An aside on teapots (or a better guide to understanding atheists)

Let's get into a hypothetical aside on teapots. No, not in the sense of cookware, but in the sense of some sort of ridiculous claims.

Now, imagine if you will a teapot. A really, really small teapot. No, smaller. No, even smaller than that. Here, let me just use a visual aid:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6cb37ff5e86.jpg[/atsimg]

Alright, so imagine that teapot. Now, what if I told you that this teapot was in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars? Would you believe me?

Well, it's too small for us to detect with even our most sophisticated telescopes, there would be absolutely no way for you to verify it. It could be there, but is there any good reason for you to actively believe that this miniature teapot is in orbit between the Earth and Mars? There is no way of knowing that this teapot isn't in orbit between the two planets, but there is equally no way of knowing that it is. So why believe that it is?

To take the step even further, to make this analogy even more true, we must introduce further objects. For there is one group of people who claim that the miniature object is actually this little teddy bear.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc5765277fad.jpg[/atsimg]

Then keep adding even more groups with even more ideas about which tiny objects are in between the Earth and Mars.

Now add on top of that people within the same camps that disagree with each other. Some teapotists believe that the teapot is green, some think it is red, others that it is transparent. Some think that the teapot is larger, or smaller, or narrower or wider. They all agree that it is a teapot, but this teapot is wildly different in each circumstance.

But again, there's absolutely no evidence for any of these claims, and all of them say that it must be taken on faith. So why must we choose one claim over another when they all use the same method for validation?

This is one good way to explain why I, and many others like me, am an atheist.

Edit
Forgot to add credit to Bertrand Russel, who of course inspired this post with his original celestial teapot. Thank you MzMorbid for pointing out my omission.

Russells' Teapot

Credit where credit is due.

I do agree, though, that the teapot is just as viable as a god, flying spaghetti monster, or a flying pink unicorn.

Such a cute little teapot! I just love it! I love the teddy bear, too! They're both just what I would HOPE would be orbiting in the heavens... I think I believe in them both!

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't actually heard the teapot theory before. So many things to believe in or not!

But I can see the teapot and the teddy bear. Both are in orbit around the sun, and at times, between the earth and mars. They are there. You have pictures of them held in tweezers or on someone's finger.

My point here is that your athiest uses all available evidence against the existence of a particular god, deity, etc., while your religious believer uses all available evidence for a particular god, deity, etc.

Think about it!

reply to post by MMPI2

Originally posted by MMPI2
But I can see the teapot and the teddy bear.

No, you can't...that's the point of this exercise.

Both are in orbit around the sun, and at times, between the earth and mars. They are there.

But would be undetectable by anything we have due to their small size.

You have pictures of them held in tweezers or on someone's finger.

...those were used as demonstrations of the size of the objects I was talking about. If I didn't make this clear, I apologize.

The point is that objects of those sizes would be absolutely undetectable to any technology we have. So you wouldn't be able to see them.

My point here is that your athiest uses all available evidence against the existence of a particular god, deity, etc.,

No, atheists represent a skeptical position, they do not put forth evidence against a claim actively unless there is some clear contradiction or clearly unfounded claim.

while your religious believer uses all available evidence for a particular god, deity, etc.

But there is no available evidence

There is no teapot in orbit...its a coffee pot.

Its time these teapot heretics stop spreading their blasphemy against the great java!


Can we all agree that there is at least some sort of caffinated beverage maker in orbit? This seems like the sensible conclusion...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
There is no teapot in orbit...its a coffee pot.

Its time these teapot heretics stop spreading their blasphemy against the great java!

I attend church services every morning. I think I've seen you there.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e7bb1690ca9.jpg[/atsimg]


The father and Son are one.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d0d518fd2f5.jpg[/atsimg]

Madnessinmysoul

I have issue with Bertrand Russell’s teapot concept. Of course he uses a slightly absurd idea to help illustrate his point but what if we take a more plausible example.

“Are there ants in your basement?”.
Lets just assume that it’s going to take along time to gather all the evidence to find this out. So essentially at this moment in time, it is unknown, due to lack of evidence to it and a lack of evidence to the contrary. Because of this lack of evidence, a person would say it is “unknown” or “I don’t know” but IMO it just seems illogical, to then go on to add, that they “don’t believe it”

Beliefs stem from knowledge, so why they are being looked at separately, I’m not entirely sure.

