This might be an old topic that's been talked about already, so sorry if this is yesterday's news. But I was just curious about what anyone here would have to say about my belief. So, here's my argument. I realize that if at least one person calls themself agnostic, agnostics must exist. That's not really the point of the question. Also, this is by no means an attack on anyone identifying themself as agnostic. This is more of a question of semantics and philosophy. These are the definitions I'm working in. If you disagree with any, feel free to say why and post your own. Theist: a person who believes in a deity. Atheist: a person who lacks a belief in a deity. Agnostic: a person who believes it cannot be proved one way or another whether a deity exists (at least, currently). (also, I realize Atheist Agnostic and Theist Agnostic are terms that are sometimes used, but I see no need to address those) Those definitions accepted, here's my argument. Believing something because it isn't disproved is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance. Here's an example: Just because I can't disprove that you, the reader, are an alien in disguise of a human doesn't mean there is an equal chance for it to be true and false. There are many, many things you personally can't disprove (invisible ice cream factories on Mars), but that doesn't mean it's sensible to propose their possible existence. Proving a negative is virtually impossible, and sometimes literally impossible. Evidence simply doesn't work that way. That said, you either have a belief, or do not have a belief. Proof is irrelevant, since, from a philosophical standpoint, it's generally impossible. I could never prove to someone that lightning exists, because all they have to do is claim hallucination or faulty senses and my proof has failed; but I still believe (somewhat strongly) that lightning does exist (for reasons I won't get into). But because I can't prove lightning exists doesn't make me a Lightning Agnostic. I either believe in lightning, or lack a belief in lightning. The varying degrees of doubt/certainty I have are also irrelevant. They help to describe the nature of my belief or lack of belief, but they do not constitute a hidden third middle ground. I propose that all agnostics are simply atheists and theists who are unsure of themselves (y'know, like most thinking people are about most subjects that matter). Most atheists I know say that they would believe in a deity if there was any evidence for it (though I'm sure they [and I] would look at the evidence with unprecedented scrutiny and skepticism), so it's not a matter of agnostics being skeptical of both "sides." Because firstly, skepticism is a tool to reach a conclusion when presented with ideas, not a position to maintain. And secondly, you cannot be skeptical about a lack of belief. If I were to say that I'm skeptical about people who don't believe in cheese, all I'm really saying is that I do believe in cheese. Well, those are my thoughts. I hope I didn't accidentally say something offensive, though I'm pretty sure I didn't (but it is late, so... yeah) I could be wrong, and as always, I would greatly appreciate anyone presenting ideas/facts/beliefs/etc. that run contrary to my claims. Also, to give you an idea where I'm coming from philisophically (to give you a better idea of what criticisms/comments to make, etc.), I'm an unforgiving atheist, a Marxist (which kind of goes hand-in-hand), and an avid proponent of the notion that most, if not all, so-called spiritual and religious beliefs are simply memes (mind "viruses" [suggested reading: "The Selfish Gene," Richard Dawkins; "The Meme Machine," Susan Blackmore]). That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to accept any ideas or rationales to the contrary, it's just to warn you that I may find some of them completely irrelevant!
