|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2006 : 13:43:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liar
"supernatural" is a meaningless word. It is, literally, just gibberish when you apply it to anything outside of the human imagination.
On the contrary--"supernatural" is our attempt to represent all that we cannot imagine.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That there is no god, to me, is the null hypothesis. The existence of god is the alternative hypothesis and requires proof to unseat the null hypothesis.
quote:
Originally posted by Liar
Yes. And agnosticism, properly understood, should lead to that logical conclusion.
No--agnosticism is unnecessary to reach that logical conclusion, as I illustrated with my pov.
quote:
Huxley was essentially saying, with his coining of the phrase, that you must have some evidence when evaluating a positive claim, otherwise you are just making shit up.
Really? That is a unique interpretation as far as I have read. My understanding was that he coined the term as a reaction to those colleagues of his that claimed to have some sort of true understanding of the supernatural.
quote:
He was saying to people who claim "god exists", that you can't know that... because there is no evidence.
From what I've read, he appeared to be telling people who claimed they "understood the supernatural" that one can't understand the supernatural--almost by definition, that which is supernatural is beyond human comprehension.
quote:
He was also saying to those who dismissed the claim, with certainty, that they were equally full of shit... because there is no evidence to evaluate.
So, then, how does a position of "there is no evidence to evaluate" logically lead one to an atheistic view? It seems to me, that if all one had to begin with was agnosticism, one could not logically go anywhere else. What rule of logic gets one from agnosticism to atheism?
If one considers our state at birth and how we acquire knowledge and beliefs, it is clear that we were all born atheists. Many of us were told by our parents to believe this dogma or that dogma. God is something we learn about. A good scientist doesn't consider s/he has learned something unless s/he sees evidence.
The "spiritual" feelings one has in ones life are often connected--by those with something to gain from it--to religion. But those feelings exist without religion.
quote:
Basically [agnosticism] means: Show me the evidence.
That sounds more like Naturalism.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 14:50:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, now I see what you are saying. It seems you are saying you have not been shown evidence for the existance of god (and are therefore, by default, a-theistic) and that you believe one cannot know about the existence of god (and are therefore agnostic).
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.'
The last part seems like speculation; and it seems to weaken your position in that it opens you up to defending a position unrelated to the existance of gods. And the agnostic position itself is a weak one. Because if there is a god, and it is like the judeo-christian god, it could prove its own existance and give humans the knowledge you claim humans will never have.
The common-(mis)use of agnostic to mean essentially "unsure" causes many problems. While the words "agnostic" and "atheist" are often used in the same conversations, they don't quite have the same base fundamental units, to use a physics analogy. Kind of like "red" and "dark", both being used to describe colours, but not actually being on the same scale.
The first, "atheist", describes an individual with a personal belief that there are no gods.
The second, "agnostic" describes a person who acknowledges that certainty about the existence of god(s) is impossible.
Knowing an whether an individual is or is not an atheist does not necessarily tell you whether or not that person is an agnostic, and vice versa.
I know my definitions aren't of enyclopaedic quality, but I believe they are concise and difficult to misinterpret, but, to quote Penn Jillete, "I could be wrong".
I think you picked an apt quote to end your post.
Your post suffers from the fact that your definitions, as you characterized them, "aren't of encyclopedic quality."
Your definition of atheist seems to exclude those who still naturally (i.e., passively) have no belief in gods--i.e., those who were never exposed to the concept of god. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 15:00:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...But the simple fact is that 'gnostic' refers to knowledge, while theism is about belief. There is no contradiction, nor any redundancy, when stating that one has a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge. Hypothetically speaking, people can:- believe and know ("God spoke to me"),
- believe and not know ("Pascal's Wager is a good bet"),
- not believe and not know ("we can't test God, and I see no evidence he exists"), and
- not believe and know ("I have a logical proof for the non-existence of God").
Yes dave--we've been over that already. "Believing" and "knowing" are independent. That's why I told kil it seems unnecessary to state his pov on "knowing." And it's why I asked kil and Liar to explain how they logically got from agnosticism to atheism--when, by similar logic, they could have as easily come to the conclusion of theism.
