Happy Atheist Forum

General => Philosophy => Topic started by: donkeyhoty on July 24, 2007, 09:41:22 PM

Title: Agnosticism - lending validity to religion?
Post by: donkeyhoty on July 24, 2007, 09:41:22 PM
Here's an query I'd like to hear some opinions on:  Does agnosticism give weight to the concept of a god(whichever one you prefer)?


Here's my position:  Take any of the imaginary, thought experiment deities, e.g. Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I'd presume that no one is agnostic in their case.  Is this because you know from the outset that these are imaginary, created deities?  I believe so.  

Now take the Abrahamic God, are agnostics using faulty logic in accepting the position of a lack of proof/knowledge for or against this God?
To explain further, I feel the concept of a god is so culturally omnipresent that agnostics accept the idea of a god based on numbers alone.  In essence, agnostics are making a tacit admission of the possibility of a god because of the number of people that believe in a god, not because the case against a god is lacking.


To agnostics:  Yes, we are without full knowledge of the universe, but the IPU is just as imaginary as the Abrahamic God.  Are you taking the agnostic position for all gods? If not, which ones and why?


To atheists:  Does this all make sense?  Are agnostics tacitly accepting the idea of a god by saying we're without proof/knowledge, when we, as atheists, find all the deities to be imaginary?   And, is it simply because of the omnipresent cultural weight of religious belief that allows for the position of agnosticism?

I'm using agnostic to mean without proof/knowledge for or against god(s), and atheist to mean there are no god(s).  If you'd like to further elucidate either of those, go ahead as long as there's an explanation.
Title:
Post by: MikeyV on July 24, 2007, 11:15:10 PM
I believe that these are good points. This point is the one that tipped me off of the agnostic fence.

I felt that I was lending credence to the Abrahamic god. When I looked at that position a little more critically, I found that I'd have to be agnostic to ALL gods that mankind has dreamed up.

Zeus may have fallen out of favor, but no one has proven that he doesn't exist. So the argument that religionists use (You can't prove that YHWH DOESN'T exist!) extends to defunct gods as well. But I don't see them taking an agnostic stance on the existance of non-Abrahamic gods. Quite the contrary, they are hard atheists when it comes to other gods.

Once I saw that, I just extended it to the Abrahamic god as well.

Does agnosticism have to extend to all things supernatural? I don't believe that it does. I don't believe in ghosts, but I have never seen evidence disproving them either. Atheism/skepticism is just a default position for me.

That's just my opinion/observation. Your milage may vary.
Title:
Post by: pjkeeley on July 25, 2007, 12:09:19 PM
Agreed. Agnostics are often pretty generous when it comes to the Abrahamic God, in comparison to His many rivals. I'd say the majority of self-defined agnostics though are probably like I was, ie. they are agonostic about a sort of generic deist version of God. The rest are probably just undecided about which religion to follow, if at all.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 26, 2007, 01:37:02 AM
Most self described agnostics I've talked to are fairly turned off by religion yet still entertain the possibility of a god.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on July 26, 2007, 02:51:11 AM
Good topic!  A case in point, my brother calls himself agnostic.  However, he doesn't believe in the Abrahamic god one shred, and will positively state that this particular god is not real.  Make the god more generic, though, and he feels content to say he has no knowledge as to whether there are or are not gods (note, however, that by taking this stance he's asserting that all religious "knowledge" is bunk --- it's not really any knowledge at all).

It's a really subtle difference, I think, between a "true" agnostic and any atheist who doesn't profess to be a so-called "strong atheist".

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"To atheists: Does this all make sense? Are agnostics tacitly accepting the idea of a god by saying we're without proof/knowledge, when we, as atheists, find all the deities to be imaginary?
This seems very, very close to my own personal opinion in the matter.  My assertion that there is no god is primarily motivated by the fact that the god ideas of man seem so completely made up, so completely baseless.

To flesh this thought out, Carl Sagan famously said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and while this is ultimately correct (and probably speaks to the agnostics), I think you can go further than just stating "there is no evidence".  I think you can legitimately question a proponents reasons for making a claim.  A person can make a claim and have no evidence to back it up, but if you found evidence that they lied or just made up their claim then you'd have a situation that is far worse than simple lack of supporting evidence --- you would have positive evidence that the assertion is without rational grounds and can (therefore) be safely ignored.  Such, I believe, is the case against there being any gods.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 27, 2007, 01:39:34 AM
SteveS, I sometimes say "absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but it is a pretty damn good reason not to believe."  Theists like that Sagan quote too...which is why I came up with the above.
Title:
Post by: Squid on July 27, 2007, 02:59:50 AM
Does anyone happen to know what work that phrase appears in?  I don't recall running across it but I may just not remember.  I'm just big on context in which quotes are used.
Title:
Post by: MikeyV on July 27, 2007, 06:36:07 AM
Well, IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081846/quotes) says it's from Cosmos. There isn't any context on the site...just the quote.

Wiki (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan), in its unsourced section says:


I'm not quite sure what this means...did some theist make that up and attribute it to Dr. Sagan? The way he felt about it was the same as his invisible, floating, heat less flame dragon. To him, the absence of evidence and something not existing were functionally the same.

I guess I just muddied the waters :P

By the by, my two favorite Sagan quotes:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Cosmos

"Credulity kills." - The Demon-Haunted World
Title:
Post by: Squid on July 27, 2007, 07:20:05 PM
The reason I wanted to know the context is that so many god-proponents will spout that phrase out and tack Sagan's name to it.  Of all the work of his I've read, of all the documentaries I watched, lectures he's given, and so on.  I cannot see Carl Sagan using that phrase in the way in which they do.

I think the overwhelming need for context in my case comes from dealing with the often used tactic of quote-mining by creationists.
Title:
Post by: joeactor on July 27, 2007, 07:23:17 PM
Very interesting thread...

Hi gang - sorry I've been absent.  Long story, maybe later.

As an Agnostic Theist, I'd say that Agnosticism is used by both sides to prove the other wrong.

From my perspective, there is no fence.

It's not a matter of god must exist, or must not exist.

It should be perfectly valid to say "I don't know".

As for one god or another, they're all in the same boat for me.
God, Buddha, FSM, IPU, Santa - unknown.
Which is why I don't waste much time thinking about them.

If you want to create a new "unknown deity" right now, that's fine.

Just wake me up when someone finds one...

JoeActor
Title:
Post by: SteveS on July 28, 2007, 04:09:21 AM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"I sometimes say "absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but it is a pretty damn good reason not to believe."
Haha!  Exactly correct, of course!  Seriously, theists trying to hide behind this idea seems absurd to me.  Absence of evidence is pretty bad for an idea.

