Current Events > Agnosticism is a cop out, "agnosticism" doesn't exist

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dustin1280 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

I don't agree. The only reason why an atheist's "beliefs" are even being questioned is because something that has no basis in time/reality is being proposed. Therefore stating that an atheist is actively not believing in something is pretty disingenuous as that rhetoric is purely to aid the theist's side semantically.

Based on what we know, it is impossible to prove that gods exist or do not exist. Somehow assuming that the "gods don't exist" is the default position based on no facts that prove such a default position is taking a side and believing that your side is correct even though there isn't anything to prove it.

Atheists believe that gods don't exist (even if they want to try to sidestep such a belief with phrases like "lack of belief") is just as impossible to prove as theists who believe their gods do exist.

I personally don't believe in any theist nonsense, but I am not arrogant enough to proclaim that they are all loons and 100% wrong.

I don't think "lack of belief" is a side step though and I think that there should be a clear distinction between lack of belief and actively believing against. Lacking belief is the default because atheists aren't proposing a lack of God. They aren't proposing anything and are coming from a state of rationality, or at least should be. While theists are proposing something without basis and asking for proof against whatever they're proposing while not providing proof it exists to begin with because you can't prove it exists. Circular reasoning.
---

Ok, what about a deists view? Why isn't that the default? Why should an atheists view that gods don't exist have more precedence than a deists view where whatever created us doesn't directly interfere?

Both are equally reasonable neither of those two have more evidence.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Ok, what about a deists view? Why isn't that the default? Why should an atheists view that gods don't exist have more precedence than a deists view where whatever created us doesn't directly interfere?

Because a deist is proposing that something, in fact, exists while the opposing view isn't proposing anything until provoked basically.
---

A deists point of view is no more outlandish then an atheists point of view.

Both are 100% plausible given what we know.

Just because you have arbitrarily decided that NOT believing in something is what the norm should be and the deist is wrong, doesn't make it true.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

A deists point of view is no more outlandish then an atheists point of view.

Both are 100% plausible given what we know.

Eh I don't agree. At this point we can say anything is no more outlandish than whatever.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

A deists point of view is no more outlandish then an atheists point of view.

Both are 100% plausible given what we know.

Eh I don't agree. At this point we can say anything is no more outlandish than whatever.

I would actually argue a theists point of view is far more outlandish than an atheist.

But the fact of the matter is we don't know enough about how we came to be to make an educated decision either way.

How is the big bang theory any more likely then what a deist would believe? They are both based on massive theoretical WHAT IFS
---

k debonair posted...

bkkorps posted...

so you are an atheist. A and Not A are the only two options. if you arent A, you are Not A.

I guess, in the same same sense that newborn babies are atheist, or aliens from another dimension and foreign to human beliefs are also atheist.

which they are. atheism is just the rejection of the claim of theism.

Dustin1280 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Atheism is that you firmly believe there is no god(s)

As an atheist, this is not what I believe.

You probably aren't an atheist then, by definition that is what an atheist is.

atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

the lack of belief in god is not the same as the claim that there are no god/s.

in a courtroom, either the defendant is guilty (god exists) or innocent (no gods exist). as a juror you dont vote guilty or innocent, you vote guilty or not guilty. atheism is the not guilty vote, you are rejecting the claim that the defendant is guilty. you are not asserting that the defendant is innocent.
---

PhlogPyro posted...

Gnosticism is about knowledge. Theism is about belief.

You can be an agnostic theist - you believe God exists but don't know for sure. You can be an agnostic atheist - you don't believe God exists but you still accept there's a possibility. You can't just be an agnostic, because either you believe or you don't.

This.
---

bkkorps posted...

the lack of belief in god is not the same as the claim that there are no god/s.

in a courtroom, either the defendant is guilty (god exists) or innocent (no gods exist). as a juror you dont vote guilty or innocent, you vote guilty or not guilty. atheism is the not guilty vote, you are rejecting the claim that the defendant is guilty. you are not asserting that the defendant is innocent.

