/sci/ - Science & Math

Well personally speaking I am an Agnostic Theist.

let us proclaim the mystery of faith

>>1838861

Agnosticism is an unnecessary label. It's like saying: Oh I believe there is a town called Paris but there is the minute chance that it could be all an illusion or whatever. You don't state the obvious fact that nobody can be absolutely certain about anything (except logical absolutes). So drop the label already.

silly rabbi, agnostics aren't avoiding anything, they simply don't believe that organized religion is on the right track.

the evidence of god is universal - god IS the universe as we know it.

as to whether or not god said "catholics are greater than muslims" seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

and if there are TWO gods, one for catholics and one for muslims, then doesn't that actually negate the existance of god?

the use of those two religions in no way implies that either is correct... or incorrect, they were simply the first two to pop into my head.

A lot of Agnostics will simply claim they are "Without God." They don't believe in the existence of Gods without undeniable proof, but won't discount it just because such proof is currently lacking. Agnostics are generally capable of admitting that there is shit in the universe we aren't capable of knowing at this point and it's stupid to say factually one way or the other how things are.

Theists and Atheists are the ones who need to take a look at their shit. Neither can prove anything one way or another, so both need to stfu about it.

Except that Gnostic typically refers to weird occult psychobabble.
But from a purely etymological standpoint, you are right.

>>1838906

agnostic means that a person believes in god but does not believe in organized religion.

why is that so hard to get across?

do you have a dictionary?

>>1838912
What?
Do YOU have a dictionary?
From Merriam-Webster
ag·nos·tic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

i don't believe in god
but i don't believe in no god

i just disbelief god (=/= believe in no god)

note the difference.

>>1838912
No, I don't think there's even a word for that, but you might be thinking of "deist".

>"Agnostics" who think that they can avoid the issue.
Just as anime or some other faggotry is not an important issue in the lives of many people, neither is this 'debate'. I'm agnostic. I do not know, nor do I care.

>>1838946
So you're an atheist

>>1838847

Well what do you mean by 'god'?

>>1838946
Ummm, what?

These conversations always lose sight of the fact that "god" barely even has a coherent definition. Strong atheism for religious gods, because give me a fucking break--you think something created the universe and hates gay people and answers prayers and shit? Give me a break. Weak atheism for deism's god and pantheism's god because they haven't even really defined what they believe in for it to be refuted.

>>1838847
I <3 semantic arguments.

>>1838944

a religion is an opinion as it is not founded in fact, but in faith.

an athiest is a person who claims not to believe in a supreme being.

an agnostic may or may not believe in a supreme being, but if so, does not believe in the opinions shared by an organized faith concerning that supreme being.

really, do i have to constantly take you sheep with the large monkey brains down the path to enlightenment, or could you just, this once, figure it out for yourselves and stop believing everything you think.

blah blah blah, this thread is dildos.

>>1838944

so what, exactly, would an agnostic be who didn't believe in god?

by YOUR own definition, he or she would be an athiest.

which would, in effect, move him or her OUT of the agnostic catagory and into the ATHIEST catagory.

don't you think?

(of course you don't - you will always believe everything you think)

In threads like this I think it is important to ask "What do I hope to accomplish"

>>1838847
My god. I had no idea the OP was so upset about this that he'd need to start another thread.

Since I so offended - allow me to answer him directly.

As an agnostic I withhold claiming knowledge of metaphysical things. This is from the quote on wikipedia "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." - From Robert Carrol, the Skeptic's Dictionary.

God, "gods" and all the various sundry definitely fall into the category of metaphysics - so I think they fit into my philosophical stance.

Now saying I don't know is different than saying no. If someone asked me if I would like the "special prize in their van" and I didn't know if they were child molesters or the American Sweepstakes with a check - saying "no" versus "I don't know" are clearly two different things.

>>1839006
You are right sir - good bye inarticulate thread.

>>1839006

well pilgrim, i hope to accomplish the one true religion starring the one true god who will answer all our prayers and fill my stocking with cool stuff on the day set aside for the birth of his (or her, so as not to be sexist) birthday...

that's what!

How can you say you KNOW something when there's no evidence either way? What is more truthful? Saying "I KNOW there is/is not a god" Or just saying I don't know. I don't know, apparently you think you do. But in reality you can't and never will. Why lie. Socrates would be ashamed. There is a difference between not believing and not knowing, for example the President of the US is said to had been born in Hawaii. Yet a lot of people say he isn't, but just because I say i don't know or dont care doesnt make me a Birther does it? I don't believe and I don't disbelieve I'm not avoiding anything. Also, why the fuck do I have to choose?

>>1839134
Atheism don't "believe" (ie KNOW, WITHOUT PROOF) that any gods don't exist.

They just cannot understand WHY people CAN believe in these things, ie KNOW WITHOUT proof.