Which brings me to my next point: Maybe I've become confused over this quote.  Can you guys read this over and help set me straight?  MikeyV's post correctly identified the source as the "Baloney Detection Kit", which is specifically Chapter 12, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in the "The Demon-Haunted World".  The line in question appears on page 213 of my copy which is the Ballantine paperback, and appears in the section that is describing logically fallacies.  The full context is:

Quote from: "Carl Sagan"appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.)  This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Okay, so now "impatience with ambiguity" is an excellent description - I get that immediately.  But it's the meaning of the final sentence (which is the quote in question) that I'm after.  Look at his second example of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy, where the proponent claims that since we're aware of no other world with the "moral advancement of Earth", we must be central to the universe.  Doesn't his quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" apply directly, as stated, to this case?  The absence of evidence regarding another world with the "moral advancement of Earth" does not constitute evidence that such a world is absent.  Am I reading this right?

I think Carl Sagan was just being very "fair", and proposing this idea as justification for investigating claims even though they may seem absurd at first.  Or at least, preventing us from rejecting claims off-hand just because they seem incredible.

Here's a decent wiki paragraph that also references the quote with some explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_ignorance

If I've got all this right, then although I hear Sagan's point, I don't think he would ever have intentioned this to mean we should believe in things that lack evidence.  One thing that seems to come through over and over again in his message is that belief requires evidence.  For example, from the 'Dragon analogy', which is page 171 of my book:

Quote from: "Carl Sagan"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.  What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Seems clear that he is very specifically calling out "absence of evidence" as being utterly insufficient grounds for believing a claim.  I think maybe the confusion is that Sagan does not, I think, consider "absence of evidence" sufficient to disprove a claim.

For clarification, here's another quote that I think displays his ideas together.  This one is from "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", published by Penguin (ISBN 1-59420-107-2), page 251 (which is a transcription of some of the Q&A after his lectures - the entire book is a collection of his 1985 Gifford Lectures):

QuoteQuestioner: As a scientist, would you deny the possibility of water having been changed into wine in the Bible?

CS: Deny the possibility?  Certainly not.  I would not deny any such possibility.  But I would, of course, not spend a moment on it unless there was some evidence for it.

So, basically, I think everyone's right.  I think the theists would argue (correctly) that Sagan doesn't feel that lack of evidence for god makes god disproved.  However, if they feel this means Sagan is endorsing belief in god on this basis, or even simply excusing it, I think they are sadly mistaken and are guilty of misinterpreting his words.

What say you?
Title:
Post by: Will on July 28, 2007, 06:49:39 AM
I do personally see it as a cop out with a high cost. Agnostics outweigh atheists by quite a bit, and the fact that they keep up the "I believe in something"  line ringing in everyone's ear, which DOES tend to lend validity to theism....as it IS theism, though. That's the point. An agnostic is still a theist. They aren't misrepresenting atheism (unless you're an idiot, the type that thinks atheists worship satan, and who cares what they think?), they're representing weak theism.

We can't chop them down, though. At least I can't. I commend them for being on the same path a lot of atheists, myself included, once took. I was once an agnostic. It was that philosophical wiggle room that allowed me to develop into what I see as a more reasonable, well rounded human being. I no longer walk around with the Jesus shackles. Agnostic people are at least aware of the shackles.
Title:
Post by: joeactor on July 28, 2007, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: "Willravel"I do personally see it as a cop out with a high cost. Agnostics outweigh atheists by quite a bit, and the fact that they keep up the "I believe in something"  line ringing in everyone's ear, which DOES tend to lend validity to theism....as it IS theism, though. That's the point. An agnostic is still a theist. They aren't misrepresenting atheism (unless you're an idiot, the type that thinks atheists worship satan, and who cares what they think?), they're representing weak theism.
We can't chop them down, though. At least I can't. I commend them for being on the same path a lot of atheists, myself included, once took. I was once an agnostic. It was that philosophical wiggle room that allowed me to develop into what I see as a more reasonable, well rounded human being. I no longer walk around with the Jesus shackles. Agnostic people are at least aware of the shackles.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.

Agnostic/Gnostic refers to Knowledge.

Atheist/Theist refers to Belief.

And ne'er the twain shall meet.

I'm an Agnostic Theist, and quite comfortable with "Not Knowing" and "Believing", since they are two different realms.

There are also Agnostic Atheists, and plain Agnostics (ie. I don't know, and don't care about belief).

Not to stir up any feathers, but from my thinking Theists and Atheists are in the same "Belief Boat".  Both positions rely on the unprovable.  If Belief were provable, it'd be Knowledge...

There is no spoon,
JoeActor
Title:
Post by: McQ on July 28, 2007, 07:08:06 PM
Quote from: "joeactor"
Quote from: "Willravel"I do personally see it as a cop out with a high cost. Agnostics outweigh atheists by quite a bit, and the fact that they keep up the "I believe in something"  line ringing in everyone's ear, which DOES tend to lend validity to theism....as it IS theism, though. That's the point. An agnostic is still a theist. They aren't misrepresenting atheism (unless you're an idiot, the type that thinks atheists worship satan, and who cares what they think?), they're representing weak theism.
We can't chop them down, though. At least I can't. I commend them for being on the same path a lot of atheists, myself included, once took. I was once an agnostic. It was that philosophical wiggle room that allowed me to develop into what I see as a more reasonable, well rounded human being. I no longer walk around with the Jesus shackles. Agnostic people are at least aware of the shackles.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.

Agnostic/Gnostic refers to Knowledge.

Atheist/Theist refers to Belief.

And ne'er the twain shall meet.

I'm an Agnostic Theist, and quite comfortable with "Not Knowing" and "Believing", since they are two different realms.

There are also Agnostic Atheists, and plain Agnostics (ie. I don't know, and don't care about belief).

Not to stir up any feathers, but from my thinking Theists and Atheists are in the same "Belief Boat".  Both positions rely on the unprovable.  If Belief were provable, it'd be Knowledge...

There is no spoon,
JoeActor

Thanks for that, Joe. Good point that I was hoping to see come up. I believe you have said it before, in another area. It's a vital distinction.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on July 29, 2007, 03:41:46 AM
Joe, I can only agree with you partially in your distinction between knowledge and belief; in particular it appears to me that you are presenting the two as entirely disconnected, which seems wrong to me.  Here's the part in question:

Quote from: "joeactor"Agnostic/Gnostic refers to Knowledge.

Atheist/Theist refers to Belief.

