TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

Since most religious discussions in this forum tend to be hideously lop-sided, I thought it might be good for the non-theists here to satisfy their thirst for theological debate (c'mon, don't act like you don't love it) by arguing amongst themselves. I will start precedings with the rather contentious claim that all agnostics are wrong.

Yes, that's right. Wrong.

First to define the differing non-theistic approaches:

• Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in a God.
  
• Strong Atheism: Belief in the lack of a God.
  
• Weak Agnosticism: Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God.
  
• Strong Agnosticism: Belief that the issue of the existence of God is unresolvable - that is, there is no way for us to know whether there is a God or not. In another, more archaic sense, strong agnosticism can also be the belief that the issue of first cause (that is, how the universe began) will never be resolved (this is the definition Thomas Huxley had in mind when he coined the term).
  
• Deism: The belief in a non-interventionalist god.
  
• Pantheism: The belief that the mechanics of the universe (e.g. laws of physics, chemistry etc.) are evidence for the existence of a God, or, indeed, God himself (Spinoza, for instance - perhaps the original pantheist - believed that the terms "nature" and "God" were interchangable).

Re: Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Regardless, in this case - again insofar as negative ontological claims cannot be logically "proven" - it would make more sense to consider this "absense of evidence" with regards to God not as evidence of any potential God's incomprehensibility, but rather as "evidence of [its] absense". If you claim that something has the properties of non-existence (and this goes for any pseudo-ontological claims, not just claims about God), would it make more sense to suggest that this "something" only has such properties because it is incomprehnsible, or that it just simply does not exist?

I didn't quite follow this part. Basically, I don't see the validity of the claim in the first sentence, and if the validity should be proven by the question in the second sentence, then I don't see the connection.

I disagree with your perspective on belief. According to the epistemology I adhere to, the sense input that we recieve basically cuts off possible explanations for what rules (if any) that determines this input. Believing is then the act of choosing one of the remaining (i.e. non-exluded) explanations. As all of them has yet to be proven false by experiences, any one of them is a possibility, and a single one cannot be infered as being correct. Hence, the choice, if taken, cannot stem not from logic but preferences. Don't know if it makes much sense to anyone else, but I'm quite happy with that perspective right now. EDIT: I guess you could call me a meta-agnostic...

EDIT: By the way, if you define atheist as a "lack of belief in a god", how does that differ from non-theist?

EDIT2: Good thread idea!

Re: Re: Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I didn't quite follow this part. Basically, I don't see the validity of the claim in the first sentence, and if the validity should be proven by the question in the second sentence, then I don't see the connection.

My assertion was that the strong agnostic believes that any God that may exist is "incomprehensible" - that is, it will exist always beyond the possibility of human knowledge and comprehension. In this sense, this potential God has, for all intents and purposes, the properties of non-existence, the absolute negation of being.

My first sentence is essentially the claim that it would make more sense to attribute these properties of "non-existence" to the fact that God does not exist, rather than presuming that God may exist with the exact properties of something that doesn't exist. The second sentence is essentially Carl Sagan's "Dragon in My Garage" allegory compressed into a rhetorical question: "If you claim that something has the properties of non-existence, would it make more sense to suggest that this "something" only has such properties because it is incomprehnsible, or that it just simply does not exist?"

(It was intended as a rhetorical question, but you're still welcome to answer it if you feel that I'm wrong.)

quote:

I disagree with your perspective on belief. According to the epistemology I adhere to, the sense input that we recieve basically cuts off possible explanations for what rules (if any) that determines this input.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that we have no choice in what sensory input we receive? Are you saying that we have no choice in the manner in which this sensory input is received? Are you saying that our senses are fallible or incapable of sensing everything that occurs in the world around us? If so, in all cases, I'd agree with you, but I'm not sure how it relates to the issue of God or, particularly, that of non-belief.

quote:

Believing is then the act of choosing one of the remaining (i.e. non-exluded) explanations. As all of them has yet to be proven false by experiences, any one of them is a possibility, and a single one cannot be infered as being correct. Hence, the choice, if taken, cannot stem not from logic but preferences.

But what you're basically arguing here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we are free to select arbitrarily from any belief system, so long as that belief system is not directly contradicted by the evidence available to us via our senses. I'd disagree with that, in the current context (i.e. the existence of God) on two grounds:

1) If the ontological claim concerns a being that has the properties of "tangible existence", then this being should be detectable in some way, which invalidates the position of strong agnosticism. If the proposed being has the said property of "tangible existence" but no evidence can be found, then this severely weakens the position of theists (who maintain that such a being exists) and weak agnostics (who maintain that the possibility of such a being existing is too strong to revert to a lack of belief in said being).

2) If the ontological claim concerns a being that has the properties of "intangible existence" (indisctinct, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, from the properties of "non-existence") then, again, I can only ask on what basis this being can be presumed to exist. The fact that such a being hasn't been proven "false" by experience is a moot point: no other being with the properties of non-existence (see the Dragon allegory again) can be proven false either. As evidence of this, I ask you: Is it possible, or reasonable at least, to say that something doesn't exist? If so, given that this non-existence cannot be logically or empirically "proven", how may one demonstrate that something does not exist? Surely the absense of evidence is the only "proof" avaiable to us in this regard? If you suggest that this "proof" is invalid, or at least fallible, in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven, on what basis can anything be said to not exist?

quote:

EDIT: By the way, if you define atheist as a "lack of belief in a god", how does that differ from non-theist?

From an etymological stance, anyway, atheism means "without God", hence "lack of belief in a God". However, while all atheists are non-theists, not all non-theists are atheists. Some non-theists are deists and pantheists (that do believe in a deity), some are atheists and some are agnostics (who I'm arguing are actually atheists as well, whether they care to admit to or it or not ).

I'm defining a non-theist as anyone who doesn't adhere to a specific theological doctrine or, at more specifically, a personal and / or interventionalist God.

strong agnostic all the way

We will never understand how the universe began...or what happened one second before the big bang (oops, there was no time then...nevermind)

I believe we are far too small/insignificant to even begin comprehending things like this. It's time to accept and embrace our ignorance.

Re: strong agnostic all the way

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt We will never understand how the universe began....

But what are you basing that on? How can you say so certainly that we'll never be able to know?

Re: Re: Re: Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

Ok Renegade, now that I'm getting at what you're on about, I'll try to answer some of your initial points, and then get back to your answer to my original post. Hopefully, this won't start off a bunch of lenghty posts from the other atheists, that I have to address.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yes, that's right. Wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong" in this discussion. Obviously I have a vague idea, but I don't get it precisely. Do you mean that there is a solid logical argument that, taking outset in the non-determined existence of a god/gods, leads to nonsense? That strong atheism can be logically proved to be the only position that is justified? And in that case, why only swing at agnostics? Is wrong some kind of ethical predicate, meaning that agnostics' viewpoint are damaging the evolution of science somehow? Are we talking pragmatics, where "wrong" is meant to label behaviour that is not to the best interests of the individual? My answers might jump all over the place, but that's in part due to this unresolved issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade First to define the differing non-theistic approaches: Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in a God. Strong Atheism: Belief in the lack of a God. Weak Agnosticism: Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God. Strong Agnosticism: Belief that the issue of the existence of God is unresolvable - that is, there is no way for us to know whether there is a God or not. In another, more archaic sense, strong agnosticism can also be the belief that the issue of first cause (that is, how the universe began) will never be resolved (this is the definition Thomas Huxley had in mind when he coined the term). Deism: The belief in a non-interventionalist god. Pantheism: The belief that the mechanics of the universe (e.g. laws of physics, chemistry etc.) are evidence for the existence of a God, or, indeed, God himself (Spinoza, for instance - perhaps the original pantheist - believed that the terms "nature" and "God" were interchangable). Adherents to the last two bodies of thought, while retaining a belief in a God, are technically non-theists (i.e. not adherents to a specific theistic doctrine or believers in an interventionalist or personal God) and tend to side with agnostics in these sorts of debates, so I've included them as well. If there are any issues with these definitions, then let me know.

