Are you still holding firm in your claim that agnostic is simply what atheists call themselves when they don't want to fight? Remember I've modified my distinctions to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of godhood until proven otherwise, while agnostics hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence of godhood.
You definition is wrong. Agnosticism is not a level of belief, it's a philosophy that one uses to determine their religious beliefs. Agnosticism is the philosophical view of the truth value of certain claims. When someone makes a claim that it is impossible to have proof for god, that's agnositicism. However, this is not a statement of their stance of belief in some sort of god.
Atheism means "no belief in a theism", where theism is defined as belief in god/gods, while agnosticism refers to the "absence of knowledge." There is no such thing as theists, agnostics, and atheists as separate groups. Rather, one uses agnosticism as a reason to take a specific stance. This is why there are Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists. There is no such thing as a pure agnostic because agnosticism does not address one's belief in god/gods.
I already answered this question in the bit talking about what I believe in regards to my name. Same concept, different example, unless I'm missing something.
Oh, you're missing something alright.
Are you still holding firm in your claim that agnostic is simply what atheists call themselves when they don't want to fight?
Yes. Either that, or they are atheist, but just don't realize it.
Remember I've modified my distinctions to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of godhood until proven otherwise, while agnostics hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence of godhood.
You can't have no opinion just because you couldn't be 100% sure philosophically. You might say you have no opinion, but really, you don't believe. If you did believe, you would be running around all crazy, remember? You aren't running around all crazy, hence you don't believe.
If you truly held the agnostic philosophical certainty to be the same as practical certainty, then you are a useless person because you don't know anything. You don't believe anything. You would just be a pile of mush. A teacher would ask you if 1 + 1 was 2, and you would say you have no opinion. There is always a philosophical uncertainty, but you don't live your life by it. You live your life by practical certainty.
I believe GeekNights is a podcast I make. Am I 100% certain? Philosophically, no, I am not 100% certain. Again, cogito ergo sum is the only 100% certainty. Everything else in the entire universe is less than 100% certainty and greater than 0%. Despite this, I believe GeekNights is a podcast I make, because my practical certainty is 100%, and my philosophical certainty is pretty close to 100%. According to you, I should just have no opinion because I can't be 100% certain. You can't possibly truly have no opinion on anything, because you seem to be expressing an opinion in this thread.
Would it be possible to start a "religious" school for Atheists? Could you get the special religious tax breaks and such?
I've thought about making an atheist "church". I could live off of donations from people. We could own a building, and we could avoid the taxes. Mostly we would hang around playing board games, having scientists give lectures, etc. I'm sure it could be done if you tried really hard to make it happen. You just need enough people living in the same place. Once you had the "church", nothing could really stop you from making a private school.
Would it be possible to start a "religious" school for Atheists? Could you get the special religious tax breaks and such?
I've thought about making an atheist "church". I could live off of donations from people. We could own a building, and we could avoid the taxes. Mostly we would hang around playing board games, having scientists give lectures, etc. I'm sure it could be done if you tried really hard to make it happen. You just need enough people living in the same place. Once you had the "church", nothing could really stop you from making a private school.
I don't know, Doesn't Scientology already have a monopoly on that market? I mean, you would want a certain core of rich idiots to keep you from having to ever work a day in your life again.
I don't know, Doesn't Scientology already have a monopoly on that market? I mean, you would want a certain core of rich idiots to keep you from having to ever work a day in your life again.
It would be an ok system if it didn't involve ruining people's lives or lying to people.
I've thought about making an atheist "church". I could live off of donations from people. We could own a building, and we could avoid the taxes. Mostly we would hang around playing board games, having scientists give lectures, etc. I'm sure it could be done if you tried really hard to make it happen. You just need enough people living in the same place. Once you had the "church", nothing could really stop you from making a private school.
Suppose a venture capitalist comes to you and offers to give you enough cash to get it started. Would you take him up on the offer?
You definition is wrong. Agnosticism is not a level of belief, it's a philosophy that one uses to determine their religious beliefs. Agnosticism is the philosophical view of the truth value of certain claims. When someone makes a claim that it is impossible to have proof for god, that's agnositicism. However, this is not a statement of their stance of belief in some sort of god.