And ne'er the twain shall meet.

I'm an Agnostic Theist, and quite comfortable with "Not Knowing" and "Believing", since they are two different realms.
Okay - I get that belief is different than knowledge.  I will also agree that belief is really only important where knowledge fails us (If I believe something that I also know, then my belief is entirely superfluous).

But to say "ne'er the twain shall meet", "they are two different realms", is, I think, an oversimplification.  I think the two realms interact, and do so heavily.  In particular, I think that to maintain a rational perspective your beliefs have to be derived from your knowledge.  And that as a result knowledge very significantly influences belief.

For example, what if a belief contradicts knowledge?  Suppose a person claims to be a rational person with a particular belief, and that some new scientific discovery produces knowledge that is contradictory with this person's belief.  He must either abandon his belief, or abandon his claim to rationality.

Likewise, suppose my car keys "go missing".  I might remember that I used them to open the door to my house when I got home yesterday, and that I never subsequently left the house.  So I conclude that my keys are somewhere in my home and that my memory has failed me (as it's done in the past), and I can't remember where I put them.  This is rational and stands to reason.  My belief (I've simply misplaced my keys) is compatible with my knowledge.  But, what if I thought a demon had materialized in my home and used a magical spell to banish my keys to the nether world?  This belief differs significantly from the first type of belief, mainly because it is completely incompatible with our current knowledge of reality, what is possible and what is not possible, what is likely to exist and what is not.  On these grounds I would suggest this second belief is irrational.  It is not supported by any knowledge, where the first belief is.

Please note I can't claim to know what has actually happened to my keys.  Perhaps a thief broke in and stole them.  So, I must admit that I don't know, but I still would not equate these two very different beliefs (misplaced vs. demon), and my reason for distinguishing between them would be knowledge.  It would be my sum total of knowledge, not any claimed knowledge of the event in question.

So, in summary,

Quote from: "joeactor"Not to stir up any feathers, but from my thinking Theists and Atheists are in the same "Belief Boat". Both positions rely on the unprovable. If Belief were provable, it'd be Knowledge...
Fundamentally I agree with you: both positions rely on the unprovable.  But I don't think that fact means that the two beliefs should necessarily be considered equal.  Knowledge, while incomplete, can guide us (I think) toward one or the other.  I think the fact that both positions are unprovable just means that neither belief can be said to be conclusive - we must admit the possibility of being wrong.

For me personally (and to play off my Carl Sagan stuff above), I will not deny the possibility of a god (because I must admit I may be wrong, my case is not provable), but without any evidence in favor I will not believe in a god.  I would argue that my belief is, therefore, directly related to my knowledge (or lack there of, as in this particular case).
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on July 29, 2007, 04:24:15 AM
here's sort of what I'm trying to get at
Quote from: "SteveS"For me personally (and to play off my Carl Sagan stuff above), I will not deny the possibility of a god (because I must admit I may be wrong, my case is not provable), but without any evidence in favor I will not believe in a god. I would argue that my belief is, therefore, directly related to my knowledge (or lack there of, as in this particular case).

Why is there a need to feel agnostic about the concept of god(s)?

There's only so many times an atheist can invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster before feeling silly, but there's no need to be agnostic about the FSM.

A person saying they're without knowledge of a god or no god is a tacit admission of the veracity of the concept of god(s).  Essentially, saying a god may or may not exist accepts that religious stories are not entirely fictional.

I think it's simply the weight of believers that allows for agnosticism. i.e. God or gods are present in just about all, if not all, cultures, so it becomes difficult to say that everyone, ever, was completely wrong.  Whereas, an imaginary concept, like the FSM, with no weight, or presupposed truth behind it is easily dismissed as imaginary.

I don't think agnosticism is truly without knowledge, because it presupposes that gods are not a fictional, purely human concept.  

Caveat: you could say atheism supposes that gods are a purely human concept, but where is the evidence that they're not? - that's rhetorical.
Title:
Post by: joeactor on July 29, 2007, 05:57:27 AM
Hey SteveS... Yeah, I can totally see how knowledge and belief can be intertwined.

Good points indeed.

Donkeyhoty: hmmmm... if there were no believers, there would be no Atheists or Agnostics (at least where religious belief is concerned).  They're both positions of opposition (hence the "A").  But I could be Agnostic about other belief based concepts, I suppose.

Great topic and a lively discussion.

Glad to be around,
JoeActor
Title:
Post by: SteveS on July 30, 2007, 03:41:19 AM
Hi guys.  Okay,

Joe - thanks.  And, I want to make sure I didn't lose track of two things:

1) I think the way you classify the words, agnostic/gnostic refers to knowledge, atheist/theist to belief, is 100% correct.

2) I think reminding everyone that some things we can claim to know, but others we must only claim to believe, is very important, and is a vital distinction.

donkeyhoty --- to me, any disagreement between us seems very slight.  There's really only one thing that I can't really get 100% behind, which comes out in a few of the statements below:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"A person saying they're without knowledge of a god or no god is a tacit admission of the veracity of the concept of god(s).
I don't entirely agree.  I think the idea of god can be proposed as a solution to some question, and then I can say "there seems to be no evidence of that being correct".  Or, in other words, "We can find no knowledge that the god answer is correct".  The proponent could retaliate with "but it's still possible", and this seems (at least in some definitions of god) to be true.  While this is a ridiculously tiny peg to try to hang your belief hat on, and is sufficient cause for said belief being deemed irrational, the point is if I can't prove something is impossible I have to admit it may be possible.  That's all.  It doesn't have to be very bloody likely, though, and this mere fact is hardly adequate grounds for belief.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Essentially, saying a god may or may not exist accepts that religious stories are not entirely fictional.
Again, I don't think so.  Can't you say a god may be possible, but that religious stories are, in fact, all fictional?  In other words, somebody might say "god may exist, but nobody has got the description of him/her/it/whatever right yet".  What about the god of the diests?  They don't really have any religious stories --- in fact, they don't even really have a religion.  Just a belief in a creator god who wrote the natural laws.  How can I claim to "know" that the diests are wrong?  I can claim to believe they are wrong (reasonably, in my opinion), and I can argue effectively, I think, that they're probably wrong, but to claim knowledge that they're wrong?  It seems too strong to me.

Once we have a proven scientific concept that describes how and/or why the big bang occurred, and why the laws of nature are what they are, then I think we can claim to know the deists were wrong (although any deists alive at the time would probably just "ammend" their argument up a rung, "ah, but where did that come from?" rather than just admit they were wrong.  Annoying, but likely, no?).

