99Percent

Gurdur: However, you did misrepresent them...

To that, I might agree if any agnostics out there are willing to represent themselves and tell me so. For some curious reason I think none will, I wonder why...

The brains of the living dead that don't use their brains.

Gurdur

Possibly because it's a very long-dead horse being flogged here, as I've noted in my first post (with links yet! ) in this thread, and they see no point at all in rehashing the same old and jaded arguments?
Or just because it's very late at night and they've actually got lives, unlike us?

Now, before I jump to conclusions, just who are you referring to?

Synaesthesia

Bill Shultz¹ portrayal of the broadest definition of atheism as a ³false dichotomy² and realism really misses the point. It is simply one way of characterizing atheism. In that definition the agnostic is an atheist even though their epistemic standpoint is one of neutrality towards all gods or some gods.

Does this imply that we must remain totally neutral towards any theory that has been immunized against falsification? Is the likelihood that God exists, that dragons are in our garages, that elves dance about us EQUAL to the likelihood that they are just creations of human imagination? Of course not!

The primary basis for the belief in these theories over any other flight of fancy is simply this: people actually believe in it. However, the theory that these are merely creations of the human mind better accounts for the belief itself. I suspect that no one thinks that imaginary things have any necessary likelihood of being real. As an atheist, I think it¹s patently reasonable to apply this to God just as we do to the Grinch.

There is one other point made in this threat that many agnostics misunderstand, one which I would like to reiterate: Very few atheists claim to know certainly that God does not exist. We simply hold that there are theories that better account for the notion of God.

It¹s amazing to see that people would put the excluded middle to such a bizarre purpose.

Gurdur

Nope; IMHO you're confusing epistemological certitude with practical judgment on individual issues.
One thing it does mean for agnostics, and I repeat:
Where the whole issue is moot owing to lack of any real practical immediacy, then agnosticism is tenable.
That, I think, is patently untrue.
I offer NailScorva and 99percent in this thread as witnesses to the contrary.

It's even more bizarre to see such emotionalist commentary.

Daggah

Okay, I'm confused here. I always interpreted agnosticism as simply a position that one holds to say that one cannot "know" with any certainty that there is or is not a god. Isn't that what the word literally means?

A (without, lacking) + gnostic (knowledge, particularly of a spiritual nature) = lacking knowledge, particularly of a spiritual nature

I interpret this as not being a category all its own, like atheism or theism, but simply an option for atheists and even theists. I think that atheists can be agnostics (I don't know, so I don't believe), and that theists can be agnostics too (I don't know, but I believe), but that that would be a rare position. I convinced a guy on another forum who's always describing himself as a militant agnostic that he was actually an atheist, since atheism was simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, and he didn't believe in a god or gods. He's still a militant agnostic; he still will say "I don't know, and you don't either," but technically he's an atheist as well.

I was planning on saying as much on my website (I'm working on it...I'm a procrastinator), so if that's incorrect, feel free to correct me.

Orpheous99

Originally posted by Apikorus:

Orpheous, "irrelevant" is a good fallback when you don't want to risk a "yes" or "no" or further explain your position.

No, it fits perfectly what you are trying to do here.

I maintain that there is no rational reason to believe I am a brain-in-a-box. If you think there is, I should be glad to hear it!

There is no way that you can actually be sure that this isn't true. I could be that scientist feeding the stimuli to the part of your brain controlling what you believe making you think that you aren't a brain in a box all along.

Plus, there is far more of a chance of there being an ET Rhino then there is of being a god.

MrLoverLover

"Oftentimes when I tell someone I am an atheist, he will respond critically, asking questions such as, "How can you be absolutely sure God doesn't exist? Shouldn't you rather be an agnostic? Atheism is itself a form of faith."

-This should tell you something, which is simply that most people take atheism to mean "one who denies the existence of God", not simply one who "lacks the belief in the existence of God". The great majority of the English speaking world (mainly aside from atheists) defines atheism as "one who denies the existence of God", as both your experiences can show and reading the majority of English dictionaries can show (although in certain dictionaries the definition has begun to change). Indeed, that was one of the main points of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html" target="_blank">Drange's essay concerning atheism, theism, and noncognitivism.</a>

"I am an atheist because I hold there is no rational reason to believe in God/gods."

