Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

reply to post by Shamatt


Alright, I'm going to ignore your other post.

How is a not statement a positive statement? Please, read up on logic. You've just lost any reason for me to acknowledge you if you're not even familiar with the most basic portions of logic.

A = positive
not A = negative

Believe A = positive
Not believe A = negative

Believe A = positive
Believe not A = positive.

Why? Because the action is still a positive. Not believing is the absence of a function, not the presence of a different function. I cannot actively disbelieve in something.

And of course "I do not know" means "I do not believe", as I demonstrated with my thought experiment about the child who grew up without a concept of deities. If you are unaware of the concept, you necessarily do not know. You also necessarily do not believe.

I found it odd that nobody bothered to directly address that thought experiment.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Shamatt

 

Alright, I'm going to ignore your other post.

How is a not statement a positive statement? Please, read up on logic. You've just lost any reason for me to acknowledge you if you're not even familiar with the most basic portions of logic.


A = positive
not A = negative

Believe A = positive
Not believe A = negative

Believe A = positive
Believe not A = positive.

Why? Because the action is still a positive. Not believing is the absence of a function, not the presence of a different function. I cannot actively disbelieve in something.

You are twisting things. To not beleive is a possition of having made a decission. This is a posative position. Not beleiving is indeed the absence of beleif, but it is the result of a considered opinion. It is a conclusion based on facts available to you. Don't blur the lines between absence of beleif and pressence of an opinion.

So I would have disagree with your "logic" and stick to my guns.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

And of course "I do not know" means "I do not believe", as I demonstrated with my thought experiment about the child who grew up without a concept of deities. If you are unaware of the concept, you necessarily do not know. You also necessarily do not believe.

I found it odd that nobody bothered to directly address that thought experiment.

edit on 6/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

I didn't read yout thought experiment. Sorry - it is lost in this too long a thread I guess?

"I do not know" means "I do not believe"

Ummmm, no, you are wrong. Sorry mate. Untill you can open your mind to the wider world of meaning behind the words, the shades of grey, you won't see it. Untill we can find some common ground on this then there is no point going further. This is the crux of our dissagrement. We are at a dead end untill you see this error.

Mate, manipulation of conversation is not the best debate. Responding to questions with questions is not debate. I have asked you how many questions? How many times have I outlined things which you have not made any comment on. You just jump in with verbal manipulation, changing the meanings of words, twisting what others say so you can stand against it, and then asking questions of your owm. It is a very clever technique, which allows you to win many an argument I am sure. I, however, am bored with it.

double post

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mbartelsm

 

I'm saying the dictionary definition (which is based on common usage) is often wrong. I've actually stated that before. Now, until you stop engaging in logical fallacies (like this argument from authority right here), why should I bother responding to you?

You are telling me that the common usage of the word has nothing to do with this discussion? OK, lets culture our minds a bit, according to you, the dictionary, the source of definitions for words, should be ignored because it is based on the common use of words instead of its original definition, which also comes from common use, thus is wrong, right? but as far as I know all words came from common use, because if those words weren't used by people they would have never become known by the population thus "dying". The same applies to the definition, the word culture was originally used for cultivate, but it has evolved because its use evolved, are you telling me the culture isn't "the attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group or organization; "the developing drug culture"; "the reason that the agency is doomed to inaction has something to do with the FBI culture"" or "knowledge and values shared by a society"?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Still explaining this?

You won't win, your reasoning doesn't work with them. The battle rests on faith. And apparently faith is a reasonable argument for holding a belief.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So...the fact that you can cite usage means that...what? I'm sorry, but you haven't made a point. You seem to be simply arguing from authority here.

And what are you doing?

People use sources to show what people outside of web forums also think.

Is your argument not, "agnosticism is the same thing as atheism... because I say so"? Or is it because you can find one trivial commonality that they share in the lack of automatic belief in something? They still don't mean the same thing.


If they meant the same thing, they would have identical dictionary definitions. In fact this is not the case and the words carry separate connotations.


If that makes too many colors in your box of crayons then you'll just have to keep crying about it to yourself here, because I don't see the dictionary definitions being fused any time soon.

And I don't tend to know what people are talking about when they say they're 'agnostic'...though I do tend to think they often don't have a grasp of what the word means.