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I don't think agnosticism is truly without knowledge, because it presupposes that gods are not a fictional, purely human concept.
I don't know why you couldn't say you are in doubt about whether or not gods are completely fictional concepts or not.  You could then describe yourself as agnostic in this regard.  

For me, I'd say I'm an "agnostic atheist" simply because I don't think I can claim to "know" that any and all god concepts are impossible.  I think this is what you would have to demonstrate in order to be a "strong atheist", which is really what it seems you're arguing for.

Don't get me wrong, I think I can be a "strong atheist" about particular definitions of god.  As for the "Christian god", as he's described by Christian theologians, I'd say the concept they present is self contradictory, which is therefore self refuting, which is therefore impossible.  I don't think I have to claim to believe something impossible doesn't exist, I think I can claim to know that something impossible cannot exist.  So, I can say I'm a "strong atheist" with regards to the Christian god.  Even if something "like" the Christian god exists, it would only be "like" the Christian god --- the theologians would still be wrong and I would still be right ( :wink: ).

My problem is that I don't think I can generalize this to "any" god.  How can I claim to "know" the "god of deism" is impossible, based on the evidence currently available?  I don't think I can.

Just a final note, to put this entire discussion into perspective,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Caveat: you could say atheism supposes that gods are a purely human concept, but where is the evidence that they're not? - that's rhetorical.
I take this point very dearly to heart.  In fact, in my first response on this thread, this is exactly why I said:

Quote from: "SteveS"My assertion that there is no god is primarily motivated by the fact that the god ideas of man seem so completely made up, so completely baseless.

Just wanted to underscore, donkeyhoty, that I don't want our discussion to be perceived as an argument.  I think we're splitting hairs here, dude.
Title:
Post by: Will on July 30, 2007, 05:52:52 PM
Quote from: "joeactor"I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.

Agnostic/Gnostic refers to Knowledge.

Atheist/Theist refers to Belief.
But 'agnostic' is the supposed middleground between theist and weak atheist. Maybe a better term would be weak theist. It's someone who believes in the supernatural, but is skeptical of religions and is not directly associated with any denomination.

Agnosticism purely as a knowledge based term, not associated with religion directly, would therefore not necessarily lend credence to religion or atheism. It's almost a negative, as an agnostic is not something (similar to the atheist label), and that would be the only loose association I could draw.

Still, we're on Happy Atheist Forum, so I have to assume that 'agnostic' in this case refers to a weak theist. If that's the case, then that position does lend validity to religion, which is bad.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 31, 2007, 12:21:02 AM
From my understanding agnostic is a farily recently coined term (the 50s?) and was intended to refer to those who believe it is not possible to know if a god exists and not possible to conclude that one doesn't exist.  For that reason, the agnostic remains completely undecided about the existance of a god.

It is also commonly used in the litteral sense to mean without knowledge and can be applied to both atheists and theists who don't fit near the strong category.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on August 01, 2007, 03:42:06 AM
laetusatheos, I'm thinking the term itself was invented by the biologist Henry Thomas Huxley back in the 1860's.  Here's the link to a Wiki page discussing Huxley and agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Thomas_Henry_Huxley



Will,

Quote from: "Willravel"I have to assume that 'agnostic' in this case refers to a weak theist. If that's the case, then that position does lend validity to religion, which is bad.
I agree, if by "agnostic" we mean "weak theist", then clearly they are lending validity to religion.  But, why not call weak theists simply weak theists?  It seems confusing to blend the terms.

For a "true" agnostic (i.e. Huxley-style), claiming "we can never know", I don't see how they can be perceived to be fueling religion.  To them, it seems the pursuit is ultimately pointless (because we can never know) and completely unjustified.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on August 02, 2007, 01:10:42 AM
Quote from: "SteveS"laetusatheos, I'm thinking the term itself was invented by the biologist Henry Thomas Huxley back in the 1860's.  Here's the link to a Wiki page discussing Huxley and agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Thomas_Henry_Huxley

You know what....I think I confused it with when Wicca was coined.  My mind gets a bit jumbled sometimes when dates are involved.

 :oops:
Title:
Post by: SteveS on August 02, 2007, 02:59:06 AM
Bah - dates are bunk.  I've been discussing the ideas of this thread with my brother who keeps me up to date on this Huxley character.  In fact, if Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", I think maybe my brother is "Huxley's Bulldog"!  Haha - I mean this as a compliment.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on August 09, 2007, 12:39:52 AM
I've been busy.  I'll get back to this eventually.
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 14, 2007, 03:27:59 PM
I think, to an extent, an assumption is being made here as to the nature of 'agnosticism' as a commitment of some kind. For me it's quite the opposite; I'm not agnostic because the evidence for the presence/absence of God is lacking either way & same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think many if not most agnostics simply don't see a point in making the statement "I am an atheist" or "I make my sacrifices to Apollo" because no matter which way they'd choose to go they'd be committing to something which is ultimately fairly meaningless. God, Pan, Zeus, nihilism et cetera; what's the point? You've got a one in several billion chance of being correct so why place bets at all? Better to just enjoy what you have, really.

Also, a lot of agnostics don't like the 'atheist' label. Too often it gets seen as some form of rebellion when, certainly in my mind, fascinating as it is in terms of human behaviour, it's just one pointless & irrational institution to counteract another.
Title:
Post by: joeactor on September 14, 2007, 04:44:54 PM
Hi Mister Joy - Welcome!

I'm with you 100%.  It's very easy for both Atheists and Theists to label Agnostics as "On the Fence" or "Wishy-Washy"...  Personally, I don't even see a fence!

It turns into a very "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.  I'm not one or the other - I just don't know and am not afraid to admit it.

Hope you're having a great weekend in Ole' Blighty,
JoeActor
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 14, 2007, 05:12:59 PM
Cheers for the welcome :D And congratulations, you managed to use a bit of British slang there that I wasn't even aware of until now.

I agree, it is somewhat "If you're not with us, you're against us" yes. Bit of a tribal, war-like attitude if you ask me. This thread is in itself a testimony to that. The idea of 'lending validity to religion' - assuming it's true - is stated as some sort of enemy action & let's be honest, it doesn't really effect us if there are a few more or less Christians knocking about. They aren't exactly poisonous maggot infested zombies looking to ingest the flesh of puppies, bunny rabbits and small children.
Title:
Post by: rlrose328 on September 14, 2007, 05:36:57 PM
They may not be ingesting the flesh of anything cute and cuddly but at least here in America, the Evangelical and Fundie Christians are trying to take over the country using politics and laws based on their religious belief.  Therefore, a stance must be made.  That is one of the reasons why I embrace atheism.

