Just to make things confusing, "I am indifferent to the relevance or state of the coin" is also called atheism.
I'm not sure that level of uninvolvement would qualify as an ism. :)
But out of morbid curiosity, what would "I believe there is a god but I don't care" be?
|
1. Atheist (I know there is no god)
2. Agnostic Atheist (I am without belief in god)
3. Agnostic Theist (I am with belief in god but I will not define it)
4. Theist (I know there is a god)
Let's flip this around:
1. I believe there is no god -- atheist
2. I can't know if there is a god -- agnostic
3. I believe in a god I can't define -- agnostic
4. I believe in god -- theistI don't see the point in trying to qualify clearly defined and understood terms. Isn't that what the point of your "vegan" story was? She was a vegan who didn't want to be called a vegan? Well, it seems there are a few agnostics in the thread who would rather be called atheists. (No offense meant to anyone.)
Well agnostic atheism was coined in the late 1800s by Robert Flint (only a few years after Huxley) and expanded upon by Bertrand Russell (before you and I were alive). It is really only in the public perception that agnosticism became a middle choice between belief and non-belief. After all, you are either with or without belief.
So it is you that is qualifying clearly defined and understood terms above and it really limits the continuum. For example, it doesn't distinguish myself from a gnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist would claim as fact that he knows that god does not exist and therefore he does not believe in god - he isn't open to evidence to the contrary. I wouldn't. However, I also do not believe in god but in the same way I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe that String Theory explains how the standard model is unified with gravity but if it ever provided evidence then I would modify my position. Likewise, I do not believe in a god - however, if evidence could be presented I am open to modify my position.
I only believe in things that are knowable. If they aren't knowable I do not believe in them.
Question: Do you think there is a difference between the following statements?
1. I am without belief in a god or gods.
2. There is no god or gods.
Any serious study of the history of religion shows that it does, in fact, change it's beliefs over time. It's not science, so it doesn't change it based on what is observed. But, neither does a whole lot of other stuff that we consider valuable - art, for example. Religious beliefs change over time as a result of social debate.
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
So you are saying that faith is fashion? It changes to meet what is dictated by the current social construct.
Deism. *waves*
Oh, you. :)
Question: Do you think there is a difference between the following statements?
1. I am without belief in a god or gods.
2. There is no god or gods.
Yes there is a difference. But I see "I am without belief" to be identical to "I cannot know," for a similar reason to how one cannot know the state of the hidden coin. One can try to assert unbelief in one state of the coin or the other, but ultimately that assertion boils down to unbelief in either state, which is the same as "I don't know." Simply because there is no purpose in stating unbelief in one state without either asserting belief in the other or asserting ignorance. The only difference being whether one is willing to admit they don't know, or only willing to admit unbelief.
So the difference I see is 1 is agnostic and 2 is atheist.
If the possibilities are binary, the process of elimination is short. If there were more than two possible states of the coin, this whole conversation would be very different. The coin could be a trick coin with only tails. Or the coin could be both heads and tails until revealed. Now it's not either/or. Now you could say you don't believe the coin is heads, and you could mean something other than a passive belief in tails.
So it is you that is qualifying clearly defined and understood terms above and it really limits the continuum.
I can see why you would think so. But my thought is the simpler continuum is more liberating. You acknowledge that beliefs change over time, usually with knowledge. Do you constantly alter your status? How useful is that to anyone other than yourself when the terms are poorly understood? In a continuum of three, no alteration or explanation is required unless you experience a major shift in belief.
The usefulness of the more complex terms in my mind is limited to people wanting in depth discussion of intricacies of philosophy. Which is what we're doing here. But you have to start with the general and move to the specific. Going the other way promotes misunderstanding.
I'll fully grant any terminology you want. I just think their usefulness is so limited.
To understand what you mean by "fashion", is the body of knowledge in architecture "fashion"?So you are saying that faith is fashion? It changes to meet what is dictated by the current social construct.Any serious study of the history of religion shows that it does, in fact, change it's beliefs over time. It's not science, so it doesn't change it based on what is observed. But, neither does a whole lot of other stuff that we consider valuable - art, for example. Religious beliefs change over time as a result of social debate.
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
That or math. Yes.
Religion is a bit more complex and powerful than "how should I wear my hair". It creates (or, at least is a major force in creating) the social contract.
