| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Roberts" |
| Date: |
25 Dec 2006 01:06:17 AM |
| Object: |
Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
I am an agnostic of the strongest kind. It is not just that I don't
know, but that I cannot know. That's not Atheism. It is Total
Agnosticism. Neither am I saying that there is no God, but that the
concept of God is rather like Einstein's Aether. He just cannot be
proved to exist or not. The concept of God is therefore not a useful
one. To the religious he exists by faith alone, but that's not good
enough for me. You cannot reason with them for they have abandoned
reason. The so-called Proofs of the Existence of God are all circular
argument. He exists because He exists.
The most convincing involves the use of Occam's Razor. God is that
single concept which is the rationale for everything. God is the axiom
of all axioms. But that only makes God the equivalent of an axiom,
ultimately an Act of Faith. You either believe this axiom to be the
truth or you don't.
From the Axiom
There exists God = True
Any logical system with the God Axiom is ultimately inconsistent. With
it you can prove anything, including completely opposing consequences.
The same goes for the No God Axiom.
There exists God = False
The inconsistent logical consequences of either of these axioms means
that they both have to be ruled out.
In the world of the faithful where the God Axiom (or its reverse) is
automatically accepted as the Truth, there has to exist a whole class
of professional theologians to protect their flocks from the logical
inconsistencies that derive from the God Axiom. To them certain logical
inconsitencies lead to Heresy. In other cases they simply call it a
Mystery.
I'm not into mysteries. Hence I am a Total Agnostic. Call me a heretic
if you like.
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 05:24:16 AM |
|
|
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167030377.233651.101490@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
I am an agnostic of the strongest kind.
That's nice.
<***** snipped>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 01:32:06 AM |
|
|
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167030377.233651.101490@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
I am an agnostic of the strongest kind. It is not just that I don't
know, but that I cannot know. That's not Atheism. It is Total
Agnosticism. Neither am I saying that there is no God, but that the
concept of God is rather like Einstein's Aether. He just cannot be
proved to exist or not. The concept of God is therefore not a useful
one. To the religious he exists by faith alone, but that's not good
enough for me. You cannot reason with them for they have abandoned
reason. The so-called Proofs of the Existence of God are all circular
argument. He exists because He exists.
The most convincing involves the use of Occam's Razor. God is that
single concept which is the rationale for everything. God is the axiom
of all axioms. But that only makes God the equivalent of an axiom,
ultimately an Act of Faith. You either believe this axiom to be the
truth or you don't.
From the Axiom
There exists God = True
Any logical system with the God Axiom is ultimately inconsistent. With
it you can prove anything, including completely opposing consequences.
The same goes for the No God Axiom.
There exists God = False
The inconsistent logical consequences of either of these axioms means
that they both have to be ruled out.
In the world of the faithful where the God Axiom (or its reverse) is
automatically accepted as the Truth, there has to exist a whole class
of professional theologians to protect their flocks from the logical
inconsistencies that derive from the God Axiom. To them certain logical
inconsitencies lead to Heresy. In other cases they simply call it a
Mystery.
I'm not into mysteries. Hence I am a Total Agnostic. Call me a heretic
if you like.
Well, you've offered your state of knowedge, and admitted honestly that you
don't know if there's a god or not. That's excellent.
Now, what is your state of belief concerning a god or gods? This is a
completely different question, and is completely binary. You either believe,
or you don't. Saying you almost believe means you don't believe yet, which
means you don't believe. There's no fence sitting concerning belief. You
can't say you don't know if god exists or not because that's not the
question. Agnosticism is about your state of knowledge, atheism is about
your state of belief.
If you believe in a god or gods you're a theistic agnostic. If you don't
believe in a god or gods, you're an atheistic agnostic.
Enjoy your new expanded label! ;-)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
16 Jan 2007 05:19:37 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167030377.233651.101490@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
I am an agnostic of the strongest kind. It is not just that I don't
know, but that I cannot know. That's not Atheism. It is Total
Agnosticism. Neither am I saying that there is no God, but that the
concept of God is rather like Einstein's Aether. He just cannot be
proved to exist or not. The concept of God is therefore not a useful
one. To the religious he exists by faith alone, but that's not good
enough for me. You cannot reason with them for they have abandoned
reason. The so-called Proofs of the Existence of God are all circular
argument. He exists because He exists.