I don't think that if you're not with us, your against us, but the threat of a theocracy is very real right now... if not a theocratic government, at least a theocratic atmosphere and way of thinking.  There are two moms at my son's school with whom I'm friends who truly BELIEVE the 10 commandments should be made into laws, including making belief in god one of them.  "It would eliminate crime, adultery, lying, etc." like merely making them laws will eliminate the behavior.  Has worked SO well with murder, stealing, etc. because those are ALREADY against the law.

So... in my mind and in my life, there are certainly fences and I'd LOVE to see them fall, so that we all accept each other for their differences of belief... but with the fundies and gellies continuing to force their beliefs on everyone using laws (stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion being the main issues), I will stick with atheism as a point of view and (non-) belief system.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 05:42:47 PM
Hello Mister Joy - I understand your views on agnosticism.

I do not agree that atheism is an "irrational institution to counteract another".  In particular, I view atheism as a rejection of an irrational institution.  Stay with me and I'll explain myself:

In its simplest definition, and in the manner in which I call myself an atheist, the word "atheist" simply means "not theist".  The only "commitment" that I'm making is that I do not believe the claims of the theist.  That's all - sum total.  I'm saying "theism is irrational, so I am not a theist.  I am an atheist;  an a-theist; a not-theist".

How can this be irrational, especially if we agree that theism is irrational?  If theism is irrational, then my only rational choice is to reject it.

I understand that the 'atheist' label does not appeal to you  -  one of my brothers calls himself agnostic for the same reason.  In particular, he thinks that the label "atheist" carries a lot of social/political baggage with it.  While this might arguably be true in practice, there is certainly no statement being made as to social or political philosophy by declaring oneself to be an atheist - one is merely declaring that they are not theists.

Now, for the part that might bug you (and joeactor, for that matter), I'm going to appeal to the word roots here:  everyone must be either a theist or an atheist, the same way all shapes must be either symmetrical or asymmetrical.  "A" and "not A" describe all possibilities; there is no third choice.

Strictly speaking, then, if an agnostic is not a theist then he is an atheist.  You do not have to commit to the statement "there is no god" to be an atheist - you merely have to say "I do not accept as true the claim that there is a god".  This could be because "god" is a meaningless word, "god" is an undefined word, you have never heard of the idea of god (in which case you can't hold a belief that god exists), you have chosen to suspend judgment on whether or not god exists (in which case you would still not accept the statement as true, merely possible, or unknown), etc.  Any reason for not accepting "god exists" as true would qualify you as an atheist.

If you reject this, then understand that the reason you are doing so is that you view an atheist as a person who asserts "I know what god is, and god does not exist", but this is not the way most atheists, and me in particular, would describe themselves.  If you choose to call yourself 'agnostic' rather than 'atheist' due to the negative inferences you feel people will make against you if you go with 'atheist', well, this is certainly something that I understand.  I am not, under these circumstances, telling you that you should change your own label (not my decision to make - yours), but I am telling you why I use the label 'atheist' for myself and would not agree that an atheist is a person who asserts "I know what god is and god does not exist".  I reject theism on the basis that god is sometimes undefined in a clear way such that I don't know what "god" means, and other times god is defined in a way that is self-contradictory and therefore must be false.  In both cases I reject the assertion of theism, so I am not a theist, so I am an a-theist.

Verstehen Sie?

Steve
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 14, 2007, 08:09:02 PM
rlrose:

I'll happily submit to that. Here, 4/5 people are atheist/agnostic, and the only fundamentalists that we have tend to get themselves arrested for trying to blow things up, so the chances of an evangelist movement taking over in Britain are pretty slim and I appreciate that I probably have less to worry about than you do. Then again, thanks to our current sycophantic & misrepresentative government, it would probably effect us quite a bit too if it were to happen over there... so I suppose, with that connection in mind, your "I'm an atheist" is equivalent to my "I'm a Tory".

I would be interested to learn more about the unorthodox methods which powerful Christians are employing in their efforts, actually. It's been mentioned to me before but all I've heard thus far is vague speculation. Any good links you could throw my way?

SteveS:

Crikey! I love a nice juicy response.

QuoteI do not agree that atheism is an "irrational institution to counteract another". In particular, I view atheism as a rejection of an irrational institution. Stay with me and I'll explain myself:

In its simplest definition, and in the manner in which I call myself an atheist, the word "atheist" simply means "not theist". The only "commitment" that I'm making is that I do not believe the claims of the theist. That's all - sum total. I'm saying "theism is irrational, so I am not a theist. I am an atheist; an a-theist; a not-theist".

How can this be irrational, especially if we agree that theism is irrational? If theism is irrational, then my only rational choice is to reject it.

I understand that the 'atheist' label does not appeal to you - one of my brothers calls himself agnostic for the same reason. In particular, he thinks that the label "atheist" carries a lot of social/political baggage with it. While this might arguably be true in practice, there is certainly no statement being made as to social or political philosophy by declaring oneself to be an atheist - one is merely declaring that they are not theists.

*Appy-polly-lodges: my incompetence when it comes to HTML (or whatever it's called) prevents me from being able to label the originator of the quote, if that matters to you at all*

I hear you & having taken into account what rlrose has said, I can see that your position is different to mine. I have no real need to reject something so awkwardly unfalsifiable (I have been an atheist and I've been in the thick of some vicious arguments over it in my time so I know what a bleedin' pain it is :lol: ) because it doesn't effect me for the most part. You, on the other hand, may be under different circumstances.

I also think that the Christian v. Atheist feud can get needlessly over the top at times; having a nasty tendency to target the wrong end of the stick. As rlrose highlighted, the real problem only comes out of one side intruding belief upon the other, whether through forceful politics or simple persuasive rhetoric. In my mind what they believe is irrelevant; it's what they do with that belief that can be the problem, the actions themselves, & that, if anything, is what the main bulk of the ongoing dilemma should be about, not whether or not God exists.

QuoteNow, for the part that might bug you (and joeactor, for that matter), I'm going to appeal to the word roots here: everyone must be either a theist or an atheist, the same way all shapes must be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. "A" and "not A" describe all possibilities; there is no third choice.

Strictly speaking, then, if an agnostic is not a theist then he is an atheist. You do not have to commit to the statement "there is no god" to be an atheist - you merely have to say "I do not accept as true the claim that there is a god". This could be because "god" is a meaningless word, "god" is an undefined word, you have never heard of the idea of god (in which case you can't hold a belief that god exists), you have chosen to suspend judgment on whether or not god exists (in which case you would still not accept the statement as true, merely possible, or unknown), etc. Any reason for not accepting "god exists" as true would qualify you as an atheist.

