Bringing up solipsism is just a way of derailing whatever conversation you were having before that point. It's like being presented with an essay, and, rather than reading the essay, starting on a tangent about how language is an arbitrary construct that we just agree to entertain for the purpose of communication. It's been a non sequitur every time it's come up, in my experience.
Matt absolutely nails it at the 27 minute mark. This breed of agnostic intentionally distorts the fact that absolute certainty doesn't exist to justify belief in anything. If you press them on it, they will stick to their guns and claim that we should be agnostic about unicorns, leprechauns, big foot, etc. They aren't actually being intellectually honest. They're being incredibly dishonest and the fact that they spend the vast majority of their time attacking atheism leads me to believe that they are closeted theists. They are willing to claim that they don't have absolute certainty about the beginnings of the universe but it's clear in the positions that they take, that they see theism in one form or another as the more likely proposition. The fact that they won't sack up and take that position is what makes them cowards.
I think it has more to do with an idea presented in George Orwell 1984 - that being along the philosophy that humans truly don't know. we can only perceive and we are very flawed in our perception...and our truths are only good from a humans point. that 2+2=5 and one can make someone believe this ..if this is a truth, it scares many humans. it doesn't mean there are unicorns, but if if you are tortured into the thought that the horse is a unicorn, that is enough to *see* the horn that is not there on the thing that was only a horse or goat all along. see this as an idea to the reason of this philosophy. The problem with many atheists(i have many friends who are atheists) is they have chosen to abandon and toss aside many ideas of philosophy based on positivism, scientific and analytically thought. the ideas need to stop being literalized, on both sides! There are things to pick and choose arguments for. There is no need to impose ones reality unto others - as that will always lead to a dystopian society. These people exist and its how they feel and what they believe, unless you choose to kill and murder them, what will you do about it - we can educate people, that's about all that can be done and has been done,they are still here. lets not lead to irrational reasons to obliterate thoughts. we don't need to be thought police, but it is always good to refute it with good knowledge. that's why they wont take sides. there is no sides. read more philosophy.
Patrick Thompson Its stupid to compare belief in a creator's existence to the earthly existence of unicorns, leprechauns, big foot etc. Why? because the amount of evidence for the two are not the same. We actually DO have VERY GOOD evidence that unicorns, leprechauns, big foot, etc do not exist on earth. MUCH MUCH more evidence than we have as to whether the universe has a creator. Each and every claim of a deity or creator's existence is dismissed by agnostics, simply because the evidence is insufficient. Each and every claim of a deity or creator's lack of existence is dismissed by agnostics, simply because the evidence is insufficient. It really is that easy to end up not believing in anything. You just reject claims other's put forth, because they have no meaningful evidence. Press me on it, and I'll tell you unicorns do not exist, because the evidence IS sufficient. Same with leprechauns and big foot.
It's odd how this agnostic sounds just like a theist, he's only railing against atheists, never has a bit of criticism for theism at all he's just calling atheists all kinds of names.....,huh....weird. I agree with Matts statement about how these agnostics are just people trying to act more intellectual than everyone else, and I'd add my belief that these agnostics are actually theists who don't have the balls to just admit it and go be theists.
The call from John about solipsism was confusing. I might misunderstand solipsism, but if you are the only mind that exists, what's the point calling a show and argue that you are? You must then already know/believe that the show, and the people in it, is only in your own mind, so you are actually arguing with yourself? Seems totally pointless.
Solipsism is a massive waste; it has 2 concept categories: 1. You are the only mind in existence. This is pure bullshit, loaded with arrogance -- that this one mind could conceive of both Bach's toccata &fugue in D minor, and 'Boot Scootin' Boogie', and perform both with no ability to demonstrate the skill to perform them. The arrogance is furthered by the idea that this mind could conceive of the universe as it is, and would not be aware of it until 'reading' Hawking's works. 2. You are a brain in a vat, being fed conceptual experiences, a la the matrix. While proving this false is nearly impossible, one need not disprove it -- those who claim it even as a possibility carry the burden of proof. It's why I so enjoyed the episode with Matt & Jeff Dee, talking to Charles from Austin, dishonest asshole that he was (likely flying high on something, too), who waited until the abrupt end of the call to admit being a solipsist. Matt hung up on him within 2 seconds. Pure beauty.
I think it's different for everyone, but "Agnostic" was what I defined myself as when being fresh out of religion, but still believing in God, but just not sure what to believe about him. I became Atheist soon after. :-)
I envy you. I had a similar experience where I stopped being a catholic but looked for another denomination of Protestantism, didn't like it, stopped believing in the god of the bible about five years ago (called myself agnostic) and became atheist this year. Whew!
John's call (and presuppositional apologetics now in vogue) gave me an idea. Presuppostional Hard Nihilism. 1. I can be sure that my mind exists in some form. 2. I can't be sure other minds exist. 3. Other minds could be figments of my mind. Why try to prove something to a figment of my imagination? --- yeah. It's not fleshed out. And it may already be covered with standard Nihilism rhetoric. I dunno. I haven't delved. But as Matt talked, the idea of (Going in, "I win", is built in) presupposing victory popped into my head. I have decided that, for all who read this, I will give you +2 on all of your character's saving and reaction rolls for 3 days.