Again you are assuming that gods not existing is the default, the problem is it's NOT the default. There is no proof one way or the other that makes one more likely to be true, in this case lets argue a deistic point of view instead of theistic.

Just as they are claiming there are gods, you are claiming that you reject the idea of gods and and as such there must be no gods.

If you reverse it and claim that there are no gods, then they can reject the idea that there are no gods and as such there must be gods.
---

Conflict posted...

User NameAlBundy33
User ID7030108
Board User Level33: Elite
Account CreatedThursday, November 3, 2011 2:03 AM
Last VisitSunday, March 4, 2018 8:21 AM
SignatureI need Samuel L. Jackson to narrate my life, because my life requires multiple uses of the word MotherFucker.
Karma607
Active Messages Posted1

Y'all fell for the good ol' fashioned hit and run

Meh, I like the discussion.

What makes the idea that something created us and doesn't interfere ANY less likely then the big bang? Why does the big bang become the default option when both are theoretical what ifs.

If you find a watch lying on the beach, how did it get there? Who created it?
It certainly couldn't have appeared out of thin air...

My only point is neither atheism or deism is the "correct default view." And assuming as such seems ridiculous.
---

According to an agnostic tale, God punished Angels that were unsure about supporting Saint George in his fight against the dragon, by putting them for a while on a isolated planet where anarchy reigns.

This is from poet Emil Cioran btw, who was a ferocious nihilist and wrote some of the most famous aphorisms of XXth century literature.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Again you are assuming that gods not existing is the default, the problem is it's NOT the default. There is no proof one way or the other that makes one more likely to be true, in this case lets argue a deistic point of view instead of theistic.

the default position is to reject a proposition until it has been proven to be true. so yes, if someone is claiming there is a god, then rejecting that claim is the default position.

Dustin1280 posted...

Just as they are claiming there are gods, you are claiming that you reject the idea of gods and and as such there must be no gods.

since apparently you didnt understand it the first time, rejecting the claim that there is a god is not the same as saying that no gods exist. if a juror votes not guilty they are not voting that the defendant is innocent, they are saying that the claim that the defendant is guilty has not been proven.

Dustin1280 posted...

If you reverse it and claim that there are no gods, then they can reject the idea that there are no gods and as such there must be gods.

and if you made the claim that in fact no gods exist, I would reject that claim as well (and once again, doesnt mean that I am asserting that a god does exist).

edit: and deism is a theistic claim, it is not some third option that you seem to think it as. a deist is a theist, as they believe that a god exists.
---

What ifs of deism:
-That a sentient being existed before the birth of the universe
-This sentient has abilities to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion
-This sentient being is outside our realm of perception
-We can't understand what it is, we can't understand how it did anything, we can't perceive its existence
-Things that we can't possibly perceive can exist (for example ____)
-The big bang theory is the position of atheists

What ifs of atheism:
-The universe and its inhabitants came to be through some process that isn't the handiwork of a sentient being

Yeah, the what ifs are pretty even /s

Dustin1280 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

A deists point of view is no more outlandish then an atheists point of view.

Both are 100% plausible given what we know.

Eh I don't agree. At this point we can say anything is no more outlandish than whatever.

I would actually argue a theists point of view is far more outlandish than an atheist.

But the fact of the matter is we don't know enough about how we came to be to make an educated decision either way.

How is the big bang theory any more likely then what a deist would believe? They are both based on massive theoretical WHAT IFS

I think the path of discovery is important here. Deists propose that events are explained through antecedent causes and scientists in general do the exact opposite because that's not how science or rational thought works.
---

Theres no binary lol.

Do you believe a person exists with exactly 104,582 hairs on their head? If yes, do you believe theyre also male and have blue eyes? Or female with brown eyes?

Religion itself is a spectrum. Theres multiple dogma, branch offs from each dogma, and then individual specific beliefs.

