Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not making fun of peoples' metaphysical beliefs. I simply showed that there are many ideas that we cannot fully disprove yet that does not by process of elimination make them true.

The spaghetti monster is intended to examine philosophical questions, but it does so in such a way to demean people who believe in things other than the material world.

When we debate and discuss ideas why would one person's belief in an Abrahamic god demand different treatment than another person's belief in pixies, Thor, Zeus, leprechauns, witchcraft, a living Elvis or the flying spaghetti monster?

Nobody really believes in a flying spaghetti monster, and I expect that atheists would be nicer to Pagan witches than they would to Baptists.

[MightyAC]

The fact that nobody really believes in a Flying Spaghetti monster does not make it more or less true than any other unfalsifiable man made belief. Give me your children and I will create FSM believers and in no time at all a real religion is born.

The point is we cannot fully disprove the existence of many things and that does not make them true. The idea that any belief system is above debate or criticism is absurd.

As for your point that you expect atheists would be nicer to witches than Baptists, who knows? I can't speak for all non-believers; atheists aren't a collective with a belief system, they simply share an non-belief in gods. You and I likely share a similar non-belief in most mythologies, I just happen to not believe in one more than you.

Personally, I think all religions are equally false though I do not treat them equally. Some belief systems lead people to do much more evil than others. Abrahamic faiths justify and/or command many violent and immoral acts whereas Jainism commands complete non-violence. Since a Jain is very unlikely to become a suicide bomber or kill an abortion doctor I have fewer problems with their beliefs than others.

I have a friend that attended a Baptist elementary school. He was taught at a very young age to deny and ridicule evolution. In my opinion, the harm Baptists are doing by teaching people to deny scientific evidence makes them more problematic than pagan witches.

[GostHacked]

I prefer to be agnostic, because the answer is essentially unknowable to the living. And when you are dead, there is no way for you to share your findings (god exists or god does not exist) with the living.

No one, no matter what religion they follow can prove their god exists in any fashion what so ever. You either believe it or not. No one has been able to prove it to this day with any kind of certainty that there is a god.

So I will remain undecided and lead the life I think is best for me. I have people to answer to down here on earth before this god character.

[Michael Hardner]

The point is we cannot fully disprove the existence of many things and that does not make them true. The idea that any belief system is above debate or criticism is absurd.

No, but personal and deeply held beliefs don't need to be ridiculed in the public sphere either. As I said, it's not helpful.

Personally, I think all religions are equally false though I do not treat them equally. Some belief systems lead people to do much more evil than others. Abrahamic faiths justify and/or command many violent and immoral acts whereas Jainism commands complete non-violence. Since a Jain is very unlikely to become a suicide bomber or kill an abortion doctor I have fewer problems with their beliefs than others.

Since that's pretty much unprovable, you now can claim a "belief" of your own. Congratulations.

Christianity commands non-violence too, but non-Christian aberrations claim themselves to be Christian. Give Jainism some more time and some land and let's see how they do. After all, both faiths are made of people.

I have a friend that attended a Baptist elementary school. He was taught at a very young age to deny and ridicule evolution. In my opinion, the harm Baptists are doing by teaching people to deny scientific evidence makes them more problematic than pagan witches.

Your opinion, your belief... sure... maybe it's time to outlaw freedom of expression for dangerous religious beliefs ?

[MightyAC]

By definition agnosticism simply means the truth of a claim is unknowable. Since many ideas, religion included are unfalsifiable nobody can say for sure they do not exist.

However, for me, when something has such a low possibility of being true, the fence sitting, agnostic stance isn't enough. For example are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? We can't fully disprove their existence but in all likelihood it is safe to be a-unicornists.

[Michael Hardner]

However, for me, when something has such a low possibility of being true, the fence sitting, agnostic stance isn't enough. For example are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? We can't fully disprove their existence but in all likelihood it is safe to be a-unicornists.

We can trace the idea of unicorns to a false created fable pretty easily. The idea of another plane of existence, though created by humans, is something that doesn't fall into the same category.

And, more importantly, humans have deeply held cultural beliefs about the nature of the universe so trashing them with a cartoonish myth doesn't do much to unite or convince people.

The idea of heaven, gods, or what have you is unprovable. I'm not sure why some consider it a brave choice to decide that they don't exist. Indeed, sometimes its braver for people to believe in God - depending on their environment.

[bloodyminded]

By definition agnosticism simply means the truth of a claim is unknowable. Since many ideas, religion included are unfalsifiable nobody can say for sure they do not exist.

However, for me, when something has such a low possibility of being true, the fence sitting, agnostic stance isn't enough. For example are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? We can't fully disprove their existence but in all likelihood it is safe to be a-unicornists.

