Why all agnostics/people "on the fence" are actually athiests

[revots33]

Some people do not like to be called athiests. I think this is because it carries with it the negative connotation that they KNOW something that is impossible to know. It sounds arrogant, maybe. Just like claiming to KNOW that god created the universe simply as a means to save human beings sounds arrogant. Labeling yourself "agnostic" or "on the fence" or "awaiting further evidence" implies that you are more open-minded than a strict athiest. But I also feel this is intellectual dishonesty.

The reason is this: the punishment for not believing (talking about the Christian god in this case) is eternal suffering. Think about that for a minute - if you don't believe in the Christian god, and you're wrong, you will be tormented and tortured for ETERNITY. I don't think even Christians fully appreciate the magnitude of this when they think about others going to hell. Imagine the most gruesome torture scenario you can. Now imagine it NEVER ENDS. Even the writers of the SAW movies couldn't possibly dream up such a horror. If anyone even had an inkling this could be true, they'd believe out of fear if nothing else.

So, if you say you need more evidence, you don't believe. You're an athiest. First off, the necessary evidence is not coming and every agnostic knows it. Secondly, if you even had the tiniest bit of belief you'd likely cling to it as protection against the infinite torture. You'd FIND some sort of evidence that would enable you to convince yourself you believe. So to claim you are agnostic means you do not believe, period. I can't see any other reason why a person would risk eternal torture other than simply not believing.

Some might argue that their agnosticism means they allow for the possibilty of some higher power, but not necessarily the Christian/Muslim/Hebrew god etc. But this is still athiesm, as unless you believe in the afterlife you know you will never have any proof, which means you will never believe, which means you don't believe.

[arahant]

The primary definition of Agnosticism is not as an alternative to Atheism or Theism. It is the belief that it is impossible to verify the existence of god. I am atheist and agnostic, though I admit that 'agnostic' is rather silly and obvious.

If you are christian and not agnostic, you believe that the presence of god is verifiable...I would think that would create a rather heavy burden to start verifying for the good of all non-christians.

[chezlaw]

Anyway agnosticism is not sitting on the fence its understanding that:

There's no reason to believe in god
There's no proof god doesn't exist.

Normally it also includes a lack of belief in god.

Its a misrepresentation to describe it as sitting on a fence. Slipping in P's wager is wrong but at least it is wrong.

chez

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people do not like to be called athiests. I think this is because it carries with it the negative connotation that they KNOW something that is impossible to know. It sounds arrogant, maybe. Just like claiming to KNOW that god created the universe simply as a means to save human beings sounds arrogant. Labeling yourself "agnostic" or "on the fence" or "awaiting further evidence" implies that you are more open-minded than a strict athiest. But I also feel this is intellectual dishonesty.

The reason is this: the punishment for not believing (talking about the Christian god in this case) is eternal suffering. Think about that for a minute - if you don't believe in the Christian god, and you're wrong, you will be tormented and tortured for ETERNITY. I don't think even Christians fully appreciate the magnitude of this when they think about others going to hell. Imagine the most gruesome torture scenario you can. Now imagine it NEVER ENDS. Even the writers of the SAW movies couldn't possibly dream up such a horror. If anyone even had an inkling this could be true, they'd believe out of fear if nothing else.

So, if you say you need more evidence, you don't believe. You're an athiest. First off, the necessary evidence is not coming and every agnostic knows it. Secondly, if you even had the tiniest bit of belief you'd likely cling to it as protection against the infinite torture. You'd FIND some sort of evidence that would enable you to convince yourself you believe. So to claim you are agnostic means you do not believe, period. I can't see any other reason why a person would risk eternal torture other than simply not believing.

Some might argue that their agnosticism means they allow for the possibilty of some higher power, but not necessarily the Christian/Muslim/Hebrew god etc. But this is still athiesm, as unless you believe in the afterlife you know you will never have any proof, which means you will never believe, which means you don't believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting you think this way. I am what most people would define as an 'agnostic' but i prefer to CALL MYSELF and atheist because I don't like the connotations of agnosticism. It makes me think of a smartass overly liberal college hippy kid who hates his father and smokes pot all day and wheres a "[censored] BUSH" t-shirt. 'Atheist' makes me think of an older/wiser intellectual type. So yeah, I call myself an atheist mainly because I am 100% positive that the orgnaized religion God's do not exist. I am well aware I can't prove or disprove the existance of a supreme being so I just go on with my life as if there isn't one.

Yeah basically atheist, but technically no.

[BWToth]

Shouldn't a belief that important to who you are as a person be based on something more significant that what stereotypes come along with a particular label?

It some ways agnosticism is just as close-minded as evangelical christianity.

If there is not proof of something either way, and when you look at it empirically...scientists are no closer to proving that God does NOT exist than Christians are to proving that it DOES exist.

To me agnosticism is simply the most logical rational point of view to take regarding the matter.

Much of the things that have been thrown in to accompy 'agnosticism' aren't actually a part of the definition of the word:

ag·nos·ti·cism (g-nst-szm) KEY

NOUN:

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I think the majority of the world world falls into the 2nd definition being that most organized religions are based on 'faith' and not actualy proof, and science has not proven that God does not exist, so no conclusions can be definitively drawn using scientific means regardin God's existence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't a belief that important to who you are as a person be based on something more significant that what stereotypes come along with a particular label?

It some ways agnosticism is just as close-minded as evangelical christianity.

If there is not proof of something either way, and when you look at it empirically...scientists are no closer to proving that God does NOT exist than Christians are to proving that it DOES exist.

To me agnosticism is simply the most logical rational point of view to take regarding the matter.

Much of the things that have been thrown in to accompy 'agnosticism' aren't actually a part of the definition of the word:

ag·nos·ti·cism (g-nst-szm) KEY

NOUN:

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I think the majority of the world world falls into the 2nd definition being that most organized religions are based on 'faith' and not actualy proof, and science has not proven that God does not exist, so no conclusions can be definitively drawn using scientific means regardin God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The belief might be more important than the stereotypes that accompany it, but how could the expression of that belief be more important? The stereotypes that come along with what you say about your beliefs are the whole POINT of expressing your belief in the first place. If when you say "I'm an atheist" people hear "I am absolutely certain that God does not exist" then you really should stop saying you are an atheist!

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway agnosticism is not sitting on the fence its understanding that:

There's no reason to believe in god
There's no proof god doesn't exist.

Normally it also includes a lack of belief in god.

Its a misrepresentation to describe it as sitting on a fence. Slipping in P's wager is wrong but at least it is wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

These categories get mooshed around a lot. I tend to think it's pretty straight forward.
A-theist, I don't believe a god exists.
Agnostic - one of the reasons, or perhaps the only reason some people are atheists. They are agnostic atheists.
Some leap-of-faith theists could be agnostic theists , perhaps that fits Kierkegaard (??).

luckyme

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't a belief that important to who you are as a person be based on something more significant that what stereotypes come along with a particular label?


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably, but atheist is close enough and it avoid the stereotypes.

[NeedsMoreNuts]

I assume this post was inspired by my comments in Hoover's post about questioning his religion. First, you're right about one thing; people who label themselves atheists do subject themselves to undo criticism by "good" Christians. However, you seem to think that I don't not (double negative, AHH!) believe in God only to save my soul in case there happens to be a God. Personally, you are wrong. Other people who call themselves agnostics may have some ulterior motives, but I do not. I generally have no idea, and never will, if there is a God or not. Atheists, however, often speak with just as much certainty as Christians, which is deliciously ironic to me. I'm not so hardline in my belief that I KNOW there is no God; I expect to die still having seen no proof of either there existing a divine being or there not existing a divine being.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this post was inspired by my comments in Hoover's post about questioning his religion. First, you're right about one thing; people who label themselves atheists do subject themselves to undo criticism by "good" Christians. However, you seem to think that I don't not (double negative, AHH!) believe in God only to save my soul in case there happens to be a God. Personally, you are wrong. Other people who call themselves agnostics may have some ulterior motives, but I do not. I generally have no idea, and never will, if there is a God or not. Atheists, however, often speak with just as much certainty as Christians, which is deliciously ironic to me. I'm not so hardline in my belief that I KNOW there is no God; I expect to die still having seen no proof of either there existing a divine being or there not existing a divine being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. It ISNT deliciously ironic, not really. And the sooner you get over this misinterpretation the better, for you and us. Its only deliciously ironic if you give the belief in God some special significance.

