ex-xian

Well, this thread seems to be officially derailed. That's fine with me, as AJ113 and I have seem to have come to a point of agreement. Also, I'm grateful to the posters since my own viewpoints have been sharpened thru critique. After all, that's why I came here to II in the first place.

Have fun trying to explain the difference in agnostic and atheist to the mystic guy. Honestly, if some people would just read Kant many frustrating conversations would end...

Skeptic Mystic

I agree with you except that such an explanation cannot be contradictory. As for the argument as to whether agnosticism or atheism should be the default view(as I assume the above quote is leading towards), would you accept the compromise that while agnosticism is the intial position that (Statement of belief) atheism is the reasoned default?

Skeptic Mystic

I never said they were. Occam's Razor is not the end-all, be-all of rational thought. It can give you the wrong result. Were I to make a decision, there are worse strategies I could use than Occam's Razor, but it's useless to me if I withold my decision.



This is the last time I'm going to say this. There exist definitions of 'god' such that they do not contradict reality. :banghead: I can make a claim about god that is consistent with a reality. :banghead: For example, God is identical with the Universe.



Don't be dense. Do you want me to say "more difficult?"
Fine. Philosophical discussions about the nature of reality would be more difficult were we to introduce your concept about what propositional statements mean.



It doesn't depend upon whether you're a theist or an atheist. That's the point. Let's try a small example:

Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Agnostic: All you are doing is reporting your belief. The Theist claims that he believes in God and the Atheist claims that he doesn't believe in God. These are logically consistent. Different people can hold different views. But we're no closer to discovering whether God exists or not, especially since you'll only tell me what you believe. Stop stating what you believe and start stating what is.

Assuming no super technology, it is doubtful. However I could come right back and say that Saint Nicklaus(sp?) did exist and no scientific laws have to be rewritten. And I might point out, scientific laws have been rewritten before.

Skeptic Mystic

...and many more would start. Categorical Imperative, my ASCII.
I know perfectly well what the differences are between agnostics and atheists, thank you very much.

Jobar

Hello, Skeptic Mystic. (Good name- I list my belief as atheist/pantheist.)

One can be both agnostic and atheist; we have even had a few people who proclaim that they are agnostic theists.

The general agreement on this board is that theism/atheism are the extremes on a scale of belief, while gnosticism/agnosticism are measures of knowledge.

An agnostic atheist would say that no gods exist, but since humans are not omniscient we cannot know for sure that some sort of godlike being is actually hiding from us. However, we can safely say that there are no gods who are *not* hiding from us, as there are lots of people (like me) who see no least sign of a being with godlike attributes.

Wyz_sub10

That makes sense. The only thing I would stress is that I don't see agnosticism as being an inital position for long for most people (simply because kids are usually directed toward religion, or cautioned against it, early on).

That doesn't keep people from returning to an agnostic position, of course.

Koyaanisqatsi

Wow, this is still going on.

Let me end this by asking one simple question: Does the mere fact that a claim has been made attest in any way to the veracity of the claim prior to support of that claim?

Yes or no?

Hawkingfan

Occam's Razor can give the wrong result, but it always gives you the MOST REASONABLE result. I think your statement above shows the doubts and denials of the agnostic mind. I think that the agnostic deep down is so skeptical of committing to believing in something because they are afraid of being wrong. Saying, "I don't know" is safe. I say that I do not believe in god, or that there is no god because it is the most reasonable thing to believe. If I'm wrong, at least I believed something that was reasonable.
No, that one contadicts itself, much less reality. God cannot both be the universe and have created the universe.
And don't talk down to me. I'm not a child. You wouldn't have had to repeat yourself if you would have tried to support your statements in the first place. Saying, "I once heard someone give evidence of..." or something along those lines means nothing. Heresay and anecdotes don't mean jack.
I know you are, but what am I?
So what?
Ok, then there IS no god. The two are not logically consistent. One contradicts reality and science, the other does not. Does an agnostic really believe in "what is"? Can he ever know "what is"? I thought that the answer to everything was "I don't know what is, you know, science CAN be wrong. So how are we to ever know what is?".
Why would you come right back and say St. Nick exists right after you just used Occam's razor to discover it was doubtful? What if I was to tell you that it was your parents pretending to be St. Nick and that I could prove it is a lie?
So therefore, the answer to everything has to be "I don't know"?

Skeptic Mystic

Alright, it wasn't the last time I was going to say anything about it. You're assuming a premise that I never included. I said nothing about God creating the universe. All I said was that God was identical with the universe. This is an example of a definition of God that is consistent with reality.




And I would appreciate it if you didn't talk down to me either.



So you agree that there is no hidden "I believe" in the statement "God does not exist"? Now, I'm taking the agnostic position, not the completely skeptical position. But even if I were, there are strategies for dealing with the world around me. Under such circumstances I would claim that although science can be wrong I can act as if things are as they appear to be( in the scientifically exhaustive sense of appear). I'm willing to accept science's positive claims. I'm also willing to accept those claims that are negatives by the fact that if they were positive they would contradict science's positive claims. But there are definitions of god that are not obviously contradictory and not verifiable by current scientific procedures. The non-existence of god may be the simplest explanation but it's not a theory. Pure science can not make a judgement call based solely on a minimalist principle.



My apologies, I was unclear. When I said Saint Nicklaus I was referring to the Catholic Saint, Nicklaus. The modern view of the magical being known as Santa Claus is suspect, as are, possibly, the beliefs about a person called Saint Nicklaus. But he probably did exist. Another example: Jesus probably existed. Whether or not he was Christ or a prophet or something is not probable, but I don't know for sure. I am willing to accept the existence of a person, but I am not willing to ascribe to them any supernatural powers.

I suppose the worst an agnostic could be called is ignorant. But it is the ignorance of Socrates and the early Meditations of Descartes. There are, doubtless, certain things that can be said. I exist. The contents of my consciousness exist. 1+1=2. Orange is not green. Some of these may be true by definition, but they can be said.

Hawkingfan

I don't understand what you mean by "identical". Is he outside of space-time, time, outside of science? How would you know that something that is "identical" with the universe is god? Something that is identical with universe(1) is universe(2).
Yes, or you could take it out of the other statement as well. IMO, "I believe" can be included in both statements, or excluded from both statements. I think that both statements are very closely related, not vastly different as you originally suggested, that's all.
And that's fine. But I don't feel that my position is just "skeptical". I prefer to call it "realistic".
I agree. But my concern still has to do with reasonability. It is still unreasonable to believe in god (even though we are arguing about the definition of god). "There are definitions of" x " that are not obviously contradictory and not verifiable by current scientific procedures", not just "god". But to believe in any unreasonable thing we make up (or to be undecided about it), without using some kind of logic (like Occam's razor) is foolish, IMO.

I agree with the rest of your post. Yes, the actual Saint probably existed. But the modern St. Nick does not. (However, a side note on Christ's existence: I don't think he actually existed. I'm not willing to argue that here (we've already gone too far off topic), but you can read www.jesuspuzzle.com if you'd like to see the evidence against Christ's actual earthly existence.)
I think that's a realistic and reasonable position.