Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Can you simply be Agnostic?

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    raah! wrote: »
    I just clearly showed you how it doesn't. This is not a response. Please don't pretend that what you have written here is an argument. I'll go over why denial of a god's existence does not presuppose the existence of the thing. For me this is blaringly obvious, but one counter example is enough to show you that "denial of existence" does not imply "presupposition of existence".

    Denial of the existence of god - "god does not exist"
    Belief in the non-existence of god - "I believe god doesn't exist"

    To say god does not exist does not mean that you have to assume he exists. That is absurd. I've pointed it out to you above. This part I've quoted is also not really an argument.

    The word deny is nearly a pejorative a lot of the time, we use it to describe situations where people contradict something which is quite clearly true, to be in denial is usually construed to be a bad thing eg climate deniers, creationists deny evolution.
    raah! wrote: »
    Sigh, my point was that he meant the word as somethign separate from atheism (and theism, though this is completely irrelevant to the point).

    You dont get to decide that something is irrelevant because it shows that your where talking bull. The context you claimed was never the context that Huxley proposed, the evidence is clear, you are in denial :P
    raah! wrote: »
    Now, the title of this thread is "can you simply be an agnostic". The latest trend is to say "no, all agnostics are also atheists".

    Really? Proof because I have never heard this. I have heard that most atheists are agnostic, but I've never heard someone say that all agnostics are atheists (mostly, I'd assume, because its clearly wrong).
    raah! wrote: »
    Thomas huxley however, would say, yes you can be an agnostic and not an atheist. That was the point of my reference to him there.

    I agree , you can be an agnostic and not an atheist, just as you can be an agnostic and an atheist, hence the cross diagrams which explain this very well.
    raah! wrote: »
    I really am amazed that you've been able to so ridiculously mis-interpret my post. Please read them more carefully in the future.

    I amazed at you trying to assert what Huxley actually said is irrelevant to what you are claiming he said. Try not to make stuff up in the future, it just wastes time to show you are wrong.


  • #93
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The word deny is nearly a pejorative a lot of the time, we use it to describe situations where people contradict something which is quite clearly true, to be in denial is usually construed to be a bad thing eg climate deniers, creationists deny evolution.
    I was using it in the basic general sense. You can change the word deny to some other word if you are more comfortable with that. The point is that the meaning is not restricted to that sense.
    You dont get to decide that something is irrelevant because it shows that your where talking bull. The context you claimed was never the context that Huxley proposed, the evidence is clear, you are in denial :P
    He gave it in a context in which atheism was put forward as a position of belief. That is the only context that matters. The rest of your post seems to suggests that you have misconstrued my posts and decided to argue against them, since you appear to be agreeing with many of those things in the post you originally quoted as wrong.
    Really? Proof because I have never heard this. I have heard that most atheists are agnostic, but I've never heard someone say that all agnostics are atheists (mostly, I'd assume, because its clearly wrong).
    If someone says "I'm just an agnostic" meaning "I don't believe reliable knowledge can be had either way", then, by your definition of atheist meaning "lack of belief", the person is an atheist.
    I agree , you can be an agnostic and not an atheist, just as you can be an agnostic and an atheist, hence the cross diagrams which explain this very well.
    As before, if agnostic is just a statement about the unattainability of the knowledge, and one does not qualify it with "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist", then a person who just says "agnostic" is also an atheist since they "lack belief". This was my point from the very start.

    This is not a logically coherent view for you to hold, given that you said atheist was from the start just "lack of belief".
    I amazed at you trying to assert what Huxley actually said is irrelevant to what you are claiming he said. Try not to make stuff up in the future, it just wastes time to show you are wrong.
    Certain parts of what he said were irrelevent. This was very evident. I would say that, in an argument, the person who contradicts themselves over and over is more accurately the person who is wrong. I think you've contradicted yourself, and been logically wrong like 12 times so far. My record, I think, is misusing the word etymology once. But anyway, this is childish.


  • #94
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There are different degrees of agnosticism, hence the cross diagram. While the majority of atheists may not be very agnostic, there is still usually a degree there, it would dishonest for an atheist not to recognise it (even if they count it as on par with faeries at the end of the garden agnosticism).

    It is so insignificant that the agnosticism that is claimed perhaps rather than actual is wholly insignificant.


  • #95
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    raah! wrote: »
    I was using it in the basic general sense. You can change the word deny to some other word if you are more comfortable with that. The point is that the meaning is not restricted to that sense.

