Agnosticism vs Atheism

pug_

I'm an agnostic, and up until pretty recently all this meant to me was that all organised religions were a load of bollox. I've only recently started to think of what my agnosticism means in relation to atheism and, I don't know why, but I was surprised at how fundamentally different my view of agnosticism is to atheism. So much so that I'm starting to think that I'm fundamentally opposed to the very idea of Atheism in exactly the same way that I am to any other form of theism.

I don't know why this is such a surprise to me, as both atheism and all forms of religion are basing their viewpoints on a belief, whereas my viewpoint is that it's impossible to know one way or the other so I see it as an unknown.

This makes me wonder is this difference of opinion a common thing? Atheists and agnostics often seem to be associated together (as with this forum). Am I relatively unique in this point of view?

Also there doesn't seem to be many outspoken agnostics out there promoting agnosticism in the same way as there are for atheists. I've never walked into easons and seen a book on "agnosticism for dummies" but I'd have no problem picking up a book on atheism. Given what I see as the fundamental differences between the two this seems a little odd. Am I missing something fundamental? Or maybe it's just the media not picking up on agnostic thinkers as it's not as sexy or controversial as atheism?

Since I started this thread I've been distracted a few times so I'm not 100% sure where I'm going with it any more. I guess what I'm looking for is some confirmation that agnosticism and atheism really are fundamentally different and that its pretty normal for an agnostic to disagree completely with an atheist on the core of their beliefs. But if someone could point me in the direction of some decent agnostic writings too that'd be a bonus.

oldrnwisr

pug_ wrote: »

I'm an agnostic, and up until pretty recently all this meant to me was that all organised religions were a load of bollox. I've only recently started to think of what my agnosticism means in relation to atheism and, I don't know why, but I was surprised at how fundamentally different my view of agnosticism is to atheism. So much so that I'm starting to think that I'm fundamentally opposed to the very idea of Atheism in exactly the same way that I am to any other form of theism.

I don't know why this is such a surprise to me, as both atheism and all forms of religion are basing their viewpoints on a belief, whereas my viewpoint is that it's impossible to know one way or the other so I see it as an unknown.

This makes me wonder is this difference of opinion a common thing? Atheists and agnostics often seem to be associated together (as with this forum). Am I relatively unique in this point of view?

Also there doesn't seem to be many outspoken agnostics out there promoting agnosticism in the same way as there are for atheists. I've never walked into easons and seen a book on "agnosticism for dummies" but I'd have no problem picking up a book on atheism. Given what I see as the fundamental differences between the two this seems a little odd. Am I missing something fundamental? Or maybe it's just the media not picking up on agnostic thinkers as it's not as sexy or controversial as atheism?

Since I started this thread I've been distracted a few times so I'm not 100% sure where I'm going with it any more. I guess what I'm looking for is some confirmation that agnosticism and atheism really are fundamentally different and that its pretty normal for an agnostic to disagree completely with an atheist on the core of their beliefs. But if someone could point me in the direction of some decent agnostic writings too that'd be a bonus.

Agnosticism and atheism are in no way fundamentally different. They just deal with the same question from different perspectives. To the question: "Do you know there is a God?" an agnostic would answer no while a gnostic would answer yes. However, to the question: "Do you believe in a God? a negative response indicates atheism while a positive response indicates theism. The important point is though that the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist. It comes down to the difference between belief and knowledge.

Secondly, atheism is not a belief nor a worldview based on belief. It is an answer to a question, pure and simple.

I'm sorry I can't help you out with agnostic writings though, not really my thing. To me it's much more valuable to read the Bible than read what an atheist or a theist says about the Bible.

BrerWolf

When in doubt,goto Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Are these fundamentaly different.... I'd say yes.
Atheism seems to be more sure about itself (though without any proof...)
whereas agnosticism (to my mind) seems to be keeping a open mind on the whole subject.


I'd consider myself an atheist, but logically, I'd have to agree with the unknowable nature of any divine being...
but still, I can't believe in any external creator force/being/entity...

Dades

Here's the thing.

- Agnosticism concerns knowledge... i.e. one does not or cannot know about the existence of deities.
- Atheism concerns belief... i.e. one does not believe (or more logically lacks belief) in the deities of religion.

So, as is frequently pointed out here, one can be both agnostic and atheist. They are different, but not incompatible like say atheism and theism. The common and incorrect perception of atheism is that it states "There are no gods" - which is a statement of fact. This definition is incorrect for the majority of atheists. (See Levels of Atheism as envisaged by Dawkins).

I am an agnostic atheist. I lack belief in the gods of religion, but acknowledge that we cannot know either way.

ShooterSF

Oh God.




(If he exists, which I can't be sure but then I don't believe he exists)

strobe

All bow before the power of the graphs!











==========

Also, not a graph but may be relevant.




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

Some of those pictures might be ginormous.... If any are could a mod resize them for me please?

Mark Hamill

pug_ wrote: »

I don't know why this is such a surprise to me, as both atheism and all forms of religion are basing their viewpoints on a belief, whereas my viewpoint is that it's impossible to know one way or the other so I see it as an unknown.

If you are asserting that its impossible to know, does that not reject the belief anyway?

nozzferrahhtoo

pug_ wrote: »

Also there doesn't seem to be many outspoken agnostics out there promoting agnosticism in the same way as there are for atheists.

