The Agnostic Thread - Home of the Unsure

[Thundercrack85]

Ironically despite being fairly outspoken, I don't consider myself to be a strong atheist.

Though I consider the religions made by man to be rather obviously manmade.

I just don't think it's in human nature to be strong atheists.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

At this point its wilful ignorance. You insist on maintaining your strawman of what an atheist is in spite of what other people try to tell you.

An atheist that says "I know gods don't exist" is going a step further than simple disbelief. Many atheists disbelief, they don't claim to know (you can continue ignoring these explanations, apparently).

Call it what you want but it seems atheist for some reason want agnostics to side with their group.

But there is such a thing as neutrality when it comes to belief and disbelief in God.

An agnostic says you can't prove or disprove God's existence so they support NEITHER position.

Your own Dawkin's scale also defines agnostic this way.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You associate all atheists with strong atheism.

If you don't have a god or a religion, you are an atheist. How you get there, is irrelevant.

Welcome to the club.

 

[E-Man]

This thread reminds me of that South Park episode where Cartman freezed himself. Even though there are multiple versions of what agnostics are you've got people claiming that agnostics are this one and singular thing that falls more in line with their own beliefs instead of seeing the many different definitions of the term. "OMG, THIS is what YOU believe," is pretty much what's thrown around ironically here.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This thread reminds me of that South Park episode where Cartman freezed himself. Even though there are multiple versions of what agnostics are you've got people claiming that agnostics are this one and singular thing that falls more in line with their own beliefs instead of seeing the many different definitions of the term. "OMG, THIS is what YOU believe," is pretty much what's thrown around ironically here.

Science, damn you!

 

[XSpidercideX]

So basically:

certain disbelief = hard atheist

uncertain disbelief = agnostic atheist

neither belief or disbelief = agnostic

uncertain belief = agnostic theist

certain belief = theist

Why would anyone assume most agnostics were actually agnostic atheist or that most atheist were agnostic atheist? Is there any evidence of this?

That is a common conception of agnostic being in the middle, but in reality its not in the center of anything, agnostic is simply the answer to a different question than atheism.

The two questions are:

1) Do you believe a god exists?
Yes = theism. Anything else = atheism.

2) Do you know a god exists?
Yes = gnostic/a claim of knowledge. Anything else = agnostic.

If you say "I don't know" to the question "Do you believe a god exists?", you are not answering the question of belief, you are answering No to the second question, the question of knowledge.

Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve whether a god exists falls under the category of not saying yes to belief, and therefore is a lack of belief, thus is atheist.

If you claim to not be an atheist, then which god(s) are you believing in?

 

[Marvolo]

That is a common conception of agnostic being in the middle, but in reality its not in the center of anything, agnostic is simply the answer to a different question than atheism.

The two questions are:

1) Do you believe a god exists?
Yes = theism. Anything else = atheism.

2) Do you know a god exists?
Yes = gnostic/a claim of knowledge. Anything else = agnostic.

If you say "I don't know" to the question "Do you believe a god exists?", you are not answering the question of belief, you are answering No to the second question, the question of knowledge.

Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve whether a god exists falls under the category of not saying yes to belief, and therefore is a lack of belief, thus is atheist.

If you claim to not be an atheist, then which god(s) are you believing in?

Atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

If you believe a deity or deities exists but don't know anything more or claim to know anything more about it you are not atheist. I don't claim to believe in any specific god, but I'm not an atheist. I'd say I'm more deist/pantheist.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If I could make every theist go from theist to deist, then I would die a content man.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If I could make every theist go from theist to deist, then I would die a content man.

Why is deism better than theism?

 

[Godzilla2000]

I still believe in the basic Christian tenets of beliefs, but considering my mom's erratic behavior lately I am having questions about organized religion. My mom basically preaches about God and love but for the past several years I have witnessed her behaving rather diabolically every once in awhile to the point where I'm a bit scared of her and my own safety. I mean how could God approve of my mom's behavior, how can he let her slip so far into deceptive, satanic behavior but still act like a God fearing Christian? I'm finding myself confused about her faith and this is extending into my own faith in the church she has chosen. I've not given up on Christianity, but more questioning how one of his faiths could allow such diabolically two faced behavior?

P.S. Off Topic: If I have to make a judgement call to put her in an assisted living home because her sanity is in suspect I will.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Why is deism better than theism?

Well for one thing I've never seen a deist blow something up in the name of his vague concept of there being some sort of creative force behind the universe.

Deists don't start wars over their deism.

 

[Marvolo]

Why is deism better than theism?

Deism: is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.


Critical elements of deist thought included:

Rejection of religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.

Rejection of religious dogma and demagogy.

Skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

God exists and created the universe.