You say that you can NEVER be sure there isn't a god. Well, thats definitely true of certain kinds of God. Others kinds, there are definitely ways to figure it out, at least theoretically. So we will assume you are talking about the other kind. Well, it isnt deliciously ironic that people say these things don't exist. Its a shortcut. What they MEAN when they say 'this God doesn't exist' is 'this God and literally infinite other things, such as unicorns, teapots and nearly identical but slightly different Gods are all equally as (un)likely to exist and since we can never know I'm going to just ignore the possibility they might exist.' See how just saying 'they don't exist' is easier, especially when it can never make any practical difference?

[IronUnkind]

This is very poorly argued. I'll let the agnostics elaborate. BTW anyone who could have written this post while sober can not be counted as authoritative in matters of intellectual honesty.

[Ellsworth T]

I didn't even read your post but I can tell you that you are wrong, but you know what I'm not going to spend my time telling you why, just know that you are wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't even read your post but I can tell you that you are wrong, but you know what I'm not going to spend my time telling you why, just know that you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was an exceedingly useful addition to this thread.

And before bother replying "ditto," if my post stops you from making meaningless posts in the future, it was worth it.

[madnak]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Nor is one a subset of the other.

[NeedsMoreNuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume this post was inspired by my comments in Hoover's post about questioning his religion. First, you're right about one thing; people who label themselves atheists do subject themselves to undo criticism by "good" Christians. However, you seem to think that I don't not (double negative, AHH!) believe in God only to save my soul in case there happens to be a God. Personally, you are wrong. Other people who call themselves agnostics may have some ulterior motives, but I do not. I generally have no idea, and never will, if there is a God or not. Atheists, however, often speak with just as much certainty as Christians, which is deliciously ironic to me. I'm not so hardline in my belief that I KNOW there is no God; I expect to die still having seen no proof of either there existing a divine being or there not existing a divine being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. It ISNT deliciously ironic, not really. And the sooner you get over this misinterpretation the better, for you and us. Its only deliciously ironic if you give the belief in God some special significance.

You say that you can NEVER be sure there isn't a god. Well, thats definitely true of certain kinds of God. Others kinds, there are definitely ways to figure it out, at least theoretically. So we will assume you are talking about the other kind. Well, it isnt deliciously ironic that people say these things don't exist. Its a shortcut. What they MEAN when they say 'this God doesn't exist' is 'this God and literally infinite other things, such as unicorns, teapots and nearly identical but slightly different Gods are all equally as (un)likely to exist and since we can never know I'm going to just ignore the possibility they might exist.' See how just saying 'they don't exist' is easier, especially when it can never make any practical difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not equal. The first one is atheism, the second agnosticism. If the so-called "atheists" are truly syaing the second statement, then they are not atheists but agnostics.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume this post was inspired by my comments in Hoover's post about questioning his religion. First, you're right about one thing; people who label themselves atheists do subject themselves to undo criticism by "good" Christians. However, you seem to think that I don't not (double negative, AHH!) believe in God only to save my soul in case there happens to be a God. Personally, you are wrong. Other people who call themselves agnostics may have some ulterior motives, but I do not. I generally have no idea, and never will, if there is a God or not. Atheists, however, often speak with just as much certainty as Christians, which is deliciously ironic to me. I'm not so hardline in my belief that I KNOW there is no God; I expect to die still having seen no proof of either there existing a divine being or there not existing a divine being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. It ISNT deliciously ironic, not really. And the sooner you get over this misinterpretation the better, for you and us. Its only deliciously ironic if you give the belief in God some special significance.

You say that you can NEVER be sure there isn't a god. Well, thats definitely true of certain kinds of God. Others kinds, there are definitely ways to figure it out, at least theoretically. So we will assume you are talking about the other kind. Well, it isnt deliciously ironic that people say these things don't exist. Its a shortcut. What they MEAN when they say 'this God doesn't exist' is 'this God and literally infinite other things, such as unicorns, teapots and nearly identical but slightly different Gods are all equally as (un)likely to exist and since we can never know I'm going to just ignore the possibility they might exist.' See how just saying 'they don't exist' is easier, especially when it can never make any practical difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not equal. The first one is atheism, the second agnosticism. If the so-called "atheists" are truly syaing the second statement, then they are not atheists but agnostics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the point, we've missed you.

[NeedsMoreNuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume this post was inspired by my comments in Hoover's post about questioning his religion. First, you're right about one thing; people who label themselves atheists do subject themselves to undo criticism by "good" Christians. However, you seem to think that I don't not (double negative, AHH!) believe in God only to save my soul in case there happens to be a God. Personally, you are wrong. Other people who call themselves agnostics may have some ulterior motives, but I do not. I generally have no idea, and never will, if there is a God or not. Atheists, however, often speak with just as much certainty as Christians, which is deliciously ironic to me. I'm not so hardline in my belief that I KNOW there is no God; I expect to die still having seen no proof of either there existing a divine being or there not existing a divine being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. It ISNT deliciously ironic, not really. And the sooner you get over this misinterpretation the better, for you and us. Its only deliciously ironic if you give the belief in God some special significance.

You say that you can NEVER be sure there isn't a god. Well, thats definitely true of certain kinds of God. Others kinds, there are definitely ways to figure it out, at least theoretically. So we will assume you are talking about the other kind. Well, it isnt deliciously ironic that people say these things don't exist. Its a shortcut. What they MEAN when they say 'this God doesn't exist' is 'this God and literally infinite other things, such as unicorns, teapots and nearly identical but slightly different Gods are all equally as (un)likely to exist and since we can never know I'm going to just ignore the possibility they might exist.' See how just saying 'they don't exist' is easier, especially when it can never make any practical difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not equal. The first one is atheism, the second agnosticism. If the so-called "atheists" are truly syaing the second statement, then they are not atheists but agnostics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the point, we've missed you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP's original point was that all of the self-described agnostics are really atheists. My point is that most self-described atheists are really agnostics. Only those who actively deny the existence of any possibility of any sort of deity are true atheists. I'm sick and going to bed now.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP's original point was that all of the self-described agnostics are really atheists. My point is that most self-described atheists are really agnostics. Only those who actively deny the existence of any possibility of any sort of deity are true atheists. I'm sick and going to bed now.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html), and is easily settled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). Active denial isn't a requirement, even passive denial is unnecessary, disbelief is the only necessary criterion.

Look, you're arguing over the definition of a word. And you're wrong. C'mon, now. Yes, it is possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. Sorry to disappoint.

[vhawk01]

And no one does that, at least not really. They just say they do to avoid the lengthy description of what they actually do, and to prevent people from misunderstanding and thinking that they don't really know whether there is a God or not, like its 50/50. They think its vanishingly unlikely that any specific God exists, of any type. I don't know why anyone would ever say they were absolutely certain that it was impossible that any type of God existed anywhere, but if you know such a person, feel free to lampoon them as being 'delicious' examples of irony.

[KUJustin]

There's not really any evidence I've seen that suggests hell is all-out torture. Though there's certainly evidence that it's unpleasant.

There are a lot of different ideas on what hell is like and there's not much to go on as far as the Bible is concerned.

[Matt R.]

vhawk,
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why anyone would ever say they were absolutely certain that it was impossible that any type of God existed anywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen people on this very message board make this claim. I know you aren't one of them, which means you probably think their beliefs are just as ludicrous as I do, but just saying... they're definitely out there.

Also, I would like to garner some clarity on something. I think most of the rational atheists on this board disbelieve in God because they think the likelihood of a specific God is vanishingly small. I think that this is faulty reasoning -- and if you applied it to me then I would be a self-described atheist as well. Doesn't this mean you only disbelieve in a specific version of God? Once you sum every possible iteration, wouldn't this mean the probability of the existence of a God is not vanishingly small... perhaps it is even likely?

