Freethought & Rationalism Archive

asgardhaven · 07-30-2003, 07:52 PM

Hi all!

Being relatively new here let me first say that I'm very grateful both to have found this place and to have the opportunity to give my mind a little workout. I've been around long enough (lurking mostly)that I've noticed a bit of a trend but not long enough to know if this has been addressed already. If this is old news I'll offer my apologies for beating a dead horse.

The trend I've noticed, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that many atheist posters here, either explicitly stated or implied, seem to hold that agnostics are either timid, wishy-washy, or intellectually lazy. Many times this is summed up in the line: "theist=believe in god and atheist=don't believe in god; therefore agnostics don't know what they belive". Many times this is stated in a somewhat condescending and dismissive tone (I do realize that many times this is said in jest).

Well as an agnostic I like to say that that line is a perhaps a bit constraining, when it comes to the issue. I know that the Belive/ Don't Belive dichotomy is very attractive position and arguably for any one particular god highly applicable. But as an absolute to cover all types and forms of dieties I think it ignores the question of evidence, our confidence in it, and even our ability to gather it. Basically this is Philisophical Skeptisim, ie how do you know what you know and how can you trust the methods used to gather it (the senses to the Greeks, senses + some pretty powerful instrumentation for us).

How for example does one prove/disprove for example the First Cause type diety. I acknowledge that its highly improbable due to the fact that it adds a layer of unneccessary complication to what could be explained materialistically. But acknowledging a high level of improbability is not the same as calling it impossible. Is that statement wishy-washy? Perhaps, but I can't bring myself to declare an impossibility if I can't at least theorize a way to test it either empirically or hell even in a mathmatical model. Can I not hold the position that since I've no way of testing this First Cause/No First Cause that I cannot state emphaticatically that there is no god. Honestly and with no jest here, am I missing something?

It's gotten to be where the whole belief/dibelief issue is an almost irrelavant point to me. After all why should my belief or lack there of effect the objective truth of the universe which I have a sneaking suspiscion is indifferent to my thoughts at any rate.

At any rate, thanks for the opportunity and space for the rant.

Warmest regards and many thanks!

Rational BAC · 07-30-2003, 08:36 PM

I admit that I find the agnostic position to be a much more tenable one than atheism.

But I must warn you----the first thing any atheist will say is they will never say emphatically that there is no God.

To me that just means agnosticism. But the atheists always deny that description in very long and very detailed posts. Very good at it too. I almost end up agreeing with them. But then I realize I am being taken for a sucker--------Hey if you don't know for sure, then you are an agnostic--right?

Tenek · 07-30-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by asgardhaven
Hi all!

Being relatively new here let me first say that I'm very grateful both to have found this place and to have the opportunity to give my mind a little workout. I've been around long enough (lurking mostly)that I've noticed a bit of a trend but not long enough to know if this has been addressed already. If this is old news I'll offer my apologies for beating a dead horse.

The trend I've noticed, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that many atheist posters here, either explicitly stated or implied, seem to hold that agnostics are either timid, wishy-washy, or intellectually lazy. Many times this is summed up in the line: "theist=believe in god and atheist=don't believe in god; therefore agnostics don't know what they belive". Many times this is stated in a somewhat condescending and dismissive tone (I do realize that many times this is said in jest).

Well as an agnostic I like to say that that line is a perhaps a bit constraining, when it comes to the issue. I know that the Belive/ Don't Belive dichotomy is very attractive position and arguably for any one particular god highly applicable. But as an absolute to cover all types and forms of dieties I think it ignores the question of evidence, our confidence in it, and even our ability to gather it. Basically this is Philisophical Skeptisim, ie how do you know what you know and how can you trust the methods used to gather it (the senses to the Greeks, senses + some pretty powerful instrumentation for us).

How for example does one prove/disprove for example the First Cause type diety. I acknowledge that its highly improbable due to the fact that it adds a layer of unneccessary complication to what could be explained materialistically. But acknowledging a high level of improbability is not the same as calling it impossible. Is that statement wishy-washy? Perhaps, but I can't bring myself to declare an impossibility if I can't at least theorize a way to test it either empirically or hell even in a mathmatical model. Can I not hold the position that since I've no way of testing this First Cause/No First Cause that I cannot state emphaticatically that there is no god. Honestly and with no jest here, am I missing something?

