Albert Cipriani

Then your agnosticism is a misgnomer for no theist nor atheists can know either. Difference is, theists and atheists are more honest with their lack of knowledge and come to a belief in spite of it.

We're all lost in the Dark Forest. Theists blaze a trail by the North Star. Atheists trudge off in the opposite direction. Agnostics sit on their hands, pretending such a position is rational. Ultimately, no one knows nuthin. Since when does that lack constitute a reason? It's the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Not-knowing is normanative, not actionable. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Leibniz can be excused from posing such a stupidly dichotomous question. But in our day and age wherein "empty space" may more accurately be described as a sea of energy, what is your excuse?

We live in a universe in which there is no such thing as nothing. So why do you propose such a non-existent non-thing as a fundamental option? If you're going to be so utterly non-empirical about it, why not propose God or no God? That, or either something or kdjeoyr$kj%jf@jkjlfjk, would be just as incoherent. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

John A. Broussard

Ah, another fallacy. Can you explain this one to me--or your variation of it.

Thanks.

R.M.S.

Maybe not exactly, but in common language, I will make my position clearer when calling myself an atheist than when calling myself an agnosticist. For in common language, an agnosticist is almost by definition a weak agnosticist. (that is: a "don't") Language has a very important functional aspect. Wittgenstein said, I believe correctly, that a word is defined only by it's use and any definition is thus a pragmatic identity. Strong agnosticism and any form of atheism have the same functionality as words in everyday language. And if anything, the precise meaning and implications (!) of atheism are better understood by many. Only in specialised metaphysical discussions or philosophical debate do these terms differ.

Yes, but my whole exposition is based on the fact that people never have complete certainty about anything at all. So it is rather the way we use our incomplete information to reach conclusions or to do things that is interesting.

A very weak agnosticist might have a few points to struggle over, and when he feels they are resolved, he might become a christian or an atheist. A 'stronger' agnosticist has more of these issues. That is a continuum indeed. But strong agnosticism is something wholly different. It is the absolute certainty that we can never know for sure, and even if we do we won't know it: a "can't". A strong agnosticist doesn't doubt over different points of view regarding God, he views them as silly discussions - because we can't know anyway.

However, this applies to everything. So why say you're an agnosticist about God and not about the monsters under your bed? Again the pragmatic aspect of language and our knowledge acquisition come forward.

Now, if a strong agnosticist wants to keep calling himself that: no problem. My point is that strong agnosticist and atheist are mainly divided over epistemological questions (such as "what is a justified belief?") but have generally the same basic point of view. As opposed to, for example, rational theists that really think there is reason to believe in God and atheists who believe no such evidence or reasons exist - they have a similar epistemology but a very different basic point of view.

I will handle other points from your first posting later.

Albert Cipriani

My variation of the argumentum ignorantiam fallacy? Why, it is that no one but no one here is as ignorant as me, and by God, I can prove it!

Seriously, I see this here all the time. Because you guys don’t have knowledge of something or evidence for something (read “God�?), you’ve got not just knowledge, but PROOF, that that something does not exist.

Lost in that forest without a compass: I have no evidence of true north. Humbly admit that means just what it states, the operative word being “I.�? The statement has no truth value in relative to the existence of true north. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Herb26

I'm actually agnostic and secularist. I don't see any reason to make reference to God when studying things. For most purposes we don't need him. And for those where he is a possibility. . .we can't prove either way. At least for now. Pretending you know is dumb(and will lead to people actually thinking they do know. . .just look at the theists). Most atheists are weak and agree with me, and live secularist anyway. It's really a matter of semantics.

I think agnostic and secular show my position better. When you say atheist. . .I don't know whether you mean strong or weak. . .and if your a weak one is it for secular reasons or agnostic ones. Agnostic makes it clear I don't know. . .and secularist makes it clear I don't really care that much. Atheist could mean a few things. Though if you want me to generalize I'm atheist. . . but specifically I'm a weak one. . .and for both agnostic and secularist reasons. I'd hate to have to explain that all the time though. So I won't generalize. I think of my position as a more specific sub group of weak atheism.

R.M.S.

Which, I believe, is an interesting way to say what I think Although I'd say weak agnosticism is a specific group, strong agnosticism is quite related to weak atheism.

I don't have much time right now to further discuss some specifics, but for now I'd like to illustrate my point by a quote: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - R. Dawkins Does he mean weak atheism? Well, if I'd ask you if Thor exists, you'd probably say 'no'. I'd be quite suprised if you said you were agnostic towards the existence of Thor. Yet we really can't know for sure, we 'fundamentally don't know'. So, he is wrong to say we are (or should be!) atheists concerning all gods. And despite that, Dawkins' claim seems quite natural to me. My first post basically tried to answer the question: how can we reconcile the fact that claims such as the one Dawkins make seem quite reasonable, even upon closer examination ("I don't know about Thor? How silly would that be! Of course Thor is fiction.") with the fact that we, in metaphysical terms, don't know.

I understand your position Herb, and don't think it is wrong in any aspect. However, saying you are an agnosticist is saying we can't know about one specific God, which seems weird to me because the "can't know"-thingie is applicable to just about anything. It's the same as saying I can't know if my mother exists as long as I can't see her in person this very moment. Theoretically, yes, that's true. But I'm not agnosticist about my mother existing, I might hope

John A. Broussard

I think we have to recognize what have been called levels of disbelief. It's rather easy to disbelieve in the Thor described in myth. But if we keep stripping Thor of his attributes--thunder god, etc. matters which we know can be explained very nicely without appealing to Thor as the source of these phenomena--then it becomes a bit more difficult to disbelieve. If he is reduced to an early culture hero of Scandinavian settlers in the far north, then there may be no need to disbelieve. Simply a shrug of the shoulders, and "maybe, maybe not."

On the other hand, readers of runes, and scholars probing through old Icelandic documents, may have a greater or lesser belief in the Thor person and can argue at length about his existence or non-existence, whether he's a composite of several old vikings, and a host of other characteristics he might or might not have had.

I think you see where I'm heading, so I won't expand on this point--at least not unless someone wants me to go on.

R.M.S.

I agree, but I'm referring to the christian God in all it's aspects - or Thor, in all his aspects.

John A. Broussard

It's too bad we don't have a handshake symbol. If there were one, I'd use it. Or a high five.

Yes, there is absolutely no rational explanation for the existence of a Christian (or any other god) who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (I believe the current catch-all word is omnimax).

The final resort by a person who holds to that belief is "I believe," which is hardly a rational defense.