Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Those posts are getting longer and longer, aren't they? I didn't notice until you poined that out. (But see how nice we've been to each other? )

What do you say, O? Shall we call it quits? Or should we risk carpal tunnel syndrome by continuing this?

I agree to read The Holographic Universe as soon as I can get it, then we can discuss.

Aww Moonbeam you failed your new years resolution? Oh well I failed today too.

We might as well, but humor me with a simple Q&A, so I can try to highlight where (at least my) confusion lies.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't think that I have enough information to form an opinion on whether there is gold on pluto, therefore I am an agnostic. I have no belief, I have no disbelief. I just don't know. I also don't think it's knowable at the current time, I don't care, the question is irrelevant and meaningless, etc. All those are agnostic answers.

Answer the following with "Theist", "Agnostic" or "Atheist", using the gold on pluto in place of God:

If someone says they don't carry a belief that there is gold on pluto, but they don't carry the belief that it's not, what are they?

If someone simply says they don't carry a belief that there is gold on pluto (seemingly the same thing, but shortened) what are they?

If someone says they believe there is no gold on pluto, what are they?


=====================

My point in asking is that, if someone is agnostic, they are saying that they don't believe nor disbelieve. But, if they have not made up their mind, then they do not carry a belief. If they are on the fence, it can not be asserted that they have a belief. According to you, not having a belief makes you atheist. So, I'm asking; taking all of this into consideration, does this not imply that, in your view, there is no such thing as agnosticism, or am I reading you wrong? If so, how?

That's really the only thing I believe we are mis-communicating on.

(Haha. I tried to quit. I swear. )

And UM, Moonbeam may be the Queen, but I think you're more than sufficient competition for title of King, when counting all of your posts in Extended Discussion.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Aww Moonbeam you failed your new years resolution? Oh well I failed today too.

Well, if you made it all the way til today, you last a lot longer than me.

Oh, O! You didn't take me up on it! Ok....

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We might as well, but humor me with a simple Q&A, so I can try to highlight where (at least my) confusion lies.

Answer the following with "Theist", "Agnostic" or "Atheist", using the gold on pluto in place of God:

If someone says they don't carry a belief that there is gold on pluto, but they don't carry the belief that it's not, what are they?

Agnostic.

If someone simply says they don't carry a belief that there is gold on pluto (seemingly the same thing, but shortened) what are they?

Atheist. If they really "don't carry the belief" that means that they don't believe there is. You ask them "Is there gold on Pluto?", and they say "No", right? Because they don't believe that there is, they lack the belief, they don't carry the belief, however you want to say it.

Unless you are leaving out information about the person, and you mean that they are really number one, and they neither believe nor disbelieve. If you ask them, "Is there gold on Pluto?" and they say that "I don't know", they are agnostic.

If someone says they believe there is no gold on pluto, what are they?

Atheist. They may know a lot about Pluto, or they may be like the atheists who say that they "know" there is not god. (It's kind of hard on that one, since it is a fact that may be known, I don't know.)

=====================

My point in asking is that, if someone is agnostic, they are saying that they don't believe nor disbelieve. But, if they have not made up their mind, then they do not carry a belief. If they are on the fence, it can not be asserted that they have a belief. According to you, not having a belief makes you atheist. So, I'm asking; taking all of this into consideration, does this not imply that, in your view, there is no such thing as agnosticism, or am I reading you wrong? If so, how?

I think I see the problem. I count those people who you describe as "not carrying the belief" because they haven't made up their mind as agnostics. They also "don't carry the disbelief", right? So, they neither believe nor disbelieve? That's the definition of an agnostic. It seems the opposite to me --I think my agnostic category is very broad, not non-existent.

You're trying to make me say that people who never thought about if god exists or not are atheists, it seems like. I guess you are wondering where I would put people "don't carry the belief" who have never even thought about it? Like a baby? I guess they are agnostic. (They neither believe nor disbelieve, they neither carry the belief, nor carry the disbelief.) It really doesn't seem to apply to people who never thought about it, it's like calling a dog agnostic.

What was wrong with my yes or no question to test people? It seems very simple to me. (OK, you just answer this one part, if nothing else! What's wrong with this?)