Micheal Shermer often jokes about a bumper sticker he saw on cars once which said "Militant Agnostic on board: I dont know AND YOU DONT EITHER!"

pug_ wrote: »

I've never walked into easons and seen a book on "agnosticism for dummies"

I recommend reading Huxley, given he was the one that created the word in the first place and he wrote much on it. It would be a good starting point for you.

However having read your post I am happy for myself in that I do not suffer from the problem you do. I simply do not personally identify with EITHER of the words and so I do not have the inner conflict you have.

For me I live my life on one simple premise as follows: If an idea is put before me that is ENTIRELY devoid of even a scrap of evidence, argument, data OR reasons to lend it even a modicum of credence I merely dismiss the idea as entirely unsubstantiated and proceed without it.

GIVEN therefore that the idea there is a god is entirely devoid of credence due to a total lack of even a scrap of supporting evidence, argument, data or reasons... I merely dismiss it and proceed without it.

Simple as.

I leave other people worry about whether to label me atheist or agnostic. I personally do not identify with either word, though I do with most of the causes people who use that label are involved in.

As such, I would simply advise you to explore within yourself why you feel you need a label at all, and why you feel you have anything for or against either of them. Just focus on what you think is true and explore that. More than that you do not need.

soterpisc

At least Atheists have arrived at their views on God more or less definitive (until he makes himself available for examination under the microscope)

Agnostics are just plan lazy. Not bothered with religion but also not totally atheists,,, More "Spiritual"

Take a stance FGS.

seamus

As far as I can tell, "Agnostic" is a label people use when they're afraid to admit that they're atheist or they just haven't spent much time thinking about it.

It's like some kind of safehaven between, "I don't follow religion or any of that nonsense" and "I don't actually have any specific belief in a God". To say that you're agnostic is the theological equivalent of "I'm between jobs at the moment".

pug_

Okay, now I'm just confused. I have to confess I haven't come across the idea of multiple levels of atheism before so I'll have to get to grips with that before I can comment properly.

My understandings on knowledge vs belief are the same as what's been posted though, but from my perspective I don't really see how atheism is not a belief yet. If an atheist was asked the question "do you believe there is no God" my understanding is they would answer yes, which is an affirmative to a belief.

I also completely understand and appreciate that there are many similarities with agnosticism in that it doesn't need to be part of something that forms a world view. for me also it is just an answer to a question.

pug_

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you are asserting that its impossible to know, does that not reject the belief anyway?

No, to me it's rejecting any possible answer to the question that's proposed including both believing and not believing. To me the answer is I don't know. Which isn't the same as I don't believe it's I don't know enough to make a decision and I never will.

seamus

pug_ wrote: »

If an atheist was asked the question "do you believe there is no God" my understanding is they would answer yes, which is an affirmative to a belief.

Only because of semantics though. The wording of the question implies belief. You could equally ask, "Do you believe in God?". The answer is "no", but that's not an affirmation of a belief, it's a rejection of one.

Likewise, "How many Gods do you believe in?". "None".

The problem is that the opposite of "I believe in God", is not "I believe there is no God". The opposite of "I believe in God" is "I do not believe in God".

Semantic differences in reality, but they have massively different implications.

Typically when trying to describe their point of view to theists (or confused "agnostics"), atheists rely on this illustration:

Modern theists disbelieve in all other Gods - Thor, Zeus, Baal, Ra, etc etc etc.
Atheists have the same list, it's just one God longer.

Michael Nugent

pug_ wrote: »

I don't really see how atheism is not a belief yet. If an atheist was asked the question "do you believe there is no God" my understanding is they would answer yes, which is an affirmative to a belief.

Some atheists decline to assert a belief that there is no god, and will merely say that they lack a belief in a god. I don't take that position. I am happy to assert that I believe that there are no gods. So let's work from your position that atheism is a belief. I don't think it is reasonable to go from that to

pug_ wrote: »

I'm starting to think that I'm fundamentally opposed to the very idea of Atheism in exactly the same way that I am to any other form of theism. I don't know why this is such a surprise to me, as both atheism and all forms of religion are basing their viewpoints on a belief, whereas my viewpoint is that it's impossible to know one way or the other so I see it as an unknown.

Believing that there are no gods is a belief that is supported by, and is consistent with, the currently best available evidence of the real world. Believing that there are gods is a belief that is not supported by, and is inconsistent with, the currently best available evidence of the real world. There is no good evidence to suggest that gods exist, and lots of good evidence to suggest that the idea of gods is invented by humans.

Whether or not it is strictly speaking possible to know for certain which belief is true does not make them similar types of belief. Technically speaking everything that we believe about anything is impossible to know one way or the other. But in ordinary day-to-day language we set standards for knowledge that are much more closely approached by believing that there are no gods than by believing that there are gods.

pug_

soterpisc wrote: »

At least Atheists have arrived at their views on God more or less definitive (until he makes himself available for examination under the microscope)

Agnostics are just plan lazy. Not bothered with religion but also not totally atheists,,, More "Spiritual"

Take a stance FGS.

seamus wrote: »

As far as I can tell, "Agnostic" is a label people use when they're afraid to admit that they're atheist or they just haven't spent much time thinking about it.

It's like some kind of safehaven between, "I don't follow religion or any of that nonsense" and "I don't actually have any specific belief in a God". To say that you're agnostic is the theological equivalent of "I'm between jobs at the moment".