You have to admit though, they have cool hats, from the Jewish yarmulke to the Catholic Papal Tiara. Fashion and religion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to make things confusing, "I am indifferent to the relevance or state of the coin" is also called atheism.I'm not sure that level of uninvolvement would qualify as an ism. :)
But out of morbid curiosity, what would "I believe there is a god but I don't care" be?
Mehtheist
|
|
Yes there is a difference. But I see "I am without belief" to be identical to "I cannot know," for a similar reason to how one cannot know the state of the hidden coin. One can try to assert unbelief in one state of the coin or the other, but ultimately that assertion boils down to unbelief in either state, which is the same as "I don't know." Simply because there is no purpose in stating unbelief in one state without either asserting belief in the other or asserting ignorance. The only difference being whether one is willing to admit they don't know, or only willing to admit unbelief.So the difference I see is 1 is agnostic and 2 is atheist.
The coin analogy isn't a good one. You either postulate that heads will be the outcome, tails will be the outcome, or you claim that you cannot know. Both would require proving a positive. Proving that god exists is proving a positive. Proving god does not exist is proving a negative.
|
|
Just to make things confusing, "I am indifferent to the relevance or state of the coin" is also called atheism.Its certainly not atheism, but it is the starting point for any scientific study of religion.
What exactly is a "scientific study of religion"? Science is, by construction, a materialistic methodology. It is incapable of describing anything supernatural.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could do a "scientific" study about the history of religion. However, anything metaphysical would be outside the methodology of science.
We can test religious truth claims:
1. Does intercessory prayer actually magically heal people (as advertised) to a statistically significant degree?
2. Is the Earth really 6,000 years old, or is the age in the billions?
3. Does the evidence support the case of special creation?
4. Does affixing a Jesus fish to the back of your car actually result in a reduction in accidents, even in cases where the other drivers do not see it, as many people here in TX apparently fervently believe?
(etc.)
The usual rejoinder, "it's supernatural -- God could have made things look different" leads us, especially in the case of #2, into a scenario in which the said God can only be likened to Loki or Coyote. A chaoticist trickster god who uses omniscience and omnipotence in an intentional effort to make things seem other than they are, solely to fool us, is indeed untestable. But as soon as you start with the standpoint that God is even somewhat just and/or benevolent, testability of truth claims comes right back into play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The usual rejoinder, "it's supernatural -- God could have made things look different" leads us, especially in the case of #2, into a scenario in which the said God can only be likened to Loki or Coyote. A chaoticist trickster god who uses omniscience and omnipotence in an intentional effort to make things seem other than they are, solely to fool us, is indeed untestable.
Or "atheism", as it is known in Rahadoum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a proponent of studying religion as well. Not the supernatural, but rather as an enormous data set for studying human interaction.
1. Religion communicates itself extremely well. Geography, or more accurately, proximity to established centers of religion is often the greatest determiner of which religion you follow. I think Dawkin's comparison to a virus is disingenuous and shows a fundamental prejudice that makes objective study more difficult.
2. Religion does serve as a communication tool of valuable information at times. Again, not the supernatural claims, so if you quote me and use those as examples, you're not arguing with me, but some fictional construct in your mind. Socially religion has had benefits (and a lot of negatives as well, I'm fully aware of them, you don't need to point them out to me). There have even been examples of religions passing on useful, materialistic information involving calendar dates that have proven more useful than initial scientific methods.
3. Religion can also be useful for adding a new perspective to a problem. This is similar to the role that art plays in a society, but exclusively through a repeated story, plus it's been much more successful until recently at perpetuating itself. Part of that has been a requirement of oral tradition until a few hundred years ago, but also it's highly compelling nature.
Now, not all of this applies to Christianity. There is much more to this world than Christianity, in fact if you take a random sample of people in the world, you'll come up with non-Christians more often than Christians. I think most atheism discussions would benefit from taking a world view and getting out of their Euro-centric one.
Again, I'm not a proponent of religion. Rather I think that religion represents a portion of human knowledge and it has been shaped by a couple millennium of human thought. Just because they didn't have the scientific understanding we do now doesn't mean they didn't have a good idea.
The coin analogy isn't a good one. You either postulate that heads will be the outcome, tails will be the outcome, or you claim that you cannot know. Both would require proving a positive. Proving that god exists is proving a positive. Proving god does not exist is proving a negative.
