This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Atheism / Agnosticism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
If you have belief in a deity, isn't it, by definition, knowable? After all, you have knowledge of its existence, hence your belief.
You're not understanding the term, it means knowing whether it exists, not knowing what the word means. Really really believing something is not the same as knowing something, despite what hardcore theists would have you believe.
This. Just because I really, truly might believe that the sky is red, it won't change the fact that it's actually blue.
Post by
Squishalot
Can you explain to me how you believe in something without knowing what it is that you're believing? How do you know what you're believing?
In order to conceptualise your belief at all, you must know some characteristic about it. That makes it, by definition, knowable. Whether your knowledge claim is accurate or not (to address Azazel's point) is irrelevant.
Edit: Oh, and DoctorLore - welcome back. Haven't seen you around in a while.
Edit 2: I just realised that I haven't quite responded to you properly. 'Agnostic' does not only refer to knowledge of whether it exists or not. 'Agnostic' refers to knowledge of any truth claims to be made about a topic / deity. Wikipedia is a horrible source, but to quote:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity,
but also other religious and metaphysical claims
—are unknown or unknowable.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
Theism requires faith. Faith is not knowing but believing without (or perhaps despite) evidence.
Atheism rejects the idea of faith as virtuous but the fact that proving a negative is impossible leads most atheists to accept some level of agnosticism.
Personally I think that the existence of a deity is as unknowable as the existence of "Russell's teapot". It isn't disprovable but I see it as just as likely and with as much supporting evidence.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
I agree with the bulk of those statements. What you're saying isn't contrary to anything I'm saying.
The only thing I disagree with is more nitpicky, but it's the implication that theism is solely based on faith. There may be significant evidence for a theist (or atheist) belief, but nothing that could be proven.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Can you explain to me how you believe in something without knowing what it is that you're believing? How do you know what you're believing?
In order to conceptualise your belief at all, you must know some characteristic about it. That makes it, by definition, knowable. Whether your knowledge claim is accurate or not (to address Azazel's point) is irrelevant.
Lets put it this way. Lets say you have a wife. Someone tells you that she cheated on you, and has some coincidences that make their story plausible, but have no direct proof. Your wife has no direct proof that she DIDN'T cheat (because really, unless she can account for every moment of the day with a video or witness, there's no way to provide such proof). You can, however, make the choice to believe that your wife would not have cheated on you, and therefore believe that she is innocent. It may be drawn from certain things you know about her, and certain things you know about other people. But you do not actually know, based on evidence, that she didn't cheat on you. You just believe, based on what other things you know about her, that she is telling the truth.
It's the same thing. I don't KNOW that there is a god- knowledge would require some kind of proof (not necessarily something I could share, but at least some experience I would have had that proved that he existed). But, based on other things that I have experienced and observed about the world, patterns in events I notice, etc. I believe that there is a God. I don't know- I think if people actually knew one way or the other, it wouldn't be debated as much. But I believe it.
Post by
asakawa
You could exchange my uses of "evidence" for "proof" if it made it less troublesome.
Post by
gamerunknown
Where did you get this quote from? It's not true.
Sorry, it was you on page one. I should really attribute quotes more often...
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Where did you get this quote from? It's not true.
Sorry, it was you on page one. I should really attribute quotes more often...
Well, it's good to see that I can still learn from my past mistakes.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheVorago
Atheism rejects the idea of faith as virtuous but the fact that proving a negative is impossible leads most atheists to accept some level of agnosticism.
The problem with the standard take on atheism is the rigidity of the concept. Most atheists (like you, I assume) cite their objections towards "faith" in this way, recognizing that virtue and morality is a dominating content in most of the large belief systems of the world. I think this deontological idea is what seems the most off-putting to people who reject religion and faith. The sense of an all-embracing, ever-invisible deity telling people what is wrong or right is indeed, I concur, very off-putting.
I am no atheist, but I would never conform to any of the religions that are grounded on imperatives. It is absurd and unimaginable to me that an ever-present, almighty deity would have any sort of interest in the day-by-day activity of the human race on planet earth, nor in their self-created sense of sin, morality and virtue.
Equally irrational and absurd however, to me, is imagining this universe having come into existence out of nothing, without the will and/or direction of an aware, intelligent force. Manifesting from out of a random moment in "time", or perhaps initiating time along with its creation.
Post by
gamerunknown
agnostics believe in something bigger than us
Not necessarily, that's more of a deistic presumption.
As for cosmological arguments: Lawrence Krauss argues convincingly against them
here
.
Post by
asakawa
@TheVorago (hi! btw ^_^) I chose that word on purpose of course, in full knowledge of its connotations, but when I say "reject faith as virtuous" I'm simply saying that faith isn't a good thing to have. I'm not really commenting on morality or the various organised religions' take on morality.
Equally irrational and absurd however, to me, is...