It is clear that the probability that a God exists is more likely than the probability that a specific God exists. From this, I think it follows that the analogy of theism to belief in invisible pink unicorns is flawed. A theist isn't necessarily ascribing specific properties to God... let alone physical ones (such as appearing like a horse with a single horn on its head. Which is a bit contradictory in itself because if it is invisible then it specifically lacks characteristics such as color). Theism can be a general belief that a Creator of the universe exists, yet we cannot necessarily know any one specific property about him because it is not empirically verifiable.

I don't undestand the constant references to unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters when attempting to make an analogy with belief in God. This is only analogous when you start saying God has specific physical characteristics, such as having a long white beard with arma and legs... or a noodly appendage.

[madnak]

I think it's slightly more likely that a god or gods exist than that no god or gods exist. So technically I might not even be an atheist. But I believe very firmly that if God exists, he/she/it bears little resemblance to the Gods of human construction. So for all intents and purposes, I consider myself an atheist.

FSM is only useful when approaching a God with specific characteristics, such as the Christian God. The argument is over-used even then. It's useful when a Christian makes an argument that applies to all hypothetical religions. For example a Christian may suggest that Pascal's Wager indicates that belief in Christianity is correct - then an appropriate refutation is to say that, since Pascal's Wager applies to the FSM as much as the Christian God, it indicates that belief in the FSM is correct. The point is a demonstration of the arbitrary nature of a theist argument.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
There's not really any evidence I've seen that suggests hell is all-out torture. Though there's certainly evidence that it's unpleasant.

There are a lot of different ideas on what hell is like and there's not much to go on as far as the Bible is concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence?? Where?!?!?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's slightly more likely that a god or gods exist than that no god or gods exist. So technically I might not even be an atheist. But I believe very firmly that if God exists, he/she/it bears little resemblance to the Gods of human construction. So for all intents and purposes, I consider myself an atheist.

FSM is only useful when approaching a God with specific characteristics, such as the Christian God. The argument is over-used even then. It's useful when a Christian makes an argument that applies to all hypothetical religions. For example a Christian may suggest that Pascal's Wager indicates that belief in Christianity is correct - then an appropriate refutation is to say that, since Pascal's Wager applies to the FSM as much as the Christian God, it indicates that belief in the FSM is correct. The point is a demonstration of the arbitrary nature of a theist argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't follow why the argument wouldn't apply to a god without specific characteristics... Isn't a nebulous god just as arbitrary as a specific one?

I think the reason the argument seems over-used is because it is the only real argument against a belief in god (or anything else for which there is no evidence). Despite the fact that it is the only argument, it is quite sufficient for this purpose.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow why the argument wouldn't apply to a god without specific characteristics... Isn't a nebulous god just as arbitrary as a specific one?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or, it depends on your context. Logically, however, "not-God" is no less inherently arbitrary than "God." David would say that the default position must then be 50%. I say that probability isn't really a good way to look at the problem - but in terms of levels of certainty, it's really the only way humans can interpret the situation. Reason is merely a process of moving from general premises to specific conclusions. The most general conclusions can be neither supported nor refuted through reason.

Therefore, a belief in God is inherently irrational, but only to the same degree and for the same reasons that a disbelief in God is inherently irrational. But a God defined more specifically may be possible to refute (given certain assumptions). For example, if we assume certain things about the world we may reach the conclusion that no omnipotent and omnibenevolent God can exist, or that it's very unlikely for such a God to exist. In the case of some Gods, the relevant assumptions are so clearly intuitive that virtually no sane person will question them, and therefore it's possible to refute such conceptions of God. And in other cases, the specific formulation of God may include internal logical contradictions, in which case it's unsupportable even in theory.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow why the argument wouldn't apply to a god without specific characteristics... Isn't a nebulous god just as arbitrary as a specific one?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or, it depends on your context. Logically, however, "not-God" is no less inherently arbitrary than "God." David would say that the default position must then be 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that we should even be trying to answer the question: "Does god exist?". I would argue that given that a nebulous god is unfalsifiable (like the fsm), one must ignore the question.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, a belief in God is inherently irrational, but only to the same degree and for the same reasons that a disbelief in God is inherently irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I agree with this. A disbelief in god can be rewritten as follows:

"I don't hold the conviction that god exists."

By phrasing it this way, I am allowing for the possibility that I hold no position on the matter. I think that is the only logical and consistent way to look at this problem. One can not say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" but a third possibility is required: "I have no idea, and I don't care."


Edit: I guess I'm getting a bit semantic, but it seems important in this case...

If you had written:

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, a belief in God is inherently irrational, but only to the same degree and for the same reasons that a belief that God does not exist is inherently irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I would agree.

[NMcNasty]

Agnostics seem to think that simply believing or having an opinion about something in regards to religion means that you are claiming whatever belief or opinion you have is absolutely impossible to be false. Its possible to believe or not believe in something but still retain the possibility you might be wrong. For example:

Christian: I believe the Colts will win the Superbowl.
Atheist: I don't believe the Colts will win the Superbowl.
Agnostic: It is impossible to know for sure who will win.

Agnostics might be correct on that fact but they're missing the entire point on the issue. Either the colts do or do not win the superbowl, so which do you think it will be?

Christian: I believe in God so I go to church.
Atheist: I don't believe in God so I don't go to church.
Agnostic: Its impossible to know for sure whether God exists or not. I'm lazy so I'll just stay home.

Believing in something sincerely generally means that you will act accordingly. Agnostics are either intellectually lazy in the sense that they refuse to decide upon which action is best, or they are physically lazy in the sense that they know which is best just they dont have the energy to go through with it.

Basically agnostics make the claim that its "impossible to know for sure" in order to dodge debate on and/or commitment to religious ideas. Inability to produce absolute knowledge does not necessitate that you should or even can ignore the issue entirely.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP's original point was that all of the self-described agnostics are really atheists. My point is that most self-described atheists are really agnostics. Only those who actively deny the existence of any possibility of any sort of deity are true atheists. I'm sick and going to bed now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit my OP was kinda rambling and not very clear. Sorry about that. Maybe the whole thing really is just semantics. But I still think most agnostics are athiests. If I asked you whether the FSM exists, you might answer, "there is no proof that it does or that it doesn't. So I am an agnostic concerning the FSM." But really - you DON'T believe in the FSM, regardless of the fact you can't prove it doesn't exist. Simply allowing for the infinitesimal possibility that you might be wrong does not change your unbelief. It's the same for god and agnostics. Saying you can't prove god exists or doesn't is not a position. If you are a person who requires proof in order to believe in something, then the lack of any proof means you don't believe.


[ QUOTE ]
Basically agnostics make the claim that its "impossible to know for sure" in order to dodge debate on and/or commitment to religious ideas. Inability to produce absolute knowledge does not necessitate that you should or even can ignore the issue entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this was kinda my point. It seems like agnosticism is a refusal to take a clear position on something you really do have a position on. Why are you allowing for the possibility of something existng, that you know doesn't? You then need to accept that FSM, unicorns, etc. all might exist too.

It just seems like there really doesn't need to be 2 different terms for what boils down to unbelief, and I wonder if the 2nd term is really nothing more than a way for athiests to avoid the inevitable "prove god doesn't exist" argument from theists.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems like there really doesn't need to be 2 different terms for what boils down to unbelief, and I wonder if the 2nd term is really nothing more than a way for athiests to avoid the inevitable "prove god doesn't exist" argument from theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my earlier post...

[ QUOTE ]
A disbelief in god can be rewritten as follows:

"I don't hold the conviction that god exists."

By phrasing it this way, I am allowing for the possibility that I hold no position on the matter. I think that is the only logical and consistent way to look at this problem. One can not say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" but a third possibility is required: "I have no idea, and I don't care."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is the only answer you can give that won't elicit the "prove god doesn't exist" argument.

[IronUnkind]

Your scenario is not equivalent to the agnostic position.