Doesn't bug me at all. You're talking in terms of 'old-school technicality' and words are nothing but words, after all. Also, word origins ultimately hold far less applicability than their present boundaries and distinctions anyway. Language evolves like everything else.

QuoteIf you reject this, then understand that the reason you are doing so is that you view an atheist as a person who asserts "I know what god is, and god does not exist"

If I were to reject it (and since I am agnostic, I neither accept nor reject anything :wink: ) I would indeed do it on that basis. But then it comes down to nothing but how we define certain words, as you've illustrated; you see them by their roots, I'm more modern, so if you don't think that "God does not exist" then I'd define you as an agnostic and you'd define me as an atheist. I don't really mind because I don't think it matters what words we label one another with.

For the record, though, I do believe in the possibility of a 'higher power' as an abstract, undefinable, unfathomable thing, so to speak. I just don't believe anything that's written about it is at all likely to be true (including the parts about creation, love, hate and other such anthropomorphic silliness). I just remember that the human mind is finite, reality is infinite, so ultimately people can argue for eternity over this and that but we're never going to understand anything, nobody's ever going to find any answers and if we keep it up we'll all fester away into oblivion.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 08:56:19 PM
Thanks for the response, Mister Joy.  I think we understand each other well enough.  Just a few things, going from the bottom of your post up:

Quote from: "Mister Joy"For the record, though, I do believe in the possibility of a 'higher power' as an abstract, undefinable, unfathomable thing, so to speak. I just don't believe anything that's written about it is at all likely to be true
Exactly!  Possible?  Sure.  Likely that anything written thus far is true?  No.  In this regard we are in agreement.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"so if you don't think that "God does not exist" then I'd define you as an agnostic and you'd define me as an atheist. I don't really mind because I don't think it matters what words we label one another with.
:lol:  Yup, I'm on board with this one as well.  Ultimately you are exactly correct - the labels do not matter nearly as much as the opinions behind them.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"Also, word origins ultimately hold far less applicability than their present boundaries and distinctions anyway
Saying word "roots" was, I think, a misstep on my part.  I should have said "word components" or something.  All that I was trying to get at is that "atheist" is a composite word.  "a" plus "theist".  "Theist" means something, "a" means not.  Ref: symmetry and asymmetry.

For what its worth, I concur that the most predominant, modern usage of these words is:

Theist: one who asserts that god exists
Atheist: one who asserts that god does not exist
Agnostic: one who asserts neither

I choose "atheist" for myself, but not because I agree with the above usage, but because of my "juicy" explanation  :wink:  
In particular, I've called myself both a "weak atheist" and an "agnostic atheist", to further distinguish myself from the predominant definition.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"In my mind what they believe is irrelevant; it's what they do with that belief that can be the problem, the actions themselves, & that, if anything, is what the main bulk of the ongoing dilemma should be about, not whether or not God exists.
Eh, agree and disagree.  I think debating whether or not god exists is a fruitful and fulfilling exercise.  I like philosophical discussion!  But, I also agree that practically what we do with these beliefs is important.

Personally, I follow a libertarian philosophy, so I think each person should be able to define and pursue their own goals.  If somebody wants to be a theist and go to church and follow a religion, then I would never chose to do this myself, but I don't believe I have a right to tell them that they cannot.  Basically, I agree with you 100% when you say

Quote from: "Mister Joy"the real problem only comes out of one side intruding belief upon the other
so I refrain from "intruding" my atheist beliefs upon theists.  I don't go door to door telling them they are wrong, for instance, nor do I propose we should write laws banning or outlawing religion, or anything of the sort.

Finally, just for grins,

Quote from: "Mister Joy"my incompetence when it comes to HTML (or whatever it's called) prevents me from being able to label the originator of the quote, if that matters to you at all
No - it doesn't matter to me at all.  But, all you have to do to get the originator's name in there, is when you write you quotes do it like this:

[quote="Somebody"] Whatever somebody said [/quote]
This will appear as:

Quote from: "Somebody"Whatever somebody said
Cheers!
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 14, 2007, 10:15:00 PM
It seems that we are very much aligned, Steve.

With regards to the one potential disagreement that we may have, though:

Quote from: "SteveS"Eh, agree and disagree. I think debating whether or not god exists is a fruitful and fulfilling exercise. I like philosophical discussion! But, I also agree that practically what we do with these beliefs is important.

Personally, I follow a libertarian philosophy, so I think each person should be able to define and pursue their own goals. If somebody wants to be a theist and go to church and follow a religion, then I would never chose to do this myself, but I don't believe I have a right to tell them that they cannot.

*Rejoice! I have now entered a new posting era."

I think it was more miscommunication on my part. By 'dilemma' I was referring, albeit without much indication, to areas of discussion that are reviewed with a certain brand of high-priority assertiveness. I agree that debating the existence of God is an invigorating and worthwhile pursuit, however I think people tend to focus on this obsessively, sometimes becoming needlessly argumentative and aggressive for what it's worth, while the more significant, down to Earth & life changing issues surrounding religion/beliefs are glazed over without much concern.

And cheers to you too! I'm glad somebody finally explained that to me.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 11:55:53 PM
Quote from: "Mister Joy"It seems that we are very much aligned, Steve.
Yes, I concur.

Regarding the "dilemma" --- I guess I'm not sure --- I've got to think about this some more before I can offer up anything worthwhile.  Eh, I'll have a few beers and post something more tonight (or tomorrow, or whenever).  This issue is interesting and thought provoking!
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 15, 2007, 03:49:18 AM
Okay, I've had some beer, I feel refreshed, so I reviewed this "dilemma" business, and I'm coming to the conclusion that any disagreement between us on this matter is probably only slight, if it exists at all.