Gamer's link presents a good rebuttal but this is a logical fallacy sometimes called "an appeal to incredulity" - something that seems absurd and beyond one's own comprehension must be false. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers but science has come far enough already that we can demonstrate models of the inception and existence of the universe without the need for a deity's involvement. You may not be able to understand it but that doesn't make it absurd or illogical.
@Boronidze, I agree with gamer. That's not an agnostic statement. They may believe in a deity but that would not be descriptive of their agnosticism.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheVorago
@TheVorago (hi! btw ^_^)
O hai old boy!
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers but science has come far enough already that we can demonstrate models of the inception and existence of the universe
without the need for a deity's involvement.
I'm not sure Occam's razor is applicable when it comes to the utmost reaches of what is fathomable for the human mind. It seems ever since enlightement western science has been so preoccupied with the idea that the simplest explanation must be the correct one, ultimately without any convincing grounds for it.
What happened at the moment of creation will most likely always remain a matter of belief for everyone: scientist, atheist or religious. I for one find the idea of an eternal being a lot easier to comprehend (even more Occam-y, you might say) and will probably stick with that belief.
And of your theorized God? Where did it come from? Did it "come into existence out of nothing"? Or has it always existed (similar to the idea that matter has always existed)?
It has always existed, and we are by necessity part of it. You might say we are the consequence of it / its effect.
Post by
asakawa
Atheism rejects the idea of faith as virtuous but the fact that proving a negative is impossible leads most atheists to accept some level of agnosticism.
Hmm. No it doesn't. Most atheists may reject faith as virtuous but that isn't what atheism inherently means.
Yes, that's a fair distinction to point out. I was totally projecting my own ideas on a concept there.
I'm not sure Occam's razor is applicable when it comes to the utmost reaches of what is fathomable for the human mind. It seems ever since enlightement western science has been so preoccupied with the idea that the simplest explanation must be the correct one, ultimately without any convincing grounds for it.
What happened at the moment of creation will most likely always remain a matter of belief for everyone: scientist, atheist or religious. I for one find the idea of an eternal being a lot easier to comprehend (even more Occam-y, you might say) and will probably stick with that belief.
That's fair enough but why would you think your ease of comprehension has any bearing on reality and in spite of what evidence would you maintain that belief?
God
, in this discussion, feels like Einstein's cosmological constant. Einstein had made an assumption based on the contemporary understanding of the universe and found that his equations didn't work with that assumption. To make it fit he added the cosmological constant but greater understanding of the universe challenged those assumptions and removed the need for the cosmological constant (it's more complicated but for the purposes of this (rather silly) analogy...).
Theists make an assumption about the universe and have this gap in their explanation that they choose to fill with a deity. Their perception of a gap doesn't have any bearing on the existence of a gap and assuming gaps in current understanding are filled by a god doesn't help to actually understand them. Quite the opposite, it leads (certainly has historically led) to them not being investigated or the persecution of those that do investigate them.
Post by
TheVorago
That's fair enough but why would you think your ease of comprehension has any bearing on reality and in spite of what evidence would you maintain that belief?
Certainly not, but the lack of comprehension applies to the other (traditionally scientific) end of the spectrum too. Do you honestly think that coming to terms with the origin of, and moreso, the actual
possibility
of creation is ultimately a matter of scientific progress? We are dealing with the vaguest of concepts and ideas, if even that, of what might ever "initiate" being as opposed to nothingness.
Theists make an assumption about the universe and have this gap in their explanation that they choose to fill with a deity. Their perception of a gap doesn't have any bearing on the existence of a gap and assuming gaps in current understanding are filled by a god doesn't help to actually understand them. Quite the opposite, it leads (certainly has historically led) to them not being investigated or the persecution of those that do investigate them.
Science is a tool (albeit a great one) first and foremost of utility; not of truth in the metaphysical sense we touch on here. Philosophy and metaphysics have, admittedly, failed at giving a convincing picture of the origins and true nature of the universe, but mathematics and physics fall even shorter in this specific area. You think theists believe what they do because of the need to fill a gap, and while that might be true, the same goes for astrophysics and cosmology. Science can but observe, not speculate (it isn't really allowed to!) Its job is mainly to explain
how
things happen, adjust itself to new discovery and apply it to everyday life.
The postulation of Einsteinian cosmological constants aside, I honestly think science, in the end, would be better off accounting for the existence of the universe itself by referring to an ever-present unknowable. Call it God if you wish, but the connotations of the word are too fraught with misunderstandings and ethical concepts for it to feel comfortable.
Post by
MyTie
No one can prove to me that I will die. True, significant factors indicate that I will, but empirical evidence does not exist. This is just a "gap" of science that people are trying to fill in based on what they think, and what they have seen of other things, rather than what they can prove about me. It isn't real science. Science is always right, and shows that I have never died. I trust science, not illogical assumption.
^This is about how atheist logic looks to me.
Post by
gamerunknown
I honestly think science, in the end, would be better off accounting for the existence of the universe itself by referring to an ever-present unknowable.
Brings
Laplace's retort
to mind.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.