The most convincing involves the use of Occam's Razor. God is that
single concept which is the rationale for everything. God is the axiom
of all axioms. But that only makes God the equivalent of an axiom,
ultimately an Act of Faith. You either believe this axiom to be the
truth or you don't.
From the Axiom
There exists God = True
Any logical system with the God Axiom is ultimately inconsistent. With
it you can prove anything, including completely opposing consequences.
The same goes for the No God Axiom.
There exists God = False
The inconsistent logical consequences of either of these axioms means
that they both have to be ruled out.
In the world of the faithful where the God Axiom (or its reverse) is
automatically accepted as the Truth, there has to exist a whole class
of professional theologians to protect their flocks from the logical
inconsistencies that derive from the God Axiom. To them certain logical
inconsitencies lead to Heresy. In other cases they simply call it a
Mystery.
I'm not into mysteries. Hence I am a Total Agnostic. Call me a heretic
if you like.
Well, you've offered your state of knowedge, and admitted honestly that you
don't know if there's a god or not. That's excellent.
Now, what is your state of belief concerning a god or gods? This is a
completely different question, and is completely binary. You either believe,
or you don't. Saying you almost believe means you don't believe yet, which
means you don't believe. There's no fence sitting concerning belief. You
can't say you don't know if god exists or not because that's not the
question. Agnosticism is about your state of knowledge, atheism is about
your state of belief.
If you believe in a god or gods you're a theistic agnostic. If you don't
believe in a god or gods, you're an atheistic agnostic.
Enjoy your new expanded label! ;-)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Atheist Agnostic...that is an interesting title. The problem I see with
certain atheists is the title 'atheist' blocks them to thought. They
make their ego their higher power and think they know it
all...constipation of the mind. I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with. BTW,
Socrates was agnostic.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
[God explaining the doctrine of free will.]
"In order not to impair human liberty, I will be ignorant
of what I know, I will thicken upon my eyes the veils
I have pierced, and in my blind clear-sightedness I will
let myself be surprised by what I have foreseen."
- Anatole France
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
17 Jan 2007 07:22:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
19 Jan 2007 06:53:56 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee [who earlier coined the term "pig ignorant
agnostics"] wrote:
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
Indeed, why should people attack others who just want to engage in open
minded discussion. Hmm...
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
18 Jan 2007 09:52:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:22:03 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
Because addressing a real atheist terrifys the ***** out of them.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
19 Jan 2007 12:45:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:52:32 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <33g0r29hcvc4rmf1ga7msln2rujjbk1dlf@4ax.com>
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:22:03 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
Because addressing a real atheist terrifys the ***** out of them.
That may well be a flippant remark, but it contains one heck of a
powerful truth.
It's not confronting the atheist that scares them, but the liklihood
of being forced to confront their own lifelong edifices, to check for
themselves if the foundations thereof are no more solid than wishes.
Their carefully built fantasy world will come silently tumbling down
in their wilfully naive minds.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
21 Jan 2007 01:38:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:15:15 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:52:32 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <33g0r29hcvc4rmf1ga7msln2rujjbk1dlf@4ax.com>
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:22:03 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
Because addressing a real atheist terrifys the ***** out of them.
That may well be a flippant remark, but it contains one heck of a
powerful truth.
It's not confronting the atheist that scares them, but the liklihood
of being forced to confront their own lifelong edifices, to check for
themselves if the foundations thereof are no more solid than wishes.
Their carefully built fantasy world will come silently tumbling down
in their wilfully naive minds.
Exactly.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
19 Jan 2007 10:10:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:22:03 -0500, Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
I've never understood that one myself. Especially considering that Huxley,
who coined the term, defined it in such a way that most atheists *are*
agnostics.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
19 Jan 2007 10:16:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:10:57 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:22:03 -0500, Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
I've never understood that one myself. Especially considering that Huxley,
who coined the term, defined it in such a way that most atheists *are*
agnostics.