Is there an old bearded man in heaven?
Or just a formless presence?
Or an abstract intent?
Or just nature and physical law?
---

Hexagon posted...

What ifs of deism:
-That a sentient being existed before the birth of the universe
-This sentient has abilities to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion
-This sentient being is outside our realm of perception
-We can't understand what it is, we can't understand how it did anything, we can't perceive its existence
-Things that we can't possibly perceive can exist (for example ____)
-The big bang theory is the position of atheists

What ifs of atheism:

Yeah, the what ifs are pretty even /s

Atheist What Ifs:
-The universe and its inhabitants came to be through some process that isn't the handiwork of a sentient being
-nothing existed before the birth of the universe
-do to unknown factors every observable phenomena was created or at least set it in motion by something not sentient
-we cannot perceive how we came to be because we do not have enough information to do so

-We can't understand what it is, we can't understand how it did anything, we can't perceive its existence
-Things that we can't possibly perceive can exist (for example ____)
-The big bang theory is the position of atheists

If it wanted to us to know what it was and how it did things this could be possible, thus not a what if
We only can't perceive because it hasn't made itself known, not a what if
Ok, how were we created if not big bang?
---

Agnosticism is a useful term.

In comparative religious stuff, its sometimes used to describe Buddhism, which doesnt require that you believe in God/gods per se.

It also applies to other spiritual movements or texts, which are decidedly not atheist. However, its a fairly problematic term in the context of the Western/Abrahamic religions so its understandable to have confusion about the term.
---

Agnosticism is not "I dont know" but "God existing or not is irrelevant"

I dunno if I fall into agnostic, but my personal take is that I cannot possibly prove or disprove such an existence, and basing my belief on an ucnertainty is ridiculous for both sides so I live my life on my own values and if they happn to align with a deity that exists then good, and if it does not exist that is okay as well.
---

orcus_snake posted...

Agnosticism is not "I dont know" but "God existing or not is irrelevant"

I dunno if I fall into agnostic, but my personal take is that I cannot possibly prove or disprove such an existence, and basing my belief on an ucnertainty is ridiculous for both sides so I live my life on my own values and if they happn to align with a deity that exists then good, and if it does not exist that is okay as well.

I hold a similar view
---

@Dustin1280 posted...

"-nothing existed before the birth of the universe"

Atheism doesn't propose that there was "nothing" before the universe, the universe could have been eternally existing as a singularity before the big bang. And if it did it would be consistent with the
conservation laws that we observe everyday.

"do to unknown factors every observable phenomena was created or at least set it in motion by something not sentient"

"-The universe and its inhabitants came to be through some process that isn't the handiwork of a sentient being"

These are repeats.

"
-we cannot perceive how we came to be because we do not have enough information to do so"

Says who? I've learned some nifty things in my physics courses of how we can perceive the early universe, and I've learned many things in molecular biology that narrows down the origins of life. Don't expect everyone to have your level of ignorance. That something isn't completely elucidated yet, is not the same thing as something that in principle can never be perceived.

"
If it wanted to us to know what it was and how it did things this could be possible, thus not a what if"


Ok, whatever take that what if away and I'll substitute it with the what if you just gave now. There is no net change in the absurd number of what ifs needed for deism.

Dustin1280 posted...

No I didn't say you were "kind of atheist."

Atheists do not believe in any gods whatsoever and do not believe there is a chance they are wrong.
Someone who holds the belief that they do not believe in gods but don't outright dismiss them as not a possibility is agnostic atheist.

You did it again.

You can't say that I'm "not [x]" and then say in the same breath that I'm "this specific type of [x]." That doesn't work.

Dustin1280 posted...