[vhawk01]

I know people SAY they are out there. And as I've said before, I know there are atheists who SAY they are positive no God exists. I just find it hard to believe them. I don't see how they can say that, and I have a strong suspicion that if I were to pin them down and ask them to explain how they can possibly be positive that no type of God could exist, they would say, "Well, thats not REALLY what I mean, I was just trying to get across the point that its extremely unlikely and as useful a view as the china-pot."

Maybe I'm wrong. I think there are probably some fanatical, stupid atheists out there who would persist in their faith that God is impossible. I've just never met one, ever. I know people who will say the Christian God is impossible, and I might even be one of those, so maybe when you say God to these people, they assume you mean Christian God, and THAT is why they are positive it doesn't exist? Because the way its defined (to them) makes it logically impossible?

I'm not trying to say you are using a straw man or anything. I just honestly don't have any experience that matches yours.

[Brenner Hayes]

revots33,

I agree with you on one point which is that most agnostics are really atheists when it comes to a specific God like Jesus or FSM. But I think you are missing the important specificity issue mentioned from a previous poster.

For example, if you bring up the Bertrand Russell example of a celestial teapot and ask me if I believe there is possibly a teapot orbiting in outer space, I will say no. However, if you asked me if there was anything that might be orbiting in outer space that we haven't yet learned about, I would say yes, that's possible.

The same goes for god. If you ask me if the complete stories of Christianity, Islam, FSM or any of the other popular religions I've heard of are possible, I will say no (or at least they they are so infinitesimally unlikely that I would call myself an atheist in this regards for your previously stated reasons.) If you ask me is there any possibility of some supernatural something or another that explains why there is something and not nothing, or how can there be a "first cause" or an "always was" (both of which baffle me) Or maybe is there some other version of something else supernatural that is not yet discovered that is working in ways not yet known, I will say "yes, it's possible." Now, what should I call myself, an atheist or an agnostic? I would argue that neither term applies perfectly to me but agnostic is the better of the two. One major reason that I pick this term is because, despite what another poster has claimed, I defintely have met atheists who are 100% certain that there is no god no matter how much I press them, they will not budge. So, as I am not them and don't want to be confused for them, I call myself an agnostic. I agree that this has a lot to do with semantics. I also acknowledge that maybe someone can enlighten me on why I'm possibly misunderstanding the common definitions of these terms. But until so, I am an agnostic. Okay?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
and I have a strong suspicion that if I were to pin them down and ask them to explain how they can possibly be positive that no type of God could exist

[/ QUOTE ]

"Do you believe a Jusmuuttta exists?"
"what the hell is a Jusmat..whatever?"
"I can't tell you that because then you can honestly say you don't believe it exists."

Iow, of course "a god" could exist if there is no definition that comes with the word, just as Jusmatwhatevers would. It's a meaningless question.

luckyme

[madnak]

For practical purposes I agree it's generally best to ignore the question.

For the rest, you're right, poor choice of words on my part. I really meant "active denial," not disbelief.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The same goes for god. If you ask me if the complete stories of Christianity, Islam, FSM or any of the other popular religions I've heard of are possible, I will say no (or at least they they are so infinitesimally unlikely that I would call myself an atheist in this regards for your previously stated reasons.) If you ask me is there any possibility of some supernatural something or another that explains why there is something and not nothing, or how can there be a "first cause" or an "always was" (both of which baffle me) Or maybe is there some other version of something else supernatural that is not yet discovered that is working in ways not yet known, I will say "yes, it's possible." Now, what should I call myself, an atheist or an agnostic? I would argue that neither term applies perfectly to me but agnostic is the better of the two. One major reason that I pick this term is because, despite what another poster has claimed, I defintely have met atheists who are 100% certain that there is no god no matter how much I press them, they will not budge. So, as I am not them and don't want to be confused for them, I call myself an agnostic. I agree that this has a lot to do with semantics. I also acknowledge that maybe someone can enlighten me on why I'm possibly misunderstanding the common definitions of these terms. But until so, I am an agnostic. Okay?


[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, well said.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
the connotations of agnosticism. It makes me think of a smartass overly liberal college hippy kid who hates his father and smokes pot all day and wheres [wears?] a "[censored] BUSH" t-shirt. 'Atheist' makes me think of an older/wiser intellectual type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I see it exactly opposite.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the connotations of agnosticism. It makes me think of a smartass overly liberal college hippy kid who hates his father and smokes pot all day and wheres [wears?] a "[censored] BUSH" t-shirt. 'Atheist' makes me think of an older/wiser intellectual type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I see it exactly opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

for most of my life, so did I..every atheist I saw as a kid seemed like "a smartass overly liberal college hippy kid who hates his father and smokes pot all day and wheres [wears?] a "[censored] BUSH" t-shirt."...which is why I didn't consider myself an atheist.

[Mike Jett]

This entire debate makes me wonder; What's in a name, really?

Call yourself what you want. In any communication, people are going to have their own ideas and expectations of what a word means, and they're going to conflict with others' views on the same words.

I think you guys shouldn't waste time worrying about what word to blanket your beliefs with.

It's as irrelevant as questioning the existance of God, heehee.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
This entire debate makes me wonder; What's in a name, really?

Call yourself what you want. In any communication, people are going to have their own ideas and expectations of what a word means, and they're going to conflict with others' views on the same words.

I think you guys shouldn't waste time worrying about what word to blanket your beliefs with.

It's as irrelevant as questioning the existance of God, heehee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the point some of us have been trying to make in a roundabout way. Sometimes we have to use labels that aren't strictly correct because the message they convey IS the right message. I have to use incorrect but easy-to-understand analogies and metaphors to my girlfriend when I explain biochemistry to her. What I say isn't strictly true, but the more accurate version is entirely a waste of time, so I say what she needs to hear to get my point. The same is true with (the vast majority of) atheists. At least I think so, thats my experience, but hey, who knows?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This entire debate makes me wonder; What's in a name, really?

Call yourself what you want. In any communication, people are going to have their own ideas and expectations of what a word means, and they're going to conflict with others' views on the same words.

I think you guys shouldn't waste time worrying about what word to blanket your beliefs with.

It's as irrelevant as questioning the existance of God, heehee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the point some of us have been trying to make in a roundabout way. Sometimes we have to use labels that aren't strictly correct because the message they convey IS the right message. I have to use incorrect but easy-to-understand analogies and metaphors to my girlfriend when I explain biochemistry to her. What I say isn't strictly true, but the more accurate version is entirely a waste of time, so I say what she needs to hear to get my point. The same is true with (the vast majority of) atheists. At least I think so, thats my experience, but hey, who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, I call myself an atheist although, since I cannot prove that god does not exist, I leave a small possibility of it...but calling myself an agnostic gives the wrong impression to most people..

although for more perceptive people (like some on this forum)..it causes confusion..such as when the theists around here take most of our positions to be "we KNOW that there is not god"..since I guess they would expect us to call ourselves agnostics if we did not claim to KNOW there is no god..

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
sure, I call myself an atheist although, since I cannot prove that god does not exist, I leave a small possibility of it...but calling myself an agnostic gives the wrong impression to most people..

[/ QUOTE ]

This is entirely sensible. It's those folks that insist on certainty of the unknowable that chap my hide.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, I call myself an atheist although, since I cannot prove that god does not exist, I leave a small possibility of it...but calling myself an agnostic gives the wrong impression to most people..

[/ QUOTE ]

This is entirely sensible. It's those folks that insist on certainty of the unknowable that chap my hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Try to be honest with yourself.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, I call myself an atheist although, since I cannot prove that god does not exist, I leave a small possibility of it...but calling myself an agnostic gives the wrong impression to most people..

[/ QUOTE ]

This is entirely sensible. It's those folks that insist on certainty of the unknowable that chap my hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Try to be honest with yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be certain of God's existance is not much different than to be certain God does not exist. I see these two things as signs of weak intellect. It seems more likely that a true believer might have been exposed to some convincing event to which I am not privy than a true unbeliever has formulated 100% proof of non-existance.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
To be certain of God's existance is not much different than to be certain God does not exist. I see these two things as signs of weak intellect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying when I walk into my bathroom and don't see an elephant it's 50/50 that there's an elephant in there and it's only because I'm below GW in IQ that I think there's a much lower chance of there being no elephant?