It's gotten to be where the whole belief/dibelief issue is an almost irrelavant point to me. After all why should my belief or lack there of effect the objective truth of the universe which I have a sneaking suspiscion is indifferent to my thoughts at any rate.

At any rate, thanks for the opportunity and space for the rant.

Warmest regards and many thanks!

Either:
a) you have belief in God
b) you have not (belief in God)

no belief in gods != belief in no gods

It's a perfect dichotomy. It's not a progression, atheism and agnosticism are neither identical nor mutually exclusive. If you do not believe in any gods, you are by definition atheist. I'm agnostic and atheist. Beat that.

Magus55 · 07-30-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC

But I must warn you----the first thing any atheist will say is they will never say emphatically that there is no God.

Well, if you noticed - the factual statements of there being no God is thrown around constantly on this board. I don't buy the claim that atheists never say there is no God - they say it constantly - more than theists say there is a God.

goat37 · 07-30-2003, 08:42 PM

I guess you can classify me as an agnostic.

Being a student of science, there are many things that science has not discovered yet. There are also many things that science has not disproven. God is one of these things.

It is not science's job to disprove God, but to better understand the universe in which we live. Since there are questions that science has not explained yet, we cannot be so bold to claim that we know what did NOT create those things, and must be open to all possibilities.

God is one of the possiblities to me, although a small one. I cannot say that there is NO God because I in fact do not know. My mind cannot begin to explain the world of the metaphysical, and therefore I cannot dismiss the possibility of the existance of God.

winstonjen · 07-30-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Well, if you noticed - the factual statements of there being no God is thrown around constantly on this board. I don't buy the claim that atheists never say there is no God - they say it constantly - more than theists say there is a God.

Considering how much we are outnumbered by you theists, I find that very hard to believe.

goat37 · 07-30-2003, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Well, if you noticed - the factual statements of their being no God is thrown around constantly on this board. I don't buy the claim that atheists never say there is no God - they say it constantly - more than theists say there is a God.

Hmm... I rarely see posts that say that there is NO God, but rather that YOUR God does not exist.

We have as much proof as to the existance of any God, as we do yours... none.

Theists don't have to say 'there is a God', it comes with the territory of being a theist. So one could say that just by the nature of being a theist, you are in fact saying 'there is a God'.

asgardhaven · 07-30-2003, 09:04 PM

Tenek

Either:
a) you have belief in God
b) you have not (beliefin God)

no belief in gods != belief in no gods

It's a perfect dichotomy. It's not a progression, atheism and agnosticism are neither identical nor mutually exclusive. If you do not believe in any gods, you ard by definition atheist. I'm agnostic and atheist. Beat that.

Actually I don't want to beat it. And I'm glad that you're comfortable calling yourself both. On the question any particular god existence I lack belief and therefore qualify functionally as atheist to god in question. My point was that since I'm uncomfortable with calling my belief an accurate and absolute reflection of reality (my belief is irrelevant to Truth) that I should be able to express that as Agnosticism without the assumption that I'm unaware of my own belief. I probably didn't express that completely in my first post, for which I apologize. That may still not adress your point completely, but its a position I'm still struggling to fully articulate.
Your patience is much appreciated

asgardhaven · 07-30-2003, 09:08 PM

Maybe in truth I just have problems with labels.
Even when they're self applied.

JGL53 · 07-30-2003, 09:35 PM

I think the problem can be solved by using the label non-theist. That way, there is no misunderstanding.

Yeah, I understand that non-theist = atheist, but the latter has all sorts of historical baggage that the former does not. In fact, who the fuck invented the word 'atheist'? I bet it was a theist.

I'm so god damn tired of this argument, I'm going to call myself a non-theist from now on. I'm changing my profile right now.