@bkkorps
The reason I keep mentioning deism instead of theism is because deism is more easily to swallow then theism and everything that comes with it.
You are right in the fact that theists/deists both believe in at least one god or higher being.

so you are muddying the waters. theism (at least 1 god exists) is the claim, and I reject that claim. you incorrectly assume that means that I am asserting that there are in fact no gods, which is not the case. do you understand why you are wrong here?
---

bkkorps posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

@bkkorps
The reason I keep mentioning deism instead of theism is because deism is more easily to swallow then theism and everything that comes with it.
You are right in the fact that theists/deists both believe in at least one god or higher being.

so you are muddying the waters. theism (at least 1 god exists) is the claim, and I reject that claim. you incorrectly assume that means that I am asserting that there are in fact no gods, which is not the case. do you understand why you are wrong here?

The reason I stopped replying to this topic is because it's just a circular argument at this point.

If you reject the claim that at least 1 god exists then you must believe that no gods exist. You don't get to stay neutral and say I reject that claim and that's it...

And if you don't think it's likely that a god exists but don't outright dismiss is at an impossibility then you are not 100% rejecting the claim that god exists...

There is no "neutral here" regardless of how many fancy words like "reject the claim" you want to use.

You either believe it's possible for a god to exist or you don't.

@bkkorps
Do you believe it's possible that a god exists? Yes or No?
---

What do you call someone who believes there is an equal chance of either happening and that both are too advanced for humans to conclusively find out any time soon.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

What do you call someone who believes there is an equal chance of either happening and that both are too advanced for humans to conclusively find out any time soon.

Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Deist depending on which way you lean.

If you are truly 50/50 then simply agnostic.
---

50/50 chance God exists.
---

Rejecting a claim is not the same as claiming that it's false instead.

This is a foundational concept in debating. If someone makes a claim, I don't have to claim that it's false. All I have to do is not believe it if the person making the claim hasn't made their case.

I do not believe gods exist. However, I also do not claim that no gods exist. Why? Because I don't know.

It's because I don't know that I lack belief. And my lack of belief in gods is what makes me an atheist.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Rejecting a claim is not the same as claiming that it's false instead.

This is a foundational concept in debating. If someone makes a claim, I don't have to claim that it's false. All I have to do is not believe it if the person making the claim hasn't made their case.

I do not believe gods exist. However, I also do not claim that no gods exist. Why? Because I don't know.

It's because I don't know that I lack belief. And my lack of belief in gods is what makes me an atheist.

Then you are arguably a agnostic atheist.

You don't believe gods exist, but you won't outright dismiss then as an impossibility or claim you KNOW that no gods exist.
---

I would label myself an agnostic atheist, yes. That's the kind of atheist I am.

What I don't get is why you separate "atheist" and "agnostic atheist" like they're two completely unique things.

Dragonblade01 posted...

I would label myself an agnostic atheist, yes. That's the kind of atheist I am.

What I don't get is why you separate "atheist" and "agnostic atheist" like they're two completely unique things.

When I think atheist, I think someone that does not believe gods exist and for whatever reason they are sure that no gods exist. Now truly that would be a "gnostic atheist."

But almost no one uses the term gnostic and most people that describe themselves as atheists to others are actually gnostic atheists.

Those that describe themselves as agnostic when religion comes up usually lean one direction but don't outright dismiss the other as a impossibility.

Granted, this isn't always the case but it does seem to be a common factor.
---

Idk, my experience is that most who identify as atheist just don't particularly care to state which subcategory they belong under. And people who identify specifically as agnostic do so because they don't like the baggage that the word "atheism" brings with it.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Idk, my experience is that most who identify as atheist just don't particularly care to state which subcategory they belong under. And people who identify specifically as agnostic do so because they don't like the baggage that the word "atheism" brings with it.

There is certainly truth in that statement. If you are talking to a highly religious person, saying agnostic will almost always conclude the conversation (you don't want to have anyway) in a better way with less judgement involved. Saying atheist will almost surely involve immediate judgement and possibly escalate things.