I think the reason people call themselves agnostics instead of atheists is because it does not explicitly say "the emperor has no clothes" while saying you are an atheist does. Theists react more negatively to being told that you don't believe their fairy tale than being told that you don't know whether their fairy tale is true or not. You may actually not believe in their fairy tale while being agnostic, but you haven't actually said it. They appreciate your discretion.
That depends on what you mean by "agnostic." Most people think of it as some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism, but theism and atheism are particular answers to a particular metaphysical question, whereas agnosticism (as a philosophy) is an answer to the question of what is and is not knowable. Under the colloquial definition, I would agree with you, but I don't agree if we are talking about the more formal definition of agnosticism as the latter allows for both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
GodDidJesusInTheButt That's a bit backwards. It doesn't take much intellectual courage to be honest about one's beliefs, so if you can't even do that, you're probably an intellectual coward.
Discussing philosophical positions is fine and is obviously useful but it is also often little more than an intellectual game/exercise. It is one of the reasons I like Matt in that he is perfectly capable of going down that route but he is also a pragmatic person. For me I am simply a "non-believer" I think its an easier and a less convoluted term. it avoids a lot of defining terms and waffle.
A non-believer could still be taken as you being a deist. You're just a non-believer in the same way as you are not a follower? Since as a diest there may be nothing to follow, since the god in question is not a personal one. So there may still be a need to define your terms.
about sollipsisms, from the point of proving the existence of god, wouldn't claiming that no other mind exists kinda takes away any chance of convincing us that the hypothetical alternate reality is actually real?
11:24, no they're now called "lying theists" or "delusional theists". We already know they really classify as "agnostic" theists because they don't know anything, and we know they don't know, so their claim of knowledge is meaningless. Just as meaningless as discussing "these people claim to be human, and these people claim not to be human". We know they're all human. Its just idiocy to even discuss such claims.
My perceptions have a very sturdy foothold in reality, I know this because my perceptions serve me extremely well. Solipsism is a useless position and it the knowledge of it, if it is true, is absolutely worthless.
I really get tired of the agnostic debate. The entire debate is skewed. I am 46 and have studied religion since I was brought up on bogus charges in the Army when I was 19 being accused of practicing witchcraft in the barracks and having a coven. I wrote the below on another vid after reading one agnostic after another act like they had the superior position and yes the snobbery. As well I do not worship science. It is ever changing. We may never know why some things are the way they are. Dawkins btw say he was a 6 leaning 7. His scale was expanded btw. When I say real below I am saying reality. If there is another reality we are not perceiving it. That other reality is unknown to us. What I wrote: What is truly amazing is how we are still embroiled into this argument that is nothing more than philosophical hand waving, a basic Philosophy 101 of Special Pleading, the old Agnostic vs Atheist debate. As said before Huxley promoted science as being the model to explain the natural world and that religion was an invalid model to do so. What some hold onto was his next comment, “at best highly unlikely.” But the reality is agnostic as in without gnosis as in knowledge was saying the Supernatural is unknowable to us. Not well it could exist on some planet on the other side of the galaxy. It was saying the unreal was just that not real and we could never know the unreal because if we did it would not mean it was unreal but real and thus again we never knew the unreal. So as we explore the Universe whatever we find will be real, it will be explained by the natural world even if we currently do not have the knowledge of science to understand it at that moment. Atomic theory btw was started back in 475 BCE in Greece. Other Greeks and Romans expanded on it and then it went dormant till the Renaissance when we moved into the modern era of science. Now on to the Special Pleading, we like to think we are such smart almost hairless human apes but with our Philosophical Hand Waving we have kept ourselves down with the lower primates and among the dumb monkeys. We have taken Harry Potter and all the characters within these scriptures we call fiction writing and broken them down to their basic hero and anti hero archetypes and then have said well I cannot say those archetypes are not real and do not exist. Why if I do that I have made an extraordinary claim and now I must prove that Harry Potter does not exist. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. Etc etc. All the while acting like I am being logical. Ignoring the fact that we are talking about fiction writing. And to be clear things made up that are not real. If we took all the fiction writing we have today and transported them back 2000 years and hell we do not even have to go that far many would look at all of this as non fiction and think these events happened. And why would a polytheistic world doubt what the Jews and later Christians said to have actually happened? Their gods did things too. They performed miracles as well. So wouldn’t they think it was real unless they were starting to see that all of this was fantasy and made up. But then again every religion is atheist to another religion in most cases. Why my make believe things are real but yours are not. Why yours is just silly but mine makes perfect sense. Many and this includes some agnostics and atheists are not going to think I am serious for using Harry Potter or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, or even the bogeyman because NO one thinks for even the slightest that any of these things are anything more than literary inventions and not real. No one says well you can’t say they do not exist. Come on dumb monkeys. You know. You know. Yes, you know. This is fiction. This is how we humans learned ethics and how to handle conflicts etc. We create stories to teach ourselves moral lessons. We have taken what a bunch of goat herders have written down about how they think the world is and strip them of specific details down to basic archetypes and then