Here's the paragraph I'm considering, and I've taken the liberty of emphasizing a particular part of it:

Quote from: "Mister Joy"I also think that the Christian v. Atheist feud can get needlessly over the top at times; having a nasty tendency to target the wrong end of the stick. As rlrose highlighted, the real problem only comes out of one side intruding belief upon the other, whether through forceful politics or simple persuasive rhetoric. In my mind what they believe is irrelevant; it's what they do with that belief that can be the problem, the actions themselves, & that, if anything, is what the main bulk of the ongoing dilemma should be about, not whether or not God exists.
Taken under the context that this paragraph was largely responsive to the situation posted by rlrose, I certainly agree with this without reservation.  To provide an illustration, if another man attempts to kill me, by basic complaint is that he is trying to kill me, not why he is trying to kill me.  His reasons could be many:

1) He is a theist and I am an atheist and he believes God told him to kill any atheists that he encounters

2) He is an Islamic Terrorist and I am an American, and he has accepted Bin Laden's fatwa that all Americans should be killed

3) He is a Christian fundamentalist and he has mistaken me for an abortion doctor

There are plenty of non-religiously themed reasons too, like:

4) He is a psychopath who takes pleasure in killing, and I just happen to be there next to him

5) He needs money and so decides to kill me and take my wallet

 :roll:  Okay, enough already, right?  I could not agree with you more strongly that ultimately I really don't care which, if any, of these reasons a person has for trying to kill me --- what I do care about is that he is trying to kill me.

In part, what I think you are trying to express, is that if we can have any legitimate concern for what other people are "involved" in, we should be much more concerned with what they are doing instead of what they are thinking.  The reason is that whatever they are thinking can have no effect on me as long as it is not put into action.  I would further state that we should not be concerned with what people are doing in the case that their action has no effect on us.  Perhaps, for example, I don't like smoking.  If somebody is inside their own home smoking, it has no effect on me, so I should not be concerned that they are smoking.  It would, however, be okay for me to ask them to refrain from smoking while they are in my home (or leave if they cannot abide).

Back to religious grounds, when I say we shouldn't have prayer in public schools, what I really mean is that nobody should be forced to pray in public schools, not that nobody should be praying within the school.  In other words,

Teacher leading mandatory prayer session: bad
Student praying to himself before he eats his lunch: okay
Private school: do whatever you want, if I don't like it I'll go to a different private school or to a public school

My initial reaction was more from the perspective that I think it is perfectly acceptable for myself and a Christian to agree to have a polite discussion regarding the existence of god.  If this makes the Christian uncomfortable, and he doesn't want to talk about it, I would never force him to ---- unless he's trying to force one of his beliefs upon me.  But, in that case my objection would be that he's trying to force his beliefs upon me, not what those beliefs actually are; not whether or not I find them to be true beliefs or false beliefs.  Doesn't matter - just don't force them upon me.

What says you?  :wink:
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 15, 2007, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: "SteveS"Okay, I've had some beer, I feel refreshed, so I reviewed this "dilemma" business, and I'm coming to the conclusion that any disagreement between us on this matter is probably only slight, if it exists at all.

Ah yes. Well I went out last night, don't remember coming back & I've just woken up with a stinking hangover, so I may not be quite on the ball I'm afraid. I'll persevere though. :(

Quote from: "SteveS"My initial reaction was more from the perspective that I think it is perfectly acceptable for myself and a Christian to agree to have a polite discussion regarding the existence of god. If this makes the Christian uncomfortable, and he doesn't want to talk about it, I would never force him to ---- unless he's trying to force one of his beliefs upon me. But, in that case my objection would be that he's trying to force his beliefs upon me, not what those beliefs actually are; not whether or not I find them to be true beliefs or false beliefs. Doesn't matter - just don't force them upon me.

I think you've hit the nail bang on the head there ducky.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 16, 2007, 06:11:29 PM
Hey Mister Joy, I find the contrast between the 'primary' public schools of our two nations intriguing:  in ours they want to have "official" prayers but we don't let them, and in yours they don't want to but are made to anyway.  :lol:  There is a certain amount of madness in here somewhere!

About primary/elementary, here's a typical break-down of US school classification:

Grades Kindergarten through 5: Elementary School
Grades 6 through 8: Middle School (usually used to be called Junior High)
Grades 9 through 12: High School

I think the most common variation on this theme would be to include grade 5 in the 'middle school', but there are probably others.  These are more typical divisions than hard and fast rules.

The ages of the grades are:

Kindergarten age: 5 turning 6
12th Grade (Senior in High School) age: 17 turning 18

Quote from: "Mister Joy"openly expressed patriotism
Yeah - the pledge of allegiance seems needless to me.  The major problem with it, IMO, is that it is simply outdated - the pledge was created as a knee-jerk reaction to the nationalistic fervor that was running rampant in the world at the time of its inception.  Personally - I think the practice should be discontinued.  Most atheists probably agree with me in this matter, not for the least reason because they object to making children recite the phrase "one nation, under god".

I don't have a problem with patriotism per se (considering our above discussion on thoughts & actions), but I don't know why we would require our citizens to swear their allegiance to the flag - is that even possible, to be in allegiance with a flag!?!  :lol:
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 17, 2007, 01:00:16 AM
Makes sense, I was in grade 3 & would have been in 4 if my mother hadn't taken me out. Exciting stuff.

Patriotism, in itself, is a healthy & harmless attachment, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not supposed to think that though, because I'm socially obliged by my intellectual status to hate my own country, so sayeth the BBC, Channel 4 & the 6th Form college I recently got out of :roll: . National pride is not a particularly well-accepted thing over here.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 17, 2007, 02:22:43 AM
Really?  I find that surprising, what with the wealth of success the United Kingdom has enjoyed as a nation!  Don't they at least set this aside during the world cup, and cheer like mad for the English soccer team?  I was in Hawaii last summer on business during the world cup, and there seemed to be English football fans all over the place - one couple even flying the traditional "England" flag from their hotel room balcony (the white one with the red cross, not the Union Jack - signifying England only instead of the U.K., from what I understand).

Its weird over here - I definitely pick up on some of the sentiment that you expressed (lots of intellectuals and such criticizing every step of the American nation, from Columbus enslaving natives all the way down), but then when the terrorists toppled the World Trade Center there were flags flying everywhere.  Now, the Bush administration's "near record" (I'm qualifying this because I'm not sure if its actually a record or not) low approval ratings, and civilian backlash against the Iraq war, are causing a lot of self-questioning and doubt again (or so it seems to me).

In all fairness though, most of these people probably dislike the president and his political decisions more then they dislike their own country.

But who knows?  What is a "6th Form college"?  I'm not familiar with the term....
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 17, 2007, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: "SteveS"Really? I find that surprising, what with the wealth of success the United Kingdom has enjoyed as a nation! Don't they at least set this aside during the world cup, and cheer like mad for the English soccer team? I was in Hawaii last summer on business during the world cup, and there seemed to be English football fans all over the place - one couple even flying the traditional "England" flag from their hotel room balcony (the white one with the red cross, not the Union Jack - signifying England only instead of the U.K., from what I understand).

A lot of us make an exception for footy (well naturally) though some English football fans have a tendency to be psychotic, to put it plainly, which gives the whole thing a bad reputation.