The lack of belief is what you're trying to draw attention to. That's fine. That doesn't mean I'm going to start calling myself atheist when I am in fact agnostic towards Christianity and deity-worship in general. Otherwise it would sound as though I'm acting like I would know there is not something, when in fact no one actually "knows" what "gods" are floating around anymore than they know what their neighbors are doing behind closed doors.

reply to post by bsbray11


Being agnostic to unprovable positive claims is just as reasonable as being tooth-fairy or spaggetti-monster agnostics.

Just because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean it is rational, or reasonable.

I myself believe - Ancient Astronaut Theory: Intelligent extraterrestrial beings called ancient astronauts or ancient aliens have visited Earth, and this contact is connected with the origins or development of human cultures, technologies, and religions. A common variant of the idea include proposals that deities from most, if not all, religions are actually extraterrestrials, and their technologies were taken as evidence of their divine status. So I am an Athiest.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Being agnostic to unprovable positive claims is just as reasonable as being tooth-fairy or spaggetti-monster agnostics.

Just because you can think of ridiculous examples, doesn't mean the logic is in any way flawed.

For the record I am agnostic of those things as well, because where is "tooth-fairy" even scientifically defined? It's not. It could be a vision that comes in someone's dream, and so can be the spaghetti monster if you obsess enough about it, and then who's to say an experience in a dream is not real? Not Carl Jung, and he's considered a genius of modern psychology by many people, myself included.

If reality were everything it seemed, then we would not need the scientific method or scientists in the first place. Whether or not something sounds ridiculous to you is unfortunately not a scientific or logical means of deducing what is actually "true" or "false" or "exists" or "doesn't exist."

Just because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean it is rational, or reasonable.

And on the other hand, just because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean it's automatically false.

But I guess that one's so obvious that it "slipped under the radar" while you were preaching.


And before you respond, really think about your position. I don't need to be preached at, for rigorously following logic/science as the tool that it is. Unless you actually have a solid disproof of the "unfalsifiable," it does not good to try to beat me to death with rhetoric when you already admit you can't prove it false. Just like you wouldn't be able to prove any of this stuff true, either. So what is the point arguing with me? Are you that insecure about your own beliefs?

reply to post by bsbray11

Just because you can think of ridiculous examples, doesn't mean the logic is in any way flawed.

Yes it does, we don't know the answers to the meaning of the universe, God is just a guess without evidence, as it was when they thought geological events were dictated by a deity.

And on the other hand, just because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean it's automatically false

LOL - Yes, that's what a unfalsifiable hypothesis is. Nice attempt to condecend.

But I guess that one's so obvious that it "slipped under the radar" while you were preaching.

Incorrect, i'm quite aware what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is, but there are rational and irrational hypotheseses.

For example, the multiverse is formed based on observations of quantam mechanics within the universe, and multiple universes are predicted based on this, there is a mathematical logic to this unprovable, undemonstratablle theory.

Have you any evidence, empirical or logical to demonstrate the existence of a deity, omnipotent or not?

If you havn't, I can assume your theory has been formed on the basis of 0 evidence (logical or empirical)

So what is the point arguing with me? Are you that insecure about your own beliefs

I'm quite confident in my position, I suspend judgement where i don't have answers. If someone proposes a positive theory without evidence ("THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE") i will not believe if they don't have logical or empirical evidence.

And before you respond, really think about your position.

Really think about yours....

Giving the ammount of uncertainity that we have, and given how much more we know about how little we know (the definition fo education) the only people who have to lose in this argument is the people who say we do know. The people who state "there is a reason to believe"

I'm humble, i admit how little we know about the universe and reality, and i'm not idiotic enough to believe one scientific theory on the basis of 0 evidence.

Remember, Atheists don't make the positive claim, Atheists are just as naive as Theists, The Theist is the person making the claim, and on 0 evidence, I find this untrustworthy, you do not. That's the difference between our beliefs
i don't claim any unknown knowledge, i don't claim there is any logic to theories without any evidence. I'm being honest with my beliefs, i suspend judgement when it can't be verified, and thus suspend belief in those who claim to know.

There's my response. Before you say i'm preaching, remember my arguments arn't irrational.

Read my FULL reply before you say they are.