Do you belive that god exists? (That question makes sense, right? Everybody can either answer yes, or no, or they can't answer, right?)

Theist: "Yes".

Atheist: "No"

Agnostic: "Maybe, don't know, don't care, don't have enough information, I'm waiting to see, I don't carry the belief but I also don't carry the disbelief, I never thought about it, etc."

Agnostics is the biggest group, I think. Theists come next, then atheists.

(Haha. I tried to quit. I swear. )

Famous last words. I know how it goes.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And UM, Moonbeam may be the Queen, but I think you're more than sufficient competition for title of King, when counting all of your posts in Extended Discussion.

Well then, we are both kings in our own areas of kingery.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, if you made it all the way til today, you last a lot longer than me.

Oh, O! You didn't take me up on it! Ok....

What was your resolution, and what didn't I take you up on?

Atheist. If they really "don't carry the belief" that means that they don't believe there is. You ask them "Is there gold on Pluto?", and they say "No", right? Because they don't believe that there is, they lack the belief, they don't carry the belief, however you want to say it.

Unless you are leaving out information about the person, and you mean that they are really number one, and they neither believe nor disbelieve. If you ask them, "Is there gold on Pluto?" and they say that "I don't know", they are agnostic.

So you are saying that not knowing whether you believe in God is not the same to not carrying a belief in God? I guess my problem is with the way it can be interpreted - maybe not the intention, itself. If someone was to say "I don't know" to the question of "Do you believe in God," someone can interpret that as saying "Ah, so you don't actually carry a belief, then." Do you see what I mean? Maybe it's not even an actual problem. I just perceive it as one.

Many atheists will say that atheism is the default position, and taut it as just being "without belief - period." This can be interpreted two ways. It can be interpreted as "believing in the non-existence of" or it can be interpreted as "just not having an affirmed belief in." If someone is agnostic, they clearly "do not have an affirmed belief in." That, I suppose, is what I've been trying to point out.

I think I see the problem. I count those people who you describe as "not carrying the belief" because they haven't made up their mind as agnostics. They also "don't carry the disbelief", right? So, they neither believe nor disbelieve? That's the definition of an agnostic. It seems the opposite to me --I think my agnostic category is very broad, not non-existent.

I agree.

You're trying to make me say that people who never thought about if god exists or not are atheists, it seems like. I guess you are wondering where I would put people "don't carry the belief" who have never even thought about it? Like a baby? I guess they are agnostic. (They neither believe nor disbelieve, they neither carry the belief, nor carry the disbelief.) It really doesn't seem to apply to people who never thought about it, it's like calling a dog agnostic.

It's not that I'm trying to get you to say it. It's that many atheists feel that way. Every time someone touts atheism as being the "default stance," this is what they are basically saying. I agree with you, in that I would more suitably call them agnostic, but it's just not something many atheists would say. This, again, is the main point of my argument. The way that many atheists I've spoken to, or read from, form their opinions, the people (and animal) you mentioned would be atheists.

What was wrong with my yes or no question to test people? It seems very simple to me. (OK, you just answer this one part, if nothing else! What's wrong with this?)

Do you belive that god exists? (That question makes sense, right? Everybody can either answer yes, or no, or they can't answer, right?)

Theist: "Yes".

Atheist: "No"

Agnostic: "Maybe, don't know, don't care, don't have enough information, I'm waiting to see, I don't carry the belief but I also don't carry the disbelief, I never thought about it, etc."

Again, maybe the problem isn't so much with the question, but with the answer, or the way the answers could be interpreted.

Do you believe that God exists:

-Yes, I do. (Believes, however ignorantly, that they know God exists)

-Yes, I do, but I recognize that I could be wrong. (Still theistic or agnostic? They stated openly that they carry the belief.)

-Don't know. Haven't really thought about it. (Agnostic, or "without belief" meaning atheistic? Maybe it depends on the interpretation?)

-No, I don't, but I concede that he might actually exist (Atheistic or agnostic? They stated openly to believing he doesn't exist.)

-No, I don't believe he exists. I think the idea is as idiotic as saying 2 + 2 = yellow. (Obviously a much higher degree of disbelief than the previous. To say such a thing would imply that you think you know that none exists.)