Just trying to clarify your claim.

thanks, luckyme

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
...I'm below GW in IQ...

[/ QUOTE ]

A tiny point of agreement.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people do not like to be called athiests. I think this is because it carries with it the negative connotation that they KNOW something that is impossible to know. It sounds arrogant, maybe. Just like claiming to KNOW that god created the universe simply as a means to save human beings sounds arrogant. Labeling yourself "agnostic" or "on the fence" or "awaiting further evidence" implies that you are more open-minded than a strict athiest. But I also feel this is intellectual dishonesty.

The reason is this: the punishment for not believing (talking about the Christian god in this case) is eternal suffering. Think about that for a minute - if you don't believe in the Christian god, and you're wrong, you will be tormented and tortured for ETERNITY. I don't think even Christians fully appreciate the magnitude of this when they think about others going to hell. Imagine the most gruesome torture scenario you can. Now imagine it NEVER ENDS. Even the writers of the SAW movies couldn't possibly dream up such a horror. If anyone even had an inkling this could be true, they'd believe out of fear if nothing else.

So, if you say you need more evidence, you don't believe. You're an athiest. First off, the necessary evidence is not coming and every agnostic knows it. Secondly, if you even had the tiniest bit of belief you'd likely cling to it as protection against the infinite torture. You'd FIND some sort of evidence that would enable you to convince yourself you believe. So to claim you are agnostic means you do not believe, period. I can't see any other reason why a person would risk eternal torture other than simply not believing.

Some might argue that their agnosticism means they allow for the possibilty of some higher power, but not necessarily the Christian/Muslim/Hebrew god etc. But this is still athiesm, as unless you believe in the afterlife you know you will never have any proof, which means you will never believe, which means you don't believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

atheism is quite simply a rejection of the theistic definition of god.

atheism is wrongfully viewed as something that rejects all possible definitions of god.

an agodist is someone who rejects all possible definitions regardless.

a godist favors at least 1 definition.

if you lay any definition of god on the table i can tell you whether or not i am for or against that definition.

i want to attack and destroy the notion that use of the word god means anything other than what the user of the word intended and that no implied contract toward any given working definition is implied.

i want the freedom to use the word "god" in reference to my definition and not another.

ray

[kurto]

Ray-

Will you define exactly what you believe? Based on your responses I get the impression you are an atheist/Godist-- that is you don't believe in God, you simply wish there was a God. I'm curious to know if this is what you've been saying...

(1) Do you believe that a God as generally defined by most of Earth's current religions exists? (that is-- a supernatural being which created the universe)
(2) Is there some other God (your own personal definition) that you believe exists? (NOT that you WANT to exist... that you BELIEVE exists)
(3) If yes to 2-- what is your definition of God.

If its true that you DON'T believe there is a God, I'm a little curious why seem to constantly be critical of atheists (which is what you would be).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying when I walk into my bathroom and don't see an elephant it's 50/50 that there's an elephant in there and it's only because I'm below GW in IQ that I think there's a much lower chance of there being no elephant?

Just trying to clarify your claim.

thanks, luckyme


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...I'm below GW in IQ...

[/ QUOTE ]

A tiny point of agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a serious question, but I don't blame you for not answering.

luckyme

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
It's those folks that insist on certainty of the unknowable that chap my hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it chap your hide for someone to say something doesn't exist that, even if it DID exist, would be beyond their power to know anyway? The athiest is, in effect, saying he is certain that god does not exist TO THE BEST OF HIS HUMAN POWERS TO DISCERN HIM. What else can he go by? If some have actually "heard" or "felt" god, then obviously god gave them some sort of perceptive ability he didn't give to the athiest - but why is that the athiests's fault? If god gave the athiest the same ability to hear/feel him - or just made himself plainly visible - I'm sure the athiest would be more than happy to change his mind.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's those folks that insist on certainty of the unknowable that chap my hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it chap your hide for someone to say something doesn't exist that, even if it DID exist, would be beyond their power to know anyway? The athiest is, in effect, saying he is certain that god does not exist TO THE BEST OF HIS HUMAN POWERS TO DISCERN HIM. What else can he go by? If some have actually "heard" or "felt" god, then obviously god gave them some sort of perceptive ability he didn't give to the athiest - but why is that the athiests's fault? If god gave the athiest the same ability to hear/feel him - or just made himself plainly visible - I'm sure the athiest would be more than happy to change his mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling that many are simply dishonest, intellectually dishonest at a minimum. And the bulk of these folks seem to think they're pretty damn smart. There's no doubt that my own investigation colors my opinion.

Maybe they just haven't put in the effort. I've spent quite a lot of my life studying science and I feel confident that there will more or less forever remain things that we will not understand. To reach any conclusion seems to me to ignore a lot of possibilities.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I've spent quite a lot of my life studying science and I feel confident that there will more or less forever remain things that we will not understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That never slows down 3 out of 4 people who will gladly explain to us the properties of these "unknowns we can't know", often in technicolor detail.

luckyme

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray-

Will you define exactly what you believe? Based on your responses I get the impression you are an atheist/Godist-- that is you don't believe in God, you simply wish there was a God. I'm curious to know if this is what you've been saying...

(1) Do you believe that a God as generally defined by most of Earth's current religions exists? (that is-- a supernatural being which created the universe)
(2) Is there some other God (your own personal definition) that you believe exists? (NOT that you WANT to exist... that you BELIEVE exists)
(3) If yes to 2-- what is your definition of God.

If its true that you DON'T believe there is a God, I'm a little curious why seem to constantly be critical of atheists (which is what you would be).

[/ QUOTE ]

kurt,

1) the question is too general and i'm not willing to provide a hard yes or no; i'll answer with a bit more granularity: there are most definitely theistically derived definitions that i am very much atheistic towards; keep in mind that there are 1.2 buttloads of theistic definitions to choose from - many of which blatantly contradict each other which is not necessarily an indictment on that basis alone seeing as they all address the set of unknowns and so some contradiction would be expected (the same way that legitimate scientific theories about the unknown can be mutually exclusive).

here is the best response i can give you:

i am a godist
i want god to exist
i want the definition of god to not contradict science
if god exists then my theory is:
a) that god very intentionally exists outside this universe and that this universe is a place where god is not; so far all of the observable evidence seems to not contradict this idea.
b) i see no evidence that would contradict the idea that this universe could not have been constructed by this god.
c) i futher theorize that in order for this universe to remain in a state of where god is not then there would need to be an information barrier that prevented the contents of the universe from moving information across that barrier in either direction. this barrier restriction might not apply to the god that constructed the barrier.
d) the purpose of all this might be nothing more than to simply acquire the experimental results of what i just described.
e) god is a pure scientist.

2) i don't want to use the word believe; it has too many negative ramifications due to the abuses of hyper-beliefism amongst the abrahamic faiths. i prefer the expressions "i want ..." or "my theory is ...".