saying to what is left WELL YOU CAN’T PROVE IT DOES NOT EXIST while IGNORING that they are all literacy characters that are designed as teaching tools. We learn this in ENGLISH COMP AND LITERATURE. In Comparative Mythology and Cultural Anthropology we see that religion is nothing short of cultural evolution and that most of the worlds myths stem from Ancient Egypt just spitting out the same things but with each new cultural slight spin on it. None of it was ever real and none of these goat herders or dirt farmers knew about some entity on the other side of the galaxy. They had no clue. So if we found such an entity A) it was never what they were talking about and B) it will be a natural entity. See unreal above. BUT we better hope that this species likes us and does not see us in its way for its own survival or our own species will be doing the Ghost Dance and Trail of Tears on the road to our own extinction. And how could I possible accept this? The same way I accept macroevolution since the macro is nothing but a series of micro levels. I have no reason not to believe that the micro level workings of today would not work the same as the micro level workings 200 million years ago. I have no reason and better yet rational reason to believe that chemical bonding on this side of the galaxy will not work the same on the other side. Gravity measurements will fluctuate but the math will remain the same. Meaning I can calculate it. So we see micro literature and have no reason to believe that on the macro level it is any different. Rationally we can look and see how primitive man believed the heart was where the soul was. Think little monkeys think. Why would they think that? What is the difference between a dead man and one who is alive? I am primitive man and I only have my senses to guide me. Could I not put my hands on the chest of one I think is asleep and feel nothing but on mine I feel a beating. But this still does not quite explain why they thought it was where the soul was. What else was different between a dead man and one who is alive? We see the chest is not moving and our hand over their mouth we feel nothing yet on ourselves and others who are standing around we see our chests moving and we feel something on our hands that are held over our mouth. Yes they were all mouth breathers. Go with it. So that thing we call breath must have left their body and that breath is your soul. Hence why some words could not be spoken out loud and were considered too sacred to speak with your soul. Then came the question well where did the soul go? Hence why the Egyptians did not preserve the brain but the heart and why they felt in the afterlife one had their heart weighed and if heavier than a feather then you were devoured and hence why the Maya and Aztecs did not bash open some ones skull and toss their brains to the gods to appease them but ripped open their chest to tear out their still beating heart. And thus our journey begins in believing fiction writing was real but it was NEVER real, all literary devices no different than Harry Potter. Oh but all some will get from this is WELL YOU CANNOT SAY THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST and we are back to being dumb monkeys not fit to be next to the great apes as we wrestle back down to the hand waving of Philosophy 101 and believe we are being honest and truthful when we are just deluding ourselves and one reason why we cannot have nice things. It is time for the children to grow up.
That was a whole lot of words to say we have been debating about the wrong things for far too long my friend! science is a hand waving philosophy as well i might add. its just refined and has reaped us many rewards, but it requires the philosophy of science and adhering to this "philosophy" to work. thank you for your words though. I still think it is more complex than the way you describe (though of course then you would have never been able to stop typing, lol) but i think it is one of many important aspects as to why this phenomenon exists. -that is, trying to connect and perceive a reality external to us....which i believe came from the inability to relate to what they experienced, namely from hallucinogenic substances - and it very well may be fictional stories of all kinds but because of their limiting language and limited perception of reality they relied heavy on metaphor and analogy - something we as modern humans have mostly forgotten in our scientific and analytic nature, using a much more direct way to describe something ....and *somehow* the majority of us forgot that was the case all along, and that language only developed to better literalize our perceived reality....disconnecting use from stories of learning. (like we do when relating to science as our language is becoming outdated in comparison to relate to science in a modern and much more efficient way)\ (that doesn't mean reality external to use doesn't exist.....but it is safe not to bother ones self in a place they don't "exist" in, even more so when it starts affecting our reality in very real ways. like religious wars. )
shadowthrone That was a whole lot of words for saying what? You agree with me or do not agree with me? And my word count should be unimportant. It displays a dismissive tone like I needed your permission to type anything. Gee really? Politics requires some philosophical hand waving as well but that is ALL that agnosticism is today. Science is both agnostic and atheistic because it has no knowledge of any supernatural or belief in it. As I said Huxley who coined the phrase to describe himself and others like him are more like atheists today than agnostics are today. Science does make an experiment and then say well here are the results and its shows this substance is largely copper but you know it just might be a rainbow out of a unicorn's ass. Do you get that? It does not leap to the supernatural for unexplained things. When it says well we are not sure about this it is not saying well it could be satan, hmmmm. Now do you mean theoretical physics perhaps? That is still going off what we know by what we have conducted experiments on. We know that DNA is in all life that we know. We know that DNA requires water. So where we find water we might just find life. NOW we know theoretically that their may be life based on silicone but that is NOT supernatural belief nor philosophical hand waving. Religion is cultural evolution. I already covered what you typed so did you actually read it or just skim it and then wanted to talk like you agree about it? And why does it have to be complex for it to make sense? MOST religious stem from Ra Theology. That is they are the retelling of the stories from ancient Egypt. Christianity, Islam, Judaism