Vae Victus "That said, you either have a belief, or do not have a belief. Proof is irrelevant, since, from a philosophical standpoint, it's generally impossible" Incorrect As 'cogito ergo sum' can be proved absolutely. And proved absolutely by your reading of these words. Then some things are FACT. On specific issues. There are 3 positions.. *believe *dont know *do not believe. If you suggest 'dont know' is false. Ask a new born baby about thermodynamics. "I propose that all agnostics are simply atheists and theists who are unsure of themselves " Unsure by what criteria? Occam suggests a criteria you do not understand. Thus you cannot define human understanding of the criteria of human understanding. And cannot say what is understood or not. Occam oes not know if there is a god or not. And nothing but evidence of a god can shift him from this position. You suggests he secretly believes or does not believe in god. Because YOU cannot imagine a middle ground.. Do not apply your limmitations to others. Occam
Incorrect As 'cogito ergo sum' can be proved absolutely. And proved absolutely by your reading of these words. Then some things are FACT. Just as I said, generally impossible. In all but one instance, "proof" is impossible, (depending on the definition you're using for proof!). On specific issues. There are 3 positions.. *believe *dont know *do not believe. If you suggest 'dont know' is false. Ask a new born baby about thermodynamics. I'm not sure how this is relevant, but a newborn would not believe in thermodynamics, unable even to grasp the meaning of your question. Unsure by what criteria? Could you please rephrase your question? Occam suggests a criteria you do not understand. Thus you cannot define human understanding of the criteria of human understanding. And cannot say what is understood or not. Again, please rephrase. I'm sorry, but is English not your first language? Would you like me to rephrase anything I've said before you respond, to make sure we're not simply confusing our terminology/language? Occam oes not know if there is a god or not. And nothing but evidence of a god can shift him from this position. You suggests he secretly believes or does not believe in god. Because YOU cannot imagine a middle ground.. That's my point actually. I don't have evidence for or against invisible ice cream factories--that's why I disbelieve in them. Do not apply your limmitations to others. Thank you for that pointlessly self-important ad hominem attack. I'm sure you feel much better now.
What do you mean by "lacking belief"? It looks like you mean that "lacking belief" means having no belief whatsoever. If so, then your definition of atheist is lacking because there are atheists who positively believe that there is no God. Even then, I do not think that you can "lack belief" if that is what you mean. Here's why: When you are exposed to a concept, you immediately have a reaction to it. There are many reactions you might have, but, in the end, they all boil down to four basic responses. The concept, in your opinion, will be either: True False Ridiculous Uncertain Belief for or against the concept is then applied. Note that even in the case of Uncertainty, belief for or against is pending. This, I think, is as close as you can get to "lacking belief" logically, but you still have a pending belief regarding the concept (either for or against). This is, in regards to the concept of an extistent deity, agnosticism (uncertainty as to God's existence). Notice that there is no option to return to a state where you were unaware of the concept. You will either have belief for or against the concept, but you WILL have a belief (or be commited to having one, in the case of Uncertainty). It is also important to realize that it is impossible to remain completely intellectually neutral to a concept. I think that the closest you can get is simply not caring about it at all. If that is the case, make sure that you do not support or condemn either side. If you are trying to remain neutral or not care at all regarding a concept, then you must either refrain from attacking either side (side meaning either "belief for" or "belief against") or you must attack both sides with equal fervor (In the case of God's existence, no bashing the guy who comes in saying "THERE IS A GOD" as an ignorant, stupid simpleton and then refer to the guy who says "THERE IS NO GOD" as an enlightened, intelligent scholar). If "lacking belief" means having no belief whatsoever, then infants, animals, and non-sentient matter are all atheists. The have no conception of God, therefore they have no belief, therefore, they are atheists. This, I think, is an insufficient definition of atheism because it is too broad. I am not an atheist, but the atoms, molecules, compounds, cells, muscles, bones, etc. within my body are? You will need to refine your definition, I think. Edit: Hey Occam, it looks like we agree on something. LOL
I'd say it's unusual to call an animal an atheist, but perfectly accurate. I believe in god the same "amount" animals and atoms do, despite being exposed to the idea. But if you disagree with this definition, what would you define as an atheist?