Atheism means "no belief in a theism", where theism is defined as belief in god/gods, while agnosticism refers to the "absence of knowledge." There is no such thing as theists, agnostics, and atheists as separate groups. Rather, one uses agnosticism as a reason to take a specific stance. This is why there are Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists. There is no such thing as a pure agnostic because agnosticism does not address one's belief in god/gods.
This is exactly the point. Think about it. Pretend we are 100% sure there is a god. He showed up. He's omnipotent. He can make plagues. He can make floods. He can make miracles. He's just like in the bibles. Pretend that was all real. He can see everything you do, and he's always watching.
First of all, who's to say that the Christian view (or the view of any other faith, for that matter) is correct about the existence of some kind of being that has a level of influence on our lives? I don't believe every word the Bible says, but I still believe in the existence of some kind of "god" figure. You keep on saying that there is a 99.9999% chance something like that doesn't exist; maybe that applies to certain depictions of gods, but you can't even remotely prove or disprove a "god" that just watches you and never makes any significant impact on you.
Who's to say that we aren't just the emergent behavior of a complex universe created by another people who watch us for entertainment, like a movie. Who's to say that we aren't all in a Truman Show model? After all, in a such a model, those watching could be "omniscient" and "omnipresent". What if "god" isn't a figural being but instead a force?
I'm just saying that you can't prove or disprove the existence of all gods in one fell swoop; you can only do your human best to try to disprove the human conception of "god" in all of its forms.
I agree with Andrew's post. Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate questions upon which you need to have two separate views. 1) You are either a Theist or an Atheist, it's as simple as that 2) You are either Agnostic or not.
You keep on saying that there is a 99.9999% chance something like that doesn't exist; maybe that applies to certain depictions of gods, but you can't even remotely prove or disprove a "god" that just watches you and never makes any significant impact on you.
Sure, but why should we even care about a "god" that has no impact on us?
I already answered this question in the bit talking about what I believe in regards to my name. Same concept, different example, unless I'm missing something.
Oh, you're missing something alright.
My bananas! What have you done with them?!?!?!
Are you still holding firm in your claim that agnostic is simply what atheists call themselves when they don't want to fight?
Yes. Either that, or they are atheist, but just don't realize it.
Your opinion is noted.
Remember I've modified my distinctions to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of godhood until proven otherwise, while agnostics hold no opinion on the existence or non-existence of godhood.
You can't have no opinion just because you couldn't be 100% sure philosophically. You might say you have no opinion, but really, you don't believe. If you did believe, you would be running around all crazy, remember? You aren't running around all crazy, hence you don't believe.
Why would it be necessary to be running around all crazy?
If you truly held the agnostic philosophical certainty to be the same as practical certainty, then you are a useless person because you don't know anything. You don't believe anything. You would just be a pile of mush. A teacher would ask you if 1 + 1 was 2, and you would say you have no opinion. There is always a philosophical uncertainty, but you don't live your life by it. You live your life by practical certainty.
If a teacher asked me if 1+1 was 2, my first impulse would be to say yes, however, I would think back to whether or not I knew of any instances when 1+1 was claimed to not equal 2. If such instances existed, I would say that I don't know if 1+1 is 2, but I will believe it to be 2 until proven otherwise because such a belief is useful to me. If there was no usefulness in holding such a belief, I would hold no opinion on the subject. If the existence or non-existence of godhood were useful to me, I would be a deist or atheist, as they are basically the two sides of the same coin. If I felt that it was very useful, I would be a theist or strong atheist. If I felt it was essential, I would be a member of a religion, or an evangelical atheist.
I believe GeekNights is a podcast I make. Am I 100% certain? Philosophically, no, I am not 100% certain. Again, cogito ergo sum is the only 100% certainty. Everything else in the entire universe is less than 100% certainty and greater than 0%. Despite this, I believe GeekNights is a podcast I make, because my practical certainty is 100%, and my philosophical certainty is pretty close to 100%. According to you, I should just have no opinion because I can't be 100% certain. You can't possibly truly have no opinion on anything, because you seem to be expressing an opinion in this thread.