You make a good point. Perhaps there's some "genuine" agnosticism that is worthy, but most of what passes for "agnosticism" is actually diluted faith, nothing more. (Or, arguably, an atheism-that-dares-not-say-its-name.)

What I mean is this: it appears to me that the majority of, say, Canadian agnostics are actually agnostic about...Christianity!

And only Christianity.

I suspect there are Muslim agnostics who say, "Well, Allah may or may not be the One True god, and I don't know whether or not Muhammad is His Prophet....

Not too many people are agnostic about pantheons, for example....except, presumably, self-styled "agnostics" in pantheistc societies. Elsewhere, self-deemed agnostics simply don't believe in pantheistic religions. (For the most part, anyway.)

[eyeball]

In any case, comparing something as obviously made-up by humans as leprechauns with a bigger question as to what lies beyond the physical world isn't helpful.

We can trace the idea of unicorns to a false created fable pretty easily. The idea of another plane of existence, though created by humans, is something that doesn't fall into the same category.

What 'beyond' and other 'plane of existence'? It seems to me this is the far bigger category under which all the leprechauns, unicorns, deities etc fall. Its the mother of all false fables.

Edited July 8, 2010 by eyeball

[Shwa]

However, for me, when something has such a low possibility of being true, the fence sitting, agnostic stance isn't enough. For example are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? We can't fully disprove their existence but in all likelihood it is safe to be a-unicornists.

I presume by "fully disprove" you mean a degree of disproof greater than, say, half or partially disprove? Meaning, while you can't fully-disprove, you can partially-disprove. Could you then partially-disprove the existence of unicorns please because I want to see if that will help get me off the fence and make me more a-unicornist.

Now the unicornists have unicorn themed or unicorn-like literature and art on their side as proof of the existence and knowability of unicorns. That is, unicorns exist in literature and art. They are known from literature and art.

Are you saying that someone believes unicorns are known in some other form and you cannot fully disprove that they can be known this way?

Oh my...

Edited July 8, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

What 'beyond' and other 'plane of existence'? It seems to me this is the far bigger category under which all the leprechauns, unicorns, deities etc fall. Its the mother of all false fables.

I think Michael is simply referring to the concept of that which is presently 'unknown' as opposed to that which is known, like leprechauns, unicorns, deities, etc.

[ToadBrother]

No, i think it can proven through science that they don't exist. We have explored virtually the entire earth, and never found leprechauns or any evidence they may exist.

Perhaps they can turn invisible. And I'd hardly say we've explored the entire planet.

With God, we have yet to explore the edges of the universe or beyond our universe. Something may have created this universe, whether it be a God or some other powerful being in a labcoat. We do not have the technological means to prove or disprove it.

We don't have the technological means to eliminate any supernatural entity. We can argue they are unnecessary (ie. we don't need Thor to explain lightning). But that's leaning on the most parsimonious explanation (Occam's Razor). That doesn't mean, in fact, that Thor couldn't produce some of the lightning we observe, or perhaps that he creates it all and makes it look like natural events.

That's the problem with invoking supernatural entities, but in particular gods, and the more potent they become, the problem becomes even worse. Because invoking God can explain anything, the invocation ultimately explains nothing.

There's no scientific test for leprechauns. We can certainly argue that it doesn't seem very probable that such entities exist, based upon an utter lack of evidence, but as with God, there's always some gap the faithful could conceivably hide such a being in.

[eyeball]

I think Michael is simply referring to the concept of that which is presently 'unknown'

I don't think he's just referring to it as much as depending on it. The gaps in our knowledge are God's only refuge.

as opposed to that which is known, like leprechauns, unicorns, deities, etc.

Really?

[ToadBrother]

You make a good point. Perhaps there's some "genuine" agnosticism that is worthy, but most of what passes for "agnosticism" is actually diluted faith, nothing more. (Or, arguably, an atheism-that-dares-not-say-its-name.)

What I mean is this: it appears to me that the majority of, say, Canadian agnostics are actually agnostic about...Christianity!

And only Christianity.

I suspect there are Muslim agnostics who say, "Well, Allah may or may not be the One True god, and I don't know whether or not Muhammad is His Prophet....

Not too many people are agnostic about pantheons, for example....except, presumably, self-styled "agnostics" in pantheistc societies. Elsewhere, self-deemed agnostics simply don't believe in pantheistic religions. (For the most part, anyway.)

Generally, in modern terms, agnosticism is usually in reference to God (which can either be the more specific Judeo-Christian deity or the more expansive notion that includes Deistic varieties and, yes even the various pantheons, minor gods and the like).

Frankly, I've never met an agnostic of the kind you refer to. Pretty much every agnostic I met truly thinks that the existence and nature of God are unknowable, are very much make the case that they are not atheists (who usually define themselves as disbelieving in God, though the more militant kind seem to be leaning towards out and out denial, I'm the latter kind of atheist, not the former).