Usually, it's right around the middle 3 where things get confused, but atheists are often at odds with identifying with each of the last two divisions, and they will divide it into weak atheism and strong atheism.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What was your resolution, and what didn't I take you up on?

I believe that what you didn't take her up on was calling it a quits?

Meanwhile I'll let her tell you the resolution lol.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I believe that what you didn't take her up on was calling it a quits?

Oh, yeah. Lol.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What was your resolution, and what didn't I take you up on?

My New Year's Resolution was not to argue in here anymore. I guess you figured out what you didn't take me up on. That's OK, I think we are getting closer on this.

So you are saying that not knowing whether you believe in God is not the same to not carrying a belief in God? I guess my problem is with the way it can be interpreted - maybe not the intention, itself. If someone was to say "I don't know" to the question of "Do you believe in God," someone can interpret that as saying "Ah, so you don't actually carry a belief, then." Do you see what I mean? Maybe it's not even an actual problem. I just perceive it as one.

Hard to answer question, the way itis worded, so let me just say what I think: Not knowing if you believe is the same as not actively carrying the belief. To me, the answer "I don't know" is the very definition of agnosticism. Obviously they don't carry the belief, or they would just say yes to the question. The also don't carry the disbelief, or else they would just say no. You have to know both parts, whether they actively believe, actively disbelieve (have the opposite belief, to keep it in the positive rather than negative form), or do neither. You can't just say, "Aha! You don't carry the belief, therefore you are an atheist." Maybe the also don't disbelieve, and that doesn't automatically make them a theist. That's why we have the category of agnostic.

Many atheists will say that atheism is the default position, and taut it as just being "without belief - period." This can be interpreted two ways. It can be interpreted as "believing in the non-existence of" or it can be interpreted as "just not having an affirmed belief in." If someone is agnostic, they clearly "do not have an affirmed belief in." That, I suppose, is what I've been trying to point out.

I see what you are saying now with this. I don't think it is the default position for two reason, I don't really think there is a default position.

First, calling somebody an agnostic assumes that they have actually thought about the question. It's meaningless to call a baby, a cat, or a tree either an athiest or an agnostic, right? I would say the same thing about categorizing any person who hasn't thought about it. However, since there are very few humans that haven't thought about it, I don't think that is really a problem.

Second, I unfortunately think that if there is any "default" position, that it is proably theist. Since all cultures have gods, and since most people even now have believe in god, there must be something about human nature that inclines us to believe in the supernatural. I would assume that most uneducated people are theists, including virtually 100% of people in the "natural" state, so I would call theism the default position of the human mind. It's something to be gotten rid of with education, like other bad human tendencies that we recognize as being helpful in the primitive state, but not so much now.

It's not that I'm trying to get you to say it. It's that many atheists feel that way. Every time someone touts atheism as being the "default stance," this is what they are basically saying. I agree with you, in that I would more suitably call them agnostic, but it's just not something many atheists would say. This, again, is the main point of my argument. The way that many atheists I've spoken to, or read from, form their opinions, the people (and animal) you mentioned would be atheists.

I don't agree with those people. I think it is more useful to recognize the human tendency towards theism, since it obviously is there.

Again, maybe the problem isn't so much with the question, but with the answer, or the way the answers could be interpreted.

I'm just keeping it simple. Anything besides a solid "Yes" or "No" is an agnostic.

-Yes, I do, but I recognize that I could be wrong. (Still theistic or agnostic? They stated openly that they carry the belief.)

Theist. They said yes, they believe. (Any reasonable person acknowledges that they could be wrong about any number of their beliefs, but they still have beliefs, right?)

-Don't know. Haven't really thought about it. (Agnostic, or "without belief" meaning atheistic? Maybe it depends on the interpretation?)

Agnostic. Don't know, don't care, etc. It's not the same as a calling a cat agnostic, because they had to at least think about it enough to answer the question.

-No, I don't, but I concede that he might actually exist (Atheistic or agnostic? They stated openly to believing he doesn't exist.)

Atheist. Again, they say no, but acknoweldge that they could be wrong, as any honest person would. I don't believe there is a moose in my front yard right now, but hey I could be surprised, right?