Can you think of any instances where a podcaster has thought they produced a podcast when in reality it was someone else who produced a podcast masquerading as their own? If not, then the working probability of such an occurrence is at 0. According to me, an agnostic is one who holds no opinion on the existence or non-existence of godhood because the question has not been solved, and holding a pre-emptive belief serves no utility for them. This is different from an atheist, who believes in the non-existence of godhood, often because such a belief is of some practical purpose to them, as you have mentioned.
This is different from an atheist, who believes in the non-existence of godhood, often because such a belief is of some practical purpose to them, as you have mentioned.
In the same way that someone who is amoral is merely lacking in morals, someone who is atheist is simply lacking in theism. If you hold no belief at all on the question of God, you are atheist by definition.
In your case, you are using Agnosticism as a way to explain your lack of a belief, which makes you an Agnostic Atheist.
My problem with religion is two-fold: 1) People are told what to believe rather than to think for themselves. This leads to a lack of critical thinking and possible abuse by the powerful. 2) It has the ability to adversely affect human rights, such as imposing a theocracy (for example, Iran), undermining equality (gay marriage, women's rights), and causing mass murder (such as the Thirty Years' War), just to name a few.
Look into the definitions ofAtheismandAgnosticismon Wikipedia
I agree with Andrew's post. Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate questions upon which you need to have two separate views. 1) You are either a Theist or an Atheist, it's as simple as that 2) You are either Agnostic or not.
1st citation on Atheism from Wikipedia:
1. Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward Craig. “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.â€Â
The Wikipedia article cites a partial quote from Neilsen, Kai. taken from the "Atheism" article in the Encyclopedia Britannica in order to support atheism as lack of theism. I believe the quote is misleading out of context. The full article is available here.
I feel like I missed the opportunity to bring this up, as you've since pumped out two more shows and this thread is already 230 posts strong. But, I suppose what you guys talked about struck something of a cord with me and helped me better define myself and what I believed in.
Rym, as a "spiritualist" (what I would perhaps now define myself as after listening to this episode), have you heard of "Focus Levels"?
It seems much like science than scripture, does it not? Furthermore, (and this is up to each individual) this is something we can verify. Something I have done myself; Though admittedly up to a point, I haven't experienced even 5% of the things people have claimed; though I've experienced enough to believe it. (I am still very much a newbie when it comes to this sort of stuff)
I just thought it might interest you guys; Rym in particular judging by what I've heard.
Again, I'm kind of new at this but what I've found so far has been intruiging.
Fair enough, it's just something I've been looking into and I was intruiged with what I saw. Though I suppose some of this stuff in the article does seem a bit "hippy-ish", but some of the underlying theories (which are not really displayed there) are intruiging. (To me at least, anyway)
Fair enough, it's just something I've been looking into and I was intruiged with what I saw.
You're better off reading The Fourth Way. It's a fascinating read, and a good measure of your level of credulity is noting at what page number you decide that he's full of crap. ^_~
Honestly, however, the first few chapters are fairly insightful and interesting. Then the moon eats your soul... because it's hungry.
Yes, I actually did read that before and came to a similar conclusion. Regarding the whole "Focus level" thing, it's not scripture to me or anything, but I was essentially just looking for a "blueprint" so to speak. I'm all for verifying the non-physical and as such I came across this sort of stuff. Some of the stuff I do come across does reek of utter crap.
Again, I'm just a long time listener of the show who felt compelled to ask if you've heard of any of this sort of stuff. Frankly, you'll see that I'm the only "Captainbubby" on the internet, thus my identity is pretty easy to determine so I'm not just some whacko who wants to spam your forum with whacky crap.
I actually live in Hong Kong and this whole topic is not something I have a chance to explore with other people, thus my reaction to this episode.
There's a lot of new age, hippy, zen, focus level, fourth way, type books out there. A lot of the ideas out there are very interesting to think about. Many of them can open the door for insight into the ways people think and live. As long as you realize that none of these things are actual true descriptions of how the universe works, and as long as you have good skills at sorting out the wheat from the chaff, they're mostly not that harmful. Then again, a lot of the ideas Scientology pushes (before they tell you about Xenu) is along the same lines. You just have to be sure to keep reality and fantasy clearly separated, and everything else will be fine.
