Can you simply be Agnostic?

Dades

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.

Jakkass this is nonsense and I'm surprised you're towing this line. Two options do not imply equal probabilities.

There are two options regarding my natural father. Either my dad is my father or someone else is my natural father.
Is there a 50/50 chance I'm illegitimate? :pac:

EDIT - just regarding the "not being able to determine which is more reasonable" part - why is this introduced here? Though we disagree on the outcome, we both agree that on this question there are plenty of ways of determining which option is more reasonable.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

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

In the terms I presented them -- either I win, or don't win -- yes, I'm afraid there are only two results.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

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

An "interpreter" who's never cracked the spine of a introductory text on stats or probability

philologos

You clearly don't understand what I'm actually presenting robindch. This is also true of Dades response.

I'm talking about perceived probability, I haven't made one reference to actual probability.

About as likely to the interpreter. Not necessarily about as likely in actual reality. That's not what I'm saying.

The reason I couldn't decide as to whether or not God existed for so long in my life is because I held that they could both be true (not simultaneously obviously), its just that I didn't have good enough reason to jump on either side of the bandwagon. That's why atheist wouldn't have been applicable to me, in much the same way that theist wouldn't have been applicable. I was simply undecided and ignorant about the nature of what I now understand God to be.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm talking about perceived probability, I haven't made one reference to actual probability.

Well, one is an invention, a passing moment, the belief of a second in somebody who doesn't understand either probability or logic. Whereas the other is real. I really can't see what relevance this distinction has to anything

Your comment was:

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.

Which is hopelessly wrong, whether one believes it to be wrong or not.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

But would you be open to changing your mind? That's the point. If I was gnostic, then I wouldn't ever post here or the muslim forum, as I wouldn't have no reason to listen to what anyone says.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

If you are 100% certain, then how could you accept that you could ever be wrong? Its only with a little agnosticism that people can keep honest and open minded.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

We have been going through their "scientific reasons" for over a 130 years. they where wrong then and they still are know. When they respect the scientific process, then they get respect in return. Until then, anyone who takes the bible as 100% true (ie is gnostic in relation to the bible) and tries to bend science around it is dishonest and close minded.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

All they are is implicit positions for most believers/non believers rather than explicit positions, and that is a good thing. Gnosticism concerns how you approach certain knowledge, people finally (if even only subconsciously) recognising that certain knowledge is very nearly impossible is a good thing, it keeps people honest and open minded.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But would you be open to changing your mind? That's the point. If I was gnostic, then I wouldn't ever post here or the muslim forum, as I wouldn't have no reason to listen to what anyone says.

Yes, but I would have to be seriously convinced otherwise.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you are 100% certain, then how could you accept that you could ever be wrong? Its only with a little agnosticism that people can keep honest and open minded.

I don't consider open-mindedness to be limited to accepting something as right or wrong. It also involves a willingness to step inside the shoes of another and be willing to engage with them about opposing ideas. Open-mindedness doesn't of necessity have anything to do with accepting thinking other than your own, but rather being open to hearing about it at the very least.

One can be:

Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.

and yet not change their view.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We have been going through their "scientific reasons" for over a 130 years. they where wrong then and they still are know. When they respect the scientific process, then they get respect in return. Until then, anyone who takes the bible as 100% true (ie is gnostic in relation to the bible) and tries to bend science around it is dishonest and close minded.

I believe the Bible is true in its entirety. From actually seeing people who would hold such views, indeed a few I know well things are made worse when people deride and ridicule.

By the by, we all haven't been around 130 years so that isn't a reasonable take IMO.

I will also say this, I think the initial arguments against evolution were valid to have (e.g Samuel Wilberforce debating Huxley). I also think that the Scopes Trial of the 1920's was well intentioned even if it was misguided.

I know from experience that the approach that atheists contributes to the problem.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All they are is implicit positions for most believers/non believers rather than explicit positions, and that is a good thing. Gnosticism concerns how you approach certain knowledge, people finally (if even only subconsciously) recognising that certain knowledge is very nearly impossible is a good thing, it keeps people honest and open minded.

I think it is too simplistic to explain to use to relate to actual experience rather than mere theory. In practice most atheists do not identify as agnostic, most agnostics do not identify as atheists indeed some agnostics don't go the step beyond to say that God is unlikely or likely, most theists do not identify as agnostics.

Someone who is 100% unsure will rarely identify as an atheist in practice.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but I would have to be seriously convinced otherwise.

Me too, but i still post here and other places and I still listen to others arguments.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider open-mindedness to be limited to accepting something as right or wrong. It also involves a willingness to step inside the shoes of another and be willing to engage with them about opposing ideas. Open-mindedness doesn't of necessity have anything to do with accepting thinking other than your own, but rather being open to hearing about it at the very least.