-No, I don't believe he exists. I think the idea is as idiotic as saying 2 + 2 = yellow. (Obviously a much higher degree of disbelief than the previous. To say such a thing would imply that you think you know that none exists.)

Atheist. Actually that's about where I am. The idea of "god" is completely ridiculous to me. I do think it is that idiotic. I can't prove it of course, so I can't say I "know" it.

Usually, it's right around the middle 3 where things get confused, but atheists are often at odds with identifying with each of the last two divisions, and they will divide it into weak atheism and strong atheism.

If you're so "weak" that you can't answer yes or no, you're an agnostic. Simple. It doesn't matter if you say, "No, I don't actually believe it, but it could be true, and I even hope it is and that I am wrong." That would be a "weak" atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.

I think it is actually pretty simple. People know if they do believe, don't believe, or don't know. I don't think atheists should try to "claim" the agnostics. We have these categories for a reason; if they don't have real definitions they aren't really useful.

prove flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist then we'll talk.

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

prove flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist then we'll talk.

I might make that my sig line.

The way I see things is that there wasn't a need of a "God" or "Creator" for life to have formed on Earth or for this universe to be. I'm a guy who is big into science and when people say that looking at the complexity of life is a fingerprint of a creator, they aren't proving anything. They aren't bringing up new hypotheses or experiments to test it.

In a nut shell, our understanding of the universe has told us that there isn't a need of a higher power to have it be the way that it is. I don't believe in a god because there is no need to.

For agnostics it's not black and white, that's true--they feel like they don't have enough information, altho they may lean one way or the other. I know even Dawkins says that, in his 1-7 scale theist to atheist. His two atheist categories are 6) Very low probability, but not zero and 7) "I know there is not god".

Since nobody can "know" there is no god (they can say that, but they can't really know, because you can't prove a negative) the last category is actually meaningless. So all atheists go into category 6, really. (Category 1 and 2 are theist, analgous to the atheist 7 and 6, and categories 2-5 are agnostic). So, one category of atheist.

Am I reading this right that you can claim Category 1 is a valid position to have (absolute certainty in God) but Category 7 (absolute disbelief or total lack of belief) is an intellectually dishonest position to have? They are diametrically opposite positions, and there are plenty of headstrong people who would put themselves in either category.

I'm not saying either of them has any merit, they are clearly as fundamentalist as each other and as such are really just follies of pride and arrogance. I just find it strange that you can class Category 1 as being valid whilst leaving Category 7 out in the cold.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Am I reading this right that you can claim Category 1 is a valid position to have (absolute certainty in God) but Category 7 (absolute disbelief or total lack of belief) is an intellectually dishonest position to have? They are diametrically opposite positions, and there are plenty of headstrong people who would put themselves in either category.

I'm not saying either of them has any merit, they are clearly as fundamentalist as each other and as such are really just follies of pride and arrogance. I just find it strange that you can class Category 1 as being valid whilst leaving Category 7 out in the cold.

No, I think category 1 is the same as 7, since neither one can be proven.

I don't think it is "arrogance" however; being an atheist as close to Category 7 as you can get without being able to logically go all the way, I get really sick of people calling anybody who actually has a belief (or disbelief, however you want to say it) "arrogant". How about if I start calling all agnostics "***********"?

P.S. Nevermind, that wasn't polite.

I am calling belief without evidence arrogance. Whether that is 100% belief in God, or 100% belief in NO God, it's still making a bold statement. It's also a completely unchangeable position. Evidence in either way WON'T sway these people. THAT is arrogance.

I personally throw in with category 6+ atheism. Not because I have doubt that my (lack of) belief is false, but because I'm not so prideful to believe that there is no chance in the Universe I could be wrong. That's not the mark of a good scientist, or a good skeptic.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I am calling belief without evidence arrogance. Whether that is 100% belief in God, or 100% belief in NO God, it's still making a bold statement. It's also a completely unchangeable position. Evidence in either way WON'T sway these people. THAT is arrogance.