I posted something similar on my other thread, before I noticed your thread…my original post can be foundhere…


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


But belief is a state of mind that is positive. If you don't believe something you're not in that positive state of mind. Just like you don't believe in the magic taco samurai that I just thought up on the spot now. Why? Well...it's a silly idea that I just came up with. You don't know that there isn't a magic taco samurai, but you don't believe in it.

You see, nonbelief has two subsets. Implicit and Explicit. An implicit nonbelievers would be someone who has never heard of the concept that they don't believe in. More or less how Confucius would be with regards to Santa Clause. Never heard of it, therefore cannot believe in it, therefore doesn't believe in it. An explicit nobeliever would be someone who is aware of the concept and has not accepted this concept as reality.

It doesn't matter if they can know or not, so long as they do not accept the concept as a reality they do not believe. It's not some sort of odd extra step, it's simply a logical consequence.

Oh, and the ants thing...you can eventually figure out if there are ants in your basement (ie leave some food out in the basement). But there's no way to eventually find out theistic claims. That's why the teapot story works so well. There's no way to know on theistic claims, and they're all just about as crazy as a tiny orbital teapot.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
An explicit nobeliever would be someone who is aware of the concept and has not accepted this concept as reality.

It doesn't matter if they can know or not, so long as they do not accept the concept as a reality they do not believe. It's not some sort of odd extra step, it's simply a logical consequence.

If they haven’t accepted it as part of reality, that would make them an Atheist in “active disbelief” sense.

If they haven’t accepted it as part of reality yet, but think it’s at least possible, that would make them Agnostic.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
But belief is a state of mind that is positive. If you don't believe something you're not in that positive state of mind. Just like you don't believe in the magic taco samurai that I just thought up on the spot now. Why? Well...it's a silly idea that I just came up with. You don't know that there isn't a magic taco samurai, but you don't believe in it.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul (from the “Will the real Atheists plaease stand up” thread)
Actually, agnostic and atheist are two separate claims. One is related to knowledge. I do not know, I am agnostic. The other is related to belief. I do not believe, I am an atheist.

From the Atheists that I have spoken to, the idea of a God/creator with no religious connotations attached, is generally regarded as not an absurd idea. So why are you bringing in these absurd examples, instead of neutral ones?
That’s why I brought in the “are there ants in your basement?” example, I was using it in a similar way to Russell’s “teapot”; it didn’t require a direct answer, I was merely using it as neutral/plausible counterpart.

I guess positive state of mind is a part of belief but you haven’t really explained why belief and knowledge should be looked at as separate, when one clearly helps to form the other. Until you can show why they should be looked at separately, I can’t see how or why, there is any justification for the Atheist-Agnostic stance, which I consider to be an oxymoron.


- JC

No, you can't...that's the point of this exercise.

Why can't he? I saw them, too. You even said you were using visual aids. The teapot and the teddy bear exist. We're dickering about their current location, and whether one may have been confused for the other.

As to the slover about your "not being clear," you were utterly transparent:

Alright, so imagine that teapot. Now, what if I told you that this teapot was in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars? Would you believe me?

there is one group of people who claim that the miniature object is actually this little teddy bear.

Emphasis added. The objects exist. The open questions are: Where are they now? Was one mistaken for the other? Try to keep up.

But would be undetectable by anything we have due to their small size.

And that's where the analogy fails. Yours, not Russell's. He never claimed that the teapot corresponded with the sum and aubstance of all theist belief systems, just that it illustrated one aspect of a possible response to them, that he had no obligation to accept a claim because it was claimed. I agree.

To move beyond Russell's apt application of his analogy to a broader critique of a living world faith, like, say, Christianity, Judaism or Islam, then you need to amend the story to reflect the actual situation with a revealed religion. That is more like believing Edgar Mitchell. He's kind of a strange guy, who says he saw some UFO's, maybe there are other problems with taking his word for things, too. Then again, maybe not. But dude has been in outer space.

(Maybe you have, too. I don't know. I have higher confidence about Mitchell, though, so let's proceed with his hypothetical testimony.)