One can be:
Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.
and yet not change their view.

But why would a gnostic even bother to hear about someone elses thinking if you were 100% certain that you were right? If nothing else, it would be a total waste of time (in the gnostics eyes).

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the Bible is true in its entirety. From actually seeing people who would hold such views, indeed a few I know well things are made worse when people deride and ridicule.

When those people hold a literal view, ridicule after over a century of being proven wrong is all they deserve. They cant expect respect as a scientific hypothesis if they dont accept the scientific method in relation to their beliefs (which they dont).

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, we all haven't been around 130 years so that isn't a reasonable take IMO.

The science has, ever since Darwin wrote his book (actually 150 years ago) and scientific research lasts longer than the person who first reported it (as long as its supported by new results, as evolution has been up to know)

Jakkass wrote: »

I will also say this, I think the initial arguments against evolution were valid to have (e.g Samuel Wilberforce debating Huxley). I also think that the Scopes Trial of the 1920's was well intentioned even if it was misguided.

Well debate about new ideas is always a good thing, when you bring sensible, scientific, criticisms to the table. An idiot who clearly didn't understand the thing he was debating and a trial based on the religious controllers of the school trying to stifle actual evidence and scientific theory in favour of their own dogma are not going to offer any useful insights, nothing that either shows a real flaw in the theory or something that otherwise increases human knowledge. There is a huge thread on this forum and one in the christianity forum that just shows that creationism is brain rotting anti science, anti rational, dishonest and recycled nonsense long since debunked, time and time again. It doesn't need to be discussed here again.

Jakkass wrote: »

I know from experience that the approach that atheists contributes to the problem.

I would never see it as a problem to consistently show how some idea is so dishonest and unscientific that even the most simple and straightforward debunking of some it cant help but ridicule creationists because of its ease in the complete and utter destruction of its clearly nonsensical origins.
If creationists where continuously offering new counter arguments to evolution, then i would agree with you. Ridiculing new ideas, regardless of where they come from, is pretty stupid if you haven't examined them properly. However creationists dont bring any science new to the table, they never really have.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is too simplistic to explain to use to relate to actual experience rather than mere theory. In practice most atheists do not identify as agnostic, most agnostics do not identify as atheists indeed some agnostics don't go the step beyond to say that God is unlikely or likely, most theists do not identify as agnostics.

I dont identify as a skeptical atheist, because skeptical is pretty much an implicit position for me, I dont see the need to point it out. I imagine most people would also identify as skeptical, but only if pushed on it, because its supposed to be a default position (the opposite of skeptical, gullible, is bad therefore most people dont assume they are and dont see the need to point out they aren't). Agnosticism is just a logical extension of skepticism.

Jakkass wrote: »

Someone who is 100% unsure will rarely identify as an atheist in practice.

How can you be 100% unsure of what you believe? I hope you aren't still making the mistake of asserting that agnosticism is a measure of belief, on the same scale as theism/atheism

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Me too, but i still post here and other places and I still listen to others arguments.

Well, why do you think I'm posting here?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why would a gnostic even bother to hear about someone elses thinking if you were 100% certain that you were right? If nothing else, it would be a total waste of time (in the gnostics eyes).

Learning about other peoples worldview helps you better to understand them. The reason I primarily began to read Dawkins and Hitchens was to attempt to understand what perspective other people were coming from even if I thought it was absurd. Indeed, when Daniel Dennett was last in Dublin I went to see him out of interest. This doesn't mean that I'm going to suddenly become an atheist.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When those people hold a literal view, ridicule after over a century of being proven wrong is all they deserve. They cant expect respect as a scientific hypothesis if they dont accept the scientific method in relation to their beliefs (which they dont).

See it isn't though. The ridicule makes it much more difficult for people who genuinely want to explain it to them. It makes the problem considerably worse, and I'm saying this from experience.

I believe in showing people grace and respect.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well debate about new ideas is always a good thing, when you bring sensible, scientific, criticisms to the table. An idiot who clearly didn't understand the thing he was debating and a trial based on the religious controllers of the school trying to stifle actual evidence and scientific theory in favour of their own dogma are not going to offer any useful insights, nothing that either shows a real flaw in the theory or something that otherwise increases human knowledge. There is a huge thread on this forum and one in the christianity forum that just shows that creationism is brain rotting anti science, anti rational, dishonest and recycled nonsense long since debunked, time and time again. It doesn't need to be discussed here again.

