Atheists vs. Agnostics

[gc1765]

That is true. But im simply responding to the idea of what is and what is not rational. It is certainly rational for me to deny that there is a million dollars in gold buried in my back yard, even though i have not dug up my back yard to find out. I have no reason to believe there is 1 million dollars in gold, so im not likely to act as if their might be. In fact im quite comfortable to deny that there is. This is rational. (but in the end, a million dollars could actually be buried in my backyard).

The situation is even worse for Gods of human imaginings since there is evidence even to the contrary.

I.e., if God was all powerful, all good, and all knowing why would he design humans beings in a way that thousands of infants choke to death every year for no other reason than we breathe and eat through the same hole. Surely the God of the bible would have been more 'intelligent and kind' than that.

Andrew

I think we are in the same boat. I have no reason to believe that there is a million dollars in your backyard, as I have no reason to believe that God exists. I can probably say with 99% confidence that there isn't a million dollars in your backyard. With God, perhaps I am less certain, but I still have no reason to believe in God. I believe technically that makes me agnostic, even though I am closer to the atheist side of agnosticism than the theist side.

[ScottSA]

But that's where you're confusing the idea of our conception of God with God itself. Neither Zeus nor Posiedon nor Yahweh need exist in order for God to exist. Your are also confusing the term 'evidence' with 'proof.' There is no proof either way. There are centuries of extremely rich thought and anecdotal evidence for the existence of God. You just choose to reject it in favor of humanistic hubris. And btw, spare us all the strawmen and mockery...it just lowers your argument to the level of comicbooks.

I didn't ask for anecdotal or thoughtful evidence of God. I asked for empirical falsifiable evidence of which none exists that i know of.

Ill spare the mockery if you van actually show me some real evidence of a god of human culture that exists in reality. Without such evidence it is perfectly rational to be an atheist with respect to the gods we know from human culture.

Andrew

What you are asking for is proof, even if you're calling it "evidence." You just rejected the evidence on the grounds that it is not proof.

[myata]

But with regards to gods that are contained within human culture it is entirely irrational to believe they truly exist based on the same interpretation of irrationality that everybody accepts in their day to day lives.

....

But we all think it is lunacy to believe that the Chinese monkey god actually exists in reality... the same lunacy applies to the god of Abraham for the exact same reasons.

Andrew

Even when discussing "Chinese monkey god", I don't believe one can make a good argument without 1) learning all the intrinsic details of the belief; and 2) perhaps being a beliver yourself. It's near impossible to disprove somebody else's faith and I'd question if there's any point in attempting it.

[gc1765]

Unfortunately, rationality is a lot like fascism (ignore the fact that you apply one to yourself and one to others). Everyone thinks that they are rational, or that the other guy is fascist, but most people do not seem to grasp the full meaning and implications of the terms.

I can't find a good definition of rational (maybe it's not the best word) but this comes close: "Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem". Nobody has absolute proof for the existence or absence of God, so anyone who claims to be 100% certain one way or the other is not basing their decision on the evidence available and must make a leap of faith. When I said that it's not rational, I meant that it's based on faith not evidence. Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". This issue has been discussed at lenth in This thread . If you are interested in understanding what I am trying to say, I recommend checking out that topic.

[geoffrey]

I'm going to be lazy and not read the thread, but gc are you saying it's irrational to either outright believe or not believe in God?

[Bakunin]

I think you don't have to be atheist to criticize a religion.

I consider myself an agnostic, but at the same time i disaprove the idea of fundamentalism and i have a hard time with religion that disaprove equality of men, womens right and the principle of democracy.

I consider myself tolerant torwards religions, as long as they don't enter in conflict with democracy.

[August1991]

I have no problem with evangelicals. They believe what they believe, and at least they believe in something. Far too many today wander around in a haze of nihilism believing in nothing at all.

"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

The classic defense of agnostics: "It's better to take no position rather than take the wrong position."

The essence of life is committment. To avoid committment is to avoid life.

But rather than argue that viewpoint, I'll return to Dawkins' idea that atheism is the default position. Agnosticism is not natural or common.

PS. The IMDb quote made me chuckle, although it's not the first quote I recall from the movie.

[gc1765]

I'm going to be lazy and not read the thread, but gc are you saying it's irrational to either outright believe or not believe in God?

I don't know whether irrational is the correct word or not, but it certainly requires a leap of faith to outright believe or not believe in God, considering there is less than absolute proof.

