This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Atheism / Agnosticism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Lombax
If god was real, I would accept it but I wouldn't follow his comands.
&*!@ tha police and all that.
No but TONS of things mentioned in the bible are so morally wrong according to me, I wouldn't be able to follow it.
Post by
MyTie
Let's say there was someboy found some undeniable proof that God does/doesn't exist. Would you still believe in what you did before this discovery? I'd be willing to change my views. It certainly would shake my life, due to basing so much of it on Christianity.I personally think our thoughts are so deeply ingrained that few would change side. Of course some would, but I don't think it'd be quite a big number of people. I think most people would just claim it as false and move on with their lives. This is true. People would toss out the proof. It's all pride. Not being willing to accept that you are wrong.But I want to ask you guys, what would you do? What would you do if you were an atheist and suddenly God was real, or if you were a Christian and suddenly God wasn't real.It would have to be empirical evidence, but I'd accept it. I'd have to encounter some sort of time machine, and Jesus would have to explain to me that he made it all up, or something. It'd have to be powerful proof. But, if that were the case, I'd go with it. Sure, ok.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You don't seem to be getting the point of the teapot analogy. Consider: do you think MyTie has positive evidence that dragons do not and cannot exist? If not, why did he claim they don't exist, and why are you not pointing out that he made a factual claim he cannot prove?I don't believe in dragons. That's my personal belief. No one is trying to get you to change your views about God. We are just trying to point out that mockery isn't necessary, and to a lesser extent, educate you on what constitutes atheism and agnosticism.MyTie says he's not agnostic on the existence of dragons.
I'm not agnostic about dragons because I reject the possibility dragons exist. I'm atheistic about dragons. What's amazing to me is that you accept the possibility of God, but say you aren't agnostic.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
If the second of those quotes is puzzling you then perhaps you shouldn't have taken it out of context. I was (obviously) mirroring your wording for rhetorical effect - the point being that I believe the statement "god doesn't exist" only to the same extent that I expect you to believe that dragons don't exists. I.e. up to
but not including
the point of claiming definite positive knowledge.
I'm just very puzzled by our conversation. It really doesn't matter much to me, and I've gotten lost in all the twists and turns of what is going on in your brain. I'm just going to retire this one. Good luck!
Post by
Squishalot
I don't think that's accurate. Dawkins has described himself as atheist many times, but has also gone into considerable detail on the shades of meaning of the terms, and has often said things of the "I'm agnostic if by agnostic one means..." variety. As I said, there is no One True definition for these terms. Personally, I do not consider '6' agnostic at all, for precisely the same reason that MyTie says he's not agnostic on the existence of dragons.
If you don't consider '6' agnostic, then you're guilty of drawing imaginary lines in probabilistic space. What would you classify as an agnostic then?
You don't seem to be getting the point of the teapot analogy. Consider: do you think MyTie has positive evidence that dragons do not and cannot exist? If not, why did he claim they don't exist, and why are you not pointing out that he made a factual claim he cannot prove?
I get the point of the analogy. The reason I'm not pointing out MyTie's statement is that he's not being hypocritical. His dragon claim is synonymous with his God claim - he believes that there is evidence for both. Why are you claiming that God doesn't exist?
fenomas, I think you've stumbled across one major problem with your arguments - you're making assumptions about what people think (e.g. "to the same extent that I expect you to believe..."). MyTie has said that he is atheistic about dragons, in that he claims definite positive knowledge, much the same way that we might claim definite positive knowledge about Darth Vader and Santa Claus and other invented fictional characters.
If you're trying to argue that 'atheist' = 'belief that X doesn't exist but not including any claim about definite positive knowledge', then you're not adequately defining the term.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
I'm not agnostic about dragons because I reject the possibility dragons exist. I'm atheistic about dragons. What's amazing to me is that you accept the possibility of God, but say you aren't agnostic.
That's not the definition of atheism. Rejecting the possibility of something existing =/= lack of belief in something existing.
Post by
Squishalot
Patty - in this context it is. The opposite of belief in the existence of dragons is the belief in the non-existence of dragons. The lack of belief in something is an agnostic viewpoint.