    Deny is generally meant in the way I suggested, its why its usually considered a bad thing to be said to be in denial of something.
    raah! wrote: »
    He gave it in a context in which atheism was put forward as a position of belief. That is the only context that matters. The rest of your post seems to suggests that you have misconstrued my posts and decided to argue against them, since you appear to be agreeing with many of those things in the post you originally quoted as wrong.

    Why do you continue to make stuff up? Huxleys thoughts are available for everyone to see:
    Thomas Huxley wrote:
    When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

    He gave agnosticism in contrast to all positions of gnosis, all positions certain of their beliefs. Stop making up stuff about what he said, its getting ridiculous.
    raah! wrote: »
    If someone says "I'm just an agnostic" meaning "I don't believe reliable knowledge can be had either way", then, by your definition of atheist meaning "lack of belief", the person is an atheist.

    You cant say whether that person is an atheist or not until they tell you what they believe, as their agnosticism only tells us what they know (or think can be known). I hope you aren't this far and still dont realise the difference between belief and knowledge. Its possible to believe something even if you dont know that its true. There are agnostic theists in the world.
    raah! wrote: »
    As before, if agnostic is just a statement about the unattainability of the knowledge, and one does not qualify it with "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist", then a person who just says "agnostic" is also an atheist since they "lack belief". This was my point from the very start.

    You are wrong, someone who is agnostic lacks "certain knowledge", not any kind of belief. Its not possible to understand a concept and not form an opinion on it, so you cant just be agnostic, it makes about sense as answering the question "are you atheist or theist" with "I'm a critical thinker".
    raah! wrote: »
    This is not a logically coherent view for you to hold, given that you said atheist was from the start just "lack of belief".

    I dont hold this view, because its a strawman of agnosticism. DO yourself a favour and go and really think about the difference between knowledge and belief.
    raah! wrote: »
    Certain parts of what he said were irrelevent. This was very evident. I would say that, in an argument, the person who contradicts themselves over and over is more accurately the person who is wrong. I think you've contradicted yourself, and been logically wrong like 12 times so far. My record, I think, is misusing the word etymology once. But anyway, this is childish.

    The only thing childish is you asserting that Huxley only meant atheism, when he clearly meant theism too. Seriously, I'm beginning to think you respond to my posts with your eyes closed telling yourself if you cant see the evidence that its not there.


  • #96
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is so insignificant that the agnosticism that is claimed perhaps rather than actual is wholly insignificant.

    So you are accusing atheists of being closeminded?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you are accusing atheists of being closeminded?

    I certainly wouldn't refer to them as "agnostics" in the vast majority of cases. On the back of the definition one could strictly, but in reality there is very little difference between the person who claims it is as likely as fairies in the back garden (a claim I find ridiculous) and the person who claims not to know on a 50% 50% scale.

    Atheists are effectively saying that they believe it is more likely that a God or gods do not exist.

    Theists are doing the exact opposite and agnostics who would be much more 50% 50% as I would see it fall somewhere in the middle.


  • #98
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Deny is generally meant in the way I suggested, its why its usually considered a bad thing to be said to be in denial of something.


    Why do you continue to make stuff up? Huxleys thoughts are available for everyone to see:


    He gave agnosticism in contrast to all positions of gnosis, all positions certain of their beliefs. Stop making up stuff about what he said, its getting ridiculous.
    Wow. This really is amazing. Are you able to understand english? I never said he didn't, and it's completely irrelevant whether or not he did. This is ridiculous.

    Either you are diong this deliberately or you are unable to read. I'm not going to read the rest of your post, it's not my job to teach you english. If you can show me why the above is a load of nonsense, then perhaps I'll believe that you aren't handicapped or something. But this is too much.

    Taking a glimpse at the rest of the post, some really hilarious stuff:
    There are agnostic theists in the world.
    The only thing childish is you asserting that Huxley only meant atheism

    You clearly aren't reading the posts you're quoting. And I suppose when you do read them it doesn't make a difference.

    Perhaps if another atheist regular were to show him where he is misinterpreting and making logical mistakes he would listen.

    I'm not going to interact with you in this thread anymore.


  • #99
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    raah! wrote: »
    Perhaps if another atheist regular were to show him where he is misinterpreting and making logical mistakes he would listen.

    Tl;dr:p


  • #100
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Atheists are effectively saying that they believe it is more likely that a God or gods do not exist.

    I think this shows a fundamental misconception about what atheism is for many of us.