[Shwa]

I don't think he's just referring to it as much as depending on it. The gaps in our knowledge are God's only refuge.

Well even Huxley said we need a little shadow in our lives to keep from going insane.

Really?

Surely you have heard of leprechauns, unicorns and dieties.

[GostHacked]

Well even Huxley said we need a little shadow in our lives to keep from going insane.

Surely you have heard of leprechauns, unicorns and dieties.

Heard of them, never seen them.

[Michael Hardner]

What 'beyond' and other 'plane of existence'? It seems to me this is the far bigger category under which all the leprechauns, unicorns, deities etc fall. Its the mother of all false fables.

Right - but the discussions "Is there anything beyond the known universe ?" and "Do leprechauns exist ?" are not equally serious.

Bigger category ? I guess they're both in the category of questions.

[eyeball]

Well even Huxley said we need a little shadow in our lives to keep from going insane.

With a little moderation.

Surely you have heard of leprechauns, unicorns and dieties.

I've heard of people who do.

[eyeball]

Right - but the discussions "Is there anything beyond the known universe ?" and "Do leprechauns exist ?" are not equally serious.

They are when you seriously try to suggest atheism is no different than theism which you started doing in the first few posts.

Bigger category ? I guess they're both in the category of questions.

I don't know, it seems to me positing and promoting some imagined beyond is a first necessary step towards positing or promoting some of the things that are imagined to exist there. Reason suggests one just sort of naturally comes before the other.

Edited July 8, 2010 by eyeball

[MightyAC]

No, but personal and deeply held beliefs don't need to be ridiculed in the public sphere either. As I said, it's not helpful.

Your beliefs aren't being ridiculed they are being debated.

Christianity commands non-violence too, but non-Christian aberrations claim themselves to be Christian. Give Jainism some more time and some land and let's see how they do. After all, both faiths are made of people.

At the same time Christianity also commands violence and displays a very violent, vengeful god. Modern Christianity likes to cherry pick the good parts and ignore the unsavory. That very act shows us that morality comes from people and society, not religion. Not that you made that claim, but many do.

Your opinion, your belief... sure... maybe it's time to outlaw freedom of expression for dangerous religious beliefs ?

I don't think outlawing belief is a good idea. Rather I think it is time that we stop protecting religion from debate and public scrutiny and time to stop indoctrinating children. Impossible to stop the latter I know, but still removing the public taboo from religious criticism could go a long way to rooting out belief, amongst educated, moderates anyway.

[dre]

This is my chief problem with people calling atheism a religion or a statement of faith (though I think strong atheism, as in "There is no god", is pretty much a statement of faith").

I thing its only a statement of faith necessarily. Just because we cant absolutely prove or disprove a claim doesnt mean we cant have a good idea of its probability. You cant prove that there isnt an invisible teapot following you around, but Im not sure I would consider disbelief in that invisible teapot "faith".

[Shwa]

I thing its only a statement of faith necessarily. Just because we cant absolutely prove or disprove a claim doesnt mean we cant have a good idea of its probability. You cant prove that there isnt an invisible teapot following you around, but Im not sure I would consider disbelief in that invisible teapot "faith".

LOFL!!!

Invisible teapot following you around. Awesome!!

[dre]

Right - but the discussions "Is there anything beyond the known universe ?" and "Do leprechauns exist ?" are not equally serious.

Bigger category ? I guess they're both in the category of questions.

There in the same category in that you would need evidence to have a rational belief in either. Its one thing to have an open mind to the existance of things that "beyond the known universe", but to believe in any specific construct without evidence is no less silly than believing in a leprechaun.

[Shwa]

Heard of them, never seen them.

So seeing them is a definitive criteria for belief?

[dre]

I think we need more categories...

Im agnostic in terms of whether or not its possible that theres an entity or force out there that could be described as a god. But Im fairly certain that all organized theist religions are bunk... mostly because we have a pretty good idea of what religion is and why it happens, and we know that inventing those types of contructs to deal with the unexplained is just something that humans do.

So Im a strong disbeliever in all religions but not really an atheist.

[Michael Hardner]

They are when you seriously try to suggest atheism is no different than theism which you started doing in the first few posts.

Depending on how you define atheism, they could have the same non-basis in fact.

Atheism is defined both as 'no belief in gods' (which I possess) and 'belief in no gods' (which is unprovable).

I don't know, it seems to me positing and promoting some imagined beyond is a first necessary step towards positing or promoting some of the things that are imagined to exist there. Reason suggests one just sort of naturally comes before the other.

Theists and theists can argue about what's on the other side, I prefer to point out how similar they are to each other. They are only similar to me in that they discuss pointless things.