No one can disprove the existence of fairies, sure, we can search the entire earth, no, the UNIVERSE, and don't find a SINGLE ONE (the magical one, we still may be able to find an alien antropomorphic butterfly).

But there'll still be at last one people to say "yeah ok, but they can make themselves invisible" to which we can answer "we used for the search machines who can detect all there is to detect (light frequency whatever).

BUT then they would say "hé, but the fairies can dephase (ie passing to another dimension), so you CAN'T say for SURE that they don't exist !".

That's why atheist are desperate to "convert" you, because they, indeed, KNOW that there will forever be morons to believe in any crap.

They just want to confine them in places they must be in, asylum for example.
Or gaz chambers (in my case).

Agnostics may understand the absurbity of their stance, and hence be spared ... For now.

>>1839134
>How can you say you KNOW something when there's no evidence either way?

Two easy ways right off the top of my head:
1) logically impossible: "I have a square-circle."

Reply: No you don't--doesn't exist.

2) fantastical and ridiculous beyond consideration. "Santa Claus might really exist, because I am thinking about him, and therefore he exists in that one way already."

Reply: Shut up, you idiot. You're wasting my time.

>>1838983
You are changing your definition in every post.
Your point is invalid.

sage for niggers

>A: Not believing in god.
>B: Believing in god.
>
>This is a true dichotomy.
C: Dismissing the question as undecidable but irrelevant.

OP the problem really lies with the understanding of what Atheism means. If people think that it means 'belief that there is no god' then of course you're gonna run into bullshit, but we know that this is a false dichotomy.

You either believe in something or you DO NOT believe. This is a true dichotomy and it eliminates the standard usage of agnostic as a belief position. If you're gonna bring up agnosticism, then learn what it really means, it has to do with epistemology, not belief, and in fact you can combine the two. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, for example.

pic related, there are four combinations.

sage

The real question is, why are you afraid of agnosticism. If you were content to simply not believe, you wouldn't feel the need to call yourself an atheist.

>>1839190
Either P
Or ~P
>HURRR WUT ABOUT Q???

>>1839162
Those really are not good examples. There is a amount of evidence in the first. Evidence about the square circle is in the definitions of the shapes and the fact that they are merely labels and the "existence" is based on the label. "There are no Pluto armadillos" would be a similar stance, they make no sense. And in there given definition lies the evidence. The other one in truth is semantics, plus that is another "you cant truly know" but on a personal scale I guess its a small enough problem to dismiss.

>>1839162
OP - as a fellow commentator pointed out you example of logic is really an example of a tautology - a thing true (or false) in and of itself by self reflexive definition.

Outside of tautologies logic is less sound - example: let's use logic to show a falsehood.

If the sun rose this morning then it is because the sun orbits the earth
The sun rose this morning
Therefore the sun orbits the earth

Logic is a formal structure - garbage in garbage out.

>>1839223

I am starting to believe that your entire argument rests on the fact that you refuse to understand that people do not agree with your argument that it reduces to a true or false answer.

Can you tell us why you think there is not a third option? Why is that not allowed?

I encourage you to demonstrate that your statement is a true dichotomy. I am unconvinced.

After all, the set of all sets that do not contain themselves neither contains itself nor does not contain itself.

>trolled fags

>>1839234

sorry, but your reprisal made little to no sense... or as you might have stated that...

sorre, butt you're reprisial made litle to know cents.

correct use of your language really makes it easier for you to get your points across... that is, if you have one.

>>1839280
Not 'true or false', but 'true or Not true.' The law of excluded middle.

Either P or ~P is equivalent to "Either you believe in god or you don't." So, it is a true dichotomy in that there is a positive assertion, and its alternative is "everything else within the set." For example, something is either black, or it is not. You either believe that Yahweh exists, or you don't.

>>1839301
OP - you may be trolling me but please acknowledge me at least.

Again, can you tell us why you think there is not a third option? Why is that not allowed?

Why must we choose one and not the other - can we not - with justification - say that we do not know about things we do not know.

Your example of logic was faulty as logic can show false things (it can also produce inconsistencies, that is paradoxes, most famously Russel's Barber who recently visited us here).

Second of all, the dismissal of something as fantastic or ridiculous is clearly inadequate for the task at hand. We do science because the truth of the world doesn't fit what we understand - and often what we find is fantastic - a few physicists I know still marvel at the weirdness of reality which the last century has proven exists.

So answer me then why can we not just say "we do not know" when that is the truth of the matter and we're all the more humble for it being honest about it?

>>1839414
Not OP but saying you don't know is not exclusive from atheism. Also the reason why you cannot have a trichotomy of Theism Agnosticism and Atheism is because you misunderstand the use of 'not theism.'

