It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut
Strange. I addressed all of that in my last post, but it was ignored and then the same argument was repeated by you. You don't seem to comprehend what atheism is.
Atheism is not useful, is not based upon evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could I, in honesty, reasonably accept it?
Useful is irrelevant, but the same exact reasoning is used to justify not believing in god. It's not based on evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could anybody reasonably accept it? You simply don't get that atheism exists because there is no proof for theism. You keep painting it as some belief system when all it is, is simply non belief in one thing. Atheists don't buy your claims, it's as simple as that. You don't need reasons, rationalization or evidence to reject something that has none of that to support it.
But I also have subjective evidence of the existence of God (which, it is true, may be my personal delusion) but it weighs strongly in my beliefs and choices.
I have subjective evidence of the existence of magical fairies. The difference is, I'm not buying it, and without objective evidence it is rational to not buy it. Disbelief in fairies doesn't predict anything or have application in science. It just is, since nobody has ever proven fairies or magic to be real. If you still don't get what I'm saying here you really need to do some reading on the subject along with burden of proof. Claims don't hold true until proven wrong. The existence of anything requires evidence or it can be logically rejected, you don't have to prove something does not exist. It is impossible. Do I really have to keep repeating this?
originally posted by: coomba98
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut
I apologise i did not explain a point right.
The correct saying is...
Atheism is 'part' of the default position.
Sorry.
Coomba98
Can you then elucidate the entire default position because I could concieve of it being quite ambiguous and subjective.
Sure i said above but here for ease.
Blank Slate... then:
Here is reality that i experience it and what we have learnt in science. To explain said experiences.
Bring somthing alien into that and you really do need to prove it. Just like the Ancient Alien crowd. Or vampire crowd etc etc.
That is the default position.
K slight edit on it. Could delve deeper but im sure you get the picture.
Coomba98
If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies.
Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.
If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.
This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.
And the hypothesis that there is a God has consequence and is highly predictive. It implies a conscious purpose to all things. A discoverable order to the universe. A reason 'why' for science's exploration of 'how'. It also implies personal moral consequences under a strong system of ethics.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.
If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.
If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.
I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;
Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.
Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.
This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.
It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.
The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.
If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.
If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.
I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;
Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.
Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.
This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.
It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.
The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.
You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98
VP740,
Hmm... someone mentioned aliens there. Would you assert aliens don't exist? Or, are you saying they most likely don't exist? If someone said there are probably aliens, but their only evidence is all those stars out there; would you say that's illogical? Is it more logical to say aliens don't exist, just because we don't have sufficient evidence?
Do you have a logical reason to reject these things, or do you reject them out of pure instinct?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.
If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.
If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.
I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;
Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.
Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.
This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.
It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.
The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.
You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.
originally posted by: coomba98
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98
VP740,
Hmm... someone mentioned aliens there. Would you assert aliens don't exist? Or, are you saying they most likely don't exist? If someone said there are probably aliens, but their only evidence is all those stars out there; would you say that's illogical? Is it more logical to say aliens don't exist, just because we don't have sufficient evidence?
Do you have a logical reason to reject these things, or do you reject them out of pure instinct?
My answer would be i believe in the high probability of aliens existing, but until theres definitive evidence their no different than vampires or pixies etc etc.
In fact aliens are more probable than vampires.
Coomba98
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
Ignosticism/igtheism is the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation.
If you have no evidence or knowledge of God, and choose to reject the hypothesis of Theism, then that is Agnosticism (Ignosticism?). Atheism is the flat statement that 'there is no God'. You cannot arbitrarily swap meanings around and think that you have argued for Atheism, using the Agnostic position.
If Agnosticism is framed around around the word "gnossos", meaning knowledge, then Ignosticism would be similarly nuanced to Agnosticism.
I would suggest that if Igtheism is defined as 'the position asserting that it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation', then;
Ignosticism is 'the position that we do not know if it is impossible to confirm or refute any theological being until the properties of said being are properly defined or quantified via experimentation and observation'.