Any future posts from you that simply repeat what others have stated will be ignored. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 15:06:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
From Wiki:
Agnostic atheism
quote:
One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):
"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." (p.49)
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..." (p.50-51)
Now ergo, if you still don't get it, I can't help you. Oh well…
No, now I see what you are saying. It seems you are saying you have not been shown evidence for the existance of god (and are therefore, by default, a-theistic) and that you believe one cannot know about the existence of god (and are therefore agnostic).
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.'
The last part seems like speculation; and it seems to weaken your position in that it opens you up to defending a position unrelated to the existance of gods. And the agnostic position itself is a weak one. Because if there is a god, and it is like the judeo-christian god, it could prove its own existance and give humans the knowledge you claim humans will never have.
But I sense you are put off by my questions so I'm happy to leave it at that as far as you are concerned.
I always viewed the difference between agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists as follows:
both do not believe god exists. However, the gnostic atheist holds that the question is meaningfull in the first place and can be answered with a resounding no. The agnostic atheist holds that the question cannot be answered and thus is inherently meaningless.
This means that adding the word is not redundant. It further clarifies the precise stand one has on the question of the existence of God.
Right--that's why I said "I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part." Adding in the word agnostic to atheist--as in "agnostic atheist" is as informative as calling |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 15:18:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes dave--we've been over that already. "Believing" and "knowing" are independent. That's why I told kil it seems unnecessary to state his pov on "knowing."
If they're independent, then why would it be unnecessary? Is it somehow not important to get both data points?quote:
And it's why I asked kil and Liar to explain how they logically got from agnosticism to atheism--when, by similar logic, they could have as easily come to the conclusion of theism.
Similar logic?P1: I can't know that God exists.
P2: I have no evidence in favor of God.
C: I believe God exists. Sure, such bad logic is "easily" found, but why would people here follow it?quote:
Any future posts from you that simply repeat what others have stated will be ignored.
Even more interesting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 15:39:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
But that sounds like you disregard supernatural claims because of your pre-existing belief that the supernatural is unknowable.
Well, hmmmmmm… More precisely, I am without knowledge of the supernatural. I have seen no convincing evidence that any such thing exists. But I am open to evaluating evidence in support of supernatural claims. I am, after all, a member of The Center for Inquiry.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 16:16:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes dave--we've been over that already. "Believing" and "knowing" are independent. That's why I told kil it seems unnecessary to state his pov on "knowing."
If they're independent, then why would it be unnecessary? Is it somehow not important to get both data points?
You seem to be using unnecessary and unimportant interchangably here, dave. But they are not interchangable. While it might be useful in some circumstance to provide both data points, they are logically unrelated. Just like saying "I'm an atheist and my favorite football team is the Green Bay Packers," both data points need not be expressed to convey either one. More to the point, Dawkins is calling out all those atheists who publicly "consider" themselves or otherwise tell others they are agnostic out of a misguided sense of not wanting to offend to realize that they are actually atheists--and to stand up for themselves. So it's not agnosticism Dawkins is calling wishy-washy, it's the people who hide behind the term he is calling wishy-washy.
quote:
quote:
And it's why I asked kil and Liar to explain how they logically got from agnosticism to atheism--when, by similar logic, they could have as easily come to the conclusion of theism.
Similar logic?P1: I can't know that God exists.
P2: I have no evidence in favor of God.
C: I believe God exists. Sure, such bad logic is "easily" found, but why would people here follow it?
Another straw man, dave. The problem with going from P1 to C is that given P1, there is no P2. If one cannot know god--or more to Huxley's point, the supernatural--your P2 is a meaningless statement and could as easily be represented as "I have no evidence against god." Or, "Pink unicorns are the tastiest."
So, C can be "I believe god exists," or "I believe god doesn't exist." Or, it can be "I believe the Packers are the best team in football." Or, "dave likes to build straw man arguments." The point being, that all the Cs here are equally invalid conclusions given P1 and a meaningless statement in the place of P2. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 16:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
But that sounds like you disregard supernatural claims because of your pre-existing belief that the supernatural is unknowable.
Well, hmmmmmm… More precisely, I am without knowledge of the supernatural. I have seen no convincing evidence that any such thing exists. But I am open to evaluating evidence in support of supernatural claims. I am, after all, a member of The Center for Inquiry.