stem from this. Judaism has a mixture of Mesopotamia as well. Now what came before them? Actual gods, right? Surely not the same thing just not recorded in history, right? Of course no it must be this external reality, right? This other dimension ... oooo ahhhhh. *cue spooky music* Ug sees Gog laying by a tree. Gog does not respond. Ug looks at Gog and is confused. He does not know what to do. He puts his hand to Gog's chest and feels nothing. He puts his hand to his own chest and feels movement. He puts his hand over Gog's mouth and feels nothing. He puts his hand over his own mouth and feels movement but cannot see it. (Yes both Ug and Gog were mouth breathers.) What does Ug get from this? How does he explain this? Ug believes that Gog's life force has left his body. Ug still has his life force because he can feel it still. Ug tells others. They ask Ug, "but where did it go?" Now Ug says... This is the basis right there and why ancient Man believed our life force was in the center of our chest or hmm the heart. That is what the word means. They had no way of knowing that our brain is who we are. They had no way of measuring it. So their mythology stated the heart upon death would be weighed. This life force became known as your soul. This is why certain words because sacred and/or words no one or only specially trained people could speak. Why? Because you spoke them with your soul and you might summon those entities etc. This is the basis for all religions. Ug is sitting with his children and thunder is heard and then lightening strikes a tree. Ug is frightened but more pissed at his kids who will not eat their meat so Ug says, hear that? That is Krom sitting high on his mountain in the clouds. He is mad that you have not eaten your meat. You cannot have your pudding till you eat your meat. These stories get tuned to the culture they are told in. They get altered slightly. We still speak in metaphor and analogy. These were prime tools throughout all the middle ages as most people were illiterate. Bards would sing songs with some moral lesson. Robyn Hoode is a prime example. We still see metaphor and analogy in our literature and media. What happens is context is lost over the ages and people forget the original context. That is what is so funny about Christian bible study in that it differs so much from say Judaism over the SAME verses. So we have lost the original context of the retelling of these stories. Which is what a joke about a Pope is inferring. A Pope dies after spending decades dedicated to the church and once in Heaven he wants to rush to the Library so he can read the original texts. Hours go by when a loud scream can be heard in the otherwise silent library, :IT'S CELEBRATE!!!" Now losing the context would be no different if we took a Tom Clancy novel and buried it to be dug up 1000 years from now. How would those people know that was a fiction book and not take it as literal events? They might dig up a sign that says Baltimore and somewhere else dig something else that talks of the CIA while an old phone book is discovered that has a Jack Ryan in it. Does this mean all of those events actually happened? Now what do you mean by external realities? If there are parallel universes that does not make them supernatural. And reality in of itself is external to us. We simply live in it. Reality would not cease to exist if we did. This is why the supernatural is unknowable to us. As we expand our knowledge of reality we see no evidence of any supernatural. And again if there is a multiverse it is still reality not realities. Did you mean supernatural then?
Devin MacGregpr No i agree with you man, i do indeed! I'm sorry i didn't make it clear that I meant it sucks that's what our language has become(so convoluted), your points are clear to me so far, maybe i dont see all you imply when you apply these words but they translate well enough! (but most lack this ability to apply critical thought it seems) - and that it truly is such a simple reason why every thing has become so convoluted! I dont think thats all agnosticism is today(though a majority are), though i think all the magical and whimsical things do need to be excluded if anyone ever wants to take them seriously in an age of critical thought. what i mean i supposed would be the current type of philosophy we are headed today, that *can* help us understand why these types of things exist in a more thorough nature, so that mankind might transcend such folly.(being "post-positivism" and bringing together every ones fallible theories - the article i will link describes what im trying to say well i think, with out typing it all here!.....dang language) www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php like i said, i agree with the B.S. about supernatural philosophy, we have transcended that for the body of people that matters, to continue in progression of mankind. These people will be here though and just need to be ignored to the best we can and inform those who care. I agree we still do speak in metaphor and analogy ("we are stuck in a linguistic trap all that is is metaphor" -Robert Anton Wilson) - like the link i showed you. but there is still distinction to be made, and we can "transcend" our current view of understanding how copper is not just copper, how even though our machines show us this information, maybe we are still lacking perception to find other things out there beyond what we know. like how plato pondered about a perfect sphere, though no perfect sphere is in nature, the simple fact that we can think of it but not perceive it leads us to understand "external reality" - but with the touch of science this is becoming ever more apparent in our ability to perfect a theory.(taking into account the theory of every ones postulations...even the B.S. ones we say are B.S....because they just paradoxically have to be there lol...) Again, im not even arguing the crazy creation theorys that somehow a lot are still debating about in some type of literal manner! (because they aren't applying critical thought like you and i are right now, they only learned to see things in a strait forward literalized and analytic way , "lacking metaphorical" type of views - they dont even realize thats all language is! they think it is the literal translation of "reality", and therefore loose basis *with* reality I do like your words, therefor i engaged in conversation with you! sorry it came off wrong :) i didnt think i was being so critical and opposed to what you said! just putting my twist on it! As liking what you said, i might like to hear more! (even if it is not what i know currently and currently believe, i would always like to hear others and therefore further my own knowing!)