Like I said, you either believe that a claim is true, or you don't. We are talking about assertions, and for every claim 'P' it is either the case that it is true, or it is not true. This model uses 'not true' as a passive negation, but it still allows for false as WELL as paradoxes and gibberish, by including them in 'not true.'

What's so hard to get about the two claims "I believe in god" and "I do not believe in god?"

Agnosticism isn't even an option because it has to do with knowledge, not belief. Agnosticism and Gnosticism are a separate true dichotomy from Theism and Atheism. Remember that.

Atheism is invalid because there is no term for not believing in fairies, or not believing in leprechauns.

>>1839534

vile disbeliever.

see, there IS a term...

>>1839506
You are quite right. My alternative question would be:

Do you believe one can know a metaphysical claim to be either true or false?

And my answer would be no. No, I do not think that one can know a metaphysical claim (such as the existence of a god) to be either true or false.

Ergo, when someone asks me if I believe in god - I am justified and honest by answering them with "I don't know" as in "I don't know whether or not god, a god, or any gods, exist".

As for gnosticism - I'm unclear on that - could you tell me more about it? I'm not sure I understand it at all.

Firstly, is it really the opposite of the agnostic argument I used above? Or is there another better way to describe it?

>>1839547

It simply comes down to this: Do you equate the existence of gods to the existence of fairies or leprechauns?

Agnosticism versus Atheism is hair splitting.

agnosticism is where people love to hide their gods. I can say 'i do not know whether bigfoot exists or not' and then i can say 'i do not know whether gods exist or not' and these things are the same.

Agnostism would be not choosing an answer.
This question is on par with
Why does gravity exist?
A. Dogs
B. Cats
Well shit, neither of those are good answers. I don't feel comfortable in my ability to answer this question so instead of saying that dogs or cats created gravity I'm going to not answer.

>>1839506
That sets up a false dichotomy of "belief". Belief is not well-defined. There is everything ranging from absolute knowledge to absolute ignorance, to absolute counter-knowledge. Belief designates an undefined amount of certainty. Belief generally denotes taking a thing to be assumed as knowledge, and thus taking a position on its existence. Therefore theism is the position of God's existence, and atheism is the position of God's non-existence. Neither has a defined amount of certainty, but both have taken a position on the matter. That's where agnosticism comes in, as it is very reasonable not to take either position. Agnostics don't believe either, but it's not about belief so much as whether you stake out a position on the matter.

>>1839547
Gnosticism: position that the truth value of a specific claim is knowable.
ex - I know that god exists

Agnosticism is the negation of this. It's the position that the truth value of a specific claim is unknown/unknowable.
ex - "I don't know if god exists" OR "I don't think anyone can know."

If someone asks you if you believe in god, how are you justified in answering with either of these? Belief questions can only be answered with Yes or No. You either believe, or you do not.

Okay so you've established yourself as an agnostic, that's fine. But you cannot use a knowledge claim in response to a belief question. To make it simple for you, do you actively believe that a god exists? If you do NOT answer yes, then you are a non-theist. AKA an atheist.

More specifically, you are an agnostic atheist, just like everyone else who claims "agnostic."

You contradicted yourself OP:
When positing agnosticism as : Unknowing.
That in and of itself is a fair claim.
"I do not know if there is a god or not. Therefore, I do not concern myself with a moot argument, acknowledging that religion does have its place and its place is outside of science where it shall remain. Ergo, do not come to me with intelligent design, atheism or creationism as I care for actual testable observations"

/thread

The term "god" has certain properties. If an agnostic claims that "nothing can be known about such an entity", than you cannot call it "god", you can only say "nothing can be known".

>>1839598
That is an argument of semantics. I fully understand where all these angry atheists are coming from when they say you can't simultaneously believe and not believe in something. However, I don't make a habit of forming strong conviction with complete lack of evidence. Realistically agnosticism is would be the belief that is is unknowable or simply abstaining from the vote.

>>1839559
>>1839575
No - actually it is within a fair degree of certainty that fairies and leperchauns don't exist - by mapping and populating the planet we've pretty much proved that conclusively.

The same goes for Bigfoot - though arguments remain in those last holdouts of the hinterlands, surely they will be thoroughly explored in the next 20 - 50 years.

Gods are more difficult to disprove as it is part of the very definition of them that they are pretty slippery beings like that. Indeed some definitions of god in Judaism focus on this aspect and define god as "Being that which is unknowable" a very interesting and honest definition in my opinion - though I don't share their faith.

As for the example with cats and dogs and gravity - you sir have struck to the heart of the matter. Yes and No answers strike me as meaningless and senseless to the question at hand

>>1839598
Or you could just avoid it all together by focusing on something worth debating.
Like.. Oh I dunno negatively charged matter or even The possible outcome of the drake equation.

You know, something worthwhile.

>>1839622
>by mapping and populating the planet we've pretty much proved that conclusively.
They are invisible and not detectable by human instruments.