Suppose Ed says, "We were in the vicinity of the Moon one day, and were testing the Long Range Fine Grained Object Analyzer. The year before, NASA had seeded the interplanetary gap with tiny, easily recognizable objects, and we were supposed to pick them up on the LRFGOA Display Module. When we pointed the LRFGOA Acquisition Scanner into the void between us and Mars, damned if I didn't see a tiny teapot and a tiny teddy bear on the LRFGOA-DM."

Yes or no, do you believe what Edgar Mitchell says? Maybe, maybe not. You have no obligation to do so, but no obligation to refrain from doing so, either. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Or, you pass on the question. Whatever.

The Mitchell-denier can cite a boatload of reasons for rejecting his testimony. Some M-D'ers will also deny that Mitchell ever went into space, since, after all, "everbody knows" that the "space program" was faked by the PTB in order to control the masses.

Meanwhile, the Mitchell-accepter need only say "Ed sounds credible to me."

But, all either side has is Mitchell's testimony - not nothing, but nothing more than that. Take it or leave it. One rational person will do one, another rational person will do the other, a third will pass on the problem altogether.

What's BS is somebody posting over and over about what a bunch of losers Mitchell-accepters are, while denying that he believes Mitchell is untruthful. "Moi? I only fail to believe that Mitchell is truthful. Perish the thought that I believe he is untruthful." Speaking of testimony that strains credulity.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by SaturnFX
There is no teapot in orbit...its a coffee pot.

I coffee pot, I can believe in, but a teapot…no way! lol

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Can we all agree that there is at least some sort of caffinated beverage maker in orbit? This seems like the sensible conclusion...

Well I think with all the multiverses, parallel dimensions, and Alien life forms, that could have similar devices to our own and who have space flight capability; then it’s statistically highly probably, that there could be a pot of some sort, flying around out there.

Hey, it’s Christmas…I’m aloud to dream…


- JC

reply to post by eight bits


...why must people not understand the point of this exercise...I must not be very good at explaining things. That's probably it. I'll give everyone else the benefit of the doubt here.

Originally posted by eight bits

No, you can't...that's the point of this exercise.

Why can't he? I saw them, too. You even said you were using visual aids. The teapot and the teddy bear exist.

No, they don't. I just gave examples of the sort of thing that is claimed to be orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. I didn't say "This exact teddy bear" and "This exact tea pot". It's a teapot that's small. I just used a visual aid to help you picture the idea of an insanely tiny teapot and teddy bear that would be impossible to detect with a telescope.

Russel probably took his time wording his original version of this, I sort of threw it onto a computer in half an hour...so I guess my poor wording is to be blamed on me rushing the product.

We're dickering about their current location, and whether one may have been confused for the other.

...No, we're dickering about whether they're there in the first place because there's no way to confirm their presence because they're really, really small.

As to the slover about your "not being clear," you were utterly transparent:

...huh? I don't get what you mean.

Alright, so imagine that teapot. Now, what if I told you that this teapot was in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars? Would you believe me?

there is one group of people who claim that the miniature object is actually this little teddy bear.

Emphasis added. The objects exist. The open questions are: Where are they now? Was one mistaken for the other? Try to keep up.

...No, the objects exist in your imagination. I added my own emphasis in italics. There is a claim that it is this teddy bear. I used "this teddy bear" because I didn't want to write out a whole stream of a hypothetical tiny teddy bear because I was in a rush.

I know you got the point of this analogy. Don't drag it off topic because you think I didn't phrase it correctly. You know what I was getting at, don't play dumb, don't be a child.

But would be undetectable by anything we have due to their small size.

And that's where the analogy fails.

Um...how?

Yours, not Russell's. He never claimed that the teapot corresponded with the sum and aubstance of all theist belief systems, just that it illustrated one aspect of a possible response to them, that he had no obligation to accept a claim because it was claimed. I agree.

Did I claim that it corresponded with the sum and substance of all theist belief systems? I was talking about faith based reality claims.

To move beyond Russell's apt application of his analogy to a broader critique of a living world faith, like, say, Christianity, Judaism or Islam, then you need to amend the story to reflect the actual situation with a revealed religion.

You mean I have to make it a tiny Torah, Bible, or Qu'ran?

That is more like believing Edgar Mitchell. He's kind of a strange guy, who says he saw some UFO's, maybe there are other problems with taking his word for things, too. Then again, maybe not. But dude has been in outer space.

...it's more or less the same thing. There's absolutely no way of either verifying or disproving his claim.

