Rogue Keeper on 4/12/2007 at 08:48
Quote Posted by catbarf
Untrue. Agnostic states that you believe the whole thing to be unknowable. I do not. I reject the existence of a god based on lack of proof.
My point was really that I'm atheist, but if there does happen to be a god then I don't mind because I think that in His view, I'd be better off than someone who just follows blindly out of fear.
Edit: Thanks SD.
Replay :
Quote:
I have no proof either way then I am to discount rather than accept.
That said,
I don't know if there is a god, and I don't really care.
You made few doubtful and contradicting statements. Strong conscious atheists don't speak like this. At first you sceptically reject the existence (although objectively pointing at the lack of both FOR and AGAINST proofs) and a second later later you
don't know. That's agnostic. Agnostics
don't know, since "agnosis" means "not knowing" in Greek. True atheists don't say 'I have no proof either way, then I reject his existence', that's doubtful agnostic position. True atheists claim 'there is no proof that there is a god, then I reject his existence'. It's far more radical position than yours above.
And in your second post you again express possibility that there eventually may be a god with 'but if there does happen to be a god then...'. And judging from you not caring about the need to prove one way or the other, I think you'd be an 'sceptical apathetic agnostic' at most. If you really insist you are atheist then you most certainly aren't a strong atheist, more like a weak atheist (using Flew-Martin terminology, since weak atheism blends with agnosticism in some areas).
For example kidmystik101 above is a mirror image of similar internal dispute. He claims he's an agnostic, but he radically screams GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF RETARDS. That's atheist statement. But he's most likely just trying to provoke with it, eh?
Make up your mind. Perhaps explore the differencies between philosophical bases of atheism and agnosticism in more detail?
d0om on 4/12/2007 at 09:06
There is no proof the invisible pink unicorn exists either, but no-one could say they KNOW she doesn't exist. You just assume she doesn't exist.
Not having any proof of some thing's existence means you should accept the null hypothesis of it not existing.
It doesn't mean you KNOW it doesn't exist. You just assume. Atheists don't know there isn't a god, they just assume.
Rogue Keeper on 4/12/2007 at 09:19
Like if agnosticism had only one flavor :
* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say "I can't know, and neither can you."
* Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
* Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know, and who cares anyway?"
* Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence. A model agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe it can be figured out."
* Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. An agnostic theist would say "I don't know, but I think so." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
* Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, and I don't think so."
* Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can meaningfully be discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. It should be noted that A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. The ignostic would say, "I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to God. Unless we first figure that out, debates over whether god exists are meaningless."
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)
PigLick on 4/12/2007 at 11:54
I find myself firmly in the camp of Mild agnosticism. Also known as hedging your bets.
BrokenArts on 4/12/2007 at 12:31
I find myself firmly disappointed this thread doesn't have more pages. :(
Thirith on 4/12/2007 at 12:45
About the God/bible/what is true?/what is literal?/pick'n'choose issue:
I think it's valid to believe that the Bible is God's word, but it's mediated through fallible men, so it's not just a cheap excuse to wish to interpret it - it's a believer's duty to do so. And it's how we interpret it that shows us for what we are. It's part of expressing our free will.
Now, I don't think that anything goes in interpreting the Bible. There are bits that clearly signal their metaphorical quality (e.g. Revelations). There are bits that make it very clear they're supposed to be taken literally. There are bits that tell a story or recount history without making clear judgment calls - just because something happens like this or like that does not mean it's just or right or good.
There are people who reject parts of the Bible out of spiritual and/or intellectual complacency. They look at them and decide, "I don't like that, let's ignore it." I do think you can have better, more considered, more intelligent reasons to do so - although my "This bit, which is textually less clear, uses imagery and was written by this person, addressed at this congregation and applies to that specific context, cannot be taken the same way as that bit which has Christ say, directly, 'Do this and do that.'" may very well just be a more verbose version of "I don't like that, let's ignore it."
In any case, I cannot really take the criticism seriously that if God wanted us to behave in a certain way, He should have made His word foolproof: "Christian ethics for Dummies." The world, whether it was created by God, a god, a hyper-intelligent computer, or whether it simply came about due to the laws of nature let loose on matter, is more complex, and more interesting, than can be reduced to any number of moral laws. The only way you can acknowledge this complexity (and the complexity of human beings) is to represent it in a complex way that requires thought, deliberation - and choice. (All very much IMO, of course.)
jay pettitt on 4/12/2007 at 12:57
@BR1498572938476590834275
To say that you can't be certain about the existence of God is a statement of fact. Like Catbarf I find it significant that there is no empirical evidence for the existance of god (despite thousands of years of looking) and I notice that Abramic religions are uncannily similar of other clearly man made beliefs that have been consigned to history. As far as I can tell God does not exist and Christianity is inherently dishonest. So sufficient is the lack of evidence, and so flimsy is the assumption that Abramic religion is correct despite every other man religion ever being incorrect that I can say that with considerable confidence bordering on absolute certainty. That said, I don't know that God, Zeus, Thor or the tooth fairy won't turn up tomorrow on a fluffy cloud and start smiting stuff, in which case I'd be wrong. Yet still my character is not well described by the term agnostic.