>>1839596
Okay, hold on. Before you define atheism as a positive belief, ask yourself why. It is not a false dichotomy because it doesn't assume a counter-claim. Once you falsely assign atheism as a "belief" then you break this. All that there is are claims, and their negations.

And you might want to keep certainty claims outside of belief, as that's where agnosticism and gnosticism come into play. You can be either Theist or Atheist, and you can combine that position with either Gnostic or Agnostic. If you hold agnosticism as a third choice of belief, then you aren't understanding this.

>>1839622
The term "being that is unknowable" is logically inconsistent. You say it is unknowable, but at the same time you say it has properties: it exists, it is a being.

I'm strongly apposed to religion, I am also agnostic. As a general trend I trust atheists more than religious people because I'm an atheist to all our current religions, however I cannot disprove a god or godlike being. The modern religions got it wrong. I can say that with confidence and so can most atheists because it's all logically deduced. However, logic does not disprove A god, it simply tells religious people that their perceptions of a godlike being are fictitious (AKA god probably doesn't care if you masturbate or murder or steal ect. ect. ect.).

>>1839584
HAHA WHAT AN IDIOT, HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT DOGS MAKE GRAVITY HAHA.

>>1839652
>apposed

>>1839664
You good sir have one an internets

>>1839621
>strong convictions

it isn't a strong conviction. remember that ~P in this case does not automatically mean FALSE. 'Not true' is as passive as you can get.

>>1839668
opposed* sorry.

>>1839649
Please understand - I was relating how a certain sect of Jews identified their god.

Not that I identified with it.

the reason current atheists identify themselves as atheists is because it is linguistically correct. Agnostic-Atheism is linguistically correct. If you wanted to say that 'agnosticism' is some kind of third position, you would just lump every agnostic-atheist into that category, and nothing would have changed.

You would just be renaming the "belief system".(atheism is not a belief system)

>>1839584
Your answers choices are in the wrong context. It should be:

What causes gravity?

A: Dogs
B: Not Dogs

Not choosing an answer would automatically make it so you are not choosing dogs. Not choosing dogs = the B choice of not dogs.

It has just occurred that I'm still waiting for OP (or whoever, really) to tell me why I can't say "I don't know" to questions concerning metaphysical claims.

Please address this - the gravity and cat and dog argument was a really good argument. I think the author of that (not me, unfortunately) deserves a proper response.

>>1839704
disregard my earlier demand - I missed your reply - now let me think on this a sec.

>>1839704
No, I have significant reason to believe dogs are NOT creating gravity, I don't have reason to believe that there is or is not a god. It is a subject that I have no knowledge on so I'm not just going to choose one. While you might semantically be correct, it doesn't change the point of my argument which was "why choose an answer if neither of them has any evidence to support their claims. I'm not afraid of taking a side, I just don't see a logical point to jumping on the political bandwagon if I feel both parties are full of shit.

Really, as >>1839700 said, we're arguing for the same thing. We hold the same positions. Your 'agnosticism' is my 'agnostic atheism.' It's just that through semantics your title falls apart. So just know that while you are wrong, we're all the same. :)

>>1839700
I think atheist is a belief system. It is the belief that there is no god (a-theist). It is equally unsupported. Theism is the belief in a god so Atheism is the belief in no god.

>>1839704
Right so I see what you did here. You replaced two categorical differences with a binary dichotomy. By changing between answers like that you've changed the nature of the question itself.

You missed the part where we were trying to show how your proposed dichotomy didn't align with the question.

>>1839757
>I think atheist is a belief system.
Well that's fine, just like you can believe that the scientific method or logic is a belief system. You're wrong, but it's cute that you have an opinion.

You know, people who get all anal about the definitions of words really need to do a reality check. Their lives are probably far worse than those they're directing all their hatred and angst towards.

And for the record, I'm apathetic towards all of this religion bullshit. Where do I stand? I don't even give a fuck. Apathism. Mother fuckers.

>>1839772
Well, in the nature of your argument, I'm going to call you adorable in the way you're all condescending despite failing to refute my actual statement. Atheism is a subjective opinion about the known *but not unknown universe. The scientific method is a naturally occurring process among intelligent life (as is logic). So you're wrong (but it was soOoOo cute).

>>1839731

I was showing that logically, the position to take when you don't have evidence would be the defualt one, and that is not believing. Even if you choose "no answer." that would mean you are not choosing belief in god. Not choosing a belief in god = not beliving.

Also, it's really just called critical thinking. You should not believe in any positive belief without evidence. Meaning you should not believe in god without evidence. Your amount of strength for such a disbelief will vary (strong/weak atheism), however, in the end you should not believe in God(s) if you consider yourself a critical thinker. Problem is, plenty of intelligent people believe due to being "weak" emotionally. = (

>>1839734
So I'm the agnostic you just referred to and I have found you to be a delight in talking with. You certainly have some well honed wits about you.