    I take it you mean we believe it is more likely that gods don't exist than that they do? Well, as I say, I think you miss the point. For many of us (or for me at least) it's about the probability of any specific, human notion of god being accurate. I genuinely can't speculate on the likelihood of some kind of deity existing: to answer such a question requires access to currently unavailable data and therefore speculation is pointless. To that extent I'm genuinely agnostic (in the 'soft' sense - see below).

    But I can say with absolute mathematical certainty that the likelihood of, say, osiris existing is vanishingly small. One over infinity, in fact, which is about as small as you can get.

    If you're honest, you will admit that you agree with that statement.

    If you're really honest, you'll accept that it applies equally to your particular deity.

    I'm not holding my breath on that one.

    Regarding agnosticism, it's useful (and important) to distinguish between (at least) two types of agnosticism.

    Firstly you have what might be described as temporary agnosticism - uncertainty based on a temporary lack of evidence. This is obviously a position that is open to (and in fact should be expected to) change as further evidence becomes available. An example of this type of agnosticism might be, say, an uncertainty over a specific scientific question such as the precise chemical composition of a gas cloud in a distant galaxy. This information cannot be known at present (because, perhaps, sufficiently accurate telescopes do not yet exist), but it can be anticipated that the answer is obtainable and will be known at some point in the future.

    This, I would suggest, is the kind of 'soft' agnosticism that many atheists embrace, based on a belief that everything that exists is knowable, at least in principle, and that answers will potentially be forthcoming given enough time and research. Note that an actual answer is never actually necessary to justify this kind of agnosticism. The point is that it is based on the conviction that the answers to questions about the nature or existence of god are theoretically available if only the right test or measuring equipment can be devised.

    On the other hand you have what you might call 'hard' agnosticism - the notion that certain things are unknown and unknowable. This is the kind of agnosticism that many people of faith seem to imagine atheists should embrace, as they (the believers) claim that (insert favourite deity) is beyond the known, visible, measurable world. These answers are, to the hard agnostic way of thinking, in the most absolute sense unobtainable. Few atheists, I believe, would subscribe to that.

    Both these can, I suppose, be regarded as faith-based positions. Soft agnostics have faith that the answer to any question can be determined, at least in principle. Hard agnostics have faith that the answers to some questions are utterly and permanently hidden from us.

    I think the point of all this for atheists, at least for most of the ones I know, is that if questions do in fact exist to which the answers are unknowable, they're not really worth devoting a great deal of time or energy to.


  • #101
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    dead one wrote: »
    Look my friend, It isn't simple claim, I have enough reason behind this claim.

    Reason is the one thing you don't have. Look, sorry dead one, I can't have this discussion right now. If you can't understand that everything you ascribe to god may equally be ascribed to other phenomena; if you can't grasp that every time you mention god all you're really saying is 'something I neither know nor understand'; if you think that any one book written by humans can contain the entire repository of human wisdom; then there is no point in carrying on with the discussion.

    Every argument you make revolves around your imaginary friend. There's no room in your head to even entertain the possibility of a universe without him. I can't imagine we'll never find enough common ground to debate this with any degree of sanity.

    My (unsolicited) advice to you would be to try to learn to think for yourself rather than believing something just because you read it in a book (especially if it's based on a single, uncorroborated source).

    Good luck.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Atheists are effectively saying that they believe it is more likely that a God or gods do not exist.

    The ones that believe this do, the ones that dont, dont.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Theists are doing the exact opposite and agnostics who would be much more 50% 50% as I would see it fall somewhere in the middle.

    Still getting it wrong after all this time. Agnosticism only deals with knowledge not belief. Its a different scale to theism/atheism, which deal with belief.


  • #103
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The ones that believe this do, the ones that dont, dont.

    The vast vast majority of those identifying clearly as atheists do. I agree strictly that atheism is just the opposite of a belief in God, a god or gods. In practice there is a lot of grey though. I don't believe claiming that God is as likely as fairies at the end of ones garden is real agnosticism.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Still getting it wrong after all this time. Agnosticism only deals with knowledge not belief. Its a different scale to theism/atheism, which deal with belief.

    I don't believe that it is clear. Many people on this forum disagree with each other on this definition and have done for years. I think it is up to people to decide what they identify as.


  • #104
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    raah! wrote: »
    Wow. This really is amazing. Are you able to understand english? I never said he didn't, and it's completely irrelevant whether or not he did. This is ridiculous.