I personally throw in with category 6+ atheism. Not because I have doubt that my (lack of) belief is false, but because I'm not so prideful to believe that there is no chance in the Universe I could be wrong. That's not the mark of a good scientist, or a good skeptic.

So you're calling Atheists arrogant aswell?

I'm calling anyone who would take a 100% unchangeable world view arrogant.

Most atheists will attest to the fact that if they were shown EVIDENCE they were wrong, they would change their minds. Ergo, they aren't category 7 atheists.

Whereas Category 1 fundies are shown evidence for evolution every day and they dismiss it out of hand. That is arrogance AND ignorance.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I'm calling anyone who would take a 100% unchangeable world view arrogant.

Most atheists will attest to the fact that if they were shown EVIDENCE they were wrong, they would change their minds. Ergo, they aren't category 7 atheists.

Whereas Category 1 fundies are shown evidence for evolution every day and they dismiss it out of hand. That is arrogance AND ignorance.

True.


Even Richard Dawkins, who you LucidFlanders would agree is likely an atheist, classes himself as category 6. Most intellectual atheists are intelligent enough to realise how hypocritical category 7 would be.

Labels are for suckers.

Originally Posted by Omicron

True.


Even Richard Dawkins, who you LucidFlanders would agree is likely an atheist, classes himself as category 6. Most intellectual atheists are intelligent enough to realise how hypocritical category 7 would be.

I am in category 6. What gets frustrating about saying that is that agnostics want to throw you into category 3 or 4 as soon as you say it. They think that leaving any room at all for what if and being scientifically responsible in the slightest means you think the issue is a toss up. We do not think it is a toss up. They say, "Hey, then you are in the 'I don't know' category." It is not so simple. We are in the "Man, that is insane, but whaaaaaaaaat if..." category.

Three words: Flying Spaghetti Monster

The answer to the question "do you believe in god" is "define god".

I personally think god is a bearded hammer-wielding man, but to others it can range from a flying spaghetti monster to a drunken bum (see dionysus).

If you answer "agnostic" without defining god first, then you're claiming equal agnosticism to the celestial teapot or the christian god, which are plain silly.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I am calling belief without evidence arrogance. Whether that is 100% belief in God, or 100% belief in NO God, it's still making a bold statement. It's also a completely unchangeable position. Evidence in either way WON'T sway these people. THAT is arrogance.

I personally throw in with category 6+ atheism. Not because I have doubt that my (lack of) belief is false, but because I'm not so prideful to believe that there is no chance in the Universe I could be wrong. That's not the mark of a good scientist, or a good skeptic.

I guess you didn't read anything I said, which is fine, but I'm gonna assume you're starting the discussion over from scratch.

Geez.

This is a site that has some vid links to google, just click the word video next to the words on the table that says 2008 episodes.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/ar...dex.php?full=0

There are many links, but the one that is free is "video."

Anyways, you can look for a lot of stuff they have many good arguments, in fact they have it where you can "call in" if you like. I have no clue how I found this so don't ask meh lol.

Anyway here is the thing about atheism.

I think I should give the clarified definition of an atheist, please atheist friends feel free to correct me if I am not capturing your belief.

It's not that we believe there "isn't" a God or god,
It's that we believe there is no "evidence" for God or god.

We come to the logical conclusion that there is no god because if you think about it, if there is no god, then there wouldn't be any evidence for it would there?

So we conclude that there is no god, though we do not believe there can't be a god.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I guess you didn't read anything I said, which is fine, but I'm gonna assume you're starting the discussion over from scratch.

Geez.

I read everything you said, I just didn't agree with your conclusion. If you are throwing yourself in as a Category 7 atheist, you are asserting that even if someone showed you compelling evidence of a supernatural being, you would outright reject it because you've made up your mind already. This is an intellectually dishonest position to have (even if the idea of a personal god is utterly ridiculous to you, as it is to me), because it means you've made up your mind regardless of all possible evidence that might arise in the future.

And I'm not saying "people with belief/disbelief are arrogant". I'm saying people with an unalterable world view in spite of evidence staring them in the face are arrogant. Is that a completely false statement to make?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I read everything you said, I just didn't agree with your conclusion.

You obviously didn't read everything I said. I'm sick of talking about this, good-bye.