(snipped external quote)
Yes or no, do you believe what Edgar Mitchell says? Maybe, maybe not. You have no obligation to do so, but no obligation to refrain from doing so, either. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Or, you pass on the question. Whatever.

Um...but again, he's making unverifiable claims. The tiny teapot is still relevant. You can't confirm his clam, you can't debunk his claim, it has to be taken on faith. His personal testimony doesn't add anything to it unless you want to overturn the logical fallacy of the argument from authority.

The Mitchell-denier can cite a boatload of reasons for rejecting his testimony. Some M-D'ers will also deny that Mitchell ever went into space, since, after all, "everbody knows" that the "space program" was faked by the PTB in order to control the masses.

Or you can just say "He provides absolutely no corroboration for his claim, there's nothing to support it but his word"

Again, just like the guy who tells you a tea pot too small to be detected by human instruments is in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars.

Meanwhile, the Mitchell-accepter need only say "Ed sounds credible to me."

...so...take it on faith. Just like the tea pot claim...

But, all either side has is Mitchell's testimony - not nothing, but nothing more than that. Take it or leave it. One rational person will do one, another rational person will do the other, a third will pass on the problem altogether.

But, all either side has is the tea pot guy's testimony - not nothing, but nothing more than that. Take it or leave it. etc etc.

It's the same thing, I'm not seeing a logical difference.

What's BS is somebody posting over and over about what a bunch of losers Mitchell-accepters are, while denying that he believes Mitchell is untruthful.

Yay, bovine fecal matter!
Hmm...now...where did I post anything saying that theists are a bunch of losers? In fact, on the front page of this sub-forum there are plenty of threads attacking atheists, but none calling theists a bunch of losers...and the names leveled at atheists include 'evildoer'...

Of course, if you go on to the Origins and Creationism forum, that's a much different claim. I can clearly assess the claims of creationists using the scientific method without addressing the theistic claim.

So...either you're able to magically see threads I can't or you've pulled something out of nowhere.

"Moi? I only fail to believe that Mitchell is truthful. Perish the thought that I believe he is untruthful." Speaking of testimony that strains credulity.

Except you're creating a false dilemma and a false analogy.

With theistic claims I'm not addressing the specific testimony of any individual. I'm addressing the claim that there is or is not a deity. Now, a theist might have an experience, and I can even acknowledge that they have an experience...but they might be wrong in the conclusions they arrive to about that experience. The causes of that experience might have been entirely different than what the person actually perceives them to be. One person might think "demon possession" when the truth is "mental illness".

I'm not necessarily saying theists are untruthful (some of them are though, but any group large enough is bound to have some dishonest individuals), but I do think they're taking a leap without sufficient levels of evidence. Some of them might even be deluded, others might be victims of confirmation bias, yet others still might simply be closed minded.

There are all sorts of alternatives to your false dilemma.

As for it being a false analogy, no theistic claim relies solely on an individual's testimony.

reply to post by Joecroft

Originally posted by Joecroft
If they haven’t accepted it as part of reality, that would make them an Atheist in “active disbelief” sense.

No, it's still passive. Not accepting a claim is not an activity. Not accepting a claim passively is the same thing as not believing in it. You cannot actively disbelieve anything anymore than you can actively not partake in the hobby of model trains.

If they haven’t accepted it as part of reality yet, but think it’s at least possible, that would make them Agnostic.

No, agnosticism is a "whether or not I can know" claim. I was actually an agnostic theist at one point. I sort of thought there was a god of some sort but I wasn't really sure what that god was or if I could be certain about its existence.

From the Atheists that I have spoken to, the idea of a God/creator with no religious connotations attached, is generally regarded as not an absurd idea. So why are you bringing in these absurd examples, instead of neutral ones?

I'm sorry, but which atheists claimed that a deity isn't an absurd claim? It's an invisible, all power, undetectable being. In fact, that last point is where the comparison hinges itself. I'm giving you an example of something that would be impossible to detect, like any deity.

That’s why I brought in the “are there ants in your basement?” example, I was using it in a similar way to Russell’s “teapot”; it didn’t require a direct answer, I was merely using it as neutral/plausible counterpart.

It's not a plausible counterpart because there are ways to come up with a definitive yes/no answer on whether or not there are ants in your basement. There aren't ways to come up with a definitive yes/no answer to the question of whether or not a deity exists.