But I don't think I can buy into that whole two-axis graph thing quite yet - if I understand right you'd be saying that you don't KNOW if gods exist but that you don't BELIEVE that they do.

Is that right or have I misunderstood the case

> implying that "agnostic" and "atheist" mean the same thing

oldest troll on /sci/

>>1839807
5/10, guaranteed replies (mine doesnt count)

>>1839797
see
>>1839700

>>1839798
I understand what you're saying, but another stance to take is while atheists have essentially disproved all the "known" gods, it does not refute the basic idea of a god. The very existence of the universe could be construed as evidence for a god; the laws of nature; the way physics work. I'm not saying there is a god, just saying that I don't feel comfortable saying there is or isn't one. God is also a very ill-defined term. For example, if we were to come into contact with an exceptionally intelligent (even "divine" in comparison to humans) who traverses the universe seeding planets for life they are for all intensive purposes, a god.

>>1839798
Right - because we are emotionally weak. Us who admit the limits of our current state of knowledge.

Sure does take a lot of weakness to be honest about things.

Also you are really starting to get on a high horse talking down to people like we're fools for not agreeing with you. If that is you're opinion of me then you won't even enter this dialog we're having with an open mind - an then what is the point?

So please, a little respect.

>>1839802
That's correct and a classic argument of semantics. In the way the English works you can't simultaneously not believe in god and not be considered an atheist. It doesn't address the realistic philosophical intentions or implications behind the term agnostic.

>>1838944

>a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

how is this not different from Theist/Athiest. There is clearly a distinction.

You can't literally be an agnostic theist because you've already decided that there is no evidence to prove one way or another. Being a theist/deist is already bias towards one side. Agnosticism is purely neutral.

If you were a true agnostic, you wouldn't choose a side nor deny the legitimacy of either schools of thought. You would simply live, accepting both while denying both while accepting none while denying none.

>>1839832
Something like:
>the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
is not anywhere near il-defined.

the term "god" is also metaphysical in nature, so if it were to be detectable empirically, it would just be a physical being, and thus subject to the laws of reality

>>1839802
yes my position is seen here >>1839206. Really the thing that's hardest for people to understand from what I've experienced is the concept of "not P."
In atheism's case it CAN mean "belief in no gods," but the default that INCLUDES that position is "lack of belief in gods," aka 'not P'.

The belief that there is no god is a lack of belief, but a lack of belief is not a belief in a lack. All A's are B's, but not all B's are A's. Hope that clears some things up.

>>1839843
>You would simply live, accepting both while denying both while accepting none while denying none.
you would actually be denying both, as they would be knowledge claims.

agnostic-atheists are agnostic in theory, but atheist in practice. the same as every other human being is with fairies or leprechauns.

they use the term 'agnostic-atheist' because the term 'agnostic' is linguistically incorrect.

how do people not get this?

>>1839832

Absolutely - I don't think the god of the book or any gods people have thought of so far are likely to be true. But the general concept itself, that is the metaphysical claim, is beyond knowledge claims.

Oh boy, one of those self-righteous atheist types.

For fuck's sake, what gets your panties all bunched up about people who simply don't give two shits one way or another? An Atheist implies active disbelief effort. That would require me to care in the first place.

Perhaps I'm some sort of weird other term like apatheist.

>>1839846
That's exactly my point, and I'll thank you for bringing up that "definition" of a completely non-defined concept. As an agnostic I believe that such things are unknowable. How can I stand by a definition that claims to know what (a) god is like?? If we can laugh at Christians for claiming to understand such things but then throw around definitions as though that is the only thing that would qualify as a god. An example would be making a definition for a dragon. I've never seen a dragon and while I can't disprove it, I feel no one has the authority to define dragons if they have been realistically entirely unobserved.

>>1839863

if you had any semblance of a linguistic background you would know that English is a living, breathing language. Party used to solely be a noun. Now it is also a verb.

The janitor used to command every key in the building. He was a doorman. Now, he also mops the floor.

Claiming you are an agnostic is essentially declaring your abstention to vote for either side. In essence, your definitions are not only dated, but do not tell the complete story.

>>1839883
>No one can define the term "dog", because an ideal and universal standard of dog does not exist.

>>1839883

Not to ruffle your feathers but if you were a true agnostic, you wouldn't even be talking about definitions in the first place. Any language is no where nearly advanced enough to truly describe the profundity of our world.

For instance: how exactly would you describe the color red to someone? For us, it's a series of wavelengths within the visible light spectrum that our brains would interpret as having such an appearance.

But again, how would you even begin to describe it?