Yes there is a difference. But I see "I am without belief" to be identical to "I cannot know," for a similar reason to how one cannot know the state of the hidden coin. One can try to assert unbelief in one state of the coin or the other, but ultimately that assertion boils down to unbelief in either state, which is the same as "I don't know." Simply because there is no purpose in stating unbelief in one state without either asserting belief in the other or asserting ignorance. The only difference being whether one is willing to admit they don't know, or only willing to admit unbelief.So the difference I see is 1 is agnostic and 2 is atheist.
In the analogy, one side of the coin is "god exists" while the other is "god doesn't exist." With respect to your criteria, the latter side is proving a negative.
However, I think the analogy presumes the coin is never revealed, which in my opinion makes it especially apt.
The usual rejoinder, "it's supernatural -- God could have made things look different" leads us, especially in the case of #2, into a scenario in which the said God can only be likened to Loki or Coyote. A chaoticist trickster god who uses omniscience and omnipotence in an intentional effort to make things seem other than they are, solely to fool us, is indeed untestable. But as soon as you start with the standpoint that God is even somewhat just and/or benevolent, testability of truth claims comes right back into play.
I also find the "God could make it appear that way" argument similar to the brain-in-a-jar theories. As a thought experiment, it can be interesting, but it doesn't provide any sort of useful insight that can actually be applied to the world around us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone say something interesting that hasn't been said in a Darkwing Duck thread fifty times before!
Please.
This thread has nothing to do with Tyson and has everything do with DWD starting an argument over dictionary definitions. Again.
Are you saying he's just trying to start a fight on the Internet? Isn't there a word for someone who does that?
Are you saying he's just trying to start a fight on the Internet? Isn't there a word for someone who does that?
Sadly, we're not allowed to say it. Because it might hurt their feelings.
In that case, Skrag?
Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?
Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?The same thing can be said of you.
You didn't have to jump into this thread. You didn't have to limit your posts to attacks. You chose to do that.
You likewise are not required to post as you do. But all of your threads are essentially the same.
The hypocrisy with which you demand that we take Tyson's definition of himself without question while rejecting the definition of our beliefs given by most every atheist on the Paizo boards who has ever cared to say something to you about it is too obvious to be accidental. You know what you're doing. So does everyone else.
Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?The same thing can be said of you.
You didn't have to jump into this thread. You didn't have to limit your posts to attacks. You chose to do that.You likewise are not required to post as you do. But all of your threads are essentially the same.
The hypocrisy with which you demand that we take Tyson's definition of himself without question while rejecting the definition of our beliefs given by most every atheist on the Paizo boards who has ever cared to say something to you about it is too obvious to be accidental. You know what you're doing. So does everyone else.
This. I posted a good Wikipedia article explaining the nuances of atheism, agnosticism, apatheism, etc. DD chose to ignore it and instead press his rhetorical definition.
No good can come of this thread when it was started as nothing more than a way for DD to tell us what we do or are allowed to believe and (erroneously) assert his 'right'ness.
Trouble is, I just can't walk away. I always take the bait!
No good can come of this thread when it was started as nothing more than a way for DD to tell us what we do or are allowed to believe and (erroneously) assert his 'right'ness.Trouble is, I just can't walk away. I always take the bait!
I've gotten a bit better since I started being aggressive with the ignore script and hiding threads but some posters manage to stay on my screen because they're so obvious or sufficiently oblivious that it's fun to take a tilt now and then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?The same thing can be said of you.
You didn't have to jump into this thread. You didn't have to limit your posts to attacks. You chose to do that.
DD, the only reason the vast majority of people are posting here is that your epic fail, and poorly concealed trollery is a source of lulz.
We have explained this stuff to you time and again.
Atheism is the state of not actively believing in god/gods
Theism is the state of actively believing in god/gods
both of those can break down into strong and weak states.
Gnostic is knowing the state of something.
Agnostics is not knowing the state of something.
They are two different axis, so a person could be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or gnostic theist.
I have never knowingly meet or read the work of an individual claiming to be Gnostic Atheist. But I can't move without bumping into Gnostic theists(though I know lots of very reasonable and nice agnostic theists too).
Atheism is not a religion in itself, though you can have atheistic religions.
Burden of proof lies with theist to demonstrate the existence of god, and it is irrational for them hold onto such a belief withou substantial
evidence.
Lastly, neil is almost certainly an atheist, his stated description of his views is entirely consistent with that, but he clearly does not want to become involved with the culture wars, which would no double be a result of him coming out.
Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?The same thing can be said of you.
You didn't have to jump into this thread. You didn't have to limit your posts to attacks. You chose to do that.You likewise are not required to post as you do. But all of your threads are essentially the same.