I think that's a bit unfair to be honest. I have thought about this a lot, and I'm happy with my decision that anything outside the realms of what we can observe can never be known making it an impossible question to answer.

ShooterSF

Maybe it would be better with an analogy. Do you believe that no person has psychic powers. My answer would be yes. That's the equivalent of atheism. Do you claim to know no psychics exist? My answer would be no(though I'd be more confident of this than the god question). That's what agnosticism is.

The thing is when you ask someone do they think psychics exist most that share my beliefs above will answer no based on what they believe but for some reason the god issue splits people and some answer based on viewpoint from belief and some from the viewpoint of knowledge (potential/current). It seems to be limited to this area. No one when asked do they believe in faires claim that you can't know. They either say yes or no.

I guess the easiest way to sum it up is do you believe that any of the gods put forward exist? If you don't you're one of us though you're not claiming any proof or evidence that he doesn't exist. Nor do you need to.

seamus

pug_ wrote: »

I think that's a bit unfair to be honest. I have thought about this a lot, and I'm happy with my decision that anything outside the realms of what we can observe can never be known making it an impossible question to answer.

So is it fair to say then that if I asked you, "Do you believe that there is a God?", you will answer "No"? "I don't know" isn't really an answer - because the question isn't "Do you know if there is a God?", the question relates to you personally and whether you believe there is a God. If you can't answer, "Yes I do", then by default your answer is "No".

To try and illustrate this more clearly (the way it is in my head). People typically think of theism -v- atheism as a Door A -v- Door B choice. That is, you're given the choice of Door A (theism) or Door B (atheism). Until you pick a door, you're in limbo.

This is the wrong way to consider it. Consider it more like there is only one door - theism. Until/unless you walk through that door, you are outside of it and you are atheist. So it's not a matter of, "I haven't picked which door I want yet". You don't have to pick a door. You can choose to remain outside of it.

Michael Nugent

Pug, here is another way of looking at it.

You don't know whether or not there is a god. In fact, you believe it to be unknowable whether or not there is a god. This makes you an agnostic on the question of knowledge of the possible existence of gods.

Separate question. Do you believe that gods exist? Are you an agnostic who (on balance, without claiming knowledge) believes that gods exist, or an agnostic who (on balance, without claiming knowledge) does not believe that gods exist?

pug_

seamus wrote: »

Modern theists disbelieve in all other Gods - Thor, Zeus, Baal, Ra, etc etc etc.
Atheists have the same list, it's just one God longer.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Believing that there are no gods is a belief that is supported by, and is consistent with, the currently best available evidence of the real world. Believing that there are gods is a belief that is not supported by, and is inconsistent with, the currently best available evidence of the real world. There is no good evidence to suggest that gods exist, and lots of good evidence to suggest that the idea of gods is invented by humans.

Whether or not it is strictly speaking possible to know for certain which belief is true does not make them similar types of belief. Technically speaking everything that we believe about anything is impossible to know one way or the other. But in ordinary day-to-day language we set standards for knowledge that are much more closely approached by believing that there are no gods than by believing that there are gods.

Maybe I'd be better taking a step back and explain a little where I'm coming from. These points seem to be aimed at specific religions and belief systems that have cropped up over the history of mankind. I've already rejected all of these as well as any other possible belief systems that may crop up as made up nonsense. But similarly from my perspective the idea of anybody deciding conclusively one way or the other doesn't make sense.

So to put it another way, for me, if I was asked the question are any organised religions correct? The answer I'd give is no. But if I were asked are we part of a multiverse with the possibility of a being existing in one or many universes that fits the dictionary definition of a God? I'd say I don't know.

pug_

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Pug, here is another way of looking at it.

You don't know whether or not there is a god. In fact, you believe it to be unknowable whether or not there is a god. This makes you an agnostic on the question of knowledge of the possible existence of gods.

Separate question. Do you believe that gods exist? Are you an agnostic who (on balance, without claiming knowledge) believes that gods exist, or an agnostic who (on balance, without claiming knowledge) does not believe that gods exist?

I'm an agnostic who doesn't believe one way or the other, and if asked do I believe does God exist? I answer I don't know. It's not a yes/no question for me.

[EDIT] Actually that's not a truthful answer. Being honest about it if I was asked "do I believe God exists" I would answer no because I would assume a Christian or other man made description of a deity that's responsible for specific acts that influenced mankind in some way. I see any attempt at a definition as a meaningless task as they are all man-made definitions to something that can never be proved one way or another.

seamus

pug_ wrote: »

I'm an agnostic who doesn't believe one way or the other, and if asked do I believe does God exist? I answer I don't know. It's not a yes/no question for me.

Consider the question itself. Do you believe. So "I don't know" means, "I don't know if I believe".

As I illustrate, unless your answer is, "Yes I believe", then by default that means you do not believe. Because if you cannot say, "I believe in God", then your are a-theist, without God. Atheism does not require a separate declaration of "I do not believe in God" or "I do not believe that God exists". It is simply the absence of the belief in God. If this belief is absent in you, then you are atheist.

Atheism can of course be a temporary state. You may be in conflict internally on the question of the existence of God, so while you do not believe in a God right now and are therefore atheist, that does not preclude you from resolving the internal conflict and deciding that you do believe in a God. Being atheist does not mean you've made a decision or nailed your colours to any mast.

Michael Nugent

pug_ wrote: »

I'm an agnostic who doesn't believe one way or the other, and if asked do I believe does God exist? I answer I don't know. It's not a yes/no question for me.