If they have something to be agnostic about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yomech" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
19 Jan 2007 01:54:33 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:10:57 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:22:03 -0500, Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:18:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:19:37 -0800, V wrote:
I find the agnostic crowd to be the
most open of the various forums I have been associated with.
So then go find an agnostic newsgroup already.
Agnostics and atheists should be natural allies. So why do so many
allegedly "open-minded" agnostics attack a straw man atheist?
The obvious answer is that they are not really agnostic, they are just
not too cleverly disguised theists trying to get away with arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be a magic invisible Creator because there
is no proof the conjecture is false, logical fallacy for which theists
have been famous for eons, as Copi explains.
I've never understood that one myself. Especially considering that Huxley,
who coined the term, defined it in such a way that most atheists *are*
agnostics.
If they have something to be agnostic about.
Atheists have plenty to be agnostic about, if 'to be agnostic about' is
as Thomas Huxley describes it, to deny and repudiate any religious
doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are
propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, which
people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mozdev" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
06 Jan 2007 07:09:02 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
... You either believe,
or you don't. There's no fence sitting concerning belief.
And religious belief, believing things without evidence, is exactly what
agnostics deny and repudiate, as Thomas Huxley explains in his
excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism v Christianity":
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism v Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
See? Nothing about knowledge there at all, the issue is religious
belief, believing things without evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 10:13:39 PM |
|
|
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in news:1167030377.233651.101490
@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Total Agnosticism is the only answer
I don't know about that.
--
Doc Smartass
"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people
became too reasonable." -- Sam Harris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 03:12:24 AM |
|
|
In our last episode, <1167030377.233651.101490@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Jim Roberts broadcast on alt.atheism:
I am an agnostic of the strongest kind. It is not just that I don't
know, but that I cannot know. That's not Atheism.
Yes, it is.
It is Total
Agnosticism. Neither am I saying that there is no God,
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
Inventory your beliefs. If there is not "I believe in (a) god(s)" in that
inventory, you are an atheist. "I don't have enough information to know
whether I *should* believe" is a belief, but it is not the same as "I
believe in (a) god(s)." So, "I don't have enough information to know whether
I *should* believe" does not say whether "I believe in (a) god(s) is in your
inventory of beliefs.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
War on Terrorism: Bad News from the Sanity Front
"In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to ...
torture." --Jonathan Alter,_Newsweek_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 03:42:16 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
My point of view is that I can never know. Like I can never know all
the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they go on for ever,
seemingly randomly. There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
I can never know whether God exists or not. It's impossible to know
this as a certainty.
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief of the
non-existence of God. They're as "certain" in this belief as the
Theists are in theirs. Some Atheists are as fundamentalist as some of
the Theists. To them Atheism is a kind of religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 05:02:14 AM |
|
|
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167039736.427972.224390@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Lars Eighner wrote:
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
My point of view is that I can never know. Like I can never know all
the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they go on for ever,
seemingly randomly.
Yet, you know they exist.
There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
Yet, you know they exist.
I can never know whether God exists or not. It's impossible to know
this as a certainty.
I can never know whether Santa Claus exists. But since there is no evidence
that he does, I choose not to be bothered by it.
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief of the
non-existence of God. They're as "certain" in this belief as the
Theists are in theirs. Some Atheists are as fundamentalist as some of
the Theists. To them Atheism is a kind of religion.
See you at the Atheist Church. We eat babies. It's true. Every Sabbath. See
you there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 11:57:31 AM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
My point of view is that I can never know. Like I can never know all
the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they go on for ever,
seemingly randomly.
Yet, you know they exist.
There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
Yet, you know they exist.
No, I don't know they exist. My mathematical intuition says they should
exist. Mathematical induction implies their existence would be
consistent with the existence of the more tractable numbers, like 1,2,3
.... . I have no problem with these numbers. Believing in their
existence does not bring down the whole of Mathematics. But it's still
only a belief. I cannot know for certain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 03:17:30 PM |
|
|
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167069451.209023.160460@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
Yet, you know they exist.