    Either you are diong this deliberately or you are unable to read. I'm not going to read the rest of your post, it's not my job to teach you english. If you can show me why the above is a load of nonsense, then perhaps I'll believe that you aren't handicapped or something. But this is too much.

    OK, now you are trolling, there is no other discription for what you are doing. There is no way you could continuously be asserting that Huxley meant agnosticism was only in contrast to atheism ("He gave it in a context in which atheism was put forward as a position of belief. That is the only context that matters." + "Certain parts of what he said were irrelevent. This was very evident.") when the mans own writing show that he meant it in contrast to all forms of certain belief.
    raah! wrote: »
    Taking a glimpse at the rest of the post, some really hilarious stuff:

    Do you not accept that there are agnostic theists?
    raah! wrote: »
    You clearly aren't reading the posts you're quoting. And I suppose when you do read them it doesn't make a difference.

    Perhaps if another atheist regular were to show him where he is misinterpreting and making logical mistakes he would listen.

    Perhaps they aren't because I'm not making any mistakes? Perhaps the only one in the wrong is you, what with you saying that only the parts of Huxley's quotes that agree with your nonsense are important and the rest are irrelevant? Like I said, its quotemining on a creationist scale.
    raah! wrote: »
    I'm not going to interact with you in this thread anymore.

    Good, threads generally work better when the trolls leave.


  • #105
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The vast vast majority of those identifying clearly as atheists do. I agree strictly that atheism is just the opposite of a belief in God, a god or gods. In practice there is a lot of grey though. I don't believe claiming that God is as likely as fairies at the end of ones garden is real agnosticism.

    But how is not real agnosticism? It may only be a weak agnosticism, but that doesn't mean its not real.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't believe that it is clear. Many people on this forum disagree with each other on this definition and have done for years. I think it is up to people to decide what they identify as.

    The ones I see disgreeing are theists or trolls, people who dont understand it or people making stuff up. I haven't seen many atheists disagree.


  • #106
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you not accept that there are agnostic theists?

    It becomes defunct then. I do not claim that I know absolutely that God exists, but I do believe that I have good reason to suggest that He does. I think this would only make me an "agnostic" theist in the opposite sense to believing that God is as likely as fairies appearing at the back of my garden.

    I wouldn't identify as an agnostic because it isn't really agnosticism.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The ones I see disgreeing are theists or trolls, people who dont understand it or people making stuff up. I haven't seen many atheists disagree.

    raah isn't a troll, it's just that you don't like what he's saying :pac: I have a lot of respect for him due to excellent posts in the Philosophy forum.

    I've shown you at least once where there is disagreement. There are hundreds of such cases in respect to this question on this forum.


  • #107
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There are hundreds of such cases in respect to this question on this forum.
    In general, there isn't. And there certainly isn't amongst people who've thought about the topic in a clear and consistent manner.


  • #108
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It becomes defunct then. I do not claim that I know absolutely that God exists, but I do believe that I have good reason to suggest that He does. I think this would only make me an "agnostic" theist in the opposite sense to believing that God is as likely as fairies appearing at the back of my garden.

    I wouldn't identify as an agnostic because it isn't really agnosticism.

    But it is agnosticism, its exactly agnosticism, you dont claim complete knowledge, but believe because you hold it to be likely. This is the whole point, agnosticism is knowledge, theism/atheism is belief. For most people, the agnosticism is implicit, as 100% knowledge is dishonest to claim, and as long as they keep that agnosticism somewhere in the back of their mind, somewhere that keeps them open minded, then its doing its job.

    This is actually a good thing, it means the agnosticism that Huxley described over 100 years ago is no longer explicit, its socially implicit, people recognise that they dont know 100% and accept that little doubt with keeps them open minded while recognising that for most things, we need to make decisions based on likelyhoods or else we couldn't function. This makes sense and fits in perfectly with the cross diagrams given before, agnosticism is on a different scale to theism/atheism.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    raah isn't a troll, it's just that you don't like what he's saying :pac: I have a lot of respect for him due to excellent posts in the Philosophy forum.

    i dont like what he is saying because he is creationist level trolling. We have quotes from Huxley saying agnosticism is in contrast to all forms of absolute knowledge - atheism, theism, pantheism, deism, etc, but raah, with the most transparent quotemining, is trying to claim that only atheism is relevant (clearly because its the only thing that would support his position, if true). Troll is the nicest way of putting it.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've shown you at least once where there is disagreement. There are hundreds of such cases in respect to this question on this forum.