Devin MacGregpr Also sorry i didn't get to elaborate more, it was late. But like the link I posted in my previous text, about post-positivism - it gives us a way of thinking that all theories are fallible in some way, scientists are humans, and therefore are bound to the bias and emotions of mankind. That logic still derives from humans postulation of what knowledge and truth is and how to attain it. Leading us to believe that one can not truly find attainable knowledge of "the truth" with logic, or anything for that matter. That is to say we can't ever understand "reality" in its "truest form", as for humans this is absolutely impossibly and we can only reflect upon it through triangulation of all peoples limited perceptions of the organic beings that we know we are; their thoughts, emotions, theories and all...So we should take care to literalize ideas like god....Which is why many ancient Jews wouldn't even give "god" a name(all that is is metaphor)...and why there was initiation for a lot of the esoteric stuff...because it took too long to ramble on about other humans ideas if those particulars aren't interested to begin with! (which is now what is happening to science and the anti science people) - It will take a lot more to describe in the most accurate way "true/external reality" than even what our current sciences can attain, I believe.(I'm not trying to credit some creationist god) - That we need to triangulate (as that link describes it in a neat way) all these ideas and theories and say in a "sense" (not literal what so ever) that they are *all* true in some way, false in some way and a mixture of the both in...in some way (as they are moral metaphorical stories that don't require what modern days literal interpenetration claims....) -Many agnostics take the philosophy of deism(and even druidism....like the mystical people), but they view it as it is one of the *better* (not only) ways to say what something is*like* as we can never say what something *is* (as science in the positivist view claims)....because all that is is metaphor. -*Not* that it cant go hand in hand with science, but i think a new language entirely would have to come from this understanding of our "new" world, and it will take quite a long time I'm sure, to formulate a better language. A language that doesn't deny what we *obviously* know and have learned of our world....that *obviously* a man isn't in the sky....in some literal sense...(eastern philosophy approaches it in a way that was "beyond its time" IMO - trying to use the natural laws and explanations, its imperfections and the fractal nature of our experience to relate to the "unattainable" "perfection of all forms" ) I am not saying you are wrong, but the theory you put forth, from my understanding, assumes that mankind, "Ug", was a stupid idiot who only lived in the natural world to only survive and did not ponder the nature of the place he lived in such a deep manner that we might think. That humans now discredit, discount and do not/should not listen to past time rhetoric because we have come to know the world better than they. (which, like i say, is not "wrong") - Terrence Mckenna and others would give theories showing how many of these "god cultures" and other cultures were heavily influences by hallucinogenic substances - and there mixing of all kinds of substances that changed their perception of where they were among countless other things, If you google key words "moses dmt" all kinds of theories come up that we didnt think about before. *Many* of the translations of ancient cultures are now being proven to be absolute crap, border-lining forgery. The Egyptian book of the dead is mostly B.S. - Sumerian translations are mostly wrong.... "the annunaki" are never even mentioned and people show proof of this, from their theories of translation. Which leads us to start questioning our understanding of what these people meant and what they were even talking about....and if the "idiots" in the past like the kings james bible folks got the crap wrong too! (as you say) just like we do about all our current translations because our perceptions block us from true knowing of lost languages. they are lost. the context is not there! So modern time has such a complex and convoluted misunderstanding with the past people, all the way from translations of the words, to how we think these people lived, what and how they thought, and what they knew. How they lived and what they did from our now *current* understanding paints an entirely different picture of these civilization going back tens of thousands of years, with many of the "drug cultures" producing fascinating "knowledge" under the idea of heavy metaphor that was much more than just more stories... *Did they know that one can only say what something is like and not what something is a long time ago, something we are currently coming to understand, maybe again -but it a much higher way of understanding?* ....They just didn't have a way to relate it how we can, or the tools because their cultural and language evolution wasn't "up to par" - but they were still homo sapiens and their brains worked fantastic, just like ours. They might have used these stories to get there children to eat food, sure - is that all they pondered, I highly doubt it.... Its peculiar modern mainstream academia ignores most of these postulations of hallucinogenic substances(and other ideas) having a play in changing our perception of language and reality(though the studies are picking up again!) (I bet the CIA knew ;) lol) It might help us understand why they wrote about "god" - "but got it all wrong"...and why people still today who don't read the bible think about "god" but in a different yet still entirely "wrong way" - its complex because our language has evolved right now (as it did then) to a very interesting stage of how we are going to choose to relate to reality in the future! Interesting indeed! We need this stuff to be here unless *more* Ugs try to tell us about what thunder is in 2000 years with their anti science crap. they paradoxically *need* to be here and these debates from the *pettiest to the most grandiose* have to exist....because they have to! I am not nitpicking at your *great* analogies, but let us just ponder the fantasies relation in metaphor to reality! Can we deduce that the CIA is *only* fantasy because it was written by a fantasy writer? can his works be inspired by reality and his *ideas* of it? they are only metaphorical ideas that we can use to relate to reality, but like you say, the children do need to *wake up* and see what it is they are reading....for its many *truths falsehoods and most of all, like you said, in context* - As Darwin says, why push these things unto the masses so aggressively? are they ready for it? If it is pushed to them they will resist! and so now look what we have! we have creationist museums. Thanks again for your words, I again didn't mean to come off rude or anything as such! On a side note I like how Alan Watts puts it - we are all "god" playing a game on the very stage of "our" "creation" talking about this perplexing thing we are all in.... that we are all it! - the creation and the creator are not so separate in thought after all! we very well might be the godhead in a fun way! - (these are just words) - basically, what *if* we are all the godhead. (is this literal? I dunno... and probably not :) but DMT stories sure are fun though! and so is thinking and talking about it! - ideas, any and all! - pushing religious ideas to unwilling people though, i am not defending that! but the magic of the Idea, and language as Alan Moore(guy who wrote v for vendetta) would say - *is magic* as Aleister Crowley always light to play and hint at. And so i think we still have agnostics because they have a different way of viewing it and it has to exist, like all the rest!....and its just a word to conglomerate a bunch of people that actually, and truly, in all probability probably view the world quite separate from any one else's views if they all got together and just let their thoughts fly free of judgement!