I don't think all creationists are idiots either. I'm suspecting you've had very little actual interaction with Young Earth Creationists hence why you are happy to rely on misconceptions. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I would never see it as a problem to consistently show how some idea is so dishonest and unscientific that even the most simple and straightforward debunking of some it cant help but ridicule creationists because of its ease in the complete and utter destruction of its clearly nonsensical origins.
If creationists where continuously offering new counter arguments to evolution, then i would agree with you. Ridiculing new ideas, regardless of where they come from, is pretty stupid if you haven't examined them properly. However creationists dont bring any science new to the table, they never really have.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont identify as a skeptical atheist, because skeptical is pretty much an implicit position for me, I dont see the need to point it out. I imagine most people would also identify as skeptical, but only if pushed on it, because its supposed to be a default position (the opposite of skeptical, gullible, is bad therefore most people dont assume they are and dont see the need to point out they aren't). Agnosticism is just a logical extension of skepticism.

Agnosticism isn't a necessary part of atheism, and atheism is not a necessary part of agnosticism. Indeed the same is true of theism.

I wonder could the same be said about skepticism. I don't believe it necessarily to be an inherent part of atheism, theism or agnosticism. I personally am quite skeptically minded, but I happen to believe in God. Skepticism would go beyond just the God question.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can you be 100% unsure of what you believe? I hope you aren't still making the mistake of asserting that agnosticism is a measure of belief, on the same scale as theism/atheism

You can be genuinely undecided as to the existence of God. I was in this situation as a teenager. I wouldn't have called myself an atheist but it appears to be the very definition of agnostic.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the Bible is true in its entirety. From actually seeing people who would hold such views, indeed a few I know well things are made worse when people deride and ridicule.

We have been over this before and you simply left the conversation.

What do you believe the true interpretation of the Genesis stories such as Noah's flood is?

Do you believe, for example, that Noah lived to be 950 when he died?

It is questions like these that cause Christians, in my experience, to give some what Orwellian definitions of "true", ie all the Bible is true, but some things are more true than others.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you believe the true interpretation of the Genesis stories such as Noah's flood is?

I don't think he's figured out how to interpret that story yet in a way that makes it even remotely likely to be true but hoping I'm wrong to hear his explanation.

I love the religious thought process; assume it's true first and then try to make it feasible by manipulating context and reinterpreting it using any metaphor you can think of! (brute-force metaphoring i'll call it since I'm a nerd)

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, why do you think I'm posting here?

Because you aren't 100% gnostic in your beliefs, you are open to new ideas. Which is a good thing.

Jakkass wrote: »

Learning about other peoples worldview helps you better to understand them. The reason I primarily began to read Dawkins and Hitchens was to attempt to understand what perspective other people were coming from even if I thought it was absurd. Indeed, when Daniel Dennett was last in Dublin I went to see him out of interest. This doesn't mean that I'm going to suddenly become an atheist.

But you admitted you aren't 100% gnsotic. why would a 100% gnostic bother? They are 100% sure in their own worldview, so what benefit is it to them to understand anyone elses, as to the gnostic, they are definitely wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

See it isn't though. The ridicule makes it much more difficult for people who genuinely want to explain it to them. It makes the problem considerably worse, and I'm saying this from experience.

I believe in showing people grace and respect.

The ridicule doesn't make it hard for people with an open mind to go and read about evolution. There is no ridicule in the wikipedia page, or in going to a forum and simply asking for a brief explanation of evolution for a layman who doesn't understand it. The ridicule is reserved for trolls, people who ask loaded questions and those who aren't interested in even understanding what evolution says. The ridicule is for the 100% creation gnostics.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think all creationists are idiots either. I'm suspecting you've had very little actual interaction with Young Earth Creationists hence why you are happy to rely on misconceptions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. I've read quite a few of their arguments, across a range of subjects and have posted with them in threads here on boards.
Btw, i didn't say all creationists are idiots, some were just indoctrinated and its not really their fault. However many are dishonest, both intellectually and in how they argue, and the idiot I was referring to was Wilberforce, who asked Huxley which grandmother he thought was a monkey.

Jakkass wrote: »

Agnosticism isn't a necessary part of atheism, and atheism is not a necessary part of agnosticism. Indeed the same is true of theism.

I wonder could the same be said about skepticism. I don't believe it necessarily to be an inherent part of atheism, theism or agnosticism. I personally am quite skeptically minded, but I happen to believe in God. Skepticism would go beyond just the God question.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that either agnosticism or skepticism where inherently a part of atheism or religious belief, I was just using skepticism as an example of something that I consider myself, but dont usually verbally identify as because I would assume that its an obvious position to be (or claim to be). I would see agnosticism and skepticism to simply be an inherent part of any honest inquiry.

Jakkass wrote: »

You can be genuinely undecided as to the existence of God. I was in this situation as a teenager. I wouldn't have called myself an atheist but it appears to be the very definition of agnostic.