Given. But you suggest it is irrelevent.. Occam suggests it is the absolute basis of our human understanding. Show an example of where in our relality the inverse square lwaw of gravity does not apply. You cannot. as no human can. Thus, to humans.. it is FACT. Even though it may not be FACT in other realms of reality. [not an absolute fact] Exactly.. If occam asks you..define god.. Can you define the question. Based on precedent. That is, what do you understand of the true reality of a possible god. To base your understanding of it on? If we know little/nothing of a possible phenomena. We can ONLY be indeterminate in our understanding of it. with god..that means agnosticism. A baby is an absolute agnostic..And a human adult is little wiser or more informed. Including occam. Could you please rephrase your question? By what criteria do you define understanding of an idea/fact as true or not? desire. public opinion. method? you "I could never prove to someone that lightning exists, because all they have to do is claim hallucination or faulty senses and my proof has failed" Occam can prove lightning exists to another who operate by rational criteria. We stand in a lightning storm. When it's over . Occam asks DID you see that? What would you reply? Occam does not have evidence for or against invisible icecream factories. Thats why he does NOT KNOW IF THEY EXIST OR NOT. Sorry but "I propose that all agnostics are simply atheists and theists who are unsure of themselves " is no different to occams "Do not apply your limmitations to others." You proposed that occams method is unsound. Occam proposes yours is ...limmited. much the same both ways ..no? All the best Occam
And to the original question. Do agnostics exist..? [Occams opinion] Occam is one. He does NOT KNOW OR BELIEVE a GOD exists. Or does not. A god 'MAY' exist. or not. [and there is indictative evidence for 'direction'] If it is said that we can know very little. This does not mean we should then make a decision because we will never KNOW. It means 'we' will never know. So what. Our chilldrens-children will. Based on our groundwork of rational thought. So many speak of 'i' Occam speaks of 'we'. Humanity can do anything. He has absolute trust in our potential. In the things that let us bend reality to our whim. To create poetry and machines. Operas and theories Imagination and will. Compassion and love. reason. These. are the powers of god. WE, are 'just' leaning this. When we can create worlds and species. Will we not have the power of god? And who is to say that 'god' or direction in reality. Did not plan this from the beginning. Religion says we should 'bow before' Occam suggests we should 'strive to stand as a equal' . As we are inherently[equal to a 'god'] as thinking beings. [the 'power' of god having zero to do with equality] Those who suggest 'but god made us' and thus we should 'bow before' are the adherents of slavery. Occam
On a personal level, I treat most of the 'information' that I have as fact. I believe lightning and agnostics (and a slew of other things) exist in reality (there is only one reality--how we as primitive monkeys living on this particular planet interpret that reality is questionable, but I don't think the concept of reality is questionable in of itself). That said, I could never ever prove that I am not some alien mental patient in a space-prison somewhere imagining everything in my head that I believe I've experienced up to this point. I believe cogita ergo sum is a proven concept because of the meaning I attach to the words "I" and "exist." That's why I consider the concept of proof, on a fundamentally philisophical level, to be irrelevant to most topics. And proof/lack of proof seems (to me!) to be the very base of what agnosticism is built upon. To put it another way, I don't believe the question, "can this be proven?" is anywhere near as signifigant or relevant as "is this reasonable, in what capacity I have to understand it"? Well, I can't. The concept of god, like many things I (rightfully or wrongfully) categorize as superstition, exhibits the hallmark of all notions that I consider to be the trademark of superstition: everyone has their own definition of it. Now, this is true to a certain extent for every concept imaginable---we all have different models we perceive the world through. But superstitions exhibit a different "kind" of variation. If I ask for the be-all-end-all definition for lightning, I may get responses that are worded differently, or missing information here and there. If I ask for the definition of God, I will literally get every array of idea that could exist. God is angry and spiteful to one person; God cannot have emotions, as we know them, to the next. And of course, the third person may say they don't even know what God is, but still believe in it. That's where I take issue! Even imagining a conversation with a different word used illustrates how ridiculous this is. Person A: I believe Junga causes hurricanes. Person B: Okay. What's Junga? Person A: I don't really know. One is only left to speculate about the reasons the person believes in Junga (God). I will gladly, and up front, admit that there is a LARGE variety of phenomena that I will never (and could never) understand. I know very little about most of mechanisms and processes of the universe. But stating that therein lies the reason for believing God may exist seems silly to me, particularly when a definition for god isn't given (which is too often the case). If a baby is an agnostic, where is an atheist? What makes the baby an agnostic? Is there a section of its brain devoted to "ideas yet to be discovered and decided upon"? A newborn doesn't believe God can