I guess positive state of mind is a part of belief but you haven’t really explained why belief and knowledge should be looked at as separate, when one clearly helps to form the other.

Um...how better to explain it...
Ok, knowledge is certainty
Belief is acceptance.

Agnosticism is lack of certainty
Atheism is lack of acceptance.

You can accept a claim without being certain and you can reject a claim without being certain. Certainty is not required to make a decision one way or the other.

Until you can show why they should be looked at separately, I can’t see how or why, there is any justification for the Atheist-Agnostic stance, which I consider to be an oxymoron.

Ok, you consider to be an oxymoron, but you've not demonstrated in any logical fashion how it is an oxymoron, either I've done a very poor job at explaining or you've clearly ignored, not understood, and/or dismissed the multiple attempts I've made to explain to you how belief and knowledge are separate. I hope this most recent one hits the mark.

Russel probably took his time wording his original version of this, I sort of threw it onto a computer in half an hour...so I guess my poor wording is to be blamed on me rushing the product.

Probably took his time? You have, of course, read the original piece. Of course.

Did I claim that it corresponded with the sum and substance of all theist belief systems?

Beats me. Why do you ask? I was discussing what Russell did and did not claim. Just because I am speaking with you doesn't mean I am speaking about you.

In case there is somebody who hasn't read the original example,

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history.

www.cfpf.org.uk...

So, there is nothing here about inferring the truth or falsehood of anything. Russell is denying a hypothetical "burden of disproof" and preserving his right to doubt an irrebuttable claim in the absense of evidence in favor of it, satisfactory to him, even if the belief is socially approved and ordinary. Obviously, his example suffices for that purpose. So far as I know, everybody grants his points.

Russell's example does not address whether there is evidence for God satisfactory to believers, nor does he claim that the evidence for religious belief is the same as for his teapot.

Your question was

So why must we choose one claim over another when they all use the same method for validation?

In order to try to answer that, we need to have at least one example of something analogous to this method for validation of which you speak. Russell does not need that to make his point, and his example lacks the feature which you need to search for an answer to your question.

The revealed religions share, obviously, revelation. Somebody, or maybe it's several somebodies, discuss what they have seen, heard, thought, etc. Depending on how you evaluate the received version of the testimony of revelation, so you will presumably decide on whether to accept the religion.

No doubt, the testimonial evidence of the Bible or Koran is unsatisfactory to you. In contrast, the evidence about the Russell-teapot is non-existent. A rational person would be hard pressed to disagree with you about the Russell-teapot evidence, that there is none, but could easily disagree with you about the Bible or Koran, which exist, but you and your opponent differ about each book's bearing.

I repaired your example accordingly. I added testimonial evidence of disputable reliability for the teapot, parallel to the disputable testimonial evidence for God or Allah.

If you'd rather not discuss that further, then I understand.

where did I post anything saying that theists are a bunch of losers?

If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.

As for it being a false analogy, no theistic claim relies solely on an individual's testimony.

Looked into Islam?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
No, it's still passive. Not accepting a claim is not an activity. Not accepting a claim passively is the same thing as not believing in it. You cannot actively disbelieve anything anymore than you can actively not partake in the hobby of model trains.

Yes, but this is the essence of the problem itself. That of the disambiguate of the word Atheist, with it’s possible stance as either (A) “active disbelief” or (B) “passive disbelief”
Of course it is Atheist “passive disbelief” which I am arguing against because IMO it shouldn’t be used, to form part of the definition of Atheism.

Originally posted by Joecroft
If they haven’t accepted it as part of reality yet, but think it’s at least possible, that would make them Agnostic.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
No, agnosticism is a "whether or not I can know" claim. I was actually an agnostic theist at one point. I sort of thought there was a god of some sort but I wasn't really sure what that god was or if I could be certain about its existence.

Well, once again, I would call the position you describe, above as Agnostic.

Originally posted by Joecroft
From the Atheists that I have spoken to, the idea of a God/creator with no religious connotations attached, is generally regarded as not an absurd idea. So why are you bringing in these absurd examples, instead of neutral ones?

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
I'm sorry, but which atheists claimed that a deity isn't an absurd claim? It's an invisible, all power, undetectable being. In fact, that last point is where the comparison hinges itself. I'm giving you an example of something that would be impossible to detect, like any deity.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
No, the idea is fine...one day we may be able to actually create a micro universe. We already have the ability to genetically create animals..and one day we may become such creatures that can start entire universes and populate them.