No, I don't know they exist. My mathematical intuition says they should
exist. Mathematical induction implies their existence would be
consistent with the existence of the more tractable numbers, like 1,2,3
... . I have no problem with these numbers. Believing in their
existence does not bring down the whole of Mathematics. But it's still
only a belief. I cannot know for certain.
Point taken. I guess I should have said that at least you know that some
exist, unlike any god ever imagined by humankind,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 11:27:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:02:14 -0500, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Jim Roberts" <cjdroberts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167039736.427972.224390@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Lars Eighner wrote:
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
My point of view is that I can never know. Like I can never know all
the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they go on for ever,
seemingly randomly.
Yet, you know they exist.
There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
Yet, you know they exist.
I can never know whether God exists or not. It's impossible to know
this as a certainty.
I can never know whether Santa Claus exists. But since there is no evidence
that he does, I choose not to be bothered by it.
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief of the
non-existence of God. They're as "certain" in this belief as the
Theists are in theirs. Some Atheists are as fundamentalist as some of
the Theists. To them Atheism is a kind of religion.
See you at the Atheist Church. We eat babies. It's true. Every Sabbath. See
you there.
Shhh! Ix-nay on the abies-bay...!
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 03:59:20 AM |
|
|
In our last episode, <1167039736.427972.224390@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Jim Roberts broadcast on alt.atheism:
Lars Eighner wrote:
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
My point of view is that I can never know.
It isn't about "know." It is about belief. Whether you are an atheist or
not depends upon whether "I believe in (a) god(s)" exists in your inventory
of beliefs.
Like I can never know all the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they
go on for ever, seemingly randomly. There are many things I can never
know. For example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational,
irrational and transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0
and 1.
I can never know whether God exists or not. It's impossible to know
this as a certainty.
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief of the
non-existence of God.
That is contrary to my experience. Of course some kinds of gods with the
attributes they are supposed to have can be shown to be impossible. It is
very easy to know that the "omni-everything" gods do not exist because the
omnis are contradictory. So we know those kinds of gods do not exist, at
least not with the attributes ascribed to them. But there is a vast
difference between "very powerful" and "omnipotent." So it impossible to
disprove gods that are supposed to be merely very powerful, very wise, very
well informed in the way that it is to disprove gods that are omniscient,
omnipotent, etc.
They're as "certain" in this belief as the Theists are in theirs. Some
Atheists are as fundamentalist as some of the Theists. To them Atheism is
a kind of religion.
*****.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Save the Rainforest! Eat a vegetarian!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mozdev" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
06 Jan 2007 07:16:29 PM |
|
|
Jim Roberts wrote:
I can never know whether God exists or not.
You are arguing that there might actually be a God because that
conjecture cannot be proven false? That is argument from ignorance,
logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks
-- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his
critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
06 Jan 2007 10:32:04 PM |
|
|
Septic wrote:
Jim Roberts wrote:
I can never know whether God exists or not.
You are arguing
He is informing you as to the state of his knowledge, Septic. Nothing
more. (And what is your major malfunction?)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mozdev" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
09 Jan 2007 06:54:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Septic wrote:
Jim Roberts wrote:
I can never know whether God exists or not.
You are arguing
He is informing you ...
You and Jim are not informing us of anything, you and Jim are simply
arguing that there might actually be a God because that conjecture
cannot be proven false. (See above) That is argument from ignorance,
logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks
-- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his
critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
11 Jan 2007 06:30:28 PM |
|
|
Septic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Septic wrote:
Jim Roberts wrote:
I can never know whether God exists or not.
You are arguing
He is informing you ...
not informing
Yes informing, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
08 Jan 2007 10:07:52 PM |
|
|
Jim Roberts wrote:
Lars Eighner wrote:
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
My point of view is that I can never know.
You can never know whether you believe in god? That's crazy.
Like I can never know all
the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they go on for ever,
seemingly randomly. There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
Sure, but knowing the content of your own beliefs is something else.
I can never know whether God exists or not. It's impossible to know
this as a certainty.
Right, but nobody was talking about whether you knew god exists but
whether you *believe* god exists.