To nail down the terminology, Dawkins is (and I am) agnostic if and only if we define "atheist" to include only people claiming to have definite knowledge of the non-existence of god. Personally I hold that definition to be inaccurate by analogy (as is being discussed re: dragons).
Inaccurate by analogy? What sort of logical argument is that?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
My own atheism and agnosticism run very close to fenomas' description.
Further to that I also class myself as anti-theistic (not only do I think there's no truth to the belief in the existence of a god I think that religion has caused more bad in the world than good) but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
I think the general feeling is that it goes:
theist - - - - agnostic - - - - atheist
like, that's the scale on which people can place themselves. It was proposed earlier in the thread that agnostic and atheist are certainly not mutually exclusive conditions (and nor is anti-theist - I dare say someone
could
be an antitheistic theist though I imagine that would be a difficult life to live).
Post by
MyTie
religion has caused more bad in the world than good
This sentiment indicates a complete void of personal responsibility. A belief never killed anyone. Someone's actions did. Don't blame beliefs in a deity. Blame the idiots who find that as an excuse for heinous acts. Interestingly, these discussions always remind me of gun ownership debates.
Post by
Patty
Patty - in this context it is. The opposite of belief in the existence of dragons is the belief in the non-existence of dragons. The lack of belief in something is an agnostic viewpoint.
Not really. MyTie outright rejects the possibility of dragons because he does not believe in them. I believe that they do not exist, but if evidence comes along supporting their existence or past existence I will not outright reject the possibility of it. There's a distinction there. Both are more atheist points of view.
Post by
Squishalot
It was proposed earlier in the thread that agnostic and atheist are certainly not mutually exclusive conditions
It's been suggested as much around the internet as well, yet Dawkins uses the probability scale where there is no overlap. If theist/atheist are binary states, then agnosticism is (1,0).
Anti-theism is entirely different. An anti-theistic theist is like a terrorist - you know the opposition exists, and you're going to do what you can to bring it down.
Not really. MyTie rejects the possibility of dragons because he does not believe in them. I believe that they do not exist, but if evidence comes along supporting their existence I will not outright reject the possibility of it. There's a distinction there. Both are more atheist points of view.
Do you think dragons exist, on a probability scale of 0% -> 100%? Where do you land?
If you're on 0%, you're atheistic about dragons, and you wouldn't even dream that any evidence would come along to support their existence. If you're open to the idea that they're possibly real, then you're not on 0% anymore. Just like MyTie isn't at 100% theist about God, he's open to being proven wrong, unlike others whose belief overrides evidence to the contrary.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Wow. Ok. This is just downright irritating. Stupid semantical arguments. Right now, I'm gonna go to the dictionary, and copy pasta what they say over, and well just use that as our understanding from here on out, and get rid of the headache:
ATHEISM - noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
AGNOSTIC - noun
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
Ok. There we go. Now we can all bury the idiot hatchet, and move on.
Post by
Squishalot
The reason we use concrete examples like dragons and Darth Vader is out of shared expectation that we all hold the same ontological beliefs them - how much evidence there is or isn't, etc. I'm not making any assumptions about what anyone believes about god.
My view on dragons is different to my view on Darth Vader, just as an FYI. How about yours?
Just so. So my question is why you consider it an unjustifiable assumption for someone to say god doesn't exist but not for them to say dragons don't exist? Nobody has any positive evidence against the evidence of either, obviously.
I consider it unjustifiable because MyTie isn't attempting to use the teapot argument to comment about unfalsifiable claims. The claim that God doesn't exist is just as backed up by evidence that God does exist. So to suggest that the teapot argument is a reasonable argument, and in the second breath to state that God doesn't exist is hypocritical, IMO.
Post by
asakawa
It's been suggested as much around the internet as well, yet Dawkins uses the probability scale where there is no overlap. If theist/atheist are binary states, then agnosticism is (1,0).
Discussions so often break down into scraps over definitions of things.
I'm an atheist. If push comes to shove then I'm also agnostic. Dawkins is incredibly smart so I wouldn't quickly dismiss what he says but him saying something isn't the same for atheists and Jesus saying something is for Christians ^_^
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.