Quote Posted by catbarf
You don't see anything wrong with just choosing bits and pieces of a document that promises eternal torment if you don't follow it?
No I don't. Christian types pick and choose bits of the bible all the time and seem to do it quite contentedly. It's not really my place to tell people that they can't ignore or reinterpret bits of the bible to fit with whatever they want. Lets face it, believing in God is a bit of a stretch at the best of times; a few more stretches aren't going to dampen anyone's spirits and I'm sure are justifiable if you're that way inclined. Obviously I happen to think that religion is silly and I'd prefer it if people didn't degrade themselves suchly, but it is only a preference.
I just found your description of Evolution by Natural Selection to be confused at every step. I see no need to become an apologist because fundies apparently don't want (and let's be clear, it is a choice) to get it.
catbarf on 4/12/2007 at 21:03
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
No I don't. Christian types pick and choose bits of the bible all the time and seem to do it quite contentedly. It's not really my place to tell people that they can't ignore or reinterpret bits of the bible to fit with whatever they want. Lets face it, believing in God is a bit of a stretch at the best of times; a few more stretches aren't going to dampen anyone's spirits and I'm sure are justifiable if you're that way inclined. Obviously I happen to think that religion is silly and I'd prefer it if people didn't degrade themselves suchly, but it is only a preference.
I just found your description of Evolution by Natural Selection to be confused at every step. I see no need to become an apologist because fundies apparently don't want (and let's be clear, it is a choice) to get it.
I think I see what you mean as far as parts of the Bible. As for evolution, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're saying that my explanation seemed fragmented, then it's because I was somewhat tired. I can sum it up easily:
1. Of a given population of organisms, those better suited to the 'environment'(meaning the environment, the weather, other animals, et cetera) are more likely to survive.
2. Those that survive reproduce.
3. Over time, the less-suited of the population cannot compete with their well-adapted brethren, and die off.
4. Now just throw random mutation into the above every once in a while (making one organism more- or less-suited to the environment), and you have evolution.
That better?
Spaztick on 4/12/2007 at 23:57
Quote Posted by catbarf
I think I see what you mean as far as parts of the Bible. As for evolution, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're saying that my explanation seemed fragmented, then it's because I was somewhat tired. I can sum it up easily:
1. Of a given population of organisms, those better suited to the 'environment'(meaning the environment, the weather, other animals, et cetera) are more likely to survive.
2. Those that survive reproduce.
3. Over time, the less-suited of the population cannot compete with their well-adapted brethren, and die off.
4. Now just throw random mutation into the above every once in a while (making one organism more- or less-suited to the environment), and you have evolution.
That better?
I think the big thing that people get heated over is macroevolution as opposed to microevolution, I've yet to meet a person who doesn't agree with "survival of the fittest" but in my perspective I've seen about half and half divided against chimps turning into humans.
Darwin certainly did good with what he had at the time, but fossil records have shown quantum jumps in species instead of a gradual change that Darwin proposed, not surprising that Darwin arrived at the theory he did when serious paleontology was just getting started.
demagogue on 5/12/2007 at 00:12
I've always thought that evolution was a bogey in the argument between religion and science. It doesn't really play as important a role in the argument as people seem to think.
Esp when you get a feel for the idea that, to quote that maxim that always seems so clever to me for some reason "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", all the major steps of evolution are repeated with every birth. What's the relevance of what happened millions of years ago when every human birth, probably 10 times every second of every day, reaffirms all the major punchlines that evolution is supposed to: life is driven by naturalist laws from start to finish. Forget about evolution; creationists really have to assert they don't believe in natural birth if they want to keep their argument, and you can watch the whole process over and over, thousands of times a day, in as close detail as you'd like.
If you yourself were born in a completely naturalistic way, molecules coming together, once you accept that, then I don't really see how much more adding a further naturalist mechanism that puts it in place adds anything new. All the major "damage" has already been done to the thesis that life involves non-naturalist laws. Even if it were a different mechanism, it was really a mad scientist putting it together, or like Bertrand Russell like to ponder, the whole universe (our memories and all) was thrown together like this 5 minutes ago by happenstance ... all of that is beside the point to the fact that the world we live in right now, including every human birth, is determined by naturalist laws.