As has been explained countless times, belief and knowledge are different. You were agnostic and you were atheist (probably strongly agnostic and very very weakly atheist). I dont think its possible for someone to be completely undecided in what they believe (as opposed to what they know), I dont think our biological minds would allow us to sit in such a position so as to not be able to make a belief based decision in the absence of any kind of certain knowledge. Throughout our history, humans and our evolutionary ancestors would have had to make decisions (which way to look for food, what to do to attract a specific mate, where to flee from a predator) and not being able to make split second decisions in the almost complete lack of evidence would have stalled everything we tried to do.

rockbeer

Jakkass wrote: »

I've talked about the subjective possibility to the interpreter depending on their standpoint.

How is this any different to considering 'the subjective possibility to the lottery ticket holder that their ticket will win' on the subjective basis that either they will win or they won't, and concluding that their chances are therefore 50/50?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm talking about perceived probability, I haven't made one reference to actual probability.

Yes you did, when you pointed out that there was only one possible lotto winning combination but many losing combinations.

Since you understand probability well enough to get that the number of possible losing combinations make the odds of winning the lottery far less than 50%, you should also understand that the probability of any one specific god existing, considered in the context of the set of all possible gods that could exist, is far less than 50%.

To put it another way: you group 'all possible gods' together into a lump and say that it's reasonable on that basis to conclude that the probability of some one of them existing is 50%. But you wouldn't group 'all possible lottery combinations' together into a lump and say that makes the probability of any one of those combinations coming up is 50%, would you?

Why is it different for gods than lotto numbers?

Clue: it isn't. In fact, because the set of possible lotto combinations is finite but the set of possible gods is essentially infinite, there is a far greater probability of any one lotto combination coming up than of any one god existing. And because the set of possible gods is infinite, the probability of any one (or more) of them existing is incalculable.

Therefore you are quite wrong: I doubt that many atheists who've thought about it would say that 'it is more likely that a "god" of some indeterminate type doesn't exist than that it does'. There is insufficient data to make this kind of speculative pronouncement, and in that kind of context, with absolutely no specifics attached, 'god' is an almost meaningless term. Atheists, in my experience, are essentially pragmatic - we don't believe in particular gods i.e. the particular ones that religious people believe in. Just as those same religious people tend not to believe in each others' gods. We will say (correctly) that it is very, very much more likely that any one, specific, particular god (i.e. the christian one) doesn't exist than that it does.

As I'm sure you'll agree, if you substitute 'Osiris' for 'the christian one' in the above sentence

As for 'god in general', I think most of us are probably agnostic about that in the absence of further information. No other position makes sense.

To know how it really feels to be an atheist you have to ask yourself not how you feel about 'god' but how you feel about Osiris.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

I don't think he's figured out how to interpret that story yet in a way that makes it even remotely likely to be true but hoping I'm wrong to hear his explanation.

It also calls into question, as far as I'm concerned, the idea that Christians simply start at Genesis, read all the way through the Bible, find it convincing and become believers.

In reality anyone doing that would stop half way through Genesis and go "Well clearly that never happened" and toss the Bible aside.

A far more likely process is that potential Christians read the good bit from the New Testament, decide for what ever reason that it is true, and then interperate all the rest of the Bible, New and Old Testament with this context already firmly established.

This leads to "interesting" interpretations to say the least.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because you aren't 100% gnostic in your beliefs, you are open to new ideas. Which is a good thing.

I agree I amn't on a very slight level, but I wouldn't identify as an agnostic.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you admitted you aren't 100% gnsotic. why would a 100% gnostic bother? They are 100% sure in their own worldview, so what benefit is it to them to understand anyone elses, as to the gnostic, they are definitely wrong.

My point is even if I were 100% gnostic it could still be very useful to know what other people think and interesting for that matter. Just because you claim to know something doesn't mean that you aren't interested in why people believe other things.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The ridicule doesn't make it hard for people with an open mind to go and read about evolution. There is no ridicule in the wikipedia page, or in going to a forum and simply asking for a brief explanation of evolution for a layman who doesn't understand it. The ridicule is reserved for trolls, people who ask loaded questions and those who aren't interested in even understanding what evolution says. The ridicule is for the 100% creation gnostics.

No but the ridicule solidifies the position they already hold because naturally people go off thinking after they get abuse for their position that they have used this in favour of using evidence.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are wrong. I've read quite a few of their arguments, across a range of subjects and have posted with them in threads here on boards.
Btw, i didn't say all creationists are idiots, some were just indoctrinated and its not really their fault. However many are dishonest, both intellectually and in how they argue, and the idiot I was referring to was Wilberforce, who asked Huxley which grandmother he thought was a monkey.