The above post can be found here here...

Originally posted by Joecroft
That’s why I brought in the “are there ants in your basement?” example, I was using it in a similar way to Russell’s “teapot”; it didn’t require a direct answer, I was merely using it as neutral/plausible counterpart.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
It's not a plausible counterpart because there are ways to come up with a definitive yes/no answer on whether or not there are ants in your basement. There aren't ways to come up with a definitive yes/no answer to the question of whether or not a deity exists.

I was trying to make it a plausible counterpart, similar to that of Russell’s “teapot”, but as a more neutral/sensible example, rather than an absurd one.

My example wasn’t about whether it could be investigated or not, it was about someone being asked the question, off the cuff so to speak, without them having any knowledge and then in turn, that person making a response to the question. I also mentioned that the evidence would take a long time to gather, so that the persons response was meant to be immediate.

Here it is again…

Originally posted by Joecroft
“Are there ants in your basement?”.
Lets just assume that it’s going to take along time to gather all the evidence to find this out. So essentially at this moment in time, it is unknown, due to lack of evidence to it and a lack of evidence to the contrary. Because of this lack of evidence, a person would say it is “unknown” or “I don’t know” but IMO it just seems illogical, to then go on to add, that they “don’t believe it”

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Um...how better to explain it...
Ok, knowledge is certainty

No, knowledge is not always certain.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Belief is acceptance.

No, belief is not always exclusively and only about acceptance.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Agnosticism is lack of certainty

Yes, but Agnosticism can also be a certainty, that a decision cannot be arrived at.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Atheism is lack of acceptance.

Which form of atheism are you referring to?
“active disbelief”
or
“passive disbelief”
(bear in mind I see the later, as Agnostic)

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
You can accept a claim without being certain and you can reject a claim without being certain. Certainty is not required to make a decision one way or the other.

If you accept or take on board a claim, without being certain of it. Then IMO, you have only logged it into your brain for consideration, you neither believe it nor disbelieve it, and are therefore an Agnostic.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Until you can show why they should be looked at separately, I can’t see how or why, there is any justification for the Atheist-Agnostic stance, which I consider to be an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Ok, you consider to be an oxymoron, but you've not demonstrated in any logical fashion how it is an oxymoron, either I've done a very poor job at explaining or you've clearly ignored, not understood, and/or dismissed the multiple attempts I've made to explain to you how belief and knowledge are separate. I hope this most recent one hits the mark.

Where are all these multiple attempts you speak of?

The key issue revolves around you saying the following…

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Actually, agnostic and atheist are two separate claims. One is related to knowledge. I do not know, I am agnostic. The other is related to belief. I do not believe, I am an atheist.

Agnosticism and Atheism are both related to knowledge, and from out of some degree of knowledge stems ones belief. So why are you separating the two?, i.e. as in categorizing one as being just being about knowledge and the other being just about belief.


- JC

I like it, but you forgot the part where for some reason people start to think that If they don't figure out which teapot it is and what it wants then they will be struck down with hellishly hot steamy liquid vengeance and whatnot.

Can't forget the fear, it's the most important part!

Too much to respond to now...well, it's not too much to respond to, it's just too much to give a proper, deserved response to now. I'll probably be able to reply properly sometime in the next week. Just wanted to let you all know that I'm not ignoring you, I'm just going to take my time with your replies.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Too much to respond to now...well, it's not too much to respond to, it's just too much to give a proper, deserved response to now. I'll probably be able to reply properly sometime in the next week. Just wanted to let you all know that I'm not ignoring you, I'm just going to take my time with your replies.

Thanks I appreciate it.

To make it easier though, if you wish, it may be best to discuss the disambiguate of the word Atheist on my other thread (Will the real Atheists please stand up) because I am in a way, bringing in a separate argument; and only discuss Russell’s teapot analogy on this one.

The reason I suggest this, is because I think Russell’s teapot analogy is aimed primarily at those who hold a religious belief in God, and not at those who hold a belief in a higher power. Maybe it could be applied to both ways, but from what I have read, he only seems to be applying it, to a wider religious context.

In an article titled "Is There a God?" by Bertrand Russell
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

Source

Happy Holidays


- JC