God gave humans the ability to reason.

Unlike theism, deism doesn't allow the possibility of dogma to be used to the detriment of humanity or the world. It also doesn't allow a person to use doctrine to attain power or followers for wrong or hurtful purposes because it rejects the idea of man made religions and doctrine. Deism also promotes using our brains instead of sticking our heads in the sands when scientific fact proves a doctrine wrong or insufficient in explaining an aspect of the natural world. Deism doesn't promote bigotry and hate. A deist God doesn't micromanage or get involved in daily mundane affairs. It created the universe(s), flipped the switch so to speak, but let it go on its way after. Basically, deism isn't meddlesome or dangerous.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That sums it up pretty good.

 

[The End]

Why is deism better than theism?

In the sense that a theist believes in a specific god; great, so where's the evidence for that specific god?

A deist doesn't carry the same burden as a theist.

 

[The End]

That is a common conception of agnostic being in the middle, but in reality its not in the center of anything, agnostic is simply the answer to a different question than atheism.

The two questions are:

1) Do you believe a god exists?
Yes = theism. Anything else = atheism.

2) Do you know a god exists?
Yes = gnostic/a claim of knowledge. Anything else = agnostic.

If you say "I don't know" to the question "Do you believe a god exists?", you are not answering the question of belief, you are answering No to the second question, the question of knowledge.

Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve whether a god exists falls under the category of not saying yes to belief, and therefore is a lack of belief, thus is atheist.

If you claim to not be an atheist, then which god(s) are you believing in?

This is basically what I've been trying to explain the entire thread, you may have put it more clearly than I have.

 

[The End]

Arguments for the existence of god, even if you accept ALL the premises in the argument, do not lead to specific gods.

Ontological argument
First cause argument
Argument from design
Moral argument
Etc

None of them can actually get you to the Christian god. At best, you end with the conclusion "god exists". To get to the Christian god you have to make further leaps than even those arguments contain.

 

[Dr.]

I already said the vast majority of kids don't get unexplained gifts . Not even millions of well-behaved kids.

If Santa exists he's not very active.

You could scan the North Pole for heat signatures.

You could have chimneys installed with motion detectors.

You could have every gift recieved on Christmas registered so the givers would be accounted for.

There are ways to disprove a gift giving Santa Claus. It's impossible to prove God does or doesn't exist.

This playful exchange word is actually important and relevant to agnosticism.

You define Santa in very specific terms (he distributes gifts, he climbs down chimneys, etc.). And since those terms fail to pass inspection, you conclude (quite sensibly) that Santa doesn’t exist. It turns out that if a definition is specific enough, one can actually “prove a negative” – show that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. On the other hand, if the definition is vague or infinitely elastic, no negative proof is possible. I.e., if we posit that Santa is a metaphysical “spirit,” conceptually “sophisticated” and doesn’t manifest himself in any obvious or unambiguous ways, then there’s no argument that completely rules out his “existence.” So, strictly speaking, we should be agnostic.

Now… if it seems odd to be so scrupulously “open-minded” about Santa when - for all practical purposes - his non-existence has been well established, then I entirely agree. And it’s that very same rationale that informs the atheist perspective with respect to gods. True, gods can be defined in such a way as to be elusive with respect to direct evidence and, therefore, immune to disproof. But that’s fairly weak sauce. For most other concepts (Santa, celestial teapots, pink unicorns and invisible dragons) we feel no need to resort to agnosticism because of a philosophical technicality; we simply and unapologetically say, “I don’t believe in Santa – I’m an ‘a-Santa-ist’.” And as a matter of intellectual consistency, the same standards must/should apply to the question of gods. I.e., atheism, not agnosticism.

 

[Marvolo]

This playful exchange word is actually important and relevant to agnosticism.

You define Santa in very specific terms (he distributes gifts, he climbs down chimneys, etc.). And since those terms fail to pass inspection, you conclude (quite sensibly) that Santa doesn’t exist. It turns out that if a definition is specific enough, one can actually “prove a negative” – show that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. On the other hand, if the definition is vague or infinitely elastic, no negative proof is possible. I.e., if we posit that Santa is a metaphysical “spirit,” conceptually “sophisticated” and doesn’t manifest himself in any obvious or unambiguous ways, then there’s no argument that completely rules out his “existence.” So, strictly speaking, we should be agnostic.