I asked you have you met any young earth creationists in person? Reading arguments and posting online isn't where much of the actual discussion on the subject happens. Or at least not the most effective discussion. It usually happens face to face at least from experience. It's only through gentle correction as to why it is wrong to say that we all evolved from apes, or that evolution isn't demonstrable amongst other such things that people might be willing to think differently.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As has been explained countless times, belief and knowledge are different. You were agnostic and you were atheist (probably strongly agnostic and very very weakly atheist). I dont think its possible for someone to be completely undecided in what they believe (as opposed to what they know), I dont think our biological minds would allow us to sit in such a position so as to not be able to make a belief based decision in the absence of any kind of certain knowledge. Throughout our history, humans and our evolutionary ancestors would have had to make decisions (which way to look for food, what to do to attract a specific mate, where to flee from a predator) and not being able to make split second decisions in the almost complete lack of evidence would have stalled everything we tried to do.

There are instances where agnostics simply can't be lumped into atheist or theist. They fall somewhere in limbo between the two. That's why I find the diagram inadequate. If it allowed for some space where people could be defacto agnostic but not atheist or theist that would make more pragmatic sense.

I just think that the diagram although it may hold up theoretically doesn't hold up in practice very often.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree I amn't on a very slight level, but I wouldn't identify as an agnostic.

And you wouldn't identify as skeptical, unless pushed on it, because you would just assume it and assume everyone is or wants to be. All I'm trying to point to is that agnosticism is a word that isn't used by many people anymore because its just assumed that most people dont actually claim 100% certainty of something (just like most people dont claim to be gullible, therefore people generally dont point out they are skeptical without reason).

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is even if I were 100% gnostic it could still be very useful to know what other people think and interesting for that matter. Just because you claim to know something doesn't mean that you aren't interested in why people believe other things.

It might be interesting to hear others points if views, but if you are gnostic, it wont ever be useful, as you wont change your mind. Even to change from gnostic on one idea to gnostic on a counter idea will require you to first become agnostic.

Jakkass wrote: »

No but the ridicule solidifies the position they already hold because naturally people go off thinking after they get abuse for their position that they have used this in favour of using evidence.

But what else do you suggest is done? Their so called evidence has been debunked, a lot over 100 years ago. Their methods is exactly what was described in the image liamw posted a few posts back, they make their conclusion (arrive at a gnostic position) and then try to find evidence to support, ignoring evidence that contradicts them. They are completely unscientific, close minded and dishonest. After so much time of doing this, ridicule is the best answer, all they are is a joke.

Jakkass wrote: »

I asked you have you met any young earth creationists in person? Reading arguments and posting online isn't where much of the actual discussion on the subject happens. Or at least not the most effective discussion. It usually happens face to face at least from experience. It's only through gentle correction as to why it is wrong to say that we all evolved from apes, or that evolution isn't demonstrable amongst other such things that people might be willing to think differently.

Seriously? I have to debate them face to face for it to matter? So no debate for anything on this entire forum really means anything because its only online? Seriously Jakkass, I hope you are trolling, because, if not, I'm worried something has happened to your brain, because I dont remember you being crazy before this thread.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are instances where agnostics simply can't be lumped into atheist or theist. They fall somewhere in limbo between the two. That's why I find the diagram inadequate. If it allowed for some space where people could be defacto agnostic but not atheist or theist that would make more pragmatic sense.

I just think that the diagram although it may hold up theoretically doesn't hold up in practice very often.

Whats so hard to understand about someone who lands dead centre in the diagram? I seriously cant understand the issue with this, could you understand the concept of the origin in x/y graphs in schools, is that it? The diagram already allows for someone to be neither atheist/theist but de facto agnostic. They sit on the middle and their opinion of the certainty of a belief in god decides how high or low they are (if they think it can never be known, then they are low, agnostic, if they think it can but that they just dont at the time, then they are high).
I'm beginning to think, Jakkass, if you cant understand that all you do is measure someones belief on the horizontal scale and then use their opinion of the certainty of that belief to find the vertical point, then you are trying not to understand.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And you wouldn't identify as skeptical, unless pushed on it, because you would just assume it and assume everyone is or wants to be. All I'm trying to point to is that agnosticism is a word that isn't used by many people anymore because its just assumed that most people dont actually claim 100% certainty of something (just like most people dont claim to be gullible, therefore people generally dont point out they are skeptical without reason).

I would identify as skeptical, but I wouldn't identify as an agnostic because I really don't have any significant degree of it other than saying I don't know absolutely that God exists.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It might be interesting to hear others points if views, but if you are gnostic, it wont ever be useful, as you wont change your mind. Even to change from gnostic on one idea to gnostic on a counter idea will require you to first become agnostic.

And changing your mind is the only reason why you learn things?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But what else do you suggest is done? Their so called evidence has been debunked, a lot over 100 years ago. Their methods is exactly what was described in the image liamw posted a few posts back, they make their conclusion (arrive at a gnostic position) and then try to find evidence to support, ignoring evidence that contradicts them. They are completely unscientific, close minded and dishonest. After so much time of doing this, ridicule is the best answer, all they are is a joke.