I don't know if that is irrational, but think of it this way: If a man walked up to you and offered to make a bet that if God exists he would give you nothing (or perhaps a penny), but if God doesn't exist, you have to give him all of your money. If you were absolutely, 100% certain of the existence of God, you would probably make that bet. Is that rational?

EDIT: It should be noted that it works the same way with atheism. So, the people who would be willing to make such a bet would be the theists or atheists. Anyone not willing to make such a bet can not be said to be 100% convinced, which technically speaking, would make them agnostic. That's why we need a better definition of agnosticism, because there is a huge range there, from 99.9% certain that God does not exist, right through to 99.9% certain that God does exist.

[myata]

But rather than argue that viewpoint, I'll return to Dawkins' idea that atheism is the default position. Agnosticism is not natural or common.

Now that the "default" argument has been clearly disproven, we'll have to take Dawkin's word on what is "natural" or not. Hardly a "rational" position.

[myata]

I can't find a good definition of rational (maybe it's not the best word) but this comes close: "Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem".

Alas, even that definition ties "rationality" to the logical or reasoning framework of which different people may have totally different ideas. I agree though that 1) absolute proof does not exist either way; 2) maybe because different people have different interpretations of "logic", "reasoning", "proof" i.e there's no common or absolute framework of reasoning; and 3) regardless of the above, what is the point of trying to disproove something someone deeply believes in?

The only domain in which "I" can make the absolute judgement is my individual view of the world. As soon as there are two of us, agnosticism is the only rational way to go. Presuming that rational means "equally acceptable to all". Which interestingly ties into discussions on democracy or foreign policies.

I'm agnostic to your god, you - to mine. That works. "You have to believe in my god" or "I in yours" - doesn't. Neither does "stop believing in your god". In a particular instance of "I", it can be agnostic to all gods.

[AndrewL]

But that's where you're confusing the idea of our conception of God with God itself. Neither Zeus nor Posiedon nor Yahweh need exist in order for God to exist. Your are also confusing the term 'evidence' with 'proof.' There is no proof either way. There are centuries of extremely rich thought and anecdotal evidence for the existence of God. You just choose to reject it in favor of humanistic hubris. And btw, spare us all the strawmen and mockery...it just lowers your argument to the level of comicbooks.

I didn't ask for anecdotal or thoughtful evidence of God. I asked for empirical falsifiable evidence of which none exists that i know of.

Ill spare the mockery if you van actually show me some real evidence of a god of human culture that exists in reality. Without such evidence it is perfectly rational to be an atheist with respect to the gods we know from human culture.

Andrew

What you are asking for is proof, even if you're calling it "evidence." You just rejected the evidence on the grounds that it is not proof.

I want evidence. Of the empirical falsifiable kind. Can you provide it or not?

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

I want evidence. Of the empirical falsifiable kind. Can you provide it or not?

Andrew

Andrew, given the name of the poster attached to the comment, I can assure you that you will not see anything approaching 'empirical' evidence on anything he says. He's just a young'un on a mission.

[AndrewL]

But with regards to gods that are contained within human culture it is entirely irrational to believe they truly exist based on the same interpretation of irrationality that everybody accepts in their day to day lives.

....

But we all think it is lunacy to believe that the Chinese monkey god actually exists in reality... the same lunacy applies to the god of Abraham for the exact same reasons.

Andrew

Even when discussing "Chinese monkey god", I don't believe one can make a good argument without 1) learning all the intrinsic details of the belief; and 2) perhaps being a beliver yourself. It's near impossible to disprove somebody else's faith and I'd question if there's any point in attempting it.

Im not trying to disprove 'faith'. Faith itself, if somebody has it, is real. But just because somebody possesses faith in something in no way suggests that what they have faith 'in' is real and true.

In other words, as fascinating as im sure all the details behind the belief in a monkey god may be, im only interested in whether the monkey god actually exists. The details are only important to me if they contain evidence of the monkey gods existence in reality.

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

I'm going to be lazy and not read the thread, but gc are you saying it's irrational to either outright believe or not believe in God?

This was not addressed to me and I've been mostly ignoring this thread, but the answer is 'yes' - one can logically and rationally assert that belief in God is irrational (using a variation on Ockham's Razor). I have already elaborated this argument in detail in some other thread here.

The reverse does not appear to logically hold.