never be proven or disproven, because a newborn is unable to believe God can never be proven or disproven. I would define a notion as true or false when I personally believe it is true or false---that's rather shallow reasoning I admit, but at least I'm being honest about it, since that's how everyone defines what they believe to be true and false. And as best I can, I base my feelings off of Aristotlean logic, materialistic dialectics (which to sum up: all things are forever changing processes---reality does not consist of things, but interacting mechanisms), and "reason" (to use a word too often used). To use an example: I believe evolution is the process by which differing species originate. Why do I believe this? Mainly, because I believe the concepts behind it have been shown to be true (the infamous fruit fly experiments), and because I see no other mechanism by which it COULD happen. Could I be delusional, some pychosis patient, oblivious to the fact that in the real world, creationism has been proven? Sure. I just really doubt it. I would reply, "That is a misleading question, because I don't see with my eyes, I perceive with my eyes and my mind, both of which could be faulty." Hallucinations are real, mirages are real, etc. I personally (and strongly!) believe in lightning, but philosophical proof... I just don't see how it could ever happen. I do not "know" that they exist or not either; I just disbelieve in them to such an extent that I would willingly label myself an "invisible icecream factory atheist." lol I apologize if I offended you. I certainly didn't mean it. Again, I'm not positing the idea that agnostics are just silly, or misguided, or whatever--just that the word itself has no particular relevance. I see very well how the term is helpful, meaningful, and helps distinguish people into another discerning class (AKA, pigeonhole) of likeminded individuals. But on a philisophical level, I find it redundant of a truth which we should all hold dear---that a lot of what we believe is speculation to some extent. Thank you. And you too, sir. P.S. I'm very tired, so I apologize in advance if I said something nonsensical, or presented my opinion as if it were a fact. I have a nasty habit of doing both of those things when my brain starts to shut down.
Victus To your first reply..occam agrees. Occam also doubts it.. Because creationism is NOT validated. Yes..You may be halucinating.. If so.. How is it so consistent? Reality beyond 'gogito ergo' is a logical agreement between humans. NOTHING throught the senses is logically FACT. Perception tunnelling to neuro electric input makes all reality a data input to the mind . Except 'cogito ergo'. Which is ;direct experience. AS to invisible icecream factories.. Occams method gives them a .0000001 possibillity. Pretty much your stance ..no? As to agnosticism... yes, MUCH is speculation. And you did not offend occam You could not , unless he allowed you to. And please..Occam welcomes all who think. Who feel..who wish to understand. As occam does. You are as occam is.. A wild being in a wild world. All is indeterminate and open.. We make our own paths if we so desire. Occam
Well, generally speaking we pretty much seem to agree. Thank you for your posts, and I welcome anything in the future you would have to say, whether yay or nay. And yeah, very few of my thoughts are centered around the possibility of an invisible ice cream factory. :Þ Hehe.
and then theirs agnostics who have just given up and dont care one way or the other. cause its all bs to them. the way I see it how can any religion be prooven from another, or from hard line atheism. and to speek of christianity, wars have have been waged over diferent intepretation of the same book.which to me is simply retarded. its a book wich may have been rewriten a 100 times, and has been translated from dozen or more different languages. and possibly changed by the opinions of the writers. the day I see some one walk up to some dude who says "lord smite though heathen bastard", and that dude is instantly hit by bolt of lightning on clear -20 below day. That is the day i become a thiest.
cousinit A very interesting idea... What is YOUR idea of 'conclusive evidence'.? [all readers] Occams requires 2[two] humans..One which is occam. The rest he will explain, in time. Occam
I really don't see atheism, theism and agnostic ont he same playing feild and this, I think is where a lot of confusion comes in. I think, generally, that most agnostics still fall within the realm of theist or atheist. In my opinion an agnostic is simply someone who recognizes that a beleif in God can not be proven or disproven and that the concepts are mostly beyong the reach of our feeble minds. In short I don't think you can call agnostic a religious persuasion and I don't think you can really address it without considering the theist-agnostic and atheist-agnostic perspectives. I am a theist-agnostic because I have a tendency to beleive in something I have absolutely no way to describe or define or proove. Just something...
pop 3 13 Well said While occam is far more agnostic than theist. He still leans towards belief in a direction in reality. This is because reality as we observe it.. shows indications of direction. And also..maybe Just something. Occam
To get technical, I'm "agnostic-humanist." Agnostic-humanists are ambivalent about the existance of a God, and don't really consider resolving that question to be particularly important. Rather, I get my ethical codes and all that from secular ideas, and if a God was somehow proven to exist, it wouldn't change my morals and behavioral codes (well unless I guess He was holding a lightning bolt over my head or something).