I've suggested already how one should best deal with it...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seriously? I have to debate them face to face for it to matter? So no debate for anything on this entire forum really means anything because its only online? Seriously Jakkass, I hope you are trolling, because, if not, I'm worried something has happened to your brain, because I dont remember you being crazy before this thread.

I'm not 'trolling' at all. One can't really have a valid position about Young Earth Creationists/ism unless one has encountered it on a personal level other than what you've seen on the internet makes you think they are stupid etc.

N.B - Just seen I've made a typo in last post, I meant to say that it is wrong to say we have evolved from apes in their current form rather than an earlier common ancestor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Whats so hard to understand about someone who lands dead centre in the diagram? I seriously cant understand the issue with this, could you understand the concept of the origin in x/y graphs in schools, is that it? The diagram already allows for someone to be neither atheist/theist but de facto agnostic. They sit on the middle and their opinion of the certainty of a belief in god decides how high or low they are (if they think it can never be known, then they are low, agnostic, if they think it can but that they just dont at the time, then they are high).
I'm beginning to think, Jakkass, if you cant understand that all you do is measure someones belief on the horizontal scale and then use their opinion of the certainty of that belief to find the vertical point, then you are trying not to understand.

They don't fall into atheist, or theist in practice, perhaps in theory, that's my point. In practice people who fall in the middle more often than not call themselves agnostics rather than atheists. I feel we need to distinguish between practical and theoretical when we discuss this something you're not appreciating yet.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I would identify as skeptical, but I wouldn't identify as an agnostic because I really don't have any significant degree of it other than saying I don't know absolutely that God exists.

But you wouldn't go up to someone and say "Hi, I'm Jakkass, a skeptical Anglican" would you? Its implicit. The agnosticism is too, thats all the point I'm making - the agnosticism is there, assumed to be weak (as your belief is strong) so we dont need to point it out.

Jakkass wrote: »

And changing your mind is the only reason why you learn things?

No, I learn and discuss things to either create an opinion about something I dont know, or challenge one I already have. if I'm gnostic, I wouldn't need to do either.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've suggested already how one should best deal with it...

And your suggestion just suggests that you haven't actually had much contact with creationists. They aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in supporting their religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not 'trolling' at all. One can't really have a valid position about Young Earth Creationists/ism unless one has encountered it on a personal level other than what you've seen on the internet makes you think they are stupid etc.

And encountering someone on a forum doesn't count as a person encounter? I have to physically in their presence to really understand them? Get real Jakkass, thats just silly.

Jakkass wrote: »

N.B - Just seen I've made a typo in last post, I meant to say that it is wrong to say we have evolved from apes in their current form rather than an earlier common ancestor.

I read over that non even realising that you made that mistake. Thing is, that was pointed out 150 years ago at the time that Huxley was asked which grandmother was a monkey. Even after 150 years of being told that evolution doesn't say that we evolved from apes (its that humans and apes had a common ancestor) they still get it wrong because they dont care. They only care about their religion, nothing can ever contradict it because they gnostic in their beliefs. Its left them too close minded.

Jakkass wrote: »

They don't fall into atheist, or theist in practice, perhaps in theory, that's my point. In practice people who fall in the middle more often than not call themselves agnostics rather than atheists. I feel we need to distinguish between practical and theoretical when we discuss this something you're not appreciating yet.

And nothing there actually contradicts what I said, in practise or in theory. Seriously, I could just copy and paste my last response and it would still correct your mistake:
The diagram already allows for someone to be neither atheist/theist but de facto agnostic. They sit on the middle and their opinion of the certainty of a belief in god decides how high or low they are (if they think it can never be known, then they are low, agnostic, if they think it can but that they just dont at the time, then they are high).

If you aren't even going to try Jakkass, why should I?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you wouldn't go up to someone and say "Hi, I'm Jakkass, a skeptical Anglican" would you? Its implicit. The agnosticism is too, thats all the point I'm making - the agnosticism is there, assumed to be weak (as your belief is strong) so we dont need to point it out.

On a first introductions level I wouldn't go up to people and tell them either my faith or my views concerning skepticism. I suspect people find this stuff out rather quickly about me though. Indeed, as already mentioned if I do mention my faith, I don't generally mention denomination unless asked.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I learn and discuss things to either create an opinion about something I dont know, or challenge one I already have. if I'm gnostic, I wouldn't need to do either.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And your suggestion just suggests that you haven't actually had much contact with creationists. They aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in supporting their religion.

I know quite a few creationists personally. This is why I can tell you that not all Young Earth Creationists are "gnostic" in respect to faith, or that they are unwilling to hear and consider what other people have to say.