Please note that asserting that a belief in God is logically irrational in no way shape or form proves or disproves the existence of God. Humans have a long history of acting irrationally.

[myata]

In other words, as fascinating as im sure all the details behind the belief in a monkey god may be, im only interested in whether the monkey god actually exists. The details are only important to me if they contain evidence of the monkey gods existence in reality.

What you fail to understand is that your understanding of "exists", "evidence", "reality" is implicitly tied into what you are willing accept as such (i.e. reality). That may be exact opposite of how a believer from e.g. China may see the world. In her view, the "monkey god" can be as real as your disbelief in it in yours. And for me, none of you two would hold the upper hand. I'm agnostic to absolute atheism as much as the "monkey god" belief.

[AndrewL]

In other words, as fascinating as im sure all the details behind the belief in a monkey god may be, im only interested in whether the monkey god actually exists. The details are only important to me if they contain evidence of the monkey gods existence in reality.

What you fail to understand is that your understanding of "exists", "evidence", "reality" is implicitly tied into what you are willing accept as such (i.e. reality). That may be exact opposite of how a believer from e.g. China may see the world. In her view, the "monkey god" can be as real as your disbelief in it in yours. And for me, none of you two would hold the upper hand. I'm agnostic to absolute atheism as much as the "monkey god" belief.

But both me and the monkey god believer are subject to the same laws of physics and we both exist in the same universe regardless of our beliefs.

Are you also agnostic to newtons theories on motion? Why not?

Andrew

[myata]

But both me and the monkey god believer are subject to the same laws of physics and we both exist in the same universe regardless of our beliefs.

Are you also agnostic to newtons theories on motion? Why not?

Most certianly, but some of "you" may choose to not limit their notion of reality strictly to what is dictated by a certain theory. Not to mention that no newtonian theory (or in fact, any scientific theory) can prove that Chinese monkey god does not exist somewhere in the multiverse. It can only state with certainty what can happen in its domain of application. There's no evidence that theories of Newtonian mechanics can be applied to the domain of spirits any better than to quants or e.g to explain genetics.

[AndrewL]

But both me and the monkey god believer are subject to the same laws of physics and we both exist in the same universe regardless of our beliefs.

Are you also agnostic to newtons theories on motion? Why not?

Most certianly, but some of "you" may choose to not limit their notion of reality strictly to what is dictated by a certain theory. Not to mention that no newtonian theory (or in fact, any scientific theory) can prove that Chinese monkey god does not exist somewhere in the multiverse. It can only state with certainty what can happen in its domain of application.

So now we have come to Russel's famous celestial teapot. Of course science cannot prove there is no monkey god somewhere in all of existence.... but since when do we go around inventing fantasies and then asking others to disprove them? What reasons do we believe they exist for real in the first place?

There's no evidence that theories of Newtonian mechanics can be applied to the domain of spirits any better than to quants or e.g to explain genetics.

Ahh, but there is no evidence that a domain of spirits even exists.

Why do you now appeal to notions of evidence?

Andrew

[myata]

Of course science cannot prove there is no monkey god somewhere in all of existence.... but since when do we go around inventing fantasies and then asking others to disprove them? What reasons do we believe they exist for real in the first place?

No one is asking you to disprove anything. You can continue to firmly believe in non-existence of monkey god. However if someone else wants to believe in it - that reason should suffice, for me at least.

Ahh, but there is no evidence that a domain of spirits even exists.

If it does not exist, "non-existence" of what are you trying to prove here? Why even bother writing about something that does not exist (for you)? Or could it be that you'd like your point of view be accepted by everybody, in the same way as some religions do?

[AndrewL]

Of course science cannot prove there is no monkey god somewhere in all of existence.... but since when do we go around inventing fantasies and then asking others to disprove them? What reasons do we believe they exist for real in the first place?

No one is asking you to disprove anything. You can continue to firmly believe in non-existence of monkey god. However if someone else wants to believe in it - that reason should suffice, for me at least.

Ahh, but when it comes to permeate politics, legislation, globalism, medicine, and education it is not a good enough reason at all. Otherwise I agree, if it was just some lunatic in his basement worshiping a monkey god big deal. I certainly don't think somebody else's belief in the anthropomorphic biblical god should keep me from enjoying the benefits of stem-cell research, do you?

Ahh, but there is no evidence that a domain of spirits even exists.