-But this is exactly what an agnostic could say, and often does say. It is not uncommon to talk with someone who labels themselves an agnostic, only to find out later in the conversation what they mean by "agnostic" you mean by "atheist".

"I would only express absolute surety over my own experiences and abstract reasoning. If someone tells me that I had rabbit for lunch yesterday, or that 8 is a prime number, I would be absolutely sure they are wrong."

-But you could simply be mistaken. It is quite possible you ate rabbit yesterday (or anything else) and simply don't remember or in some way are wrong. It could also simply be, stealing from Russell, that the world and all of your memories/experiences were made five minutes ago, so while you think you ate X yesterday, in fact you never at anything, since you simply didn't exist. There is no way to be absolutely certain what you ate yesterday. However, i would agree with abstract reasoning.

"The reason I find agnosticism problematic is that consistency demands that one also profess agnosticism in regard to an uncountable infinity of notional beings or states of affairs."

-So what? And many agnostics could simply say you're wrong, since agnosticism often simply applies to the supernatural or God, so saying they must profess agnosticism to be consistent about a blue rhino would be you just not understanding what agnosticism means, since an "extraterrestrial blue rhinocerous" is not "supernatural", unless you take extraterrestrial to mean supernatural in some way. Also, by this argument consistency would require the same thing from you, that you make the claim "i don't believe in X because there is no rational reason to", but then that would make you profess a position on an "uncountable infinity of notional beings or states of affairs", yet you obviously see no problem doing that.

"To those individuals who do profess agnosticism, I would ask: Do you find there to be any rational reasons to believe in God? In the "God of the Bible"? If so, what are they?"

-You simply don't know what it means to be an agnostic. An agnostic is simply one who is not sure whether or not a God exists, and agnostics therefore stay on the fence (or lack a belief), and so they are basically synonymous with negative atheism (as has been pointed out over and over again.) An agnostic would just rather sit and wait around for more evidence (for or against) before making a decision, so the answer would be "no" to your question. This is old hat, and hence the point of Drange's paper as well as others trying to come up with set definition of the terms (such as simply defining atheism as the belief there are no gods.) This conflict over terms is old and boring. The important question should be whether or not God exists, not whether or not we fit into some smug little group. An agnostic would simply say something like "i don't know and neither do you" or something alone those lines, or "i don't believe or disbelieve in God because there is no rational reason(s) to do so." I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I don't care if someone calls me an agnostic or an atheist, since i'm not concerned with such, what i view, trivial matters. I am concerned with whether God exists or dooesn't exist.

(An agnostic can also be defined as one who says that knowledge of whether or not God exists is by definition unknowable, and also again why they sit on the fence. They don't know.)

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: MrLoverLover ]</p>

Apikorus

Orpheous, I am quite sure that I am not a brain-in-a-box. Again, if you believe you can demonstrate otherwise, I should be happy to hear your argument. You do have an argument, don't you?

MrLoverLover, I am still quite certain - 100% certain! - that I did not eat rabbit for lunch yesterday. The fact that I might be deluded in my belief does not change the fact that I remain certain. If you are suggesting that I must remain agnostic as to yesterday's lunch menu, then you've picked a tough row to hoe.

You are absolutely right in that I do not believe in the existence of an extraterrestrial rhinocerous which is controlling my thoughts, nor in a continuum of other absurd possibilities. To profess agnosticism toward all these strikes me as a bit silly.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Frankly, the thing that confuses ME is the reason that this issue is contentious at all . This is as bad as Catholics and Protestants.

If agnosticism means the lack of absolute certainty about God’s existence, the many so-called strong atheists would be agnostic.

Orpheous99

Originally posted by Apikorus:

Orpheous, I am quite sure that I am not a brain-in-a-box.

But you're not absolutely sure of this.

Again, if you believe you can demonstrate otherwise, I should be happy to hear your argument. You do have an argument, don't you?

You are responding as expected to the stimuli.