I can also tell you from experience that the approach that some take to employ ridicule makes people more unwilling to hear. Personally, I would treat any friends with such a view as a brother or a sister in Christ but I would aim to probe a little into the science behind it too.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And encountering someone on a forum doesn't count as a person encounter? I have to physically in their presence to really understand them? Get real Jakkass, thats just silly.

You can't tell very much about a person through a computer screen. I can tell you instantly that if I met you or any other atheist on this forum and got talking to you on a semi-regular basis over coffee or something I would probably find that you were different to what preconceptions I'd have and I'm sure you'd feel the same. There are limits to how much internet interaction can go methinks which is why I enjoy the time that I can spend with people of faith or no-faith talking about what it means to believe in Christ.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And nothing there actually contradicts what I said, in practise or in theory. Seriously, I could just copy and paste my last response and it would still correct your mistake:
The diagram already allows for someone to be neither atheist/theist but de facto agnostic. They sit on the middle and their opinion of the certainty of a belief in god decides how high or low they are (if they think it can never be known, then they are low, agnostic, if they think it can but that they just dont at the time, then they are high).

If you aren't even going to try Jakkass, why should I?

Interesting. If you are willing to admit that people can be merely agnostic then that's good enough for me.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I know quite a few creationists personally.

Sharing ideas around cognitive dissonance?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Sharing ideas around cognitive dissonance?

Be more specific. I don't for example think that they should be treated as less because one happens to disagree with someone. In fact I would consider this to be ill-mannered of anyone.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Be more specific. I don't for example think that they should be treated as less because one happens to disagree with someone. In fact I would consider this to be ill-mannered of anyone.

The overwhelming evidence that needs to be ignored to deny evolution can only be explained by stupidity, cognitive dissonance or miseducation/ignorance on the topic. I'm sure you agree with me on this point; even you have gone to the effort of not reading Genesis literally...

By the way, I didn't say anyone should be 'treated less'.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

The overwhelming evidence that needs to be ignored to deny evolution can only be explained by stupidity, cognitive dissonance or miseducation/ignorance on the topic. I'm sure you agree with me on this point; even you have gone to the effort of not reading Genesis literally...

I read Genesis as many other Christians have throughout centuries. I still nonetheless believe that God created all things, and that I am a part of His creation. We can discuss how God brought this all together.

liamw wrote: »

By the way, I didn't say anyone should be 'treated less'.

Others have though.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I read Genesis as many other Christians have throughout centuries. I still nonetheless believe that God created all things, and that I am a part of His creation. We can discuss how God brought this all together.

Do you believe that God simply 'guided' evolution along towards homo sapien (i.e. not purely natural selection)? Or he set it up from the start so that evolution would deterministically result in homo sapiens billions of years down the line?

Do you believe that humans are 'special' in some way compared to other species; at what point in evolutionary history did that 'special' piece (soul/morals?) get embedded... i.e. was there a baby born at some stage in evolutionary history with this special characteristic whose parents didn't have it?

philologos

^^ I personally believe that God created the laws of the universe including the evolutionary process itself. It can be reasonable to expect that an omnipotent creator should such a being exist would know the function of this process.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

On a first introductions level I wouldn't go up to people and tell them either my faith or my views concerning skepticism. I suspect people find this stuff out rather quickly about me though. Indeed, as already mentioned if I do mention my faith, I don't generally mention denomination unless asked.

Stop dragging out the obvious Jakkass, its getting pathetic at this point. If someone asks you of your religion, you say christian, not skeptical christian.

Jakkass wrote: »

I know quite a few creationists personally. This is why I can tell you that not all Young Earth Creationists are "gnostic" in respect to faith, or that they are unwilling to hear and consider what other people have to say.

Having actually read the arguments, I can you that this is a lie, I presume from the creationists telling you that they are open minded. A cursory glance at the scientific evidence chows creationism to be wrong, it contradicts so much of the established science we have evidence for and use every day and offers absolutely no scientific evidence for its own claims.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can also tell you from experience that the approach that some take to employ ridicule makes people more unwilling to hear. Personally, I would treat any friends with such a view as a brother or a sister in Christ but I would aim to probe a little into the science behind it too.

This is getting old. There is no ridicule in the wikipedia pages, or the other online documents about evolution (talkorigins etc), the ridicule arises when someone clearly with no scientific experience or idea what they are talking about tries to weigh in on an online debate and tries to argue with authority. People only do this if they are gnostic and close minded (open minded people would read up on the topic a bit, or ask questions on a forum rather than make authoritative statements). I dont even think you believe what you are claiming here Jakkass, its just too clearly ludicrous.