>>1839902
We can observe dogs. That doesn't refute the point of my argument. I'm not saying we can't define god because we don't have a universal standard, I'm saying we can't define god because we have no standard whatsoever. The only possible thing that might count as an observation of god would be observation OF universal standards (I.E. naturally occurring processes).

>>1839906
>Not to ruffle your feathers but if you were a true agnostic, you wouldn't even be talking about definitions in the first place
this is true, like I said in:
>>1839649
Agnostics say "the nature of gods is unknowable". The problem is that "gods" have specific characteristics, by definition or in practice.

It's like saying: Nothing can be known about big, green, hairy things, but you have to claim that this thing is big, green and hairy.

It is logically inconsistent for an agnostic to say "the nature of gods is unknowable", they must put forth a tautology: "the unknown is unknown".

our brains can't handle the truth of the information emitted by the color red, so our brains simplify it in such a way as to help us cope with the color.

A nail clipper breaks down into what? Metal and rubber. And those materials break down further into molecules, atoms, quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons. I'm sure they break down even further.

Don't trust just your eyes.

I do not believe nor disbelieve in a god. U jelly?

>>1839906
Haha hivemind, I ALMOST used the color example but I was expecting someone to say "A WAVE LENGTH OF LIGHT THAT WE PRECIEVE" then I would have to facepalm.

>>1839933
You say "Don't trust your eyes" while typing text that you have to implicitly assume someone is trusting their eyes to read.

To communicate the idea that "the senses are invalid" is self-detonating.

>>1839934
I do not believe nor disbelieve in leprechauns. Derp.

>>1839929
>the unknown is unknown

actually, if you were to ask a zen monk that question, he would probably just hit you with a stick in response. because a stick is an experience, and so is life. and you do not quantify the gravity of life with mere words like 'the' and 'is' and 'unknown'

'unknown' implies that there is something to be discovered. and that's not a connotation an agnostic would likely be comfortable with.

>>1839832
Indeed. However, by that logic there's no need to have an opinion on anything ever, because you could always come up with some other potentiality that may or may not be a reality.

If you're not comfortable with saying there is or isn't a god, then don't. If you're asked about your beliefs, then just say, "Technically, I don't believe, however I realize there's always the possibility I may be wrong, and I certainly do not know which may be true. But technically, I don't believe in a god, else I'd be praying along with the rest of you, etc." It's honest, true, and it makes it seem like you aren't trying to say that atheism is the most logically superior positon. (Though technically it is.) <- A bit arrogant, but true.

>>1839835
lol. I said people who believe are those who are emotionally weak. How does believing in a god = admitting the limits of your knowledge? XD

>>1839947
wow, someone has certainly skimmed the god delusion

>>1839952
What if someone is an agnostic in the sense that they believe we have no knowledge on the subject but does not believe the subject is unknowable. By definition this still fits in the confines of agnosticism without all the philosophical weight of unknowable concepts.

>>1839956
Or I could say "I'm agnostic."
Also, realistically there is no reason to have an opinion on anything. We have opinions on things but there is no reason to. Plus saying something a long the lines of "I think it will rain today" is a bit different from "I think there is no god." I can look at the clouds and other things to help form my opinion that it might rain, this is not true for a conclusion on god.

>>1839942

To refute that point:

How do I know for sure that what you're seeing is what I'm seeing? I'm not trying to be obnoxious here. Just consider it...

Our brains will see certain images and decode them somehow such that they take a recognizable shape.

Say for instance we were both staring at the word BANK

How would I know that letter B that you're seeing is of the exact same shape that I'm seeing?

Too much of a stretch for you to accept? How about something much more basic: what if my red were your purple? The wavelength would be the same, but the color as perceived by our brains would be different. But since we were raised our whole lives both referring to this particular wavelength as 'red' we assume everyone else understands this 'color' we see here as red.

>>1839983
>I can look at the clouds and other things to help form my opinion that it might rain, this is not true for a conclusion on god.
We can see that empirically, consciousness/intelligence only arises from natural selection from simple to complex, and also that it only exists through matter. The definition of "gods" is incompatible with that empirical fact.

Ergo, "gods" do not exist.

>>1839989
it's irrelevant

You know what pisses ME off OP?
People who keep making threads about fucking religion on a SCIENCE board!

>>1839992
and I would argue that we can't define something that is entirely not understood. However, it could be argued that natural selection is a universally consistent force without apparent purpose or reason for happening (such as many laws in physics) and if you're like me where you believe the only possible evidence for a godlike creature is universally consistent trends and "laws" of nature then there is no problem with this concept.

>>1840009
Chill out, there has been some good discussion in this thread.

>>1839983
No reason to? Opinions are how we live. They're what motivates us to theorize and continue to grow as a race. Also, saying you're agnostic leads to the semantic contradiction of not believing while not disbelieving either. Not disbelieving = believing. However, you just said you're not beliving. =/ Why willing use a flawed term? Agnostic should be used for knowledge purposes only. In which case it becomes a useless term.