It's not really possible in real terms to "not believe one way or another" whether a god exists. Once you are exposed to the idea that a god may exist, then you either (on balance) believe that assertion to be true or you (on balance) do not believe that assertion to be true.

Unless you for some reason believe that there is an exactly 50-50 chance of a god existing or not (similar to, say, being asked whether a covered coin has landed heads-up or tails-up), you inevitably lean one way or the other.

That is nothing to do with claims of knowledge. "I don't know" simply isn't an answer to "Do you believe?" Unless you are answering that you don't know whether or not you believe? Is that what you are suggesting?

HUNK

This vid explains it quite well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

pug_

seamus wrote: »

Consider the question itself. Do you believe. So "I don't know" means, "I don't know if I believe".

As I illustrate, unless your answer is, "Yes I believe", then by default that means you do not believe. Because if you cannot say, "I believe in God", then your are a-theist, without God. Atheism does not require a separate declaration of "I do not believe in God" or "I do not believe that God exists". It is simply the absence of the belief in God. If this belief is absent in you, then you are atheist.

Atheism can of course be a temporary state. You may be in conflict internally on the question of the existence of God, so while you do not believe in a God right now and are therefore atheist, that does not preclude you from resolving the internal conflict and deciding that you do believe in a God. Being atheist does not mean you've made a decision or nailed your colours to any mast.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It's not really possible in real terms to "not believe one way or another" whether a god exists. Once you are exposed to the idea that a god may exist, then you either (on balance) believe that assertion to be true or you (on balance) do not believe that assertion to be true.

Unless you for some reason believe that there is an exactly 50-50 chance of a god existing or not (similar to, say, being asked whether a covered coin has landed heads-up or tails-up), you inevitably lean one way or the other.

That is nothing to do with claims of knowledge. "I don't know" simply isn't an answer to "Do you believe?" Unless you are answering that you don't know whether or not you believe? Is that what you are suggesting?

If you're defining God as a man made idea that's been defined and has religions associated with it then the answer is no I don't believe in any of that.

But if you're defining God as a being (if that's the right word) that mankind has never attempted a definition of and is completely outside of our understanding as a species, then my answer is that's a pointless question and I genuinely can't answer it with either a yes or a no, not because I'm in some way conflicted I'm not, but because I don't think it's a fair question as by phrasing the question you're attempting to form a definition of something that can't be defined. Do I think it's a possibility, sure why not, but thinking something is possible is not the same as believing something is true.

Dades

pug_ wrote: »

Maybe I'd be better taking a step back and explain a little where I'm coming from. These points seem to be aimed at specific religions and belief systems that have cropped up over the history of mankind. I've already rejected all of these as well as any other possible belief systems that may crop up as made up nonsense. But similarly from my perspective the idea of anybody deciding conclusively one way or the other doesn't make sense.

You've made the classic mistake here by including the word "conclusively", and it's why so many de facto atheists call themselves agnostics.
There's nothing conclusive about having a belief. My beliefs will change with any evidence to the contrary.

I believe tomorrow is going to be wet. That belief may change tomorrow if I wake up and the sun is shining.

So go on - make that leap - what do you currently believe?

pH

pug_ wrote: »

I'm an agnostic, and up until pretty recently all this meant to me was that all organised religions were a load of bollox. I've only recently started to think of what my agnosticism means in relation to atheism and, I don't know why, but I was surprised at how fundamentally different my view of agnosticism is to atheism. So much so that I'm starting to think that I'm fundamentally opposed to the very idea of Atheism in exactly the same way that I am to any other form of theism.

I don't know why this is such a surprise to me, as both atheism and all forms of religion are basing their viewpoints on a belief, whereas my viewpoint is that it's impossible to know one way or the other so I see it as an unknown.

This is my problem with all of this. Many have posted in this forum (not as nicely and as well thought as you) basically saying "Theists believe this, atheists believe that but me, I'm nowhere near near as arrogant as to believe- but wait .. "I BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER"!

This makes me do a double take, why are the beliefs "there is a God", "there isn't a God" any different in terms of outlandish claims that yours "It's impossible to know".

What proof do you have that "it's impossible to know", or is this just a belief, guess, hunch or hypothesis of yours?

pug_

Why does it have to be a matter of belief? Is it not possible to think some questions can't be answered with a belief?

If I had a coin in my hand and asked do you believe it will come up heads when tossed would anyone honestly be able to say yes or no? you might be able to take a guess, or you might gamble on one result or another but I don't think it's possible to believe one way or the other.

I don't know maybe it is a strange viewpoint to have on the one thing that people usually associate the word belief with but that's how I feel.

With regards to the Impossible to know comment, maybe I wasn't clear enough, what I meant was it's currently impossible to know one way or the other. As for the future who knows.

MagicMarker

You're right, it is impossible to know if there is a god or not. The question, however, is not if you know there is a god, but whether you believe there is a god. If you don't know, then clearly you don't have a positive belief that there is a god, hence you lack belief, ergo you're an agnostic atheist.

Roger Hassenforder

consideration should be given to disallowing the term 'atheist', i find it rather insulting. It gives recogniton to 'theism', i.e. that its an opposing and equally valid view.
IMO theism is an absurd a position as a child who belives in Santa, elves etc. we dont have a term for someone that no longer believes in Santa, yet we cant concusivley proove he doesnt exist. To be an 'Agnostic' is fair enough, its somene I think with the vestigal trappings of the faith they were brought up in, possibly afraid to cast it off for once.