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't tell very much about a person through a computer screen. I can tell you instantly that if I met you or any other atheist on this forum and got talking to you on a semi-regular basis over coffee or something I would probably find that you were different to what preconceptions I'd have and I'm sure you'd feel the same. There are limits to how much internet interaction can go methinks which is why I enjoy the time that I can spend with people of faith or no-faith talking about what it means to believe in Christ.

Online interaction is different from physical interaction, but that doesn't make it less real or valid. You are just making up excuses to ignore my points about creationists, how very close minded of you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting. If you are willing to admit that people can be merely agnostic then that's good enough for me.

If you dont bother to read my posts, why should I bother to respond to yours Jakkass? I already covered this only a dozen posts ago:
I dont think its possible for someone to be completely undecided in what they believe (as opposed to what they know), I dont think our biological minds would allow us to sit in such a position so as to not be able to make a belief based decision in the absence of any kind of certain knowledge. Throughout our history, humans and our evolutionary ancestors would have had to make decisions (which way to look for food, what to do to attract a specific mate, where to flee from a predator) and not being able to make split second decisions in the almost complete lack of evidence would have stalled everything we tried to do.
Last chance, troll me again and I'll just ignore you. I dont like posting with dishonest people, brings me out in a rage.

CerebralCortex

But's not reasonable to expect that a being with such resources would have done such a bad job. Perfect example of a rationalisation methinks. Rationality and rationalisations aren't the same thing.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop dragging out the obvious Jakkass, its getting pathetic at this point. If someone asks you of your religion, you say christian, not skeptical christian.

Indeed, I would, but I would also identify as being skeptically minded. So one could very accurately say I'm a skeptically minded Christian. I know quite a few of those too.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Having actually read the arguments, I can you that this is a lie, I presume from the creationists telling you that they are open minded. A cursory glance at the scientific evidence chows creationism to be wrong, it contradicts so much of the established science we have evidence for and use every day and offers absolutely no scientific evidence for its own claims.

Mark - I don't know what your point is here. I don't believe the earth is young, nor do I believe the caricature that people often present of YEC's. Simply put, I know many of these people.

Evidence collected from face-to-face discussion > Evidence collected on teh internets.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is getting old. There is no ridicule in the wikipedia pages, or the other online documents about evolution (talkorigins etc), the ridicule arises when someone clearly with no scientific experience or idea what they are talking about tries to weigh in on an online debate and tries to argue with authority. People only do this if they are gnostic and close minded (open minded people would read up on the topic a bit, or ask questions on a forum rather than make authoritative statements). I dont even think you believe what you are claiming here Jakkass, its just too clearly ludicrous.

I'm not talking about the Wikipedia page or other articles. I'm talking about how people often treat YEC's. It's a woeful tactic in handling this issue. Dare I say perhaps you should let Christians who are theistic evolutionists deal with the issue.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Online interaction is different from physical interaction, but that doesn't make it less real or valid. You are just making up excuses to ignore my points about creationists, how very close minded of you.

Get this clear - I disagree with you, that is not the same thing as "ignoring" you. It's a very annoying tactic that people use on this forum. Indeed perhaps I will ignore all subsequent claims that I am ignoring you when I amn't.

This is an awful tactic, I'm the one suggesting that your closed minded caricature of YEC's is incorrect more likely than not due to your lack of personal contact with them.

You know very well as much as I do that personal interaction on a face-to-face level is much better than through a computer to varying degrees. The best internet interaction being by Skype which still falls short of actually being there.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Last chance, troll me again and I'll just ignore you. I dont like posting with dishonest people, brings me out in a rage.

I find your accusation to be "dishonest". The "agnostic" / "gnostic" diagram seems to place people within 1 of the 4 quadrants of the diagram. This is why I thought it wasn't the absolute best model to use.

You have now made it clear that you do think people can be defacto agnostics. A few posts ago when I claimed that I was an agnostic as a teenager you posted this:

Mark Hamill wrote:

As has been explained countless times, belief and knowledge are different. You were agnostic and you were atheist (probably strongly agnostic and very very weakly atheist). I dont think its possible for someone to be completely undecided in what they believe (as opposed to what they know), I dont think our biological minds would allow us to sit in such a position so as to not be able to make a belief based decision in the absence of any kind of certain knowledge. Throughout our history, humans and our evolutionary ancestors would have had to make decisions (which way to look for food, what to do to attract a specific mate, where to flee from a predator) and not being able to make split second decisions in the almost complete lack of evidence would have stalled everything we tried to do.

Please cut the nonsense, it's ruining what is otherwise a very civil discussion.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Last chance, troll me again and I'll just ignore you. I dont like posting with dishonest people, brings me out in a rage.

If you think Jakkass is trolling you, or you are likely to act on a rage, then for both your sakes please ignore him.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

If you think... you are likely to act on a rage ...please ignore him.

Aww I always wanted to see what would have happened if Luke gave in to his rage and joined the dark side.:(