Phelan Who are you aiming your comment at? The agnostic debate is a god debate. It is a special pleading debate because it takes an archetype out of a story to which is the only way we know of the archetype and then tells us we cannot say it is not real. Shadowthrone does not understand why Jews do not say their godhead's name (which he has one) out loud. I thought I made that clear with talking of the Egyptians and hearts etc. When you speak you speak with your breath and your breath was considered your soul. When you die you do not have it. So ancient man believed this was your soul. Some words were sacred and could only be said by trained individuals or otherwise one could cause chaos and invoke those entities wrath.
And this is the issue with stating that common sense conclusions based on reality are up for argument really hurt. Observable facts have to hold some prevalents over Imperceived Notions of reality.
The problem with Atheist defining Agnostic belief is the same as Theist defining Atheist belief...you all get it wrong because you base it on what YOU want, not what the true position is. Theist = A person who believes in a God based on either unsupported faith or evidence they accept or belief that proves there is a God. Atheist= A person who rejects the claims for the existence of a God because they dont accept the evidence presented for the existence of that God. Gnostic = A person who focuses their attention on religion, dogma and edicts that are used to govern their life. Agnostic - A person who doesn't use religion, dogma or edicts to govern their life. Gnosticism and Agnosticism are about the religion, not the belief in God. But if you ask a Atheist they will say its about the belief in a God. Look up the term Gnostic, then explain how the opposite of that has anything to do with the non-belief is a God. Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "learned", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world.[1] Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[3] However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic. So Agnosticism must be the opposite of that...
The opposite of someone who travels west, isn't someone who doesn't travel west. Its someone who travels east. Thus Atheist means you believe the opposite of theists, not that you don't believe.
x1134x well yes and no... Theist believe the evidence for God. Atheist DONT believe the evidence for God. Gnostic is a belief in RELIGION and worship, Agnostic is the disbelief in worship or religion. Atheist twist Agnostic to be nearly the same as what they think..doubt in God... that is the problem I am addressing.
yes agnostic distinguishes among those that are not theists, which ones believe there is no god (atheists) and those who do not believe that either (agnostics)
x1134x see that is where you are wrong, agnostics dont necessarily believe there is no God. agnostics dont believe in religion... the choice of accepting God is separate from religion.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims-are unknown or unknowable. So in that, We are all agnostic, whether we like that fact or not.
No, Sean -- agnostic simply means "without knowledge", i. e., you don't know. As it relates to god belief, NO ONE KNOWS -- not that it's unknowable. But yes, everyone who is honest with him/herself will admit to agnosticism on the god question. Simply, everyone is truly either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Don't know but believes, or don't know and doesn't believe.
Holy crap there is a lot of confusion here about the modern use of the adjectives agnostic/gnostic and nouns atheist/theist. Honestly people it is not that hard. One term refines the other. It is a knowledge claim combined with thee basic belief about a single proposition. This paradigm has been around for quite some time, but does indeed seem to be a recent way of thinking about belief and knowledge nonetheless. Anyone who says they don't know if a god exists is an agnostic. Anyone that still believes in a god regardless of they know for sure is a theist. Anyone who doesn't answer "yes" to "do you believe a god exists" is an atheist, who can then go on to state they KNOW no gods exist (gnostic or strong atheism) or don't believe but don't know for sure no gods could exist (agnostic or weak atheism). Look up weak and strong atheism and you should be able to find support for the gnostic/agnostic adjective paradigm.
And either way these are just stupid labels. One can change their position as evidence presents itself. It isn't a big deal to be in one box or the other as long as you are justified in your position. And being in one box doesn't mean you have to stay there, tow the party line, or be an activist. Just keep looking for evidence to justify your position or assume the default state of lacking a belief until that justification comes. Don't be scared of words like atheism. If you don't currently have an active belief that a god exists you are an atheist. Doesn't mean anything more than that.
***** Well, I am certainly not trying to shoehorn anyone into any category. But with true dichotomies and the spectrum they represent, people necessarily fall within those boundaries on their own by definition. Dichotomy 1: Know it or don't claim to know it. Dichotomy 2: Believe it, or don't believe it. One has to check off a box of each category just to be rational. As such, anyone on the face of the planet Earth is in one of four positions: Agnostic THEISM GNOSTIC theism Agnostic ATHEISM GNOSTIC atheism It isn't like a 3rd position could exist for either dichotomy (gnostic/agnostc and theism/atheism) so necessarily people fall into these categories. To deny this as some unjustified set of arbitrary categories... here is another pair of boxes people must fall into: dead and alive. Stating this fact doesn't make me some authority that wants to classify people. It is merely showing a dichotomy that must be all inclusive and thereby inescapable for classification. And these classifications are only useful in conversation anyway. It makes short the explanation of one's view of god claims (provided people know the definitions of those categories and understand the dichotomies they represent). It isn't for some nefarious purpose that we identiify categories for people. It is a useful tool for describing people. And it is indeed possible for people to identiify with more than one of these categories dephe context. If only one claim is addressed, for example, that Thor causes thunder, then I am a gnostic atheist regarding Thor. I not only do not believe that god claim, but know for a fact that no god is responsible for making thunder. But generally, for any POTENTIAL god claim I have to be an agnostic atheist, as I certainly cannot know that NO god could potentially exist but so far remain unconvinced and thus lack a belief in any god claims so far presented. Thus even these categories, though representing true dichotomies, offer the freedom in alignment with the complexity of human beliefs and knowledge.