Consider calling yourself a 'naturalist' if you are unsure of the nomenclature?

nozzferrahhtoo

pug_ wrote: »

But similarly from my perspective the idea of anybody deciding conclusively one way or the other doesn't make sense.

Doesnt it though? After all the idea of "god" is just a random... entirely unsubstantiated idea... that someone, or some people, simply made up out of the tops of their head.

That leaves it far from being a 50:50 decision.

I can make ideas up off the top of my head all the time. Many people are making them up all the time as we speak. They would be unsubstantiated and ridiculous. Is deciding such non sensical as you say?

For example, I just made up right now that if you leave the house tomorrow... if you dare leave it... a pink with green pokka dot VW microbus WILL materialise above your head and fall on you and kill you.

I just made it up. I have no evidence for it. You have no evidence against it. Does it make NO sense to you to decide I am talking nonsense and to dismiss my claim? Really?

Yet... the idea there is a god is just as substantiated as the VW bus idea. So if it makes "no sense" to dismiss one, on what grounds would you dismiss the other?

The only grounds would be if you think one idea... the god one... holds some level of credence that my one does not. But does it? Can you think of one piece of argument, evidence, data OR Reasons to lend it such credence? At all? I have been asking for 18+ years for some and no one has given me one yet!

So while it might sound like I am comparing a ridiculous comical idea with a serious one... on what grounds can we say I am? They are both as ridiculous and unsubstantiated as each other.

Mark Hamill

pug_ wrote: »

No, to me it's rejecting any possible answer to the question that's proposed including both believing and not believing. To me the answer is I don't know. Which isn't the same as I don't believe it's I don't know enough to make a decision and I never will.

You either believe or you dont, I dont see a middle ground. Agnosticism refers to knowledge not belief, so it doesn't count.

Mark Hamill

pug_ wrote: »

Why does it have to be a matter of belief? Is it not possible to think some questions can't be answered with a belief?

Because thats the way the question is worded, of course : "Do you believe in god?". How else do you answer a question about belief?

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

It's like some kind of safehaven between, "I don't follow religion or any of that nonsense" and "I don't actually have any specific belief in a God". To say that you're agnostic is the theological equivalent of "I'm between jobs at the moment".

That's quite narrow a definition IMH S. One may reject the various gods as ballsology, or the notions contained within established theology, but one could still muse on other possibilities which may exist. A less definitive view basically. Which is less of a "safe haven" philosophically than either. "There is a God" Safe. There is no god" Safe. God? Fcuk knows, but lets examine the possibilities that come from both sides and see where that takes us. Not so safe.

seamus wrote: »

To try and illustrate this more clearly (the way it is in my head). People typically think of theism -v- atheism as a Door A -v- Door B choice. That is, you're given the choice of Door A (theism) or Door B (atheism). Until you pick a door, you're in limbo.

This is the wrong way to consider it. Consider it more like there is only one door - theism. Until/unless you walk through that door, you are outside of it and you are atheist. So it's not a matter of, "I haven't picked which door I want yet". You don't have to pick a door. You can choose to remain outside of it.

I dunno, again this seems massively simplistic philosophically to me. It's still an either/or construct. You still have "two doors" only in your example the second door is choosing not to walk through the first. Again one could muse on the nature of the universe and existence beyond what is commonly perceived(yet) and walk through neither.

In the 1920's it was still believed that there was only one galaxy, ours. Hubble comes along and (quite flukishly*) spots more. On current data one bloke worked out - with lots of time on his hands and no boy/girlfriend - that if galaxies were the size of peas, they'd fill the Albert hall**. In the 60's and beyond science was convinced there were no impact craters on earth. I kid thee not. They thought any such features were volcanic in origin. It wasn't til the early 90's that paleontologists bought "the big space rock killed the dinosaurs" and even then some held out.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

That leaves it far from being a 50:50 decision.

One could say that about; string theory, dark matter/energy/expansion of the early universe/branes and shít loads of other stuff. One could quite easily argue that those concepts are intellectual noodling set against a reality we're still struggling with. Try proving string theory alone. It's like hunting for the physics santa claus only with a better back story. "made up out of the tops of their head"? Yep pretty much, with what we know now. Not so far away from less scientific types huddling in the dark believing that thunder was Thors hammer. That's all they knew. We know it's not Thors hammer now, but neither do we know it's string theory. In millennia hence we may look back and equate that theory with the hammer of the gods. The path of human knowledge has been a trajectory of one idea passing and disproving another. We're no different today.

And that's all fcuking brilliant. It proves science changes with new evidence. That's why I love human thought. Or rather unencumbered human thought seeking to explain it all. Science can have it's dogmas too. Sure they change with time, but then again so does religion. The average punter in church, chapel or meeting today is a world away from some bloke ripped off his tits on some heavy plant material channeling spirits and throwing the bones, painting spirits and handprints on a cave wall. TBH I'd trust the guy off his tits more than the parish priest as the former may be party to fiddling with the perception of the human brain and gleaning some unforeseen insight in his or her own head that may end up being based in reality***. And I trust the guy in the lab coat and all his or her mates corroborating the evidence over either. By a factor of a gazillion.