So you are not claiming that knowledge of the supernatural is unknowable--just that you have no knowledge of it...
So, then you are not claiming to be what is referred to as an Agnostic. But there you go adding unnecessary and irrelevant information into the discussion. WHy do you do that? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 16:28:14 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 asked:
quote:
So, then, how does a position of "there is no evidence to evaluate" logically lead one to an atheistic view? It seems to me, that if all one had to begin with was agnosticism, one could not logically go anywhere else. What rule of logic gets one from agnosticism to atheism?
The claim "god exists" is an un-evidenced claim. Any claim made without evidence may be dismissed.
In the absence of evidence for the positive claim, the logical default position is, as you have stated before, the null hypothesis of "there is no god". i.e. atheism.
quote:
That sounds more like Naturalism.
Perhaps you should take the time to go read a few of Huxley's essays. You obviously (as demonstrated in severa other threads on these forums) don't have a firm grip on logical principles or the scientific method. Now you are making it clear that you don't understand the concept of agnosticism either.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 16:57:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo(liar)123 asked:
quote:
So, then, how does a position of "there is no evidence to evaluate" logically lead one to an atheistic view? It seems to me, that if all one had to begin with was agnosticism, one could not logically go anywhere else. What rule of logic gets one from agnosticism to atheism?
The claim "god exists" is an un-evidenced claim. Any claim made without evidence may be dismissed.
In the absence of evidence for the positive claim, the logical default position is, as you have stated before, the null hypothesis of "there is no god". i.e. atheism.
But one need not make an unevidenced claim to reach the null hypothesis of "there is no god." So the fact you can get to the null doesn't mean that it's the unevidenced claim of "god exists" that gets you there.
And the lack of evidence for a claim does not mean the claim is untrue. The lack of evidence I provide you here that my desk at the office is messy, does not make it neat (although it would be nice if it were that easy...)
quote:
Perhaps you should take the time to go read a few of Huxley's essays.
Perhapse you should take the time to try to understand his essays...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 17:05:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
So you are not claiming that knowledge of the supernatural is unknowable--just that you have no knowledge of it...
I know that I have no knowledge of it, and “without knowledge” is at the heart of agnosticism. As for it being unknowable, being that we are talking about a hypothetical realm that exists separate from or beyond, or is an invisible extension of the nature that we know, and there is no evidence of its existence, I strongly doubt that there is a supernatural. And, of course, the non existence of a supernatural would make it unknowable as well as a lot of other un's... It's a null hypothesis.
I know you would like to pin me down on this but I just don't deal in philosophical absolutes. Look at my signiture.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 17:57:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
So you are not claiming that knowledge of the supernatural is unknowable--just that you have no knowledge of it...
I know that I have no knowledge of it, and “without knowledge” is at the heart of agnosticism.
No, at the heart of agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know the supernatural. Agnosticism does not equal ignorance.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 18:06:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dave, I'm going to dismiss your post as it does nothing to forward my understanding of anyone's pov on the topic.
Unless you can add to the discussion in a meaningful way, please stay off my threads.
I was unaware of an ownership transfer from Kil and @tomic to you, ergo.
You don't own this board and you have no place to demand that any other member "stay off your thread". You don't own the thread, bunkie. You may be the originator, but you have no ownership of it.
You can ask that people stay on topic.
*** Moderator mode, off ***
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 18:10:19 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
Perhapse you should take the time to try to understand his essays...
Obviously it is you who lacks comprehension in this matter. As you also lack comprehension of basic logic, the scientific method, gravity, controlled demolitions, critical thinking, there no longer seems to be any point in trying to have any discussion with you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 18:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
No, at the heart of agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know the supernatural. Agnosticism does not equal ignorance.
Well, golly. You sure do take the narrow view. But hey, thanks for straightening me out on that.
I doubt that this will mean anything to you since you seem to know exactly what agnostic means, but there are lots of kinds of agnostics. And not all of them take the cannot view. Most agnostics take the probably not view. It really wouldn't hurt for you to do a little research before you start spouting, with the absolute certainty of the recently converted, as though you know what you are talking about.
quote:
Agnosticism:
Agnostics claim that either it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
I am not comfortable with dogma. And I am sorry if you can't understand or respect that.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