I've never encountered the distinction between weak and strong atheists before, and the great Merriam-Webster dictionary does seem to disagree slightly with your definitions - on atheist and theist, at least. Regardless, I'll go along with the definitions even if I don't feel that I myself am represented fairly by any of the categories as they are defined here. I guess I'll be in the "weak atheist" category.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1) All Agnostics are Atheists:

Yes. You're an Earthling - does that make you any less of an Australian? The reason why an agnostic (as I normally think of myself) is hessitant to classify himself as a weak atheist, is because of the unavoidable jump to conclusions that follows in the confidant: He's an atheist (which is traditionally, generally, and by MW equated with strong atheism). You yourself have demonstrated this, by stating your claim as "All Agnostics are Atheists", which according to the actual argument presented, should have been "All Agnostics are Weak Atheists as well".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 2) Weak Agnosticism is irrational unless there is a reason to suspend belief: Insofar as negative ontological claims can never be validated (that is, it is logically impossible to "prove" that something doesn't exist) the avoidance of a strong atheistic position is understandable. That is, it is a logically defensbile position not to commit to a belief in the lack of a God. It is, however, not a rationally defensible position to claim that it is "possible" for a God to exist unless there is some evidence to suggest that this may be the case. If you claim to be a "weak agnostic", then you're going to have to identify precisely which evidence you are employing that is good enough to suspend commitment to a "lack of belief" in God in order to logically validate this belief system. If you have this evidence, let's hear it. If you don't, then you're not an agnostic (a rational one at least), you're an atheist.

You say that it is understandable to avoid the position of the strong atheist (~possible[God]), but at the same time it is not justified to believe that the existence of god is possible (possible[God]). It seems to me that the law of the excluded middle would prevent me from reaching any kind of belief then?
As to evidence, I think we have debated that a lot previously. Essentially, I don't see the reason why the predicate "rational" should be ascribed to the stance "do believe in non-existence of that which cannot be proved to exist", anymore than to "don't make any judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists". And here I'll go back to the issue of "wrong", because if you're talking about an "ethical wrong" or "practical wrong", then I would agree that the first stance is more rational. "Rational" here meaning the behaviour that maximizes expected benefit/pay off/utility for the individual or mankind over time. (Of course this "rational" hinges very much on the validity of a number of assumptions, including induction, laws of physics, existence of other minds, and so on, which radically speaking are all subject to the same doubts as the existence of God.) If on the other hand, we are talking pure epistemology then I cannot see any reason for choosing the first stance over the latter, and would even claim that the first involves a leap of faith not necessary for the latter.
I think that this abstract topic is really the essence of the difference between you and me, and I have abstained from commenting other parts of your post which bear on its resolution. Hope that's ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 3) Strong Agnosticism is an article of faith as strong as that of Theism:

Agree, but how does that make it wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My assertion was that the strong agnostic believes that any God that may exist is "incomprehensible" - that is, it will exist always beyond the possibility of human knowledge and comprehension. In this sense, this potential God has, for all intents and purposes, the properties of non-existence, the absolute negation of being.

That "any God that may exist is incomprehensible by humans" is my belief. However, that does not logically entail that "the existence of any God, which may exist, is undeterminable by humans", which is a necessity for you to be able to equate the possible god with the undetectable god, and consequently, the non-existent one.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that we have no choice in what sensory input we receive? Are you saying that we have no choice in the manner in which this sensory input is received? Are you saying that our senses are fallible or incapable of sensing everything that occurs in the world around us? If so, in all cases, I'd agree with you, but I'm not sure how it relates to the issue of God or, particularly, that of non-belief.

"Yes" to all your questions. As to how I think it relates to the issue at hand, I'll try to explain through an example: One explanation of the experiences I've had is the one given in the Bible, and preached by clergymen everywhere. However, that explanation talks of the all-powerful and all-good God. My experiences of the world includes quite a lot that is incompatible with the existence of such a god, hence I have cut off that explanation from the set of possible explanations. Similarly, any religion which talks of a powerful god which is eager to answer prayers and listen to you, I can dismiss. The correctness of atheism, I cannot disprove, as the concepts of "chance", which atheism allows for, can explain any of my experiences that may seem supernatural to me. No matter how many of these I have experienced.
I hope that cleared up, why I brought up the topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But what you're basically arguing here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we are free to select arbitrarily from any belief system, so long as that belief system is not directly contradicted by the evidence available to us via our senses. I'd disagree with that, in the current context (i.e. the existence of God) on two grounds: 1) If the ontological claim concerns a being that has the properties of "tangible existence", then this being should be detectable in some way, which invalidates the position of strong agnosticism.

Unless strong agnosticims is taken to be the belief that "any God that may exist is incomprehensible by humans" as discussed above. But, yes you did interpret my argument correctly. As to your point 2 (intangible), I believe that is yet another instance of the abstract problem outlined above.

What if I believe that God is a metaphor that represents our consciousness/mind? Tthat's how I currently see the Christian and Hindu Gods, for example. Would I be labelled as a Pantheist (although I don't believe "nature" and "God" are interchangeable terms), a Theist (for I believe we're our own Gods), an atheist (for not accepting the classical definition) or a Polytheist (for we all would have an inner God)?

Before proceeding and talking about the rest, I'd like to know how you would label me, for instance.

Apologies for the late response. Also apologies for the quote / reply format, but it's the easiest way to keep things organised:

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ok Renegade, now that I'm getting at what you're on about, I'll try to answer some of your initial points, and then get back to your answer to my original post. Hopefully, this won't start off a bunch of lenghty posts from the other atheists, that I have to address.

Heh, nah I think you're okay in that regard. There aren't many on this forum who classify themselves as "atheists" from memory.

quote:

Do you mean that there is a solid logical argument that, taking outset in the non-determined existence of a god/gods, leads to nonsense?

I wouldn't say that the agnostic position leads to "nonsense", I'm merely saying that the deferral of belief with regards to the existence of God is not a logically defensible position unless there is cause to defer such belief. As I said in my first post:

"It is not a rationally defensible position to claim that it is "possible" for a God to exist unless there is some evidence to suggest that this may be the case."

In other words, on what grounds can deferral of belief be considered "rational" unless there is good reason to do so? If there is no evidence for God, how can one speculate on grounds for his existence?

quote:

That strong atheism can be logically proved to be the only position that is justified?

No, I don't believe that. It's impossible, logically, to prove non-existence. Therefore the position "God does not exist" is difficult to defend unless it is possible to demonstrate the impossibility of a certain type of God existing ("Could God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?", for instance).

Having said that, logical contraints aside, I would classify myself as holding to as strong an atheistic as is possible without violating the improvability of said negative ontologies. I do not see evidence for a God, nor do I see where - in the grand scheme of the universe, given what we know about it - such a God would fit in, or how it would be possible for it to exist.

quote:

And in that case, why only swing at agnostics? Is wrong some kind of ethical predicate, meaning that agnostics' viewpoint are damaging the evolution of science somehow? Are we talking pragmatics, where "wrong" is meant to label behaviour that is not to the best interests of the individual?

I only chose to pick on agnostics because I wanted to spark a debate between the non-theists. Agnostics do not damage the progress of science, nor does agnosticism work against "the best interests of the individual" that holds such a belief system. I merely believe that agnosticism - in part, at least - is not a logically defensible belief system.

quote:

I've never encountered the distinction between weak and strong atheists before, and the great Merriam-Webster dictionary does seem to disagree slightly with your definitions - on atheist and theist, at least.

Here's the definition from "Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged":

quote:

atheism n 1 a) disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b) the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity

1a) would correspond to weak atheism (lack of belief) 1b) would correspond to strong atheism (the positive belief that there is "neither god nor any other deity").

(Link on infidels website.)

quote:

Regardless, I'll go along with the definitions even if I don't feel that I myself am represented fairly by any of the categories as they are defined here. I guess I'll be in the "weak atheist" category.