***** Yup. It seems that some don't understand the difference between belief and knowledge and because of that lack of understanding CANNOT understand the distinction between agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism. What I find interesting is that for a Gnostic theist then belief IS knowledge due to their flawed use of faith as their primary justification. They would intrinsically lack the capability of understanding the distinction, even if it is well defined and described to them.
Gregory Dearth "Anyone who says they don't know if a god exists is an agnostic." And anyone who says they can't figure out whether they believe in any gods(as many agnostics are doing these days) is an idiot.
FourDeuce01 lol. That is the way I see it. Belief is not voluntary. You either have a belief or you don't. If you are unsure, you are speaking to the level of confidence you have in the belief of an assertion, as a knowledge attribute. A person that is unsure can still believe a god exists. A person could also be unsure that a god does not exist. It is so simple.
Just a thought - a solipsist has no burden of proof, because if his/her mind is all there is, whatever they believe is already proved to the satisfaction of the only mind that exists. Of course, debating with figments of your imagination seems rather pointless anyway.
I find it absolutely absurd that this conversation even has to take place! We don't have this argument about Santa Clause! I'm a 9.9999999...out of 10!
Ow Matt by discussing against agnostics here you do make a mistake, Jenn makes the point rightly the Something or Nothing is a bit of a strange stance for a agnostic, it could be a bit of something or mainly nothing, or maybe even in different degrees ;) But by saying you are a gnostic atheist (with almost near certainty) and then argue that indeed the nothing is the default position, thats with near certainty almost dipping your toes in the water ;) But i do know what you mean though. Regards,
2:38 matt says "Guadalupe" but pronounces it "gwad-a-loop" I always thought that word was pronounced "gwad-a-loo-pay" it is the address of the austin history center. Do people in Texas use alternate pronunciations of spanish words?
The agnostic who wrote this article says agnosticism Is about knowledge/ lack of knowledge and I don't care about what people don't know, and those claiming TO have knowledge must demonstrate it, not just assert it. So to me, 'agnosticism' is completely irrelevant and pointless.
When I say I don't believe in a god and they ask me to prove it, I say I can not prove that I don't believe it, if me making the statement is not enough. How would you have me prove my disbelief. Then they revise and ask me to prove god does not exist. And of course I then say I never made the claim that a god doesn't exist, I only said I don't believe.
Every religion has a lifetime curve. It starts at a known time, grows, declines and disappears at some other time later. All dead religions have followed this pattern. There is every reason to believe all existing religions will follow the same pattern. Some time in the future, Christianity will die. Why wait ?
Dear, the AGNOSTIC formerly known as incomprehensible, yes Jen is atheist, not believing in god/not convinced of gods existence, though would add she finds the god claim extremely unlikely, matt goes further believing/being convinced there is no god, I'm with Jen. Bottom line as long as the individuals concerned understand how words are used communication can proceed, have a good day.
Of course childish fairy tales are not reality. "supreme being" Is a childish stone age concept that doesn't belong in the 21st century.
10 років тому
I hate these kinds of agnostics with every fiber of my being. They are blatantly dishonest, and deserve no amount of admiration they end up getting by lying to people with bad critical thinking skills.
To be fair, sometimes it's just a stepping stone to atheism. if agnosticism prevents the theist from voting on harmful legislation, I'm all for it. Would I rather they jump to atheism right away and skip the lack-of-religion-but-still-poor-critical-thinking-skills phase? Sure. But better baby steps than no steps.
Being Neutrois or Agender is a gender all on its own despite lacking gender. The lack of a position has become a position in that former binary question of atheist or theist.
+DeviantDespot The term 'asexual' is probably more commonly used and would be synonymous with 'without gender' I guess. The term "atheist" has had a bad press for a long time. The term 'agnostic' merely means "without knowing" or "without knowledge" if you prefer. That's the original meaning anyway.
There is no way to prove a god does not exist. Thus, I can't be absolutely certain there is not one. And so, technically, I'm agnostic. But I don't bother with the label, and I don't think anyone else should. We're already a tiny minority, why divide ourselves any further? The important bit is we're atheists. We do not believe there is a God. We're gonna need each other, let's not fight about petty shit.
Ecksy Dee That is perfectly true. If pressed, I would identify myself as an agnostic atheist. I know that an atheist doesn't claim to know there is no God, but so many people think so that the modifier sometimes becomes necessary.
Could anyone please inform me on where the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism came from? It isn't found in any of the main philosophical/theological dictionaries which define atheism as the belief that there is no god. If you want to propose a new definition, don't assert that anyone who doesn't use it is wrong. The fact is that most people who self-label as agnostic atheists, do believe that it is more likely that there is no god. It also includes people who are genuine fence sitters which is why it's silly to equate them. All this talk of agnostic atheism just seems to be weasel words in an effort to define one's position as a non-position. If you think that god's existence is even slightly improbable then you have to justify that claim contrary to what Dillahunty says here.
***** It has been the trend lately to state that agnostics are atheists, which is what I am disagreeing with. Even according to your definition, agnostics don't outright reject the claim in the way atheists do.
slothape You seem to think that a word has power. Call me a double arsed belly-dancing purple striped llama farmer, if it makes you happy; it will not change the philosophical position that I hold. Perhaps you might come up with a description that better suits my, and a great many other people's position on the question "does god (or gods) exist?" Which we would answer with: "That seems fantastically, mind bendingly, colossally unlikely" If you think the claim that unicorns are even slightly improbable, then you have to justify that claim. If you think the claim that Leprechauns are even slightly improbable, then you have to justify that claim. If you think the claim that giant banana eating bat-eared giraffes from a planet in orbit around the star Rigel are even slightly improbable, then you have to justify that claim. also, most people's definitions of a god can easily be refuted, so give me your best, most accurate definition , and I'll have a go at falsifying it.