Thinking that it will rain today is a positive belief. Thinking there is not god is a negative one.

Of course they are going to be different. One's positive, one is negative. Also, one has evidence toward the contrary, one does not. When you have a positive and a negative belief, the only time you have to give evidence toward the negative belief is when there is evidence toward the positive one. If there's no evidence for the positive one, then there's no reason to believe such a thing and you can logically subscribe the negative belief.

>>1840001

Well, assuming you're OP, you're nitpicking about people describing themselves with an adjective with a faulted understanding of what that adjective really means. And then spinning it to suggest that anyone who is merely describing themselves as agnostic 'is actually saying they're atheist.' However, that's in your terms.

My point, and subsequently the relevancy of my post, lies in our brains inability to correctly make logical statements. You can only employ logic if command the facts. Since we do not have the all of the facts, [and this one of the absolute truths], all of your arguments 'logically' demote to fallacies.

>>1840012
You are saying "you can't define the being", but in the same breath saying "this is a being, and it exists, and is responsible for the consistent nature of matter and energy".

>>1840023
Okay but saying our opinions matter outside of a purely subjective sense is like saying there is such a thing as cosmic morality. I would have used the example of thinking it will rain and -believing- in god if I was arguing with a theist. While semantically speaking it may be a flawed term, it has evolved to a philosophical stand point and as I said earlier, taking it just in the form of its word gives no hindrance to the weight and implications of choosing to define yourself as such. Even if I were to concede that I'm an atheist by our current use of the words, I still fundamentally disagree in claiming that god doesn't (or does) exist. Therefore even if I were to concede such a thing, it would be entirely meaningless because you and I don't hold the same ideology on the matter.

>>1840050
You cannot use the validity of logic to prove the invalidity of logic.

The logical process exists, and it is a product of the consistent, universal and non-contradictory nature of matter and energy.

>>1840048
Not entirely. I don't mean to imply that it exists, but it is things like the consistency of matter and energy that make the question harder to answer and dissimilar in my opinion from statements like "I can't disprove leprechauns."

>>1840065
"Morality" does not exist in the same way "the scientific method" does not exist. It is a process of determining the validity of propositions through reason.

>>1840050

Right. And that's why dictionary entries are never truncated to just one word definitions. You can't possibly define anything thoroughly with even 2000 words, much less one. And just the fact that you are using limited-meaning words to define other limited-meaning words is an indication that we are way in over our heads on realizing the 'truth'

>>1840084
Criticizing the proposition that 2+2=4 by stating that the symbol used to denote '2' might really be '3' is not a valid critique of the proposition.

It's how the logical process is valid throughout all languages.

>>1840071

I was not. I was sure you'd understand that by inserting the word 'logically' in quotations, you'd understand it was in jest.

I was stating a known fact, based on our current state of ignorance. If you remove the 'logically,' from that last line, you will see that it still makes perfect grammatical sense (save the missing word before command -- typographical error) and is in fact much more purposeful a statement.

>>1840080
That doesn't mean your opinions matter in any context outside of a purely subjective one. If airplane lands on your bedroom tomorrow; the universe as a whole is entirely unaffected by the disappearance of your opinions. Your family or girlfriend or whatever might be distraught, but that is simply a result of their own subjective opinions.

>>1840108
True, but that doesn't mean the plane landing in my room is purely subjective. The event happened objectively.

>>1840065
Oh, but we technically do; just with different levels of passion. In the same way that two baseball players play on the same team, yet one is better at playing than the other (before you respond remember that no analogy is perfect).

I'm more willing to claim I do not believe in God(s). While you don't want to claim such a thing because there's no evidence. In the end we both don't believe, I just don't believe a bit more than you do because I'm a logicfag. And logically you can choose to deny the existence of something when there is no evidence for it.

>>1840113
That's not what is being argued. While the plane landing in your room certainly happened, it has no inherent value outside of what is given to it. Not to mention it likely happened due to the subjective intoxication of the pilot.

>>1840118
You need to understand that I fully understand the logical front you are taking and simply disagree with it.
see
>>1840078

>>1840118
Also, you aren't MORE willing, you are simply willing. I am unwilling to make such claims, thus we do not hold the same ideology.

>>1840098

2+2=4 is based on an arbitrary system developed by humans who were further trying to cope with the information given, much like the concept of time.

So, in your world, 2 mangoes + 2 mangoes = 4 mangoes. And therefore, (again, in your world) you can't make it into 3 mangoes. This is because of the system with which you are already working in -- an alternate reality of sorts.

But in the absolute Truth, those mangoes are just paintings of a collective ether of information we merely dumbed down in order to accept. They just happened to take that form in your eyes. So it's not a question of 2=3. It's a question of what is truly being quantified?