The definitions are open to debate and were meant only as a guideline. I'm not trying to pidgeon-hole people, nor claim that everyone in each of those categories has the same attitude towards the existence of God as everyone else in the group, I'm merely just trying to define terms and give a brief overview of each of the major trains of thought.

I've never thought of you as a weak atheist before, but you obviously know your own beliefs better than me, so I'm happy to run with it.

quote:

Yes. You're an Earthling - does that make you any less of an Australian?

That's more or less my point though. In previous debates on this board and elsewhere, there appears to a certain arrogance on the side of the agnostics who believe that atheism and theism are both articles of faith, neither of which are positions that can be held by those with an open, rational mind. My point was that, prior to adhering to the agnostic belief system, all agnostics must - by the definitions above, at least - be "without God" prior to developing an agnostic system of belief.

To put it another way, in the same way that I was a member of the human race first and foremost before being granted an Australian citizenship, so to are agnostics weak atheists first and foremost, before trying to rationalise God back into existence again. It is impossible, for instance, to be a Christian agnostic or a deistic agnostic, because you're already professing a belief in existence of the very object you're supposed to be deferring belief in. Therefore, a position of weak atheism is necessary before one can begin to consider the ways in which it is "possible" for God to exist and subsequently defer judgement either way. Agnosticism is, basically, a post hoc method of willing a "possible" God back into existence when every presented instance of God has already been rejected in the mind of the agnostic.

Hopefully I'm making some sense here. I've only just woken up and my mind is still kinda cloudy.

quote:

The reason why an agnostic (as I normally think of myself) is hessitant to classify himself as a weak atheist, is because of the unavoidable jump to conclusions that follows in the confidant: He's an atheist (which is traditionally, generally, and by MW equated with strong atheism).

Etymologically, atheism means, literally, "without God". As it is logically impossible for an agnostic to believe in a God, regardless of how hesitant the agnostic may be to admit this to himself, in what sense is he not a literal atheist (or, in my terms, a "weak atheist")?

quote:

You yourself have demonstrated this, by stating your claim as "All Agnostics are Atheists", which according to the actual argument presented, should have been "All Agnostics are Weak Atheists as well".

Yeah, but that wouldn't have been as controversial, now, would it.

quote:

You say that it is understandable to avoid the position of the strong atheist (~possible[God]), but at the same time it is not justified to believe that the existence of god is possible (possible[God]). It seems to me that the law of the excluded middle would prevent me from reaching any kind of belief then?

I'm not saying it's unjustified to believe that the existence of God is "possible" - in fact, it's this very "theoretical" possibility of God existing that makes strong agnosticism, in a strictly logical sense (the improvability of non-existence), untenable as a belief system. However, there is a distinct leap from the position that God is, strictly theoretically, "possible" (which is a position that can quite happily be held by the weak atheist) and saying that there is enough evidence for the existence of God to either profess a belief in it (deism / theism) or to defer judgement (weak agnosticism).

Put simply, belief in God is a rationally defensible position if there is evidence there to support it. Similarly, weak agnosticism is a logically defensible position if there is enough cause to genuinely defer judgement.

(For instance, with regards to the existence of an Historical Jesus, I would - if it were a theological issue - be an agnostic. While there is not enough evidence to suggest, unequivocally, that Jesus existed, there is enough evidence for me to rationally defer judgement on the issue. In this sense, I neither believe that Jesus existed or did not exist, I believe that on the one hand there is too much evidence to dismiss the likelihood of his existence, on the other that there is not enough to say with any confidence that he did not exist. I would also, according to this logic, be an agnostic with regards to global warming - not enough evidence to believe, too much to dismiss. Does this make sense?)

quote:

As to evidence, I think we have debated that a lot previously. Essentially, I don't see the reason why the predicate "rational" should be ascribed to the stance "do believe in non-existence of that which cannot be proved to exist", anymore than to "don't make any judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists".

But, if I understand you here, you're just fiddling around with the unfortunate consequence of logic that makes it impossible to prove a negative ontological statement. The first statement is falsifiable, as it is not logically tenable to have a positive belief in the non-existence of anything in a strictly logical sense. That is, it is "possible" - in the loosest sense of the word - for anything to exist. This does not, however, mean that it is "rational" - that is, "consistent with or based on reason" (link) - to claim that "judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" can be deferred.

Once again, if we agree that agnosticism, as a system of belief, can only be developed from the starting point of "weak atheism" (do we?) then I can only ask - is it "rational", "reasonable" or "logical" (whichever word you wish to use) to leap from the position of "non-belief" in a given ontological proposition to that of "deferral of belief" in a given ontological proposition when, in your own words, "no evidence exists" for this ontological proposition that would increase its likelihood of being true? That is, on what grounds can such a leap from non-belief to agnosticism be made other than by blind, baseless faith (which, I hope we agree, would be the very antithesis of "rational" behaviour)?

quote:

And here I'll go back to the issue of "wrong", because if you're talking about an "ethical wrong" or "practical wrong", then I would agree that the first stance is more rational. "Rational" here meaning the behaviour that maximizes expected benefit/pay off/utility for the individual or mankind over time. (Of course this "rational" hinges very much on the validity of a number of assumptions, including induction, laws of physics, existence of other minds, and so on, which radically speaking are all subject to the same doubts as the existence of God.)

It wasn't an ethical or pragmatic proposition, it was a logical one ("Agnosticism is wrong" = "Agnosticism is false or inaccurate"). I'm investigating the logical and factual foundation of agnosticism, not passing judgement on its pragmatic utility or moral validity.

quote:

If on the other hand, we are talking pure epistemology then I cannot see any reason for choosing the first stance over the latter, and would even claim that the first involves a leap of faith not necessary for the latter.

Actually, both involve a leap of faith. The first stance (of strong atheism) presumes that one is privy enough to the exact state of the universe, to declare unequivically that there is no possibility for God to exist. The second stance (of weak agnosticism) presumes that, in the absense of any evidence, one can still mentally shift from the position of non-belief to that of deferral of belief. Once again, if there is no good reason for this shift in belief, it is not "rational" or "logical": it's a leap of faith, simple as that.

quote:

Agree, but how does that make it wrong?

It's not necessarily "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, it's just not a logical position, rather it is a faith-based position. Of course, by pure, dumb luck this faith-based position may be correct, but there is no way of objectively verifying this (to the extent that anything can actually be objectively verified, that is) and there is no rational reason - again other than faith - to commit oneself to such a stance.

quote:

That "any God that may exist is incomprehensible by humans" is my belief. However, that does not logically entail that "the existence of any God, which may exist, is undeterminable by humans", which is a necessity for you to be able to equate the possible god with the undetectable god, and consequently, the non-existent one.

What's the difference between an incomprehensible God and an undetectable God? What's the difference between either of these and - even if only in a pragmatic sense - no God at all?

quote:

"Yes" to all your questions. As to how I think it relates to the issue at hand, I'll try to explain through an example: One explanation of the experiences I've had is the one given in the Bible, and preached by clergymen everywhere. However, that explanation talks of the all-powerful and all-good God. My experiences of the world includes quite a lot that is incompatible with the existence of such a god, hence I have cut off that explanation from the set of possible explanations. Similarly, any religion which talks of a powerful god which is eager to answer prayers and listen to you, I can dismiss. The correctness of atheism, I cannot disprove, as the concepts of "chance", which atheism allows for, can explain any of my experiences that may seem supernatural to me. No matter how many of these I have experienced. I hope that cleared up, why I brought up the topic.

Yep, I think I know what you meant now.

quote:

As to your point 2 (intangible), I believe that is yet another instance of the abstract problem outlined above.

Okay, so point blank: do you believe that the limitations of the senses preclude us, to a degree at least, from detecting any Gods that may exist? Do you believe that it is this fallibility of the senses that make weak agnosticism a tenable position (i.e. it wouldn't be "rational" to make judgement on the existence of a being that may exist beyond our epistemological frame of reference)?