Both Agnosticism and Ignosticism are based upon an acceptance of ignorance.
This is the premise of god of the gaps, aka argument from ignorance.
You are almost correct that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The caveat is that; if you had perfect and complete knowledge within a closed system, you could prove the non-existence of something within that system.
In the case of a closed set including everything (all existence), having perfect and complete knowledge would mean you are omniscient, an attribute of God, and so, having perfect and complete knowledge disproves Atheism because you would be that which Atheism denies. Proving the non-existence of something is the case of Atheism, it says God does not exist. As you (nearly correctly) point out, that is impossible.
It is not a requirement of the hypothesis of the existence of God, that there must be gaps in our knowledge. That gaps in our knowledge exist, are entirely immaterial to the hypothesis. God may exist if we know everything or God may exist if we know little.
The "god of the gaps" is entirely an artifact of Agnosticism (and Ignosticism, as I would define the term) - the argument from ignorance.
You can't just redefine a term to suit your needs. Ignosticism is an already defined term on Wikipedia, look it up. And while you are at it, look up god of the gaps as well, you seem to be in need of a refresher. Not that its of any concern to me. We are all going to die and then this collective crisis of the ego will be over.
Well, someone invents these terms and their definitions. I mean, if, for instance, you invent an emoji that becomes popular, will you be arrested for semantic crime? What would disqualify me from inventing terms? Surely only a hitlorean ignotard would squipe that anthronorms be disallowed from the perfectly cromulent possibleness of inventing language.
Perhaps you should read a little further than Wikipedia?
The term “ignosticism” was coined in the 1960s by the humanist Rabbi Sherwin Wine, while “igtheism” was coined by Paul Kurtz, a secular humanist, in a 1992. Kurtz was aware of Wine's definition at the time he coined his definition (which IS different). They clearly have separate meanings to each other, despite the confused Wikipedia article (which is not,by any means, the standard for semantic definition).
Knowing that the etymology of the words 'ignostic' and 'igtheist' are different, (as the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are different) and being dissatisfied by Wikipedia's ignorance of the etymology, I compiled a definition from both etymology and the Wikipedia definition. The definition, which I clearly stated was my own and different from the Wikipedia one, are not actually incompliant with the Wikipedia one, but just defines the differences with greater clarity.
If you had looked a little further, you would see that Wikipedia's definition is also not the only one that exists for these words. Here's a few alternates:
Rational Wiki on Ignosticism
Definition of Ignosticism on CARM
Atheism Wikia on Ignosticism
Definition of the week on The Economist website
... and an 'on topic' joke for you:
Q: "How many Igtheists does it take to change to change a light bulb?"
A: "Because there are so many different types of 'light bulbs' out there, an Igtheist is incapable of changing one until a single unanimous and universally agreed definition of 'a lightbulb' can be reached".
originally posted by: TzarChasm
You arent clarifying, you are confusing the matter by adding another "i dont know" to a long list of "i dont knows" because that indirectly lends credence to theism by making ignosticism look uncertain...? And somehow, in your articulate breakdown of the minutiae of igtheism and ignosticism, you overlooked the actual point: god lacks a proper definition. Every property you care to assert raises more questions than it resolves. This is what I said before and is also what every link in your list says, except for the Christian one. No surprise there. 3/4 is a majority so there you have it. No reliable definition, no falisifiable data, no productive discussion.
Your little joke would work better if you didn't try so hard. You really wanted to make fun of ignosticism, I get it. But maybe don't compare it to something as demonstrably successful and globally applicable as a lightbulb? You might start to make it look useful, even clever. That's no good, is it?
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98
So, you said aliens have a high probability of existing? If your assessment on the possibility of alien life is based on the same reasoning, does that mean you disbelieve in vampires, werewolves and pixies, while maintaining that they also have a high probability of existing? Can you expand on your reasoning? Reasoning requires reasons, does it not?