A mango isn't just one object. It can be considered an amalgamation of many objects which unify into a collective whole we refer to as a mango. Ironically, it's the same with the number 2. '2' can be broken down into an infinite quantity of parts, as denoted by decimals.

>>1840120
Well of course. But the plane landing on my house has to be logically consistent (non-contradictory and universal).

>>1840118

for every event there are three options:

-you can help educate the african tribal women in learning that female circumcision is bad.
-you can give them a hand with the surgeries
-you can do nothing.

the road of inaction, the middle way, that is the one agnostics take.

>>1840157
Are we still arguing the same point? My point is that our opinions don't hold universal weight, what are you getting at?

>>1840171
Wat.

>>1840177
I'm saying they aren't opinions, but valid or invalid propositions.

>>1840171
Despite me agreeing with you, that wasn't a very good example.
I'd say an agnostic is choosing not to get ice cream when there is only the flavor of bees or horse radish. Neither is good and you have no reason to favor one over the other.

>>1840182
>you have no reason to favor one over the other.
right, except the definition of a god is logically impossible

>>1840180
>Opinions are how we live. They're what motivates us to theorize and continue to grow as a race.
The universe does not care about the above. The above has no value outside of what we give it. That is my argument and that is the statement my argument is refuting.

>>1840189
Of course, I'm not the one who said that.

>>1840185
and the standard agnostic would argue that defining god is logically impossible. I wouldn't say it is logically impossible to define god, but to determine that something does not exist based on a pseudo-definition of an entirely unobserved and unknown force is highly illogical.

>>1840171
Eh, no.

Agnostism is saying you can't choose to believe nor disbelive. Which is impossible.

A good example of what agnostics are is this:

You either are going to go into a resturant or not.

Since you're undecided you can't go into the resturant or not go into the resturant.

That's what an agnostic is. Which really translates to "not going into the resturant but being a pussy about it by saying they are not staying outside either." =/

>>1840196
then why are you talking about your position on gods? you either accept the definition and are wrong, or you don't enter into arguments where you give your "stance"

>>1840182

when you consider the subtleties of the example, it's much more adequate than your bees because both of your flavors may be considered undesirable.

the first option on the left hand is to disable.
the second option on the right hand is to enable.
the third is to let things be.

the problem is that people will view inaction as left or right leaning based on their personal biases as to what they consider female circumcision to be?

that's why the activists will use phrases like 'genital mutilation' when describing the act.

same thing here is happening. OP is biased towards atheism and therefore conjured up some bullshit picture, employing some broken logic, in order to spin our language in favor of disbelief.

>>1840204
Fuck this is like arguing with a brickwall *see also fundamentalist christian.
>>1840065
I'm not typing this shit again, just refer to the last half of this post.

>>1840213
That is another argument of semantics. I am arguing meaning and intention which is far more potent. To an agnostic both options are undesirable and equally unfulfilling.

>>1840204

it's more of an acceptance in our state of ignorance being suspended in a perpetual state of indecision.

but thanks for trying

>>1840204

it's more of an acceptance in our state of ignorance than being suspended in a perpetual state of indecision.

but thanks for trying

>>1840219
I understand that already, which is why I did not respond to it anymore. I was responding to the flawed example of what an agnostic was, because that isn't what an agnostic is. There's no middle road when it comes to believing or disbelieving. It's either one or the other. I completely understand that I'm willing to say I don't believe and you're not.

>>1840234
Um, no. Both an atheist and a theist can accept and admit that we're ignorant on the matter. >_>

Nice try, yo.

>>1840228

but you have to understand the standpoint of an agnostic to realize that this is not a dichotomy.

an agnostic, in denying a concept, accepts its existence, and in accepting a concept, simultaneously denies it.

So trying to figure out which way to they really lean is a fruitless endeavor. They do not lean. They accept and reject everything because to accept is to reject and vice versa.

We're talking about concepts here. Not the actual manifestation of some Divine figurehead. If you think of this as 'the concept of God,' it may be much easier to swallow

>>1840250

yea, hence the phrases "agnostic theist" and
"agnostic athiest"

why can't we simply be agnostic persons?

Well I must say that while I was originally a heavy contender in thread I got caught up in other things and left it be for a bit.

But you, my two (or maybe more), friends have kept right at it. In reading through the previous I've seen some good ground covered in the both of you defining terms and shaking loose weak points. And with a high level of intellect and courteousness!

Let this go down in history as one of the better threads, for accomplishing much and doing so like good people ought.

I wish I could be along for the rest of the ride but sleep is near and I bid you a good night. I can only hope that both my fellows, the atheist and the agnostic atheist, will be around in the future - maybe on this thread or another.

It has been a real pleasure.

>>1840253

Masterful execution of doublethink!

*applause*