So do I believe a god exists? Nope, not on current evidence. Do I believe in the myriad gods of humanity out there. Eh most defo no. But if I ask myself the question could a god exist? Could the universe have a motive force that is "intelligent", "planned". I have to say for me that it's possible, or not but that possibility is worth exploring through human thought and application and not denying out of hand. Though my definition of a god would likely have the local priest/rabbi/guru/imam reaching for the alter wine and a funnel(even the Muslim bloke).

So I suppose if I was so bold as to define what I was? I'd say I was a local human atheist, but not necessarily a universal one, though I might turn out to be both. Agnostic as a title simplifies the whole thing for me. I've always hated hard and fast rules I suppose, I think it's limiting. But that said I'm not likely to ring your doorbell and ask you have you found Gaaawd. So I do have limits.







*Should be a word

** sounds like a Beatles fan.

***I got off my bewbs on ayahuasca a decade ago. Was going out with a real hippie at the time. Very sound, great arse and she suggested I try it. It's legal so... And my at the time mad theories on human evolution(a subject that always held me in thrall) I've written about on this site sprang from that. Yep Galvasean, those "I told you so" long winded posts in Paleontology? A lot sprang from that. Cue Galvasean going off tonight, buying a bottle of whiskey and a notepad and working out "velociraptor's? Origin, lineage and behaviour

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

One could say that about; string theory

If you like, but we are not talking about string theory here, and if you have some issue with the evidence supporting it, then take it up with someone who is espousing it. I never mentioned it.

The conversation HERE is about god, and how unsubstantiated THAT claim is. Pointing out other things that you feel are also unsubstantiated is not helpful and is something of a thread derail. Or at least it would be if I replied by trying to defend string theory.

I jest with you of course.

However with String Theory at least there is some substantiation. Something to lend it credence. Some evidence that suggests it is a workable theory worth investigating further. It might turn out to be wrong, but the point is there are reasons on offer to suggest it is worth finding out.

My point is merely that the idea there is a god is not. It is not just low on evidence, argument, data or reasons. It is entirely DEVOID of such and in 18+ years of asking for anything to give the idea even a modicum of credence, we get offered nothing. Thats the point and the crux that most theists on here would prefer you did not notice while we argue amongst ourselves about whether agnostic or atheist is the better label.

Wibbs wrote: »

But if I ask myself the question could a god exist? Could the universe have a motive force that is "intelligent", "planned". I have to say for me that it's possible

Yes, and it is also possible that the VW microbus idea above might happen. I not once discounted the possibility of it. I am perfectly aware that it is possible there is a god. I am fully in agreement with you there and despite your long reply to me I do not think we are in disagreement in many places at all.

It is possible the VW microbus will appear too.

The point I am making is not that these things are not possible. The point is that possible or not there is not a single reason on offer to think there is a god, or that the VW bus will appear. So many things are possible that you have not enough brain capacity, or lifetime, to consider or worry about them all. The only sane course is to discount things, possible or not, for which there is no reason at all to lend them credence.

As you say the possibility is worth exploring and again we do not disagree, but only if you have time. I prefer to spend my time exploring possibilities that at least have SOME credence before those that do not. There are too many possibilities in life to explore in one life time. One has to pick and choose. And I choose to explore the ones that have some credence before I explore the ones that have none.

What I lack is anyone giving me an argument why... given all the possibilities this universe and our imaginations are offering us... I should explore THIS god one and not all the others. I trust you have no such argument to offer either? I certainly do not.

However as soon as one of our resident theists come up with anything... anything at all... that lends the "god" idea a modicum of credence... then I am with you. I will explore it as much as I am humanly capable of exploring it.

Right now however, it lacks even a modicum of credence and I am not sure on what grounds anyone feels I should invest time exploring it further. All I do is ask theists for such a reason. A modicum of credence for their claims. I get nothing... but cop out excuses usually like "The evidence is there if you just go look" or "I have the evidence but Im not giving it to you as you wont accept it anyway" or worse.

strobe

I reckon it thusly:

If, when I was 13, a mate of mine came home from a holiday from Australia and told me that he had slayed a dragon that attacked him in the outback by hitting a sliotar down it's throat with his hurl. I would have probably looked at him somewhat incredulously. What can I say? I'm a cynic, it's my only failing. He would have said "What you don't believe me!?" and I would have answered "No man, you know I love you and all but I reckon you are talking shit. I don't believe you". Now I am the equivalent of an atheist in relation to his whole Cu Chulainn/Ozzie Dragon story. So he turns to me and says "Oh so you know for a fact that I didn't whomp the dragon with my super Shefflinesk iomanaiocht abilities, do you? You know I didn't do you?" and I say, "well obviously I don't know that you didn't man. But c'mon, get outta that will ye.". Now I am an agnostic in relation to his whole 'Go'on the Cats., beat those dragons' fiasco.

So in relation to the above claim I am the equivalent of an agnostic atheist.

Same deal with the Gods that have been suggested to me thus far.

I don't believe that what has been put to me about them is necessarily the truth. The 'evidence' has been less than convincing. But I don't claim to know that what has been put to me about them is impossible or definitely untrue.

pug_

Why do I have to believe one way or another? And why does a decision that I can neither believe or not believe have to be considered an uncertainty?

Would anyone ask me if I believe a coin toss is going to be heads? I don't think so. Would anyone consider my lack of decision in a belief in a coin toss to be some kind of uncertainty? I don't think so either.