    I've seen very few, at least outside of theists trying to redefine atheists and agnostics to suit their own agenda, and trolls asking loaded questions or making silly strawmen and then never returning to read the responses.


  • #109
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But it is agnosticism, its exactly agnosticism, you dont claim complete knowledge, but believe because you hold it to be likely. This is the whole point, agnosticism is knowledge, theism/atheism is belief. For most people, the agnosticism is implicit, as 100% knowledge is dishonest to claim, and as long as they keep that agnosticism somewhere in the back of their mind, somewhere that keeps them open minded, then its doing its job.

    You can technically argue that there is agnosticism, but my point is that there is so little that it renders it to an irrelevancy. Strictly speaking there is nothing wrong with your theory, but in practice it seems that it looks much more like this in terms of how people identify.

    Atheists - God, a god, or gods is more likely not to exist than to exist
    Agnostics - God, a god, or gods is about as likely to exist than not to exist.
    Theists - God, a god, or gods are more likely to exist than not to exist.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This is actually a good thing, it means the agnosticism that Huxley described over 100 years ago is no longer explicit, its socially implicit, people recognise that they dont know 100% and accept that little doubt with keeps them open minded while recognising that for most things, we need to make decisions based on likelyhoods or else we couldn't function. This makes sense and fits in perfectly with the cross diagrams given before, agnosticism is on a different scale to theism/atheism.

    The agnosticism has no real tangible impact in either the case of believing it is as likely as fairies at the back of your garden or the opposite.

    It is an irrelevancy as I would see it.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I've seen very few, at least outside of theists trying to redefine atheists and agnostics to suit their own agenda, and trolls asking loaded questions or making silly strawmen and then never returning to read the responses.

    You might want to use the search function some time and see the number of threads like these that exist in here.


  • #110
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,611 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Strictly speaking there is nothing wrong with your theory, but in practice it seems that it looks much more like this in terms of how people identify.

    Atheists - God, a god, or gods is more likely not to exist than to exist
    Agnostics - God, a god, or gods is about as likely to exist than not to exist.
    Theists - God, a god, or gods are more likely to exist than not to exist.
    The agnostic part of that is WAY off. There's no way the common perception of agnostics is that they believe one is as likely as the other.

    The common perception of agnostics is of people who haven't made up their mind, or just don't know.


  • #111
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    I would have a problem with calling myself an agnostic because to some people it seems to give the impression that I am kind of saying "the juries out on whether or not god exists". I'm not sure why you would call yourself one if you have put some serious thought into the subject. In basic terms, I always thought it was straight forward enough - don't have a belief in god then you are an atheist. I know technically I would be an agnostic atheist but I think it kind of muddys the waters when you call yourself that, it shouldn't need saying.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dades wrote: »
    The agnostic part of that is WAY off. There's no way the common perception of agnostics is that they believe one is as likely as the other.

    The common perception of agnostics is of people who haven't made up their mind, or just don't know.

    I would consider both to synonymous. The very position of not being able to decide would leave you to the conclusion that both are about as likely hence not being able to determine which is more reasonable.


  • #113
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The agnosticism has no real tangible impact in either the case of believing it is as likely as fairies at the back of your garden or the opposite.

    It is an irrelevancy as I would see it.

    Of course it has an impact, it keeps you open minded. A gnostic atheist is going to be as ignorant and useless as a gnostic theist (creationist).
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You might want to use the search function some time and see the number of threads like these that exist in here.

    Like I said, outside of people trying to redefine others to suit their own personal bias, or the odd troll who never returns to respond to questions, I've never seen anyone not understadn the actual difference between agnostic and atheist.


  • #114
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,851 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would consider both to synonymous. The very position of not being able to decide would leave you to the conclusion that both are about as likely hence not being able to determine which is more reasonable.

    Actually that would be a dishonest conclusion. If you dont have sufficient information to be able to make up your mind either way then you dont have enough information to make up your mind and assert the answer is in the middle say one is as likely as the other. The honest answer is to simply say their isn't enough data to make a commitment either way.


  • #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Of course it has an impact, it keeps you open minded. A gnostic atheist is going to be as ignorant and useless as a gnostic theist (creationist).

    I don't think there is much of a difference between you and a gnostic atheist or myself and a gnostic atheist in practice rather than in mere theory. I could be a full 100% theist and still be willing to read and listen to other peoples perspective.