Alan Watts tried drugs at some point, trying to figure out the non-physical parts of the universe... I'm guessing this was a relic from his Zen Buddhist days of assuming there was anything beyond the physical universe. Dimethyltryptamine is, I quote, "like loading the Universe into a gun and firing it into your brain". Of course, I don't recommend taking drugs at all... because we're not idiots, I hope.
Comments
Atheism means "no belief in a theism", where theism is defined as belief in god/gods, while agnosticism refers to the "absence of knowledge." There is no such thing as theists, agnostics, and atheists as separate groups. Rather, one uses agnosticism as a reason to take a specific stance. This is why there are Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists. There is no such thing as a pure agnostic because agnosticism does not address one's belief in god/gods.
If you truly held the agnostic philosophical certainty to be the same as practical certainty, then you are a useless person because you don't know anything. You don't believe anything. You would just be a pile of mush. A teacher would ask you if 1 + 1 was 2, and you would say you have no opinion. There is always a philosophical uncertainty, but you don't live your life by it. You live your life by practical certainty.
I believe GeekNights is a podcast I make. Am I 100% certain? Philosophically, no, I am not 100% certain. Again, cogito ergo sum is the only 100% certainty. Everything else in the entire universe is less than 100% certainty and greater than 0%. Despite this, I believe GeekNights is a podcast I make, because my practical certainty is 100%, and my philosophical certainty is pretty close to 100%. According to you, I should just have no opinion because I can't be 100% certain. You can't possibly truly have no opinion on anything, because you seem to be expressing an opinion in this thread.I don't care.
Relevant.
Who's to say that we aren't just the emergent behavior of a complex universe created by another people who watch us for entertainment, like a movie. Who's to say that we aren't all in a Truman Show model? After all, in a such a model, those watching could be "omniscient" and "omnipresent". What if "god" isn't a figural being but instead a force?
I'm just saying that you can't prove or disprove the existence of all gods in one fell swoop; you can only do your human best to try to disprove the human conception of "god" in all of its forms.
I agree with Andrew's post.
Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate questions upon which you need to have two separate views.
1) You are either a Theist or an Atheist, it's as simple as that
2) You are either Agnostic or not. Sure, but why should we even care about a "god" that has no impact on us?
If you hold no belief at all on the question of God, you are atheist by definition.
In your case, you are using Agnosticism as a way to explain your lack of a belief, which makes you an Agnostic Atheist.
1) People are told what to believe rather than to think for themselves. This leads to a lack of critical thinking and possible abuse by the powerful.
2) It has the ability to adversely affect human rights, such as imposing a theocracy (for example, Iran), undermining equality (gay marriage, women's rights), and causing mass murder (such as the Thirty Years' War), just to name a few.
"I believe that God/gods/godhood does not exist."
Suspension of belief:
"I do not believe that God/gods/godhood exists."
A = -B is "I believe that God/gods/godhood does not exist"
-A = B is "I do not believe that God/gods/godhood exists. "
They are both the same, just worded differently.
I feel like I missed the opportunity to bring this up, as you've since pumped out two more shows and this thread is already 230 posts strong. But, I suppose what you guys talked about struck something of a cord with me and helped me better define myself and what I believed in.
Rym, as a "spiritualist" (what I would perhaps now define myself as after listening to this episode), have you heard of "Focus Levels"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_levels
It seems much like science than scripture, does it not? Furthermore, (and this is up to each individual) this is something we can verify. Something I have done myself; Though admittedly up to a point, I haven't experienced even 5% of the things people have claimed; though I've experienced enough to believe it. (I am still very much a newbie when it comes to this sort of stuff)
I just thought it might interest you guys; Rym in particular judging by what I've heard.
Again, I'm kind of new at this but what I've found so far has been intruiging.
I'm not impressed.
Honestly, however, the first few chapters are fairly insightful and interesting. Then the moon eats your soul... because it's hungry.
Again, I'm just a long time listener of the show who felt compelled to ask if you've heard of any of this sort of stuff. Frankly, you'll see that I'm the only "Captainbubby" on the internet, thus my identity is pretty easy to determine so I'm not just some whacko who wants to spam your forum with whacky crap.
I actually live in Hong Kong and this whole topic is not something I have a chance to explore with other people, thus my reaction to this episode.
Moar.