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief of the
non-existence of God. They're as "certain" in this belief as the
Theists are in theirs. Some Atheists are as fundamentalist as some of
the Theists. To them Atheism is a kind of religion.
This is certainly true, but it doesn't change the fact that you dodged
a perfectly legitimate question. Do you believe in a god or gods? Yes
or no. Plenty of people who do not know god exists nevertheless choose
to believe that he exists.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
25 Dec 2006 04:05:40 AM |
|
|
Jim Roberts wrote:
Lars Eighner wrote:
Unless you agree with the statement "I believe in (a) god(s),"
you are an atheist. "I can't make up my mind" is not agreement.
Whether you are an atheist is about what your belief is, not whether the
proposition "There is/are (not) (a) god(s)" is true.
My point of view is that I can never know. Like I can never know all
the digits in the decimal expansion of PI, they go on for ever,
seemingly randomly. There are many things I can never know. For
example, I cannot count all the numbers both rational, irrational and
transcendental along the real line between the numbers 0 and 1.
Yes. These are provably unknowable. Has someone proved to you that the
existence of gods is unknowable?
I can never know whether God exists or not. It's impossible to know
this as a certainty.
Nonsense. If a god exists, it could easily prove this to us. Now
disproof is not so easy, since a) there is no consistent definition; b)
disproof of a mere possibility is impossible except by showing it to be
contradictory. So most of us just go by Occam's Razor and ignore gods
as superfluous.
Besides, who is saying they know of a certainty that gods don't exist?
All we're saying is we don't *believe* they do.
Do you believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn? Are you agnostic about it?
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief of the
non-existence of God.
And this has what to do with whether or not you believe in gods? As I
said in my original reply to you: atheism is not believing in gods.
Certainty doesn't enter into it.
They're as "certain" in this belief as the
Theists are in theirs. Some Atheists are as fundamentalist as some of
the Theists.
I love the use of "fundamentalist". What does that mean in the context
of an atheist? We have only one attribute that we necessarily share: we
don't believe in gods. How can there be a looser or stricter
"interpretation" of this?
I think what you meant to say is 'Some atheists are as strident of
assholes as some theists.' And we won't disagree with you. Assholery
seems to be distributed across our species without regard to origin or
beliefs.
To them Atheism is a kind of religion.
I was going to respond 'Silliest religion ever', but then, religions
are almost universally silly, when they don't become frightening.
Dogmatically believing only 'There are no gods' is a whole lot less
likely to convince you to do something truly awful than believing that
anybody who doesn't believe as you do is going to burn for eternity
after they die.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mozdev" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
06 Jan 2007 07:21:52 PM |
|
|
Jim Roberts wrote:
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief
Straw man alert. Atheism is not characterized by religious belief
(believing in things without evidence), atheism is characterized by an
ABSENCE of a religious belief, "Atheism is characterized by an absence
of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
06 Jan 2007 10:39:05 PM |
|
|
Septic wrote:
Jim Roberts wrote:
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief
Atheism is not characterized by religious belief
Atheism does not _prohibit_ an atheist from having beliefs in general,
Septic. (The _only_ belief atheism precludes is belief that one or
more deities exist.) In particular, many atheists actually do believe
that no deities exist. Just ask them, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mozdev" |
|
| Title: Re: Total Agnosticism is the only answer |
08 Jan 2007 01:07:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mozdev wrote:
Jim Roberts wrote:
Most Atheists I have come across are "certain" in their belief
Atheism is not characterized by religious belief
<unsnip>
Straw man alert. Atheism is not characterized by religious belief
(believing in things without evidence), atheism is characterized by an
ABSENCE of a religious belief, "Atheism is characterized by an absence
of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheism does not _prohibit_ an atheist from having beliefs in general.
(The _only_ belief atheism precludes is belief that one or
more deities exist.) In particular, many atheists actually do believe
that no deities exist. Just ask them, Septic.
How is "I do not believe your proposition" a belief? It isn't, it is
just an absence of your religious belief, and you know it, you are just
trying to get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
non-believers, as usual.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