07-30-2003, 07:52 PM	#1
asgardhaven Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN USA Posts: 129	An agnostic's view of the agnostic vs atheist issue Hi all! Being relatively new here let me first say that I'm very grateful both to have found this place and to have the opportunity to give my mind a little workout. I've been around long enough (lurking mostly)that I've noticed a bit of a trend but not long enough to know if this has been addressed already. If this is old news I'll offer my apologies for beating a dead horse. The trend I've noticed, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that many atheist posters here, either explicitly stated or implied, seem to hold that agnostics are either timid, wishy-washy, or intellectually lazy. Many times this is summed up in the line: "theist=believe in god and atheist=don't believe in god; therefore agnostics don't know what they belive". Many times this is stated in a somewhat condescending and dismissive tone (I do realize that many times this is said in jest). Well as an agnostic I like to say that that line is a perhaps a bit constraining, when it comes to the issue. I know that the Belive/ Don't Belive dichotomy is very attractive position and arguably for any one particular god highly applicable. But as an absolute to cover all types and forms of dieties I think it ignores the question of evidence, our confidence in it, and even our ability to gather it. Basically this is Philisophical Skeptisim, ie how do you know what you know and how can you trust the methods used to gather it (the senses to the Greeks, senses + some pretty powerful instrumentation for us). How for example does one prove/disprove for example the First Cause type diety. I acknowledge that its highly improbable due to the fact that it adds a layer of unneccessary complication to what could be explained materialistically. But acknowledging a high level of improbability is not the same as calling it impossible. Is that statement wishy-washy? Perhaps, but I can't bring myself to declare an impossibility if I can't at least theorize a way to test it either empirically or hell even in a mathmatical model. Can I not hold the position that since I've no way of testing this First Cause/No First Cause that I cannot state emphaticatically that there is no god. Honestly and with no jest here, am I missing something? It's gotten to be where the whole belief/dibelief issue is an almost irrelavant point to me. After all why should my belief or lack there of effect the objective truth of the universe which I have a sneaking suspiscion is indifferent to my thoughts at any rate. At any rate, thanks for the opportunity and space for the rant. Warmest regards and many thanks!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2003, 08:36 PM	#2
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I admit that I find the agnostic position to be a much more tenable one than atheism. But I must warn you----the first thing any atheist will say is they will never say emphatically that there is no God. To me that just means agnosticism. But the atheists always deny that description in very long and very detailed posts. Very good at it too. I almost end up agreeing with them. But then I realize I am being taken for a sucker--------Hey if you don't know for sure, then you are an agnostic--right?

07-30-2003, 08:42 PM	#5
goat37 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 37	I guess you can classify me as an agnostic. Being a student of science, there are many things that science has not discovered yet. There are also many things that science has not disproven. God is one of these things. It is not science's job to disprove God, but to better understand the universe in which we live. Since there are questions that science has not explained yet, we cannot be so bold to claim that we know what did NOT create those things, and must be open to all possibilities. God is one of the possiblities to me, although a small one. I cannot say that there is NO God because I in fact do not know. My mind cannot begin to explain the world of the metaphysical, and therefore I cannot dismiss the possibility of the existance of God.

07-30-2003, 09:04 PM	#8
asgardhaven Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN USA Posts: 129	Tenek Either: a) you have belief in God b) you have not (beliefin God) no belief in gods != belief in no gods It's a perfect dichotomy. It's not a progression, atheism and agnosticism are neither identical nor mutually exclusive. If you do not believe in any gods, you ard by definition atheist. I'm agnostic and atheist. Beat that. Actually I don't want to beat it. And I'm glad that you're comfortable calling yourself both. On the question any particular god existence I lack belief and therefore qualify functionally as atheist to god in question. My point was that since I'm uncomfortable with calling my belief an accurate and absolute reflection of reality (my belief is irrelevant to Truth) that I should be able to express that as Agnosticism without the assumption that I'm unaware of my own belief. I probably didn't express that completely in my first post, for which I apologize. That may still not adress your point completely, but its a position I'm still struggling to fully articulate. Your patience is much appreciated

07-30-2003, 09:08 PM	#9
asgardhaven Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN USA Posts: 129	Maybe in truth I just have problems with labels. Even when they're self applied.

07-30-2003, 09:35 PM	#10
JGL53 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outer Mongolia Posts: 4,091	I think the problem can be solved by using the label non-theist. That way, there is no misunderstanding. Yeah, I understand that non-theist = atheist, but the latter has all sorts of historical baggage that the former does not. In fact, who the fuck invented the word 'atheist'? I bet it was a theist. I'm so god damn tired of this argument, I'm going to call myself a non-theist from now on. I'm changing my profile right now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.