Now… if it seems odd to be so scrupulously “open-minded” about Santa when - for all practical purposes - his non-existence has been well established, then I entirely agree. And it’s that very same rationale that informs the atheist perspective with respect to gods. True, gods can be defined in such a way as to be elusive with respect to direct evidence and, therefore, immune to disproof. But that’s fairly weak sauce. For most other concepts (Santa, celestial teapots, pink unicorns and invisible dragons) we feel no need to resort to agnosticism because of a philosophical technicality; we simply and unapologetically say, “I don’t believe in Santa – I’m an ‘a-Santa-ist’.” And as a matter of intellectual consistency, the same standards must/should apply to the question of gods. I.e., atheism, not agnosticism.

You are severely underestimating the psychological impact that the idea of gods had on our species' development. Due to thousands of years of natural and social evolution god(s) are ingrained in us. Santa isnt even in the same universe. While the standards should be the same they can't be. Our brains simply arent wired that way
at this point. The brain scans are there to show the ways prayer and belief in god or gods effects our brain chemistry even into adulthood so its practically impossible for some to view their god without bias let alone use the same standards of dismissal they use for santa.

I know people who think santa as an idea is paganism and evil and nonsense. Then turn right around and pray as if their invisible magical god is not equally nonsense if looked at logically.

 

[Marvolo]

I just read this in Founding Faith by Steven Waldmen:

Behold the sheer viciousness of the Puritan approach:
• William Brend, “a man of years,” was locked in beaten black and as into a jelly, and under his arms the bruised flesh and blood hung down, clotted as it were into bags; and it was so beat into one mass, that the sign of one particular blow could not be seen.”

• Josiah Southwick compounded the crime of being a Quaker with refusal to remove his hat in the presence of a magistrate (Quakers kept their heads covered in deference to God). The General Court directed “the executioner” to strip him from the waist up, “tie him to a cart-tail, and whip him ten stripes out of Boston and deliver him to the Constable of Roxbury” who was, in turn, supposed to repeat the procedure and deliver him to the constable of Dedham, who would do it again.41

• Alice Ambrose, Mary Tomkins, and Ann Coleman had taken to preaching their gospel at the Piscataqua River. They were arrested, “stripped naked, from the middle upward, and tied to a cart, and after a while cruelly whipped…, whilst the priest stood and looked on, and laughed at it.”42

.Mary Dyer should be known by any American who loves religious freedom. A young mother living in Boston, Dyer in 1637 had been attending Anne Hutchinson’s Sunday meetings. Viewing the group as heretical, the Puritans saw an opportunity to send a message after Dyer gave birth to a deformed stillborn baby. Her minister, the Reverend Joseph Wilson, preached from the pulpit: “We have been visited of late by the admonition of the Lord. One Mary Dyer of our midst, who has lately become addicted to heresy, has produced not a woman child but a monster. God himself has intervened and pointed His finger at this woman at the height of her sinful opinions.

My own words follow:

Mary Dyer was convicted of wrongdoing and banished from Massachusetts. She later returned and when confronted she refused to repent and was hanged. Do you all want to know what her and the others only crimes were? They were Quakers in Puritan Massachusetts in the 17th century when it was illegal to be Quaker. Some other punishments for being Quaker:

For the crime of being a Quaker who refused to leave Massachusetts, the punishment on the first offense was usually whipping; on the second offense, an ear was cut off. For a third offense, the criminal would be executed

These actions were not godly. They were down right barbaric and Jesus himself would have been sickened by this. If there is a heaven I hope that everyone of these Puritans were shamed in the after life.

 

[Dr.]

You are severely underestimating the psychological impact that the idea of gods had on our species' development. Due to thousands of years of natural and social evolution god(s) are ingrained in us. Santa isnt even in the same universe. While the standards should be the same they can't be. Our brains simply arent wired that way
at this point. The brain scans are there to show the ways prayer and belief in god or gods effects our brain chemistry even into adulthood so its practically impossible for some to view their god without bias let alone use the same standards of dismissal they use for santa.

I know people who think santa as an idea is paganism and evil and nonsense. Then turn right around and pray as if their invisible magical god is not equally nonsense if looked at logically.

Oh, I understand that a religious person would reject the analogies. Being a believer, he would recognize a clear difference between god (who exists) and imaginary concepts like Santa and unicorns (who do not exist).

But I was talking about the agnosticism vs. atheism debate. And those folks (presumably) wouldn’t take god’s existence as an a priori fact. Thus, they’d be more beholden to philosophical consistency among the various models and analogies.

 

[Schlosser85]

Yep.

And we all know Reverend Wilson didn't believe a word that was coming out of his own mouth.

He saw an opportunity to make an example of someone, punish a woman who dared to be anything other than subservient, and subjugate a minority while backing it up with the Bible, defending and strengthening his own power and that of his male class. That's all it was to people like him, and it's all it is today to a lot of the powermongers in the Christian Right. It's nothing to do with religion. It's a tool for them to gain power and wealth.

If you think people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed give two ****s about God, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.