3) see answer 1

ray

[AlexM]

You can actively disbelieve in any specific religion without actively disbelieving in "God". I know that Christianity is false, but I don't know that there isn't a god of some sort.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
atheism is wrongfully viewed as something that rejects all possible definitions of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's exactly what atheism means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The athiest is, in effect, saying he is certain that god does not exist TO THE BEST OF HIS HUMAN POWERS TO DISCERN HIM.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the atheist is saying that his human powers of discernment have determined that God does not exist period. What you're describing is more like agnosticism.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheism is wrongfully viewed as something that rejects all possible definitions of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's exactly what atheism means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

the standard dictionary example is not accurate.

the dictionary should define atheist as

"not a theist"

and then point to the definition of "theist" as the reference point for what an atheist is not.

in order for the typical dictionary entry for "atheist" to be correct, the definition of "theist" would need to refer to the set of all possible definitions of god.

ray

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The athiest is, in effect, saying he is certain that god does not exist TO THE BEST OF HIS HUMAN POWERS TO DISCERN HIM.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the atheist is saying that his human powers of discernment have determined that God does not exist period. What you're describing is more like agnosticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is precisely why i won't use the word atheist. there's not even agreement among those who claim the label.

and you guys are the ones who trumpet axiomatic purity and logical consistency.

imho the jodie foster character in the film "contact" was the best example of a scientific non-believer (as opposed to an atheist believer) when she states "there is no evidence for or against the existence of God"

a scientist might say "there is no evidence for or against the existence of some of the gods currently defined"

a scientist also might say "there is a lot of scientific evidence that refutes many definitions of god"

a scientist might also say "there are definitions of god that are thus far not refuted by any evidence"

an atheist believer says "i believe god does not exist"

an agodist says "i favor no definition of god"

a godist says "i favor at least 1 definition of god"

a theist says "i favor a theistic definition of god"
an atheist says "i am not a theist"

the correct definition of "atheist" should be "not a theist"

ray

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheism is wrongfully viewed as something that rejects all possible definitions of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's exactly what atheism means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

the standard dictionary example is not accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

"Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness",[17] atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God.[18] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God". Additionally, in recent decades there has increasingly been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as "absence of belief in deities" rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though it has not attained mainstream usage.[19]"

It currently means "disbelief," although people are trying to redefine it. They have not yet succeeded and considering atheism has a perfectly good definition and agnostic fits what you're trying to change atheism perfectly well, I'm gonna fight it until I'm a tiny minority. We have perfectly good words to define these concepts and all trying to change one of them does is confuse the hell out of people. Considering all the agnostics who mistakenly chose the word "atheism" to define themselves were confused themselves, I guess it makes sense that they want to drag the rest of the world into their confusion, but it's not something I'll tolerate. Yes, the word usage has changed from its "pure" origins, as has half the English language, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed again.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheism is wrongfully viewed as something that rejects all possible definitions of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's exactly what atheism means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

the standard dictionary example is not accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

"Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness",[17] atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God.[18] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God". Additionally, in recent decades there has increasingly been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as "absence of belief in deities" rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though it has not attained mainstream usage.[19]"

It currently means "disbelief," although people are trying to redefine it. They have not yet succeeded and considering atheism has a perfectly good definition and agnostic fits what you're trying to change atheism perfectly well, I'm gonna fight it until I'm a tiny minority. We have perfectly good words to define these concepts and all trying to change one of them does is confuse the hell out of people. Considering all the agnostics who mistakenly chose the word "atheism" to define themselves were confused themselves, I guess it makes sense that they want to drag the rest of the world into their confusion, but it's not something I'll tolerate. Yes, the word usage has changed from its "pure" origins, as has half the English language, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed again.

[/ QUOTE ]

alex,

thank you for the wiki reference. i certainly understand that modern usage typically refers to critical thinking and or non-beliefism.

however, i'll stand on the original construction of the word "atheist" where the prepended 'a' is the logical NOT operator thus arriving at "not theist"

my reasons are so that i can quite correctly demonstrate that an agodist is not necessarily equal to an atheist.

as has already been explored in other threads, there are people here who use the atheist label but have said that they are clearly in the godist class based on the definitions.

i fully agree that some most definitely use the word atheist to be equal to agodist but it's too late for that now.

hopefully there will someday be dictionary references that use the set of all possible definitions of god as part of the official wording of the entries:

"godism" "godist" "agodism" "agodist"

if we drew a venn diagram we'd label the larger circle that represents all possible definitions of god as "godism" and within that circle would be a smaller circle named "theism"

anybody favoring any definition inside the "godism" circle would be a "godist"; anybody favoring a definition inside the "theism" circle would be both a godist and a theist; anybody that favored no definition inside the theism circle would be an atheist; they'd also be an agodist if they favored no definition inside the godism circle.

ray

[madnak]

Actually the second definition in that very link describes disbelief, not active denial.

[kurto]

You keep repeating what we know. We KNOW you want there to be a God. That is irrelevent to whether or not you believe there is a God... a supernatural overlord. A mystical creator.

I have to stress... what you WANT is irrelevent to the question of what you believe.

To give an example-
I want there to be a Santa Claus.
I do NOT believe Santa Claus exists. He is a fictional character.

I still want to know if you think a God (defined as you did, if you like) exists.

Though I do have a question about your wants.

You say you WANT God to exist. Yet, you define your God as just an observer... a scientist.

With your definition of God, you could have no soul... the way you've defined God he doesn't necessarily do anything to you, care less about you, do anything when you die... essentially, even if he exists, you can die and your conciousness end.

Given that this is how you defined God... why do you WANT there to be a God? It doesn't seem like it would have any bearing on you. (as you've defined it)

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep repeating what we know. We KNOW you want there to be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. it is a scientific fact that:
i want god to exist.
it's very important to note that i claim a divine right to define god for myself (i assert that all humans have this right). i want to achieve at least 2 things from my definition:
a) quality of life
b) scientific consistency
technically speaking item b) could be just part of a) because i gain quality of life when and if something is logically consistent.

[ QUOTE ]
That is irrelevent to whether or not you believe there is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll agree with you that the question of "wants and choices" is slightly different than the question of "beliefs"; i choose not to comment on beliefs because such matters are sensitive to doom hooks - i think history is a good witness here.

[ QUOTE ]
... a supernatural overlord. A mystical creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes these are apparently short excerpts of possible definitions of god.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to stress... what you WANT is irrelevent to the question of what you believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree they are 2 separate questions. however, the question of what i want is far more important than the question of what i believe. i am very satisfied with this expression:

"i want god to exist."

it rings true within me.

[ QUOTE ]
To give an example-
I want there to be a Santa Claus.
I do NOT believe Santa Claus exists. He is a fictional character.

[/ QUOTE ]

depends on the definition. i saw an instance of one on tv yesterday. however, i agree that it's possible to want improbable things and/or impossible things.

[ QUOTE ]
I still want to know if you think a God (defined as you did, if you like) exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

i want god to exist. this is a scientific fact.

going further than this statement would not change reality (unless of course we assume that everyone creates their own universe and walks into it - in this case beliefs might be highly relevant as to the type of future you're creating for yourself) because i favor objectivity where possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Though I do have a question about your wants.

You say you WANT God to exist. Yet, you define your God as just an observer... a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

a pure scientist yes. this is an interesting possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
With your definition of God,

[/ QUOTE ]

learn not to do this. never again pretend to tell me what my definition of god is; that's a no no. you would in fact be doing what many of us have accused the abrahamic faiths of doing; do not ever again attempt to push your pistis into my mind. i promise to try to avoid doing the same to you. it would have been much better if you began with

"one possible version of a god scientist might be the following:"

[ QUOTE ]
you could have no soul... the way you've defined God he doesn't necessarily do anything to you, care less about you, do anything when you die... essentially, even if he exists, you can die and your conciousness end.

[/ QUOTE ]

i cant comment on your words here because i won't allow you to play with my definition and then talk about it as if it is still my definition; what you can do is throw your own definition (clearly stated as yours) onto the table and then we can discuss that theory.

i accept no burden to discuss definitions of god with you if you won't obey the ethics of the god definition game.

rule1: each individual human has a divine right to define the god they want

[ QUOTE ]
Given that this is how you defined God... why do you WANT there to be a God? It doesn't seem like it would have any bearing on you. (as you've defined it)

[/ QUOTE ]

foul. not a given. answer denied.

ray

[kurto]

I dont understand why you don't want to answer the question but fine... I believe you're the only person I've heard of who can't and seems completely unwilling to answer it. But to each his own...

[ QUOTE ]
however, the question of what i want is far more important than the question of what i believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

More important to you. Personally I can't see why that's a more important question. I find it more interesting what people think IS reality rathar than what they want reality to be.

[ QUOTE ]
going further than this statement would not change reality

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... saying what you believe would be as much a fact (that is, the fact of what you believe) is as much a relevent fact as the "what you want".