If it does not exist, "non-existence" of what are you trying to prove here? Why even bother writing about something that does not exist (for you)? Or could it be that you'd like your point of view be accepted by everybody, in the same way as some religions do?

Not in the same way as religions, no. I want people to accept reason, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, tolerance, awe at the unbounded mystery of existence and so on. That is in no way like religions do.

I don't want my point of view exactly and rigidly accepted by everybody, i want people to free themselves of religious dogma and tradition and develop their own points of view. I don't want them to follow the perverse ideas of the pope or their local ministers. I certainly don't want them to attend madrassas and chant the Koran all day. And i definitely don't think a person should be brought up to believe God promised them a certain corner of land in a certain desert somewhere in the ME.....

I am not at all as rigid, archaic, irrational, and closed-minded as religions are.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

But that's where you're confusing the idea of our conception of God with God itself. Neither Zeus nor Posiedon nor Yahweh need exist in order for God to exist. Your are also confusing the term 'evidence' with 'proof.' There is no proof either way. There are centuries of extremely rich thought and anecdotal evidence for the existence of God. You just choose to reject it in favor of humanistic hubris. And btw, spare us all the strawmen and mockery...it just lowers your argument to the level of comicbooks.

I didn't ask for anecdotal or thoughtful evidence of God. I asked for empirical falsifiable evidence of which none exists that i know of.

Ill spare the mockery if you van actually show me some real evidence of a god of human culture that exists in reality. Without such evidence it is perfectly rational to be an atheist with respect to the gods we know from human culture.

Andrew

What you are asking for is proof, even if you're calling it "evidence." You just rejected the evidence on the grounds that it is not proof.

I want evidence. Of the empirical falsifiable kind. Can you provide it or not?

Andrew

You're moving the goalposts now. I have no more empirical proof of the existence of God than you have proof of his non-existence. What I do have is evidence...plenty of it...while you have no evidence of God's non-existence at all. You don't like my evidence, prefering to ask instead for proof, and pointing at a lack of proof to assert a lack of evidence, without realizing that if you do that, it allows me to ask the same of you, and you don't even have hearsay evidence, much less "empirical falsifiable" proof evidence.

[AndrewL]

You're moving the goalposts now. I have no more empirical proof of the existence of God than you have proof of his non-existence. What I do have is evidence...plenty of it...while you have no evidence of God's non-existence at all. You don't like my evidence, prefering to ask instead for proof, and pointing at a lack of proof to assert a lack of evidence, without realizing that if you do that, it allows me to ask the same of you, and you don't even have hearsay evidence, much less "empirical falsifiable" proof evidence.

So you just go around inventing silly fantasies with no evidence and asking people to disprove them? First comes evidence and observation and then we attempt to either confirm or deny. That is how rational people proceed in these matters. I have moved no goal posts, i ask for evidence of the true existence of the god of the bible, or any other human created god, and i still have not received any.

You have yet to provide evidence. You mentioned you may have some anecdotal evidence, but you did not provide any. (but don't bother, because that is not the type of evidence i seek).

Perhaps MM was right.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

So you just go around inventing silly fantasies with no evidence and asking people to disprove them? First comes evidence and observation and then we attempt to either confirm or deny. That is how rational people proceed in these matters. I have moved no goal posts, i ask for evidence of the true existence of the god of the bible, or any other human created god, and i still have not received any.

You have yet to provide evidence. You mentioned you may have some anecdotal evidence, but you did not provide any. (but don't bother, because that is not the type of evidence i seek).

Perhaps MM was right.

Andrew

First you confused evidence with proof, and now you're confusing evidence with the scientific method. You really have to dig a hole and plant the goalposts once and for all. I know its irritating for you that I have evidence and you have none, but since neither one of us can prove a thing through the scientific method or any other mechanism, you must concede that my evidence trumps your lack of evidence. MM is a supercilious, if not very educated or smart, twit.

[myata]

Not in the same way as religions, no. I want people to accept reason, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, tolerance, awe at the unbounded mystery of existence and so on. That is in no way like religions do.

...

I am not at all as rigid, archaic, irrational, and closed-minded as religions are.

So how about showing it (open-mindedness, tolerance, etc) toward others first, before wanting something from them? Including the beliefs they hold sacred even if they may not be true or rational for you. Good place to start is with yourself. That's there one has best chance to succeed.

[cybercoma]

Andrew, it's like watching monkeys copulate coconuts, I know, but reason doesn't work with the unreasonable.