I just don't care to explain it in more than 1 word