I don' have any lack of confidence in my position, i'm an agnostic atheist. I'm happy to renounce my Atheism if evidence is provided proving a deity. SO far, no historian, theologian, mathematician, arhaeologist has ever provided evidence.

I'm not being smug, i'm just being honest. I'm certainly not preaching, I'm just explaining what humanity currently knows, I'm not telling anyone what they should believe.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Um...care to contribute something to the conversation? No? Okay, keep going on with your favorite topic, my character.

And please, highlight a single proper objection to my point.

Please show me something that actually refuted my example of the child who is specifically raised with no idea of any deity and whether or not they are an atheist.

Theism: Belief in one or more deity
Atheism: Opposite position of theist = no belief in any deity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Why not just ignore the people who don't want to engage in debate?

They commit character suicide themselves, let their posts speak for themselves. Do you not think it's better to concentrate on those who are uncertain? The alledged "agnostics"?

I'm interested to see your answer, because i waste time on very "stubborn" minds.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Just because you can think of ridiculous examples, doesn't mean the logic is in any way flawed.

Yes it does, we don't know the answers to the meaning of the universe, God is just a guess without evidence, as it was when they thought geological events were dictated by a deity.

Agnosticism is not knowing/caring. I have been arguing from an agnostic position this whole time. I notice by the end of this response you were already trying to act like you agreed with me the whole time, while still acting as if you were arguing with me. Awesome.

For example:

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Have you any evidence, empirical or logical to demonstrate the existence of a deity, omnipotent or not?

If you havn't, I can assume your theory has been formed on the basis of 0 evidence (logical or empirical)

Have I stated that I have any evidence, or even believe, in the existence of any deity?

No. Looks like someone has issues reading and "debating" at the same time.


You agree that we "don't know the answers" to these kinds of questions, and yet you think your "argument" from ridiculousness above disproves that we still don't know the answers?

That's your story, and you're sticking to it I guess. I need no response to that. You just want to argue anyway.

reply to post by bsbray11

Agnosticism is not knowing/caring.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with caring.

I notice by the end of this response you were already trying to act like you agreed with me the whole time

I didn't and i don't.

You agree that we "don't know the answers" to these kinds of questions, and yet you think your "argument" from ridiculousness above disproves that we still don't know the answers?

We don't know. Humanity in general, scientists.

The only person who loses in this argument is the person who say they DO know. So, by that logic - Why would you suspend judgement as a response to their positive claim? You know they can't know.

Like i said, it's just as equal as being an agnostic to the tooth-fairy, because you can't prove she doesn't take your tooth (because you are asleep when in it happens)

That's your story, and you're sticking to it I guess

Whatever, i'm just sharing my point of view - Do with it what you will.

My position is agnostic atheism. I'm quite certain madnessinmysoul can make my argument at lot more concise, whether you respond to the core arguments in another thing...

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Being agnostic to unprovable positive claims is just as reasonable as being tooth-fairy or spaggetti-monster agnostics.

Just because you can think of ridiculous examples, doesn't mean the logic is in any way flawed.

I'm sorry, but how is the Flying Spaghetti Monster in any way different from any deity of a modern religion in terms of falsifiability?

For the record I am agnostic of those things as well, because where is "tooth-fairy" even scientifically defined? It's not.

It's pretty well defined as some sort of supernatural entity that deposits a variable sum of money underneath the pillows of children in exchange for lost baby teeth.

It could be a vision that comes in someone's dream, and so can be the spaghetti monster if you obsess enough about it, and then who's to say an experience in a dream is not real?

Depends on how you define real. If you don't care about what the difference between real and unreal is then...sure, go ahead and toss consistency out the window.

Not Carl Jung, and he's considered a genius of modern psychology by many people, myself included.

Hey look, it's an argument from authority. I could easily have just replied "Rene Descartes, the starting point for all modern philosophy", but I didn't bother to because that would have been a silly position. Jung had some decent ideas, but they were far from verified.

If reality were everything it seemed, then we would not need the scientific method or scientists in the first place.

Well, reality is all that it seems. The scientific method is merely testing our initial intuitions about events through an objective standard. Of course, if dreams were similar to reality, then dreams would be indistinguishable from reality. You may realize that you are in a dream, and you may awake to realize that there is a significant difference between the operation of the 'dream world' and the real one. Dreams aren't known for consistent laws of physics or any sort of temporal continuity.