If my presumptions are correct, then I again have to ask the question:

quote:

As evidence of this, I ask you: Is it possible, or reasonable at least, to say that something doesn't exist? If so, given that this non-existence cannot be logically or empirically "proven", how may one demonstrate that something does not exist? Surely the absense of evidence is the only "proof" avaiable to us in this regard? If you suggest that this "proof" is invalid, or at least fallible, in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven, on what basis can anything be said to not exist?

Lira:

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What if I believe that God is a metaphor that represents our consciousness/mind? Tthat's how I currently see the Christian and Hindu Gods, for example. Would I be labelled as a Pantheist (although I don't believe "nature" and "God" are interchangeable terms), a Theist (for I believe we're our own Gods), an atheist (for not accepting the classical definition) or a Polytheist (for we all would have an inner God)? Before proceeding and talking about the rest, I'd like to know how you would label me, for instance.

As I said, not everyone can be pidgeon-holed by the definitions I've used. If you believe that "God" or "Gods" have an ontological presence - that is, they exist, objectively, within the universe - then you'd be either a deist or a pantheist, depending on how broad the scope of your "God" or "Gods" is. If you believe that Gods are nothing other than "metaphors" residing within the sentient human imagination, then I'd probably classify you as a weak atheist.

But, like I said, it's not easy to classify every theological position neatly into the terms I've provided.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Etymologically, atheism means, literally, "without God". As it is logically impossible for an agnostic to believe in a God, regardless of how hesitant the agnostic may be to admit this to himself, in what sense is he not a literal atheist (or, in my terms, a "weak atheist")?

Why does not believing in a god automatically make you an atheist? An agnostic does not rule out that there could be a god behind our existance. That doesn't mean that they brand the belief in a god impossible. An atheist on the other hand, is definite in the belief that there cannot be such a thing as a god. ("God is dead" anyone?) Isn't that what seperates the two?

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Why does not believing in a god automatically make you an atheist?

Because that's the very definition of an atheist.

quote:

An agnostic does not rule out that there could be a god behind our existance.

Neither does a "weak" atheist, necessarily. In fact, I'd argue that the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is the admission on the former's behalf that it is "possible" for a God to exist.

quote:

An atheist on the other hand, is definite in the belief that there cannot be such a thing as a god. ("God is dead" anyone?) Isn't that what seperates the two?

Only strong atheists claim certainty about the non-existence of God. Read the definitions I used in my first post again.

Debating non-theists doesn't seem as fun as debating theists . Anyway I used to say I was an agnostic until I reached the similar conclusions you have reached Renegade. Now I'm resigned in admitting that I'm just an everyday, regular god-fearing weak atheist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Because that's the very definition of an atheist.

a�the�ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Going by this definition, an atheist is one who believes that there is no god. Not believing IN a god does not necessarily mean believing there is no god. So which definition are we going by exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper a�the�ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Going by this definition, an atheist is one who believes that there is no god. Not believing IN a god does not necessarily mean believing there is no god. So which definition are we going by exactly?

I think that that is a far too simplistic misrepresentation of what atheism actually is. I think a far more accurate definition is defined by the absence of the belief in a God. Inifidels has a good article defining the varying degrees and definiitons of atheism.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I think that that is a far too simplistic misrepresentation of what atheism actually is. I think a far more accurate definition is defined by the absence of the belief in a God. Inifidels has a good article defining the varying degrees and definiitons of atheism. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Cheers Occ, great article.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Apologies for the late response. Also apologies for the quote / reply format, but it's the easiest way to keep things organised:

I prefer the quote reply format. No need to apologize.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Heh, nah I think you're okay in that regard. There aren't many on this forum who classify themselves as "atheists" from memory.

Well, I guess occrider just disproved that hypothesis. Further, I seem to recall that both Drug_Tito and arctic are humanists, and therefore and by definition atheists. Fortunately it seems that they are staying out of this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Here's the definition from "Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged": 1a) would correspond to weak atheism (lack of belief) 1b) would correspond to strong atheism (the positive belief that there is "neither god nor any other deity").

Ok. I've always considered "disbelief in A" to be synonymous with "belief in not A", but it's your language, so I'll adopt this semantics.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I've never thought of you as a weak atheist before, but you obviously know your own beliefs better than me, so I'm happy to run with it.

Well, as a weak agnostic is just a kind of weak atheist, you must have seen me as a strong agnostic? Well, I guess I can come across as that, when I'm frustrated by my failures to convey my ideas clearly.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's more or less my point though. In previous debates on this board and elsewhere, there appears to a certain arrogance on the side of the agnostics who believe that atheism and theism are both articles of faith, neither of which are positions that can be held by those with an open, rational mind. My point was that, prior to adhering to the agnostic belief system, all agnostics must - by the definitions above, at least - be "without God" prior to developing an agnostic system of belief. To put it another way, in the same way that I was a member of the human race first and foremost before being granted an Australian citizenship, so to are agnostics weak atheists first and foremost, before trying to rationalise God back into existence again. It is impossible, for instance, to be a Christian agnostic or a deistic agnostic, because you're already professing a belief in existence of the very object you're supposed to be deferring belief in. Therefore, a position of weak atheism is necessary before one can begin to consider the ways in which it is "possible" for God to exist and subsequently defer judgement either way. Agnosticism is, basically, a post hoc method of willing a "possible" God back into existence when every presented instance of God has already been rejected in the mind of the agnostic. Hopefully I'm making some sense here. I've only just woken up and my mind is still kinda cloudy.

You're making your point quite clear, but I do not agree that weak atheism is a position you need to take (temporally) before that you can take on the weak agnostic position. I used to be a theist, but became an agnostic the moment I became a weak atheist. I didn't consider myself an atheist, and then "opened up" to the possibility of a god existing.
To restate my position in the Earthling-setting, you are an Earthling, but you are also a member of the subgroup known as human beings among themselves. You did not enter the category Earthling prior to becoming a human being - it happened instantanously. The same can be true of taking on the position of the weak agnostic and weak atheist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Etymologically, atheism means, literally, "without God". As it is logically impossible for an agnostic to believe in a God, regardless of how hesitant the agnostic may be to admit this to himself, in what sense is he not a literal atheist (or, in my terms, a "weak atheist")?

Using the definitions we do in this thread, you're perfectly right. However, these definitions are not used by your average Joe or Joanne. When I meet new people and the conversation turns to belief systems, I introduce myself as an agnostic, because stating that I'm an atheist is likely to produce the wrong impression in the other person. Same way with introducing my political stance to US citizens: I don't call myself "liberal", even though that *is* the correct term for what I am, but rather use "libertarian".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm not saying it's unjustified to believe that the existence of God is "possible" - in fact, it's this very "theoretical" possibility of God existing that makes strong agnosticism, in a strictly logical sense (the improvability of non-existence), untenable as a belief system. However, there is a distinct leap from the position that God is, strictly theoretically, "possible" (which is a position that can quite happily be held by the weak atheist) and saying that there is enough evidence for the existence of God to either profess a belief in it (deism / theism) or to defer judgement (weak agnosticism). Put simply, belief in God is a rationally defensible position if there is evidence there to support it. Similarly, weak agnosticism is a logically defensible position if there is enough cause to genuinely defer judgement.

And why doesn't the rejection of the belief in God require any cause/evidence? (Bear in mind that I am not currently accepting your assumption that weak atheism is a position that must be held prior to some shift in belief to agnosticism.) It seems to me that your argument somehow assumes that weak atheism is the natural/default belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (For instance, with regards to the existence of an Historical Jesus, I would - if it were a theological issue - be an agnostic. While there is not enough evidence to suggest, unequivocally, that Jesus existed, there is enough evidence for me to rationally defer judgement on the issue. In this sense, I neither believe that Jesus existed or did not exist, I believe that on the one hand there is too much evidence to dismiss the likelihood of his existence, on the other that there is not enough to say with any confidence that he did not exist. I would also, according to this logic, be an agnostic with regards to global warming - not enough evidence to believe, too much to dismiss. Does this make sense?)