The hypocrisy with which you demand that we take Tyson's definition of himself without question while rejecting the definition of our beliefs given by most every atheist on the Paizo boards who has ever cared to say something to you about it is too obvious to be accidental. You know what you're doing. So does everyone else.
This. I posted a good Wikipedia article explaining the nuances of atheism, agnosticism, apatheism, etc. DD chose to ignore it and instead press his rhetorical definition.
No good can come of this thread when it was started as nothing more than a way for DD to tell us what we do or are allowed to believe and (erroneously) assert his 'right'ness.
Trouble is, I just can't walk away. I always take the bait!
Early each day to the steps of Saint Paizo's
The little old troll woman comesIn her own special way to the people she call,
"Come, buy my bags full of word;
Come feed the little trolls,
Show them you care
And you'll be glad if you do
Their avatars are hungry
Their threads are so bare
All it takes is tuppence from you
Feed the birds, tuppence a bag
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag
Feed the trolls," that's what she cries
While overhead, her trolls fill the boards...
Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?The same thing can be said of you.
You didn't have to jump into this thread. You didn't have to limit your posts to attacks. You chose to do that.
It would be nice if the conversation could get further than you concluding that everyone else is an idiot for disagreeing with you and your chosen experts. No matter how well thought out out, evidenced, or authoritatively backed any idea is you consider it to be a work of blithering idiocy because it disagrees with you an your expert, and obviously you can't take what a blithering idiot says seriously, so it couldn't possibly compare with the picked expert, showing that they're a blithering idiot....
Neil says 'i am not an atheist because I don't think that _____' and goes on about political activism on church state matters... which has absolutely nothing to do with being an atheist. Its like saying I'm not a 7th day Adventist because I'm hairy and collect stamps.
Lastly, neil is almost certainly an atheist, his stated description of his views is entirely consistent with that, but he clearly does not want to become involved with the culture wars, which would no double be a result of him coming out.I think not wanting to get involved in the culture wars is proof that he is wiser than the rest of us.
+1
Lastly, neil is almost certainly an atheist, his stated description of his views is entirely consistent with that, but he clearly does not want to become involved with the culture wars, which would no double be a result of him coming out.I think not wanting to get involved in the culture wars is proof that he is wiser than the rest of us.
Nah, just that he has a life.
I also wanted to draw everyones attention to this post.
That post is lame.
That post is lame.
*shoots an arrow in your knee* Now YOU are lame!
Ow!
[shakes fist]
I'll get you!!
---
And I want to know why Citizen Duck won't answer my friendly personal post? :(
Tell us one awesome thing you did while you were "on vacation".
Not to add more fuel to the fire, but really, if you lads dislike DWD's threads, then stop posting in them.
But ganging up to attack a poster seems quite distasteful and improper of gentlemen, in my opinion.
As for the subject:
I believe the source of confusion is at the use of the term Atheism itself, which no one seems to be sure how to properly employ anymore. Note the word itself says nothing about belief or lack of it; it says "Lack of God" or "Without God". The first guys to use that term, Greeks, made it up to refer to those who didn't follow the formally accepted pantheon; whether this was born out of a lack of belief, social rupturism or a theological afront didn't really factor in. At its origin, at least, the word seems to point more toward a behaviour (not following/paying attention to a god/gods) than a condition (lack of belief)
In the same line, if we look at it on a strictly linguistical terms, Agnostic only means "Lack of Knowledge" or "Without Knowledge". Belief is not factored in either. However, Agnostic does imply a condition rather than a behaviour, because it does not consider whether the person wants to know or accepts a particular knowledge, but rather if the person knows or doesn't know.
So, you have Atheism -behaviour- and Agnosticism -condition-, meaning you can have both terms creating a matrix of posibilities, as it has been explained already in this thread. However, no segment of said matrix necessarily rules out belief: an Agnostic Atheist could very well believe in a god, but refuse to bow to one born out of a lack of proof, just like I can believe in a company to do its work, but still refuse to get in bed with it unless it signs a contract.
So, you have Atheism -behaviour- and Agnosticism -condition-, meaning you can have both terms creating a matrix of posibilities, as it has been explained already in this thread. However, no segment of said matrix necessarily rules out belief: an Agnostic Atheist could very well believe in a god, but refuse to bow to one born out of a lack of proof, just like I can believe in a company to do its work, but still refuse to get in bed with it unless it signs a contract.
Except as of late, this thread has turning things into Atheism -belabor- and Agnosticism -contrition-.