My conclusion is as follows: If a supernatural being truly existed and wanted us to worship him, he would do SOMETHING that makes it clear he exists. He wouldn't just constantly test us the entire time. Such a being if he were truly GOOD wouldn't allow some of the TERRIBLE things that happen in this world either. After all if you creations are destroying themselves in the most awful way possible and you actually care about them, it would be better to intervene and prevent such awful occurrences from happening to begin with (regardless of free will, some people deserve death). If this being exists and he doesn't intervene then he is an evil malicious being, and I don't want to worship him anyway.

Thus the only logical conclusions I can come to are:
1. IF we were created by something, whatever that something is has moved on to his next creation and pays no attention to us.
2 Alternatively we were created by no such being at all.

That is why I refer to myself as simply agnostic, not as a copout but because it fits my personal beliefs better.
---

For me, it's much simpler.

There's nothing to evidence the idea that such a deity or deities exist, and no theist has provided a convincing argument, so I don't accept the notion that some deity or deities exist.

Dustin1280 posted...

The reason I stopped replying to this topic is because it's just a circular argument at this point.

If you reject the claim that at least 1 god exists then you must believe that no gods exist. You don't get to stay neutral and say I reject that claim and that's it...

so everyone that votes not guilty is making a positive claim that the defendant is innocent?

Dustin1280 posted...

And if you don't think it's likely that a god exists but don't outright dismiss is at an impossibility then you are not 100% rejecting the claim that god exists...

we arent talking about a probability here, we are talking about belief. I reject the claim that god(s) infact exists (which makes me an atheist), but I am not asserting that god(s) do not exist. I can fully reject the claim without taking a separate positive claim myself.

Dustin1280 posted...

There is no "neutral here" regardless of how many fancy words like "reject the claim" you want to use.

its not a matter of staying neutral, its a matter of addressing a single claim at a time, and not succumbing to a false dichotomy. A or Not A is a true dichotomy, A or B is not. B is a subset of Not A. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Dustin1280 posted...

You either believe it's possible for a god to exist or you don't.

@bkkorps
Do you believe it's possible that a god exists? Yes or No?

you do realize that you changed the claim there, right? if your claim is that it is possible that god(s) exists, then I would accept that claim. if your claim is that god(s) exist, I would reject that claim. In either case, I am still an atheist.
---

I would say "I don't know" to the claim that it's "possible" that a deity exists as well. Because the only real way I would confirm that claim is if "possible" includes "things which we can imagine to be true."

I believe in the likelihood of a higher form of existence that could be reasonably equated to a deity, but that all religious deities such as "god" and "allah" are asinine and feeble attempts to personify what such a higher existence would be.

Not really sure where that puts me in your "one or the other" scenario.
---

If you are simply rejecting the claim that a god exists 100% i get that, and agree. Yes that makes you atheist.
If you are rejecting the claim that gods have a chance to exist, then you are also atheist.

The difference is Agnostic Atheist (one that doesn't believe gods exist but doesn't outright dismiss them as a impossible occurrence)

VERSUS

Gnostic Atheist (one that doesn't believe gods exist and is 100% sure that is the case for whatever reason.)

Dustin1280 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Atheism is that you firmly believe there is no god(s)

As an atheist, this is not what I believe.

You probably aren't an atheist then, by definition that is what an atheist is.

atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Going back to my original statement which is where I erred the mistake was I didn't clarify that I was talking about agnostic vs gnostic atheists. I put agnostic in it's own category, which strictly speaking it is not. The chart I posted sums up what I was meaning to get a across but I clearly didn't do a good job doing so.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

I believe in the likelihood of a higher form of existence that could be reasonably equated to a deity, but that all religious deities such as "god" and "allah" are asinine and feeble attempts to personify what such a higher existence would be.

Not really sure where that puts me in your "one or the other" scenario.

Agnostic Deist IMO
---

Do you believe in God or are you an atheist?

Yes

Which is it?

Im agnostic

You cant be just that.

Well I am

You cant be just that, you have to pick

No I dont

Yes you do

Okay my answer is yes

Yes to what!?, being an atheist or believing in God?