Yes, it does. I don't agree, though, because I don't like to mix vague concepts such as "enough" and "sufficient" with a classification of shifts in the ontology of the individual into "rational" and "irrational". Say, there are loads of reported instances of divine/supernatural events in history books and modern day tabloids. These can all be drawn into doubt and explained away. The same goes for all the evidence for global warming taking place, and the same was true for the evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It seems rather arbitrary to me that the some piles of shaky evidence is "enough" to justify suspension of belief as being "rational" and others are not.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade This does not, however, mean that it is "rational" - that is, "consistent with or based on reason" (link) - to claim that "judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" can be deferred.

Why is "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" not "consistent with reason"? It is (trivially) consistent with the evidence and standard logical inference rules?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Once again, if we agree that agnosticism, as a system of belief, can only be developed from the starting point of "weak atheism" (do we?)

No, so I skipped commenting the rest of this paragraph for the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Actually, both involve a leap of faith. The first stance (of strong atheism) presumes that one is privy enough to the exact state of the universe, to declare unequivically that there is no possibility for God to exist. The second stance (of weak agnosticism) presumes that, in the absense of any evidence, one can still mentally shift from the position of non-belief to that of deferral of belief. Once again, if there is no good reason for this shift in belief, it is not "rational" or "logical": it's a leap of faith, simple as that.

At this point I'm wondering if all you have written so far doesn't apply equally well to strong atheism (which you claim to lean towards yourself)? I know that it does not relate to the current debate, I'm just curious to know if you see any problem with applying your guns to that target?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's not necessarily "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, it's just not a logical position, rather it is a faith-based position. Of course, by pure, dumb luck this faith-based position may be correct, but there is no way of objectively verifying this (to the extent that anything can actually be objectively verified, that is) and there is no rational reason - again other than faith - to commit oneself to such a stance.

If we assume that the starting point is weak atheims and some sort of (possibly flawed) reasoning process takes you to the faith determined belief system, then yes. However, if the starting point *is* the belief determined by faith, then there's nothing irrational about holding onto it in absense of detrimentary evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade What's the difference between an incomprehensible God and an undetectable God? What's the difference between either of these and - even if only in a pragmatic sense - no God at all?

"2001: A Space Odyssey" is incomprehensible to me. However, it is a film, and I can certainly detect its existence. Maybe I'm using the word "incomprehensible" in the wrong manner here (I'm not a native English speaker), but I think that "comprehensible" means that something can be understood completely. If something is not "comprehensible", then it is "incomprehensible". If this is the correct interpretation of "incomprehensible" then I think that the difference between undetectable and incomprehensible is quite clear?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Okay, so point blank: do you believe that the limitations of the senses preclude us, to a degree at least, from detecting any Gods that may exist?

No. I prefer to suspend belief on this issue. I think that it is possible that the limitations of the senses prevents us from detecting any gods that may exist, but it is also possible that we someday detect the existence of a god through our senses. I *do* believe that humans are incapable of understanding the "values" of any gods that may exist, or to put it in another way, the "why" of existence. John D. Barrow has written a book called "Pi in the Sky", which contains a made up story of human beings creating a super computer, and starting a simulation of the physical laws on it in order to study some phenomenon X experimentally. The simulation runs for a very long time, and eventually sim-structures of sim-molecules are arrived at, which exhibit the defining characteristics of life. This life evolves and finally ends up becoming self-aware. However, as all the input this simulated and self-aware life has access to is other parts of the simulation, there is no way for it to ever be able to know about X (as it is outside the simulation), and hence it can never get to know about the purpose of its existence. Further, imagine that the simulation was constructed to follow other rules than those of the physical laws (or even none at all), and self-aware life emerged nevertheless. Then the concepts the self-aware life uses to reason about its environment wouldn't necessarily correspond to any counterparts in the real world. It would thus not only be unable to guess the purpose of its existence, it would most likely also not know about the concepts "purpose" and "existence", but be philosophising about something different of something else. I believe that we humans, if under the supervision of, created by, or ruled by some god, are bound by the same kind of restrictions, but I do recognize that this is only a belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Do you believe that it is this fallibility of the senses that make weak agnosticism a tenable position (i.e. it wouldn't be "rational" to make judgement on the existence of a being that may exist beyond our epistemological frame of reference)?

Eh. I'm not sure I can answer this question, as my answer to the first part of it was "no".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If my presumptions are correct, then I again have to ask the question: As evidence of this, I ask you: Is it possible, or reasonable at least, to say that something doesn't exist? If so, given that this non-existence cannot be logically or empirically "proven", how may one demonstrate that something does not exist? Surely the absense of evidence is the only "proof" avaiable to us in this regard? If you suggest that this "proof" is invalid, or at least fallible, in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven, on what basis can anything be said to not exist?

Even though I do not acknowledge the validity of your presumptions, I'll have a go at answering the last question: If somethings existence would imply some inconsistency with evidence, then it can be disproven to exist. Say, I can definately say that "the God who made Earth explode on April 14th 2005" does not exist.

Re: Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1) All Agnostics are Atheists:

hmmm, it all sounds like a tautology to me.

"Statement X"
Regardless of what statement X is, I have three responses to it. I can believe that
a) Statement X is true at this time.
b) Statement X is false at this time.
c) or there is not enough evidence to choose a or b at this time.

You've then proceeded to present logic that argues that option C (i.e. agnosticism) is in fact b (atheism). Clearly at the level of abstraction there is no reason to move people from the "fence" into atheism.

The only way that you have been able to do that is because you have presented "weak agnosticism" in such a way that it is already collasping. If you had worded it in a more reasonable way then it would easily withstand this attempt to topple it.

For instance if you had worded it:
weak agnosticism, suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
instead of
"Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God."

Clearly by substituting the word "judgement" with "belief" you have distorted the position that weak agnostics take in order to facilitate their defeat. I hate to say it, but sounds like a straw man fallacy better not let Kano see this

Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it.

i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it. i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

Congratulations on the most off-topic post of the year!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Congratulations on the most off-topic post of the year!

welll, seeing as how ive missed most of the debating, really, the posts are uber-long, i decided to just throw in a theist arguement.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ok. I've always considered "disbelief in A" to be synonymous with "belief in not A", but it's your language, so I'll adopt this semantics.

There is a distinction. From a link I posted in one of my earlier posts:

quote:

"Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...]" - Dan Barker

quote:

"The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." - Gordon Stein

I know it's a bit trite to make these sort of distinctions, but - especially in debates such as this one where we're arguing over small differences in belief (or lack of) - the distinction is important. Strong atheism is taken as a positive belief, an important foundation upon which other beliefs may be built. Weak atheism is merely the lack of a postive set of theistic values.

As a case in point, look at the existentialism of Sartre. He said:

quote:

Existentialism is not atheistic in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view.

This would be a weak atheistic position as the hypothesis (of existentialism) is not dependant on a demonstration of the non-existence of God. It does generally not accept the hypothesis of God, of course (although Kierkegaard and others are classified as Christian existentialists), but it does not require proof of the non-existence of God to remain a valid hypothesis. If existentialism depended on the non-existence of God to remain a valid hypothesis, then it would be a doctrine of strong atheism.

Hope this makes some sort of sense?

quote:

Well, as a weak agnostic is just a kind of weak atheist, you must have seen me as a strong agnostic? Well, I guess I can come across as that, when I'm frustrated by my failures to convey my ideas clearly.

Well before this debate I always thought you were a deist of some sort for some reason.

But yeah, even if you're hard to classify along this theological spectrum, I do understand your position more clearly now.

quote:

You're making your point quite clear, but I do not agree that weak atheism is a position you need to take (temporally) before that you can take on the weak agnostic position. I used to be a theist, but became an agnostic the moment I became a weak atheist. I didn't consider myself an atheist, and then "opened up" to the possibility of a god existing.

It's not an issue of temporality though. I'm not saying that before becoming an agnostic you have to adopt a solely atheistic position for x amount of time before being permitted to progress towards agnosticism, I'm simply saying that - logically - agnosticism is dependant on the rejection of belief in God.