Whether or not something sounds ridiculous to you is unfortunately not a scientific or logical means of deducing what is actually "true" or "false" or "exists" or "doesn't exist."

Well, that would be a straw man argument. We're not saying something doesn't exist. You're trying to pigeon hole the negative position on belief into a position on existence.

Just because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean it is rational, or reasonable.

And on the other hand, just because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean it's automatically false.

We're not saying it's automatically false, but that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Someone might have had the idea of the Sun being a massive nuclear fusion reaction down to the atomic science of it back in the time of Plato...but Plato would have been perfectly justified in rejecting the idea if the person proposing it didn't have any evidence to back it up.

But I guess that one's so obvious that it "slipped under the radar" while you were preaching.

Look, it's a personal attack!

And before you respond, really think about your position. I don't need to be preached at, for rigorously following logic/science as the tool that it is.

Yes, the only tool that's ever been useful in understanding reality. And don't emphasize it as if "tool" is a bad thing. Medicine, computers, the human brain, all of these are tools.

Unless you actually have a solid disproof of the "unfalsifiable," it does not good to try to beat me to death with rhetoric when you already admit you can't prove it false.

...it is not upon the skeptic to prove the unproven position false. How difficult is that to understand? A claim must have at the very least a working theory before it can be tested and falsified. You're basically saying that we have to disprove the undisprovable before we can assert that we don't believe in it...which is nonsense.

Unfalsifiable = undisprovable.

But, and this is a massive but, the deity claims of most tend to be provable if they are, in fact, true. The Christian or Islamic religions could easily prove their cases if they were true. The power of prayer, the claims of their holy books, the archeology, etc...these things are within the realm of the scientific method to prove.

Of course, at their core, the claims can become so nebulous that it would be impossible to disprove them. Hell, you can always toss out the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being is messing with you and actively reworking reality to hide itself from you...which is a claim that you might as well reject because such a reality is indistinguishable from a reality absent that deity.

Just like you wouldn't be able to prove any of this stuff true, either. So what is the point arguing with me? Are you that insecure about your own beliefs?

Hey look, another personal attack.

Were the Christian religion true, I could easily prove it correct. Were the Hindu religion true, the same would follow. As it would for all other religions.

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by bsbray11
Agnosticism is not knowing/caring.

And not knowing or caring necessarily means not believing.
Not believing is atheism.
Therefore, you are an atheist.

Just like I gave the example before. If you had never heard of a deity before, you would never believe in one.

I have been arguing from an agnostic position this whole time. I notice by the end of this response you were already trying to act like you agreed with me the whole time, while still acting as if you were arguing with me. Awesome.

...because you're in the same camp. You're an atheist. You just don't realize it. A_a_A and I both admit that it would be impossible to claim with entire certainty that an unfalsifiable premise if false, but we see good reason to not accept it. You're also not accepting the claim, which necessarily means you are an atheist.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You're an atheist. You just don't realize it.

This after he repeatedly says "I am agnostic" and explained why.
Again the exaggerated self-opinion of these posts is staggering.

Snip-a-dee-doo-dah, snip-a-dee-ay

madness,

bet you're thinking "god damn you, Carl Sagan"?

Despite how much I love the fellow, i hate this grey term too. It's meant to a be response to the argument from ignorance fallacy. Bertrand Russell's teapot is my favourite anology of the stupidity of such unfalsifiable theories.

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

Sagan's "argument" was that "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence"

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Being agnostic to unprovable positive claims is just as reasonable as being tooth-fairy or spaggetti-monster agnostics.

Just because you can think of ridiculous examples, doesn't mean the logic is in any way flawed.

I'm sorry, but how is the Flying Spaghetti Monster in any way different from any deity of a modern religion in terms of falsifiability?

Re-read what you're responding to. I didn't even say that it was different in terms of falsifiability.

For the record I am agnostic of those things as well, because where is "tooth-fairy" even scientifically defined? It's not.

It's pretty well defined as some sort of

"Pretty well defined as some sort of." That's all I need to see to realize you have no idea what you're talking about. Now this is "science" to you.


Second verse, same as the first. When in your first two little blurbs alone you read something that's not even there, and then tell me a technical definition is "some sort of," I'm good on responding to all the rest.