    The minute amount of agnosticism being claimed is wholly defunct in that one can be easily open minded without having any agnosticism.

    From conversations with many creationists I don't agree that all are "gnostic theists" either. The approach of ridiculing young earth creationists actually does more harm than good. Sitting down and looking at an alternative interpretation of Genesis 1 or going into some of the scientific reasons with respect is actually a much better option. However, that is the responsibility of Christians who are theistic evolutionists rather than atheists. I believe the ridicule is actually a part of the problem.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Like I said, outside of people trying to redefine others to suit their own personal bias, or the odd troll who never returns to respond to questions, I've never seen anyone not understadn the actual difference between agnostic and atheist.

    I'm not trying to redefine anything because I've now clearly used the terms in reference to myself. They are not just about atheists. They involve theists as well. I feel that the definitions although are correct in theory have very little relevance at all in reality or in experience

    Go search the forum and you'll find many cases of this.


  • #116
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The very position of not being able to decide would leave you to the conclusion that both are about as likely hence not being able to determine which is more reasonable.
    I don't know whether I'm going to win the Lotto this weekend.

    Does that mean that I've a 50% chance of winning it?


  • #117
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    I don't know whether I'm going to win the Lotto this weekend.

    Does that mean that I've a 50% chance of winning it?

    Not an appropriate answer as there aren't two results in the Lotto.

    There are two broad results in what I have said.
    1. That there is a God, or gods
    2. That there is no God, or gods

    It means that you are not sure which is more likely in practice. Hence one would have to conclude at least for the time being that it could be either way.

    You and I are both sure which is more likely, albeit in different respects.


  • #118
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not an appropriate answer as there aren't two results in the Lotto.

    There are two broad results in what I have said.
    1. That there is a God, or gods
    2. That there is no God, or gods

    It means that you are not sure which is more likely in practice. Hence one would have to conclude at least for the time being that it could be either way.

    You and I are both sure which is more likely, albeit in different respects.

    Well it appears you kinda missed the point. Let's try another one. Suppose that you're 65% - 80% convinced by the presented evidence that someone is guilty, but you're still not 100% sure. So you state your position as you don't know. Surely, now you see that just because you have two options, innocent or guilty, doesn't mean you have 50/50 split in their likelihoods.


  • #119
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I believe the "gnostic atheist" "agnostic atheist" can be used in theory.

    In practice the agnostic part is actually an irrelevancy if one begins claiming that God is as likely as fairies at the back of the garden isn't really agnosticism at all.

    I get it entirely    , I'm not sure if it works well in practice though.

    Your analogy between innocent and guilty is irrelevant. I am saying if one is undecided one is undecided because one feels that both could actually be the case but we can't know for sure.

    One who claims that it is more likely that God doesn't exist, or that God does exist isn't in this situation.


  • #120
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not an appropriate answer as there aren't two results in the Lotto.

    There are two broad results in what I have said.
    1. That there is a God, or gods
    2. That there is no God, or gods

    It means that you are not sure which is more likely in practice. Hence one would have to conclude at least for the time being that it could be either way.

    You and I are both sure which is more likely, albeit in different respects.

    This has come up a number of times before, and it produces the strange situation where you have a 0.5 chance of being right, even though each outcome doesn't have a 0.5 chance of happening.

    So if you take a group of people and ask them to guess whether God exists or not (I'm presuming that at the end of the day he actually exists or not, there aren't any other strange states of existence for a deity), then on average, if each makes a guess or picks at random, 50% of them will get the right answer.

    So you may conclude from this that God has a 50% chance of existing, in that on a random guess, 50% of guesses are right? Well you'd be wrong.

    For example, imagine a lost Island race of people, and they're asked to bet on the outcome (the winner) on a strange competition called "football", where a team called "Manchester Utd" play another team called "Burton Albion". Given that these people have no information at all on which to assess the winner, you'd still expect 50% of them to guess the winner - there are only 2 options, and both are equally likely to be picked.

    However, you'd be totally incorrect to deduce from that that both Manchester Utd and Burton Albion are equally likely to win.

    Probability is strange sometime's isn't it!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've not even talked about the actual possibility of God's existence. I've talked about the subjective possibility to the interpreter depending on their standpoint. Atheist, agnostic or theist on the above criterion as to how likely it is for a God or gods to exist.

    The actual possibility isn't what I've mentioned, but the perceived possibility to the interpreter.

    Please read my posts again if you don't get what I mean.


Advertisement