[ QUOTE ]
learn not to do this. never again pretend to tell me what my definition of god is;

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Geez. I'm referring to God you defined in your post. Please don't pretend that I didn't just refer to your description. Clearly you didn't describe your definition well since you seem upset about it.

I'm beginning to think you just don't like to answer questions.

[ QUOTE ]
it would have been much better if you began with

"one possible version of a god scientist might be the following:"


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you could have no soul... the way you've defined God he doesn't necessarily do anything to you, care less about you, do anything when you die... essentially, even if he exists, you can die and your conciousness end.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i cant comment on your words here because i won't allow you to play with my definition and then talk about it as if it is still my definition;

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true, I'm extrapolating from your definition. Obviously since you had an odd reaction we must be on different pages. So, either I completely misinterpreted the definition that you wrote or your description poorly represented what you meant to say.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't have just corrected your definition or clarified which part you think I was reading incorrectly and then the conversation could go on. Instead of doing what you did.

[ QUOTE ]
foul. not a given. answer denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the foul is in your denial to actually stay on the topic and try to move forward. You provided info. I responded to it. Instead of trying to explain were you and I differed you kind of went on a rant.

You said you pictured God as a scientist. As an observer.

I extrapolated from that. You'll note that your definition as you wrote doesn't imply (1) God interacts you with (2) eternal life (3) morality/judgement, etc.

So... when I said as much... you can then say, "Oh... I can see how one might think that since I wrote he was an observer and a scientist. I can add ________ and _________ so he's really more then just an observer"

or something like that.

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the connotations of agnosticism. It makes me think of a smartass overly liberal college hippy kid who hates his father and smokes pot all day and wheres [wears?] a "[censored] BUSH" t-shirt. 'Atheist' makes me think of an older/wiser intellectual type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I see it exactly opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the term 'atheism' has been around for so much longer. I didn't hear about this whole 'agnostic' business until High School, Agnostic is definately a younger generation term. Thoguh it's closer to describing what I think, I'd rather be called an atheist, but since I don't really think I even understand the concept of God (or that anyone does) neither word describes me that well. I'm a Conceptual Skeptic.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand why you don't want to answer the question but fine... I believe you're the only person I've heard of who can't and seems completely unwilling to answer it. But to each his own...

[ QUOTE ]
however, the question of what i want is far more important than the question of what i believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

More important to you. Personally I can't see why that's a more important question. I find it more interesting what people think IS reality rathar than what they want reality to be.

[ QUOTE ]
going further than this statement would not change reality

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... saying what you believe would be as much a fact (that is, the fact of what you believe) is as much a relevent fact as the "what you want".

[ QUOTE ]
learn not to do this. never again pretend to tell me what my definition of god is;

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Geez. I'm referring to God you defined in your post. Please don't pretend that I didn't just refer to your description. Clearly you didn't describe your definition well since you seem upset about it.

I'm beginning to think you just don't like to answer questions.

[ QUOTE ]
it would have been much better if you began with

"one possible version of a god scientist might be the following:"


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you could have no soul... the way you've defined God he doesn't necessarily do anything to you, care less about you, do anything when you die... essentially, even if he exists, you can die and your conciousness end.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i cant comment on your words here because i won't allow you to play with my definition and then talk about it as if it is still my definition;

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true, I'm extrapolating from your definition. Obviously since you had an odd reaction we must be on different pages. So, either I completely misinterpreted the definition that you wrote or your description poorly represented what you meant to say.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't have just corrected your definition or clarified which part you think I was reading incorrectly and then the conversation could go on. Instead of doing what you did.

[ QUOTE ]
foul. not a given. answer denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the foul is in your denial to actually stay on the topic and try to move forward. You provided info. I responded to it. Instead of trying to explain were you and I differed you kind of went on a rant.

You said you pictured God as a scientist. As an observer.

I extrapolated from that. You'll note that your definition as you wrote doesn't imply (1) God interacts you with (2) eternal life (3) morality/judgement, etc.

So... when I said as much... you can then say, "Oh... I can see how one might think that since I wrote he was an observer and a scientist. I can add ________ and _________ so he's really more then just an observer"

or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

kurt,

just start afresh. pick the "god is a pure scientist" attribute if you want and lay your definition of god on the table and we can disucss it.

extrapolation is fine but just make sure it's clear that we're talking about your definition or theoretical definition or hypothetical definition.

ray

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
kurt,

just start afresh. pick the "god is a pure scientist" attribute if you want and lay your definition of god on the table and we can disucss it.

extrapolation is fine but just make sure it's clear that we're talking about your definition or theoretical definition or hypothetical definition.

ray


[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I picking a definition? I don't believe there is a God nor am I spending any time wishing there was one. You spend a lot of time stressing how you want there to be a God. I was simply trying to get clarification on your beliefs. (though I'm guessing you really are interested in sharing your beliefs on this forum)

You consistantly stress how much you want their to be a God. YOU presented the picture of God as an observer. I was simply trying to figure out why you cared if there was a God and why, if you did, this would be one of the possibilities you picture.

I was really just curious to clarify some of your beliefs but honestly... you seem unwilling or unable to answer questions and its really not worth the effort since your every response does everything except address any of the questions that I've had.

So... thanks anyways. I was just curious to get clarification on your perspective but it really is like pulling teeth getting an anwer out of you so... I kind of lost interest.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kurt,

just start afresh. pick the "god is a pure scientist" attribute if you want and lay your definition of god on the table and we can disucss it.

extrapolation is fine but just make sure it's clear that we're talking about your definition or theoretical definition or hypothetical definition.

ray


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I picking a definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
discussion is easier if you lay a definition on the table. doing this is not an act of conversion any more than a scientist defining string theory would necessarily be a believer in string theory for having engaged in a discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there is a God

[/ QUOTE ]
not a problem man.
that is just as reasonable a guess as
any theist guessing there is a god

scientists construct guesses and theories about unknowns on a regular basis. i simply want to extend the scientific process to healthy definitions of god. i think that is possible.

[ QUOTE ]
nor am I spending any time wishing there was one.

[/ QUOTE ]
again not a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
You spend a lot of time stressing how you want there to be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes. i want god to exist.

[ QUOTE ]
I was simply trying to get clarification on your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
and i'm probably trying to get you to temporarily forsake the word belief and focus on either observable evidence or desire only.

belief = guess assumed to be true until proven false (i.e. hypothesis)

[ QUOTE ]
(though I'm guessing you really are interested in sharing your beliefs on this forum)

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm interested in applying the scientific process in defining god.

[ QUOTE ]
You consistantly stress how much you want their to be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes. i want god to exist.

[ QUOTE ]
YOU presented the picture of God as an observer.

[/ QUOTE ]
possibly yes. it's a matter of definition as to whether or not information from this container/universe can be moved across the information barrier. my preferred theory at this point is that the universe is an information container that is bounded by a barrier such that nothing inside the container can move information across the barrier in either direction. the creator of such a container might have the power to move information across the barrier in one or both directions.

[ QUOTE ]
I was simply trying to figure out why you cared if there was a God and why,

[/ QUOTE ]
i can't fully explain it. i just know that if you ask me the godist question that my answer is yes. i don't view my desires as inferior to guesses.

[ QUOTE ]
I was really just curious to clarify some of your beliefs

[/ QUOTE ]
just talk to me without using the word belief or believe if possible.
use the words "proof" or "evidence" or "theory" or "think" or "guess" or "want" or "desire" or "wish"; this is my preference right now and so i'm going to ask you to practice the golden rule in my direction.

[ QUOTE ]
but honestly... you seem unwilling or unable to answer questions

[/ QUOTE ]
not at all. i just want us both to forsake the word "belief" or "believe" and see what remains between us.

[ QUOTE ]
and its really not worth the effort since your every response does everything except address any of the questions that I've had.

[/ QUOTE ]
i hope i've explained why above.

[ QUOTE ]
I was just curious to get clarification on your perspective

[/ QUOTE ]
you can if you're willing to cooperate with me.