Incidentally, the status of the 'UK'; nation, country, commonwealth & what not; is fairly hazy and difficult to get your head around.

Technically, I have three flags:
The English flag (red cross on white), which represents my country; that being England.
The Union Jack (<<that one next to me) which rather vaguely represents the commonwealth of Great Britain; so all of the countries in the UK, & our overseas territories.
Finally the European Flag (blue with a circle of yellow stars), but I like to pretend that one doesn't exist because it's just patronising and useless.

Quote from: "SteveS"Its weird over here - I definitely pick up on some of the sentiment that you expressed (lots of intellectuals and such criticizing every step of the American nation, from Columbus enslaving natives all the way down), but then when the terrorists toppled the World Trade Center there were flags flying everywhere. Now, the Bush administration's "near record" (I'm qualifying this because I'm not sure if its actually a record or not) low approval ratings, and civilian backlash against the Iraq war, are causing a lot of self-questioning and doubt again (or so it seems to me).

It's the state which needs constant speculation, since they're the one's who are going to make these major decisions, not people's ancestry. We're all descended from slaves, after all. I don't go to Italy demanding an apology from the people in Rome for inflicting my celtic ancestors with the burden of civilisation. So yes, I agree with you here:

Quote from: "SteveS"In all fairness though, most of these people probably dislike the president and his political decisions more then they dislike their own country.

It's definitely possible to be proud of your country without being proud of your government.

No patriotic Englishman likes the Government we have. New Labour is very anti-patriotic in the case of the English: we're basically told that we ought to feel guilty about everything & that we can't have our own parliament because we're all really evil et cetera (and Scotland and Wales suddenly wouldn't be running our country any more and stealing our money, ahem, I didn't say that). England gets a really bad deal within the UK, in all fairness - we're totally fekked over, to be more accurate - but I wont go into the details because I'll be ranting and raving for hours (politics is one of the few things that I regret becoming interested in, simply because it does nothing but make me angry).

Quote from: "SteveS"But who knows? What is a "6th Form college"? I'm not familiar with the term....

Behold: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Diagram_of_UK_School_System.svg
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 17, 2007, 05:18:34 PM
Hey Mister Joy - good stuff!  Thanks for clearing up the England/UK/EU thing - I'm probably not the only American confused on this topic.  I'm never sure if I'm using the right words - is an Englishman English?  UKer?  European?  British?  Argh - I never want to offend, but probably do so unintentionally!

I agree in principle with your comments, and find them relevant to my own situation (re: slavery, the state, etc.).  And especially:

Quote from: "Mister Joy"(politics is one of the few things that I regret becoming interested in, simply because it does nothing but make me angry)
:lol:  You sound like a man after my own heart!  Cheers, mate  :cheers:  

I'll check out the wiki on UK schools - probably would have/should have before I asked, but I'm pretty lazy.  :wink:  

Anyway, welcome again to the forum, I'm enjoying the hell out of your commentary/perspective!
Title:
Post by: SteveS on September 17, 2007, 06:45:19 PM
I checked out the wiki picture - I now understand "6th form college".  Thanks!
Title:
Post by: quartel on September 28, 2007, 11:47:08 PM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Most self described agnostics I've talked to are fairly turned off by religion yet still entertain the possibility of a god.


I find this to be most accurate of Agnostics.

However even as Atheists I think that we are still fallible and there still is a chance we can be wrong even it is really really small.
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on September 29, 2007, 12:53:40 PM
I think that like it or not - even within scientific boundaries and disregarding religion - things like evolution, big bang, et cetera, are all nothing but theories and because we know a minuscule percentage of what there is to know in this existence, we're not really even in a position to judge overall 'likeliness'; certainly not with much significance.
Title:
Post by: Allhailtuna on September 29, 2007, 02:33:36 PM
I myself believe that a deist God could exist (Though I doubt it), but a Christian/Hindu/etc God? ...No.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on October 19, 2007, 05:48:24 AM
Quote from: "allhailtuna"I myself believe that a deist God could exist (Though I doubt it), but a Christian/Hindu/etc God? ...No.

Yup - striking a harmony with this comment.  Mostly the Christian god, because that's the one I know the most about.  The more the theologians talk the more they dig themselves into a hole.

Quote from: "Mister Joy"we know a minuscule percentage of what there is to know in this existence

At the risk of sounding like a smart-ass, I'd say we don't know how much there is to know yet.  How can we know that we've only uncovered a "miniscule percentage"?  Maybe we've almost got it all covered?  So - I'd say that doubt about how much there is to know is what makes "likeliness" calculations useless.
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on October 20, 2007, 01:32:14 AM
Good point, there. Hadn't considered that one. I still think it's unlikely that we know a whole lot, though, even if there's no way of establishing that for sure. We've barely begun to untangle the mystery of our own nature, let alone the nature of our existence & I don't think that that the human race is reaching a sudden stand still in its development... or at least I'd like to hope not. I'd find it pretty bleak & disappointing if we are.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on October 21, 2007, 03:20:18 AM
Yeah - I agree, of course.  I sure hope we're not reaching a sudden stand still either!  Of course, once we have all (or at least most) of the theory straight, there's still all the technological refinements to come.  Exciting to think about, actually.
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on October 21, 2007, 09:16:36 PM
It's bizarre to think about really. If we did somehow manage to learn all there is to be learned about everything then the word 'theory' would no longer serve any purpose and all we'd have is pure fact. I'm willing to bet, though, that concepts like evolution would still have to be referred to as 'theory' for the sake of religious diplomacy, along with the scientific proof *hastily strikes through that tricky word with a big black marker pen* speculation that God doesn't exist. :roll: That's assuming those things are true, of course.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on October 21, 2007, 10:49:28 PM
It is bizarre to think about --- I think all theories will still be theories --- how would we ever know that we knew everything?  We might strongly suspect we do, but I'll bet we'll still qualify things as theories for a long long time.
Title:
Post by: McQ on October 22, 2007, 04:48:08 AM
I'm enjoying this thread, although I haven't had anything to add to it. I love when we get into this stuff! There is soooooo much to be learned, and the universe doesn't owe us a damned thing in the way of making it easy to discover.

On a secondary note, we need to be a little more accurate throwing around the word "theory", especially when it comes to using it regarding the scientific meaning. Theory is not a guess, and it's not speculation or hypothesis. Unfortunately, so many people (especially fundies) have misused the word that it's hard to use it correctly any more.

Remember that gravitation is a "theory" too! LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

I know....this is a "Wiki" entry. But it is a solid one.