Think about it: you say that you moved towards agnosticism from a theistic position. Logically, it is impossible to be a theist / deist and an agnostic simultaneously - the former holds a belief in God, the latter doesn't (how can one simultaneously hold and suspend belief?). Ergo agnostics can't be theists, so the position of agnosticism must, at all times, be preceded by a lack of deistic and theistic beliefs which - put simply - represents a position of atheism.

Now your adoption of the agnostic mindset may have been instantaneous upon the rejection of your theistic beliefs, but the fact remains: your agnosticism was dependant on the rejection of said theistic beliefs which, if you accept the definitions I've used (which you aren't obliged to, by the way), is a position of weak atheism. So, in other words, based on what you've told me, your journey towards agnosticism was - logically, if not temporally - preceded by the acceptance of a weak atheistic mindset.

quote:

Using the definitions we do in this thread, you're perfectly right. However, these definitions are not used by your average Joe or Joanne. When I meet new people and the conversation turns to belief systems, I introduce myself as an agnostic, because stating that I'm an atheist is likely to produce the wrong impression in the other person. Same way with introducing my political stance to US citizens: I don't call myself "liberal", even though that *is* the correct term for what I am, but rather use "libertarian".

You're obviously under no obligation to use these technical terms in the "real world". The role of communication is to be understood and if by labelling yourself an "atheist" you're running the risk of people misunderstanding your position, then I see nothing wrong with using "their" definitions to ensure that you are understood. Besides, I never said that you can't be an agnostic as well as an atheist, just that the agnostic mindset is necessarily preceded by an atheistic one and that I don't see any rational reason to progress from a position of weak atheism to weak agnosticism.

(Also, I'm not sure I'd use the term "libertarian" to describe your political position for fear of being associated with Badnarik and all those other loonies. I use the term "classical liberal" to describe my own beliefs, which is like American liberalism but without the psuedo-socialistic overtones and like libertarianism without the neo-liberal economic rationalism. Think Locke, Paine et al.)

quote:

And why doesn't the rejection of the belief in God require any cause/evidence? (Bear in mind that I am not currently accepting your assumption that weak atheism is a position that must be held prior to some shift in belief to agnosticism.) It seems to me that your argument somehow assumes that weak atheism is the natural/default belief.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make though. Weak atheism is the default belief system. It's the complete absence of belief with regard to God and theology, so if it isn't the default position than what is? We aren't born worshipping Gods, nor have we considered the issue of God and opted to suspend belief on the issue. To utilise the tabla rasa theory, all people are born with a blank mental state - they don't (and can't) believe in God any more than they can believe in horses or global warming when they're first born. Of course, as they grow up, they begin to see evidence for horses by reading about them or seeing them on the farm. They begin to read up on scientific papers and develop a belief in global warming. They begin to read the Bible and develop a belief in God. However, until these concepts are first encountered either first hand or through the testimony of others, a "lack" of belief - in all these cases - is the default belief. With regards to theological issues - again, presuming you accept my definitions - this is a position of weak atheism.

quote:

Yes, it does. I don't agree, though, because I don't like to mix vague concepts such as "enough" and "sufficient" with a classification of shifts in the ontology of the individual into "rational" and "irrational".

To be honest, I agree with you here in the sense that the point at which there is a level of evidence "sufficient" enough to make a "rational" shift in belief systems is somewhat arbitrarily defined, but I still make the claim that to make this shift for no reason or for reasons that cannot be justified is "irrational". That is, I do not believe it is "rational" - by any definition of the word - to shift belief systems arbitrarily without any justifiable cause.

quote:

Say, there are loads of reported instances of divine/supernatural events in history books and modern day tabloids. These can all be drawn into doubt and explained away.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that there is an omnipotent God that exerts constant influence on the world, that loves each and every one of us and sent his own son down to die for our transgressions, then you're going to require a greater standard of evidence than the testimony of some young girls in the 19th century who say they saw the silluette of the virgin Mary in the kitchen once before you can say that such beliefs are "rational". Again, while the definition is somewhat arbitrary, if we can identify a point at which beliefs cease being rational, then basing an entire world view on the scattered, inconsistent testimonies of people throughout the ages - not one of which can be independantly verified - surely must qualify.

quote:

The same goes for all the evidence for global warming taking place, and the same was true for the evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It seems rather arbitrary to me that the some piles of shaky evidence is "enough" to justify suspension of belief as being "rational" and others are not.

But there is evidence that we can point to that would suggest that global warming is taking place or that there were WMDs in Iraq. While these views may be wrong, and I may have "sufficient" cause to "rationally" disagree with these conclusions, these views are at least "rational" in the sense that they are supported by corroborative evidence. Excepting contrary evidence, these beliefs can be considered "rational" in the sense that they are supported and / or caused by available evidence, not by some arbitrary, unjustified shift that occurred for little other reason than because the holder of said beliefs wanted them to be true.

quote:

Why is "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" not "consistent with reason"? It is (trivially) consistent with the evidence and standard logical inference rules?

The position of "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" is consistent with "standard logical inference rules", again, if there is a justifiable reason (i.e. evidence) to postpone said judgement. That is, there is nothing inherently illogical or irrational about agnosticism in itself, but it does become irrational or illogical if the shift from atheist to agnosticism cannot be justified.

So, to talk in particulars here, what specific reasons can you offer to justify making this shift in belief systems?

quote:

At this point I'm wondering if all you have written so far doesn't apply equally well to strong atheism (which you claim to lean towards yourself)?

Oh absolutely, of course it can. Like I said, strong atheism - in its most literal interpretation - is a leap of faith as strong as that of any theistic belief. While I hesitate to call myself a strong atheist on logical grounds (in the sense that it is impossible to prove positively that God does not exist) in practise I do hold to a fairly strong atheistic position. That is, I feel fairly certain that there is no God.

The difference between me, however, and a lot of other theists I've met, is that my positive claims concerning the non-existence of God can - I feel - be justified logically and empircally, whereas theirs cannot. I know it sounds arrogant, but I'm still waiting for someone to come along to knock me off my perch...

quote:

I know that it does not relate to the current debate, I'm just curious to know if you see any problem with applying your guns to that target?

I'm a Cartesian in the sense that I believe that knowledge - and true confidence in one's own beliefs - can only arise by systematically casting doubt over everything you think you know. Most of my beliefs hold up most of the time (if they didn't I wouldn't retain them as beliefs) but I'd also like to think that my perspectives are mallaeble as soon as evidence is encountered to cast doubt on these perspectives. If you go back through my posting history on these forums, for instance, I think you'll find that my political outlook has changed a fair bit over the past couple of years (although my distaste for the GOP and conservatives still remains ).

With regards to my theological beliefs (or lack thereof) a shift in my position is inevitable as soon as a justifiable cause for a shift in my beliefs is encountered. Suffice to say, such a cause has not yet come about.

quote:

If we assume that the starting point is weak atheims and some sort of (possibly flawed) reasoning process takes you to the faith determined belief system, then yes. However, if the starting point *is* the belief determined by faith, then there's nothing irrational about holding onto it in absense of detrimentary evidence.

Refer to what I said earlier. I do believe that weak atheism is the default perspective.

However, if we were to run with your reasoning here, then surely it would make just as much sense to presume that unicorns, goblins, quorgnaxes (which I just made up) or any other type of beings exist as a default position - but where would this leave us? Would you say that believing in quorgnaxes before you even can even possibly know what they are constitutes a "rational" perspective?

quote:

"2001: A Space Odyssey" is incomprehensible to me. However, it is a film, and I can certainly detect its existence. Maybe I'm using the word "incomprehensible" in the wrong manner here (I'm not a native English speaker), but I think that "comprehensible" means that something can be understood completely. If something is not "comprehensible", then it is "incomprehensible". If this is the correct interpretation of "incomprehensible" then I think that the difference between undetectable and incomprehensible is quite clear?

It's all semantics I guess, but when I said incomprehensible I meant it, to quote dictionary.com yet again, to refer to something that is "impossible to know or fathom". So my question is, to put it another way, what is the difference between a God that cannot be "empirically" understood ("undectable") and a God that cannot be "rationally" understood ("incomprehensible"). Then, pragmatically, what is the difference between these two gods and no god at all?