[ QUOTE ]
but it really is like pulling teeth getting an anwer out of you so

[/ QUOTE ]
i hope i've explained why.

ray

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why am I picking a definition?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


discussion is easier if you lay a definition on the table. doing this is not an act of conversion any more than a scientist defining string theory would necessarily be a believer in string theory for having engaged in a discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I asked "Why am I picking a definition?" is because, if you will go back a few posts to where this tangent began, you'll note that I asked if you believed that God existed (and to define what God was so that we knew what you believed existed or didn't exist.)

(that way staving off the "I believe in God but to me God is nature...)

I believe I also asked if you believe in a God as hinted at by the major religions... that is, for all intents and purposes, an all powerful sentient supernatural being who created the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
not a problem man.
that is just as reasonable a guess as
any theist guessing there is a god


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what that would be true. Everything we make up is not JUST AS REASONABLE as everything else. If I wanted to believe that the entire Universe was created by a Giant furless rabbit who controls and manipulates our destiny, it would not JUST AS REASONABLE as theories based in science and observation. Most theists "guess" actually lack the 'reason'... a key part in determining whether or not something is 'reasonable.'

[ QUOTE ]
i simply want to extend the scientific process to healthy definitions of god. i think that is possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

(1) You can't scientifically classify something for which there is no proof that it exists.
(2) Most people when speaking about a "God" refer to the Judeo Christian Model of God... and there's really nothing scientific about it at all.

[ QUOTE ]
and i'm probably trying to get you to temporarily forsake the word belief and focus on either observable evidence or desire only.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good but that's a different tangent. I more then happy to talk about desires and such but that really doesn't preclude you from having to avoid answering any of the questions. There's no reason one can't say what they believe then discuss what they desire.

** (evidence) there have been plenty of threads about observable evidence re: God... the gist of most of them being "there is none... hence why Faith is so important"

** (desire) Again... what you desire is really irrelevent to my question about your beliefs. I think I posted something to this effect in this very thread a long time ago... I may desire that there was a Goddess who demanded worship by having hot orgies all the time... but my DESIRE is really irrelevent as to what I believe.

Though after all these posts we still don't know exactly what you believe OR what you desire or why.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm interested in applying the scientific process in defining god.


[/ QUOTE ]

That really doesn't make any sense. I almost think you're saying something different then you think you are. You can't use science to define a phenomenon that there is no proof of it existing.

Though maybe I'm unclear of what it is you're saying. Can you give me an example of how we would use the scientific process to define the Easter Bunny? (I'm truly not being sarcastic... I'm trying to figure out exactly, by example, what you mean.)

It seems to me "God" is already defined several ways:
[ QUOTE ]
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.


[/ QUOTE ] (Yahoo reference section)

I'm not clear how you want to define it beyond that? its kind of difficult to look at something more scientifically that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't appear to exist at all.

[ QUOTE ]
possibly yes. it's a matter of definition as to whether or not information from this container/universe can be moved across the information barrier. my preferred theory at this point is that the universe is an information container that is bounded by a barrier such that nothing inside the container can move information across the barrier in either direction. the creator of such a container might have the power to move information across the barrier in one or both directions.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine.. but if this is how you define the universe and that God is an observer... it doesn't explain why you have a desire for him to exist. With this limited description of God as presented it doesn't speak to the possibilities of the 'soul', eternal life, etc... things I would guess motivate people to "want God." Which is why I asked why and/or how this God has any meaning for you. Do you understand why I would be puzzled?

[ QUOTE ]
i can't fully explain it. i just know that if you ask me the godist question that my answer is yes. i don't view my desires as inferior to guesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure out if we're understanding what each other is asking/saying to each other. I'm trying to figure out why you are a Godist. What is your interest in there being a God? (though I think your other threads hint at why you want their to be a God. Doing cheap armchair psychology here: it seems you are appalled at the idea that you may cease to exist with death. I'd guess you want there to be a God because you think that increases the chances that you have an afterlife. Though the 'scientist/observer' God mentioned earlier didn't necessarily address any of those concerns which is why I was puzzled that you posited that definition.

Anyhoo... these responses get longer yet we go nowhere.

Honestly. I was just curious as to whether you believed there was a God (we can use this definition, I believe its broad enough: "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, thought to control some part of nature or reality.")

"Yes... you believe one exists" or "NO,you don't... you just wish one did"

Though I am curious how you would define God and why you want there to be a God, for me it puts the questions in a different light knowing what a person believes to be true as opposed to what he hopes to be true.

[RayBornert]

kurt,

here ya go man
***************************

i want god to exist.

by observation i note and agree with the jodie foster character in the film contact:
"so far i see no evidence for or against the existence of god"
but i also agree with the matthew mcconaughey character who simply wants to understand why 80% of the worlds population are "godists" (my word not sagan's)

so if god does not exist then there's not a lot to discuss other than possibly to try and understand why evolution wants lots of godism and less atheism. and since i want god to exist i don't spend as much time and energy discussing this scenario - probably just being selfish.

if god does exist then that leads me to some immediate axioms that seem to be nearly universal insofar as what humans expect from a definition of god:

omniscient
omnipotent
creator

and so putting the godism test here i again i'll say yes to these as a matter of personal preference. i have no reason for choosing these axioms other than i think they are cool.

so now i have a somewhat typical theistic theory of god as the creator of this universe at which point i then immediately want to know why there is no evidence for or against this definition of god inside this universe (so far).

this god is very smart and capable and so i assert that things are the way they are right now because this god wants it that way.

i observe that i am hungry for information and i look around and i see others hungry too and i then i consider my definition of god and how smart and powerful god is and wonder why i cannot access the information where god is (note that i think that's a good idea but just because i want information does not imply that it is a good idea - i accept this).

since i cant move information from the place where god is to myself as well as i'd like this leads me to the idea that there is an intentional barrier around this container universe that prevents us from accessing information in the place where god is.

it's a matter of preference again as to whether or not i define god as able to move information across the barrier; i think my preference is that god can do this although i'm willing to discuss both scenarios. and this is where the "scientist observer" idea originates.

now considering my own consciousness for a moment i've got 4 basic choices:

a) began at birth ends at death
b) infinite past ends at death
c) began at birth infinite future
d) infinite past infinite future

a and b are not desirable
i like d most.

putting all this together i now ask myself why i left the place where god is to come to this dark place where i am unable to contact the place where god is.

answer:
apparently i signed up for a knowledge deprivation experiment

ray bornert

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people do not like to be called athiests. I think this is because it carries with it the negative connotation that they KNOW something that is impossible to know. It sounds arrogant, maybe. Just like claiming to KNOW that god created the universe simply as a means to save human beings sounds arrogant. Labeling yourself "agnostic" or "on the fence" or "awaiting further evidence" implies that you are more open-minded than a strict athiest. But I also feel this is intellectual dishonesty.

The reason is this: the punishment for not believing (talking about the Christian god in this case) is eternal suffering. Think about that for a minute - if you don't believe in the Christian god, and you're wrong, you will be tormented and tortured for ETERNITY. I don't think even Christians fully appreciate the magnitude of this when they think about others going to hell. Imagine the most gruesome torture scenario you can. Now imagine it NEVER ENDS. Even the writers of the SAW movies couldn't possibly dream up such a horror. If anyone even had an inkling this could be true, they'd believe out of fear if nothing else.

So, if you say you need more evidence, you don't believe. You're an athiest. First off, the necessary evidence is not coming and every agnostic knows it. Secondly, if you even had the tiniest bit of belief you'd likely cling to it as protection against the infinite torture. You'd FIND some sort of evidence that would enable you to convince yourself you believe. So to claim you are agnostic means you do not believe, period. I can't see any other reason why a person would risk eternal torture other than simply not believing.

Some might argue that their agnosticism means they allow for the possibilty of some higher power, but not necessarily the Christian/Muslim/Hebrew god etc. But this is still athiesm, as unless you believe in the afterlife you know you will never have any proof, which means you will never believe, which means you don't believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like claiming to KNOW that god created the universe simply as a means to save human beings sounds arrogant.

who believes this? God indeed created the universe, but ..?