Yes

AGHH!!!
---

Oh shoot and here I thought Dustin1280 left because he/she couldn't back up the claim that atheism requires just as many what ifs as deism. I'd be pretty embarrassed too if I thought that part of being an atheist meant you believed "everything came from nothing"

dismiss them as a impossible occurrence)

This is such an unfair caveat to apply to atheism...under no circumstances, literally never is that sort of absolute label used for any sort of rational understandings. Not in science, not in conspiracy theories, not in everyday life. Atheism just rejects the notion of supernatural supreme beings. That's it.

Hexagon posted...

Oh shoot and here I thought Dustin1280 left because he/she couldn't back up the claim that atheism requires just as many what ifs as deism. I'd be pretty embarrassed too if I thought that part of being an atheist meant you believed "everything came from nothing"

I still stand by that claim, there is nothing that would lead me to believe one option of a higher being vs NOT a higher being has any more credence then the other. There is simply not enough data to justify either one 100%.

-That a sentient being existed before the birth of the universe
No being existed before the birth of the universe

-This sentient has abilities to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion
A series of random events happened to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion.

-This sentient being is outside our realm of perception
This one is easily countered by the fact that IF a sentient being existed before the birth of universe it would stand to reason we were not able to perceive such a being unless it made itself known.

-We can't understand what it is, we can't understand how it did anything, we can't perceive its existence
Obviously, if such a being existed we this would be true unless it made it self known.

-Things that we can't possibly perceive can exist
Yawn. Same reasons as already stated.

The big bang theory is the position of atheists
Okay, you got me here.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

I still stand by that claim

You mean the claim that atheism requires just as many "what if's" yet, you were so flooded with "what ifs" that you had to repeat two of them?

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you just negating the what-ifs for deism to give the illusion that both stances have equal what-ifs?

Dustin1280 posted...

No being existed before the birth of the universe

No shit. That's the definition of atheism.

Dustin1280 posted...

A series of random events happened to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion.

This is not a "what if" that is part of the definition of Atheism. It's not even a "what if" because it doesn't even specify what this event is. You're just generalizing a cause and effect event. "Something happens and it makes everything else". That's not a "what-if".

This one is easily countered by the fact that IF a sentient being existed before the birth of universe it would stand to reason we were not able to perceive such a being unless it made itself known.

What if we can never perceive this being.
What if it can, but hasn't let us yet.

Pick one. I don't care. Either way there are still the same number of "what ifs".

Dustin1280 posted...

Obviously, if such a being existed we this would be true unless it made it self known.

Atoms and molecules have existed since the birth of the universe (or very shortly after) and we can perceive those. So to say "obviously we can't perceive God" is, you guessed it, a "what if"

Dustin1280 posted...

Yawn. Same reasons as already stated.

It's not the same thing. Learn to read. I said things that we can't perceive exist is a "what if". Tell me one other example of something that we know exists, but we can't perceive in some form. That makes it a "what if".

Personally, you have to prove to me something IS, rather than something ISN'T.

Not just for religion, for anything.

I need to know, with cold hard facts, before I'll accept anything.

ie - if the answer is "I don't know", then it didn't happen, find out and prove that it did.
---

2. Yes it is, either something MADE those things happen, it happened randomly, or it has always been a thing. All are what ifs since none can be proven

3. Not sure what your point is here. Neither of them are actual arguments. Because the fact of the matter is, if such a being existed, we wouldn't know about it unless it wanted us to or made it so we could. Trying to further complicate the matter just is asinine.

4. Whats your point, sure we can perceive those things. We still don't know WHY or how they existed, we just know they exist. Either a sentient being made those to begin with, or they always existed.
Both are whatifs

5. Dark matter fits that pretty aptly. Seeing as we are unable to perceive it but hypothesize it exists because we have no better explanation for various gravitational effects. It must be SOMETHING thus darkmatter.
---

May have already been addressed in the topic, but if you are asked 'Do you believe God exists?' and you don't have a stance, that is the same as answering 'no'.
---