Why then can't the same logic apply to the existence of an unknown force in the universe/multiverse/brane/whatever that might fit our current definition of a God?

There is a lot of stuff in nature that we just don't understand and we don't even have a concept for yet let alone any evidence to support it, but I'm not going to just decide I don't believe in the existence of anything unknown. But conversely if someone invented a story about a VW bus falling on my head and tried to convince me it were true I would not believe them because it is a man made fiction.

To me this is a pretty clear distinction and one that I'm completely happy with.

nozzferrahhtoo

pug_ wrote: »

Would anyone ask me if I believe a coin toss is going to be heads? I don't think so. Would anyone consider my lack of decision in a belief in a coin toss to be some kind of uncertainty? I don't think so either.

Entirely true, but you are talking about a 50:50 choice there. The idea there is a god is not 50:50. So the comparison is not sound, or fair.

The way you are talking you make it sound like anything anyone just makes up automatically becomes a 50:50 choice as to whether it is true or not. It does not work that way. It never has. It never will.

pug_ wrote: »

I would not believe them because it is a man made fiction.

MY point exactly, you are almost on top of my point. What you are missing is that there is not a single reason on offer to you, or to me, to consider the "god" idea not "man made fiction" but the VW bus idea to be.

That is the entire crux of my point! If you discount one as man made fiction, then on what intellectually honest sound grounds are you not discounting the other? We are talking about two ideas with EXACTLY the same amount of substantiation: None.

swampgas

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

consideration should be given to disallowing the term 'atheist', i find it rather insulting. It gives recogniton to 'theism', i.e. that its an opposing and equally valid view.
IMO theism is an absurd a position as a child who belives in Santa, elves etc. we dont have a term for someone that no longer believes in Santa, yet we cant concusivley proove he doesnt exist.

Not many adults claim to believe in Santa, but very many profess to theism. Hence "atheist" is a useful label as it differentiates you from the mainstream view. (Whether the mainstream view is right or not, language usage tends to reflect it.)

Obelisk

Looks like I'm a 'Gnostic' anyway. Thank f:eek:k!

Dades

Wibbs wrote: »

Not so far away from less scientific types huddling in the dark believing that thunder was Thors hammer. That's all they knew.

Wibbs we are entirely of the same page in terms of beliefs. But the Thor thing? That's just echoing modern day religious beliefs - there's no scientific reason to believe it only the word of some very well spoken authoritive figures. Nobody back whence ever provided a speck of evidence that Thor was responsible for thunder in the same way nobody now provides evidence that there's a benevolent god about - they just talk with authority and appeal to ignorance and desperation. Or create institutions that are designed to indoctrinate the next generation.

pug_ , as has been suggested you have to stop thinking of belief as a 50/50 thing. Just because there are two potential answers to a question doesn't give the two answers equal weight.

Do unicorns exist? I can't prove they don't but do we accordingly consider the probability 50/50 either way? Of course not.

You are defying you own actual beliefs because of some misconception as to what they entail. Be an atheist, and be happy in the knowledge that your lack of belief will change at the first sign of evidence of something that will contradict that belief.

take everything

pH wrote: »

This is my problem with all of this. Many have posted in this forum (not as nicely and as well thought as you) basically saying "Theists believe this, atheists believe that but me, I'm nowhere near near as arrogant as to believe- but wait .. "I BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER"!

This makes me do a double take, why are the beliefs "there is a God", "there isn't a God" any different in terms of outlandish claims that yours "It's impossible to know".

What proof do you have that "it's impossible to know", or is this just a belief, guess, hunch or hypothesis of yours?

Isn't it fair to say though that "I believe that some things are impossible to know".
Fitch's paradox suggests that not everything is knowable.
God may be one of those unknowable things.
Someone may believe that God could be one of those things i suppose.

yawha

pug_ wrote: »

Would anyone ask me if I believe a coin toss is going to be heads? I don't think so. Would anyone consider my lack of decision in a belief in a coin toss to be some kind of uncertainty? I don't think so either.

You flip a coin. You don't know what side it's going to land on.

It's spinning in the air. Do you believe it's going to land heads up?

If you're any kind of rational person, of course you don't. We've established that you don't know what side it'll land on, so how could you say you believe it will land heads up?

Now, by not believing it will land heads up, this doesn't mean you necessarily believe it will land tails up. Again, you don't know what side it'll land on, so how could you say you believe it will land tails up?

So:
You don't know it's going to land heads up there is a God.
You don't know it's going to land tails up there is no God.
You don't believe it's going to land heads up there is a God.
You don't believe it's going to land tails up there is no God.

So, you are an Agnostic Atheist.

The other two statements aren't really that important IMO. Some people would argue that the the last one is incompatible with atheism, but many, such as myself, don't. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a God, not a statement of belief that there is no God.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

MY point exactly, you are almost on top of my point. What you are missing is that there is not a single reason on offer to you, or to me, to consider the "god" idea not "man made fiction" but the VW bus idea to be.

While the odds are long on both, the possibility that the universe has or had a motive force has a significantly higher probability than a polka dotted VW bus that is going appear from thin air and fall on you. It's not really a good comparison.