All these Gods are inaccessible to us. None can exert any influence on our lives. Is there any point in distinguishing semantically between the three types (the "undetectable" God, the "incomprehensible" God and the "non-existent" God) when all result in the same conclusion (we humans are alone and abandoned in the universe)? Is there any way of determining which, of the three, is the most likely hypothesis?

quote:

No. I prefer to suspend belief on this issue. I think that it is possible that the limitations of the senses prevents us from detecting any gods that may exist, but it is also possible that we someday detect the existence of a god through our senses.

But how does that alter the circumstances of our current paradigm? Quite literally anything "may" exist or be shown to exist in the future, so what do we gain by making baseless speculations that are inconsistent with what we currently understand about the universe?

quote:

I *do* believe that humans are incapable of understanding the "values" of any gods that may exist, or to put it in another way, the "why" of existence. John D. Barrow has written a book called "Pi in the Sky", which contains a made up story of human beings creating a super computer, and starting a simulation of the physical laws on it in order to study some phenomenon X experimentally. The simulation runs for a very long time, and eventually sim-structures of sim-molecules are arrived at, which exhibit the defining characteristics of life. This life evolves and finally ends up becoming self-aware. However, as all the input this simulated and self-aware life has access to is other parts of the simulation, there is no way for it to ever be able to know about X (as it is outside the simulation), and hence it can never get to know about the purpose of its existence. Further, imagine that the simulation was constructed to follow other rules than those of the physical laws (or even none at all), and self-aware life emerged nevertheless. Then the concepts the self-aware life uses to reason about its environment wouldn't necessarily correspond to any counterparts in the real world. It would thus not only be unable to guess the purpose of its existence, it would most likely also not know about the concepts "purpose" and "existence", but be philosophising about something different of something else. I believe that we humans, if under the supervision of, created by, or ruled by some god, are bound by the same kind of restrictions, but I do recognize that this is only a belief.

That's an interesting analogy, but again it doesn't help us in our current situation. We may be the product of forces we can never understand, but if we cannot possibly understand them, in what sense does speculating on their existence assist us? Is there "rational" cause to speculate on their existence, or on the existence of any other sort of forces inaccessible to us?

Again, stepping away from the God question, would it make sense to speculate on the existence of anything else that cannot be detected or comprehended? If so, on what grounds? If not, why should we allow such logical leniency with regards to the issue of the existence of God?

quote:

Eh. I'm not sure I can answer this question, as my answer to the first part of it was "no".

Let me put it another way: do you consider yourself an agnostic (or, at least, view agnosticism as a tenable position) solely due to the fact that our senses are fallible and that some events must therefore exist beyond their scope, or are there other reasons for your leaning towards this view?

quote:

Even though I do not acknowledge the validity of your presumptions, I'll have a go at answering the last question: If somethings existence would imply some inconsistency with evidence, then it can be disproven to exist. Say, I can definately say that "the God who made Earth explode on April 14th 2005" does not exist.

Agreed. But the dragon in my garage - as I've defined him - is not inconsistent with available evidence either. Does that mean - even though I made him up just then - it is possible for him to exist?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it. i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

Evolution is a myth remember? Racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, etc., are all part of God's intelligent design.

Re: Re: Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

quote:

Originally posted by Subey hmmm, it all sounds like a tautology to me. "Statement X" Regardless of what statement X is, I have three responses to it. I can believe that a) Statement X is true at this time. b) Statement X is false at this time. c) or there is not enough evidence to choose a or b at this time. You've then proceeded to present logic that argues that option C (i.e. agnosticism) is in fact b (atheism). Clearly at the level of abstraction there is no reason to move people from the "fence" into atheism.

You've oversimplified my argument. If we exclude the position of strong agnosticism (which hasn't really been discussed in the posts so far) the positions I've offered with regards to the existence of God are:

A) Theism / Deism ("I believe God exists")
B) Strong Atheism ("I believe God does not exist")
C) Weak Atheism ("I do not believe God exists")
D) Weak Agnosticism ("I suspend judgement on the issue of whether God exists")

Or, to put it in the more general terms you've used:

A) Statement X is true.
B) Statement Y is true.
C) ~(X).
D) ~(X) U ~(Y).

(Where U = "Union" in mathematical terms. I can't get MS Word symbols to copy over properly.)

Therefore, in this case we'll note that both (C) (weak atheism) and (D) (weak agnosticism) require, as a starting point, the rejection of (A) (theism and deism). The distinguishing feature between the two perspectives, is that while (C) makes no inferences on the positive belief that God does not exist ((Y)), (D) does and rejects the premise that "God does not exist". Therefore, agnosticism is seperate from weak atheism, but it still shares its condition as part of its equation (IF ((~X)=(C)) THEN (D)=((C)U(~Y)) ).

Therefore, the viability of (D) (that both "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are false) is dependant on the premise that there is sufficient cause to reject premise (B) (that "God does not exist"). If there is sufficient cause to reject this premise then agnosticism is viable, if there isn't then it isn't.

It's worth pointing out, though, that - as this seems to be one of the areas where I've been misrepresented - weak agnosticism and weak atheism are not the same thing and I've never tried to suggest that. What I have said though, is that weak agnosticism can only be developed from the starting point of weak atheism and - if you read through all of my posts - I think I've defended this perspective pretty well.

quote:

The only way that you have been able to do that is because you have presented "weak agnosticism" in such a way that it is already collasping. If you had worded it in a more reasonable way then it would easily withstand this attempt to topple it. For instance if you had worded it: weak agnosticism, suspend judgement on the question of God's existence. instead of "Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God." Clearly by substituting the word "judgement" with "belief" you have distorted the position that weak agnostics take in order to facilitate their defeat.

I'm not sure that changing the word "judgement" to "belief" makes any difference, and I'd be happy to argue with you on those terms if you like. My rejection of agnosticism isn't made on semantic grounds, it's made on empirical and logical grounds.

quote:

I hate to say it, but sounds like a straw man fallacy better not let Kano see this

If he has anything to contribute, feel free to send him over here!

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Evolution is a cause to such things as racism, communism/marxism, nazism, humanism, and movements like it.

I find it funny that you equate humanism with racism, communism and nazism.

No wait, not funny - I meant infuriating. Do you even know what humanism is?

quote:

i ask, how can God(Yahweh) not exist?

Define the basis upon which Yahweh's existence can be proven false and I'll be happy to answer this for you. That is, tell me what I have to do, specifically, to demonstrate to you that he doesn't exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So my question is, to put it another way, what is the difference between a God that cannot be "empirically" understood ("undectable") and a God that cannot be "rationally" understood ("incomprehensible"). Then, pragmatically, what is the difference between these two gods and no god at all?

Have never considered the advantages of such a god?

If you consider the ramifications of a a known god vs a secret god.

Can you imagine how a sentient race would prefer a secret god over a known god? How would our development in the arts and sciences be warped if god was a known? Certainly you know that all growth exists in exploring the unknown; without absolutes we are allowed to explore many different avenues.

I believe Alan Watts said it best, "if we could prove god existed it would rot our brains"

The bad thing about these really interesting debates is that you need to invest so much time in them...
Renegade: As you answer each of my sentences with ten new ones, and because I feel sorry for Swamper's harddisk, I am starting to be more selective in what I reply to. If I feel something has been covered previously, or if we seem to agree on something, I've left it out. If you feel that I skip something very important, please point it out to me, and I'll comment on it. OK.
[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Hope this makes some sort of sense?

It does. I have no quarrels with that - I'm not advocating a specific interpretation of "disbelief", just explaining my previous comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's not an issue of temporality though. I'm not saying that before becoming an agnostic you have to adopt a solely atheistic position for x amount of time before being permitted to progress towards agnosticism, I'm simply saying that - logically - agnosticism is dependant on the rejection of belief in God.

Agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Think about it: you say that you moved towards agnosticism from a theistic position. Logically, it is impossible to be a theist / deist and an agnostic simultaneously - the former holds a belief in God, the latter doesn't (how can one simultaneously hold and suspend belief?). Ergo agnostics can't be theists, so the position of agnosticism must, at all times, be preceded by a lack of deistic and theistic beliefs which - put simply - represents a position of atheism. Now your adoption of the agnostic mindset may have been instantaneous upon the rejection of your theistic beliefs, but the fact remains: your agnosticism was dependant on the rejection of said theistic beliefs which, if you accept the definitions I've used (which you aren't obliged to, by the way), is a position of weak atheism. So, in other words, based on what you've told me, your journey towards agnosticism was - logically, if not temporally - preceded by the acceptance of a weak atheistic mindset.

(Seeing that we're really at the bottom of the argument, I'll allow myself to go into minor details here.) I just agreed that agnosticism is dependant on the rejection of belief in God, but now you're talking about rejection of God preceeding agnosticism. You state that "precede" should not be interpreted in a temporal fashion, so I ask you: What's your distinction between logical dependence and logical precedence? And now that we're at it: How does the two relate to logical implication?
Say, if we have two statements
A: "X used to post on TA but doesn't no more", and
B: "X has been banned from TA"
it's clear (to me) that B implies A, and I would further say that B is dependant on A being true to be true itself, whereas I wouldn't say that A precedes B (as, clearly, B temporally precedes A). Would you allow for the "logical precedence" to conflict with "temporal precedence"? I don't want this to be a red herring, but I really cannot understand your use of "precede" here. It seems to me that you establish the "precede" from logical implication/dependence, and then use the "temporal" semantics of precedence for condemning agnosticism as an ill-supported shift (shift by definition being a temporal concept).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade This is one of the points I'm trying to make though. Weak atheism is the default belief system. It's the complete absence of belief with regard to God and theology, so if it isn't the default position than what is?

Well, to use your formal statements from your reply to Subey:
X="I believe there is a God"
Y="I believe there is no God"
Weak atheism: ~(X)
Agnosticism: ~(X) U ~(Y)
Clearly the "natural belief" cannot be weak atheism, but simply
Meta-agnosticism:
That is, the totally empty belief. If you allow for weak atheism to be somehow unresolved on proposition Y, then you must also allow for a belief system with no belief on X as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that there is an omnipotent God that exerts constant influence on the world, that loves each and every one of us and sent his own son down to die for our transgressions, then you're going to require a greater standard of evidence than the testimony of some young girls in the 19th century who say they saw the silluette of the virgin Mary in the kitchen once before you can say that such beliefs are "rational".

But how do you determine what an "extraordinary" claim is? And would the claim of the deist be extraordinary? The claim that esp is real?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Again, while the definition is somewhat arbitrary, if we can identify a point at which beliefs cease being rational, then basing an entire world view on the scattered, inconsistent testimonies of people throughout the ages - not one of which can be independantly verified - surely must qualify.

Remember the thread about the woman who was led to the killer of her son in a trailer park by "God"? That example requires a little more than hand waiving to get rid of. I'm not saying that it proves that the biblical God exists, but only that some reports on supernatural events are at least as hard to contest as those related to global warming/Bush administration lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The position of "postponing judgment on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" is consistent with "standard logical inference rules", again, if there is a justifiable reason (i.e. evidence) to postpone said judgement. That is, there is nothing inherently illogical or irrational about agnosticism in itself, but it does become irrational or illogical if the shift from atheist to agnosticism cannot be justified. So, to talk in particulars here, what specific reasons can you offer to justify making this shift in belief systems?

Well, apart from me not agreeing that a "shift" is actually taking place, I would say the the story from before is a good reason. Personal experiences might be good reasons as well (e.g. I've experienced weird events myself that I cannot explain convincingly to myself using current theories of physics, unless I allow for my mental soundness to be brought into doubt).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Oh absolutely, of course it can. Like I said, strong atheism - in its most literal interpretation - is a leap of faith as strong as that of any theistic belief. While I hesitate to call myself a strong atheist on logical grounds (in the sense that it is impossible to prove positively that God does not exist) in practise I do hold to a fairly strong atheistic position. That is, I feel fairly certain that there is no God.

Nice. So how certain are you that there's no God - as certain as you are that Greenland exists? As that atoms are real? I'm curious to know how you distinguish "believing" from "feeling fairly certain"?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The difference between me, however, and a lot of other theists I've met, is that my positive claims concerning the non-existence of God can - I feel - be justified logically and empircally, whereas theirs cannot. I know it sounds arrogant, but I'm still waiting for someone to come along to knock me off my perch...

Can you give a taster of how your positive belief claims can be justified logically and emperically?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If you go back through my posting history on these forums, for instance, I think you'll find that my political outlook has changed a fair bit over the past couple of years (although my distaste for the GOP and conservatives still remains ).

There's an old quote, I don't know who made it (it may even be a dane), that "if you're not a socialist when you're young, then you have no heart. If, however, you remain one in adulthood, then you have no brain." So apparently you have both heart and brains. I have none of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade However, if we were to run with your reasoning here, then surely it would make just as much sense to presume that unicorns, goblins, quorgnaxes (which I just made up) or any other type of beings exist as a default position - but where would this leave us? Would you say that believing in quorgnaxes before you even can even possibly know what they are constitutes a "rational" perspective?

No. Point taken. However, assuming that they exists, there's no reason why God couldn't be one of Jung's archetypes, and hence that there's no need to get to know him. A belief/disbelief in God would therefore not be "irrational" at that point.
As to unicorns and goblins (can't tell if this applies for quorgnaxes as well ) they have the distinct trait that they live on planet Earth, and when we call them a fantasy, what we mean is that we believe that they don't exist on this planet. As regards to their existence somewhere else in the universe, I wouldn't classify it as irrational to postpone judgement on that.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It's all semantics I guess, but when I said incomprehensible I meant it, to quote dictionary.com yet again, to refer to something that is "impossible to know or fathom". So my question is, to put it another way, what is the difference between a God that cannot be "empirically" understood ("undectable") and a God that cannot be "rationally" understood ("incomprehensible"). Then, pragmatically, what is the difference between these two gods and no god at all?

The incomprehensible God can be undetectable. The undetectable needs to be incomprehensible. Take the God's of greece for example. They were both detectable and comprehensible, as they intermingled with the population and were driven by very human desires. Take as another example one of Lovecraft's cosmic characters, like the "sleeping" god Cthulhu. He(?) has a small influence on human ways, through controlled nightmares, but is motivated(?) and ruled(?) by forces that cannot be understood nor detected by any human being. Thus he(?) is detectable but not comprehensible (i.e. incomprehensible). May be bad examples, but I hope they convey my distinction between incomprehensible and undetectable.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But how does that alter the circumstances of our current paradigm? Quite literally anything "may" exist or be shown to exist in the future, so what do we gain by making baseless speculations that are inconsistent with what we currently understand about the universe? ... That's an interesting analogy, but again it doesn't help us in our current situation. We may be the product of forces we can never understand, but if we cannot possibly understand them, in what sense does speculating on their existence assist us? Is there "rational" cause to speculate on their existence, or on the existence of any other sort of forces inaccessible to us?

And here I, once again, come to doubt your definition of "rational" as being of pragmatic or ethic nature. As stated in my second post, I agree that there's no obvious gain from postponing belief on things for which no evidence exists (and I act as if they do not exist myself), but that is not really an epistemological argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Let me put it another way: do you consider yourself an agnostic (or, at least, view agnosticism as a tenable position) solely due to the fact that our senses are fallible and that some events must therefore exist beyond their scope, or are there other reasons for your leaning towards this view?

I consider agnosticism a tenable position, mainly, because I'm not a materialist. I do not equate matter (meaning what can be describe by current physical theory) with existing. That our senses fail us once in a while doesn't have anything to do with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Agreed. But the dragon in my garage - as I've defined him - is not inconsistent with available evidence either. Does that mean - even though I made him up just then - it is possible for him to exist?

Yes, it's possible. It would be one hell of a coincidence, but...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.