Dades wrote: »

Wibbs we are entirely of the same page in terms of beliefs. But the Thor thing? That's just echoing modern day religious beliefs

Oh I agree, Yes they were completely wrong. My point was that thunder exists, they didn't know what caused it and explained it away by the tools at their disposal. Before science all they had was supposition that couldn't be backed up, or the possibility of back up for their theory was lacking. Their evidence was thunder sounded like a hammer striking an anvil only many times louder, so someone posited that one may be a bigger version of the other. It was evidence to them, it's just nothing approaching good evidence. They didn't have the tools. We have so so many more, but by extension we can't have them all yet.

Do unicorns exist?

Yes. It just depends on what level of existence you apply to the term. They obviously have existence as a concept. So where did that concept come from? The narwhal is one contender. The rhino the best one. They may once have existed in the form of the Elasmotherium. At it's core, a large "horselike" creature with a single horn emerging from it's head, what one would describe as fitting the description of "unicorn", existed. If complex life is widespread in the universe, then imagining that there may be unicorns all over the place is not altogether daft. There may well be ones who look exactly like a medieval imagining of one. It's quite likely, if complex life is all over the place. So yea D unicorns exist.

You are defying you own actual beliefs because of some misconception as to what they entail. Be an atheist, and be happy in the knowledge that your lack of belief will change at the first sign of evidence of something that will contradict that belief.

I agree, if one has an open mind to that evidence if it ever does show up.

pug_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Entirely true, but you are talking about a 50:50 choice there. The idea there is a god is not 50:50. So the comparison is not sound, or fair.

But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, what I'm trying to suggest is that the question on belief in a God is to me an unfair question.

The way you are talking you make it sound like anything anyone just makes up automatically becomes a 50:50 choice as to whether it is true or not. It does not work that way. It never has. It never will

Dades wrote: »

pug_ , as has been suggested you have to stop thinking of belief as a 50/50 thing. Just because there are two potential answers to a question doesn't give the two answers equal weight.

The point of the coin flip example wasn't to quote odds, I could just have easily said the toss of a dice making the odds 1 one in 6, but that wouldn't have any relevance to the fairness of the question.

In essence what I'm saying is the question on belief has for me 3 possible answers yes, no, and I don't know. What's being suggested to me is the unwillingness to answer yes or no to what I see as an unfair question is to be taken as a lack of belief and therefore I'm an atheist.

So would my understanding of what's being said be correct if I were to suggest that there are only two types of people, Atheist and Theist? and if you fall under the Atheist category you are one of a number of different levels of Atheist and agnosticism is just one of those levels?

If that is correct then when did this definition come about? As my understanding of the terms has always been that a person could call themselves agnostic without having to also be considered a subset of Atheist or Theist.

yawha

pug_ wrote: »

If that is correct then when did this definition come about? As my understanding of the terms has always been that a person could call themselves agnostic without having to also be considered a subset of Atheist or Theist.

But it's not a subset. Belief and knowledge are two different things.

Look, this is all a big, pointless, semantic debate.

Bottom line is, apart from some minor terminological technicalities, you believe the exact same thing as the vast majority of people who call themselves "atheist".

pH

take everything wrote: »

Isn't it fair to say though that "I believe that some things are impossible to know".
Fitch's paradox suggests that not everything is knowable.
God may be one of those unknowable things.
Someone may believe that God could be one of those things i suppose.

Well yes, I think it's fair enough. However even in your post you start switching between "impossible" and "may" and "I suppose", and this is what I'm objecting to.

The OP (and many others before him) have a problem with phrases like "belief in God" and "belief that God doesn't exist" - but then pretty much says "I believe it's impossible to know if God exists". So no, it's not the fact that someone believes that that I have the problem with, it's the contrast of objecting to positions of belief and then throwing one in yourself that I find hard to swallow.

So my question remains, what information about God do you have to make you believe that it's impossible to determine his existence, and why is that belief a so much more logically grounded one than the belief that he doesn't exist?

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

While the odds are long on both, the possibility that the universe has or had a motive force has a significantly higher probability than a polka dotted VW bus that is going appear from thin air and fall on you.

Is it? Why? As I said above, both ideas have exactly the same amount of evidence, argument, data and reasons to lend them credence. That is: None.

So you can sit there and say that one is more likely than the other, but given they are on the exact same level of substantiation, I am not sure on what grounds you say it.

I currently see no intellectually honest reason to lend credence to the idea that there is a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe but not to the idea of the VW bus.

I am agog to hear some such reasons though, alas after 18+ years of asking theists for even one, not one has been presented.

Obelisk

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I currently see no intellectually honest reason to lend credence to the idea that there is a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe but not to the idea of the VW bus.

So who created the universes then? People?? i'm confused.

nozzferrahhtoo

pug_ wrote: »

But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, what I'm trying to suggest is that the question on belief in a God is to me an unfair question.

That we can agree on, and that is actually one of the many reasons why I do not identify with either of the labels. To do so, to me, is to say that if someone simply makes something up... that you are forced to take some position on it and define yourself by it.

Yet this is not so. Ideas bereft of any credence at all are not ideas one needs to define oneself by. I need not call myself atheist or agnostic merely because someone made up an entirely unsubstantiated "god" idea and they act like I need to define myself by, or against, that idea.

You say there are three answers to any belief question. Yes, no or I dont know. I propose a 4th. That answer is "Your question does not even deserve consideration and should be dismissed as if it was never asked.".

nozzferrahhtoo

Obelisk wrote: »

So who created the universes then? People?? i'm confused.

Why does it have to be a who?

Obelisk

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why does it have to be a who?

It doesnt. Then, what??