Its only using partial definition. You can look it up in the dictionary: Definition of ATHEISM: 1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity The "rejection of a claim" people seem to not have read 2b, nor do they understand the derivation of the word. Atheist literally means "the opposite of theist" the opposite of something is its complement, its actual opposite, not the entire set of things that are not the original thing. i.e. the opposite of a person traveling west is not someone who doesn't travel west, its someone who travels east. Thus the opposite of a theist, an atheist actively complements the belief of the theist who believes in a deity by believing there is no deity. Atheist and agnostic are contemporarily used to make the distinction of belief about the nonexistence of gods, A claim can be made that "there is no deity" just as there is a claim that "there is a deity" people who describe themselves as agnostic do so to convey that they reject both claims.
***** Take it up with merriam webster. Thats where we get the definition of terms. You can also look it up the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'm sure the people who wrote that book and have doctorates in philosophy know more about the meaning of the word, its derivation, and historical usage than you do. If you disagree with reference material, YOU are the one who is not too bright.
***** Again you're picking and choosing definitions and choosing to ignore ones that do not support your point. When I look up "a prefix" in the dictionary I also see "opposed to, opposite". . . So I'm still right. Merriam webster and the Stanfor Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written by people with doctorates in philosophy, know more about the word usage, derivation, and contemporary usage than you do. And I'm not religious, so that was a total swing and miss ad-hominem logical fallacy. I can see you're not going to be confused by facts, your mind is already made up.
The claim that there is only 1 answer the question "do you believe in a god" is ridiculas. Its not a yes or no question. There is a third option, and that is to say "There is no possible way for me to assess that question so i cant answer it yes or no." Its like asking someone if they believe shrödingers cat is alive or dead. If you honnestly believe that you dont have any information to assess that question then how can you honnestly say wether you believe or not.
"do you believe in a god" accept => theism everything else (not accept/confused/undecided) => a-theism [a-] meaning without a-theism = without theism / without acceptance of theism "if they believe shrödingers cat is alive" + "you dont have any information to assess that question" if you dont have any information then the honest approach is you are without acceptance of a belief that shrödingers is alive or dead. that doesnt mean you are proposing a belief merely stating without a particular belief.
I agree. How Matt should have put it is if asked the "do you believe in god" question, if you answer anything but "yes" you are to some degree an atheist. Do you believe in god?.... "I don't know" = agnostic atheist "not sure" = agnostic atheist "I can't no" = agnostic atheist "I know there is no god" = gnostic atheist "yes" = theist Do you believe in unicorns? "I don't know" = agnostic aunicornist "not sure" = agnostic aunicornist "I can't know" = agnostic aunicornist "I know there is no unicorns" = gnostic aunicornist "yes" = unicornist Study those analogies and you will figure it out.
tigerw222 Sadly..so many others do not and out of fear of the stigma of the term "atheist" rather resort to as much logical fallacies as a creationist to weasel and squirm their way around truth. Or, they just rant incoherently lol.
At least for me: Atheist=There is no God Theist=There is a God Agnostic=There could or could not be a God and we have no way of knowing. If God does exist, cool. If God doesn't exist, okay. I think the difference is that being Agnostic means that you are not okay with such certainty in either direction.
Close, but Agnostic is a supporting attribute to Theism/Atheism. Agnostic Theist=Cannot prove or disprove a god, but I believe there is one. Agnostic Atheist=Cannot prove or disprove a god, but I reject your claim of one. Gnostic Theist=I know god exists. Gnostic Atheist=I know god does not exist. Many Atheists are Agnostic Atheists, because if they were shown evidence of a god, most would change their view. Most Atheists do not believe absolutely that they know that god does not exist.
Wild Child Use your brain. Is there really such thing as a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist? No, there isn't. We call those people liars. They simply BELIEVE they "know". Thus rendering gnostic/agnostic used in this way totally meaningless.
x1134x I never said that gnostic Theists or Atheists are justified in their beliefs. Just that too many people think that Agnostic is the in between of Theist and Atheist and are totally misinterpreting the meaning. I've heard countless people commenting with "I don't know if there is a god or not, I'm Agnostic". No you're an idiot. They simply BELIEVE they "know". If they believe something, then in there mind to them they know. These are mostly the Theists who claim that they know there is a god and "talk" to him on a daily basis. Very rarely will you find a Gnostic Atheist. Because most understand that their is no absolute knowledge.
Someone should explain to Steve that “the atheist doctrine” is nonsense. “I know the atheist arguments…” He obviously doesn’t understand the atheist arguments.😜
While this show slams the suggestions of Ron, the person writing the article that they discuss early on. While technically they may be correct, as in gnosticism, and agnosticism deal with what you know and theism and atheism deal with what you believe the majority of people see it differently. Most people believe theism is believing in god with a high degree of certainty and Atheism disbelieving in god with a reasonable bit of certainty whereas they see being agnostic as unsure, or sitting on the fence so to speak. I would suggest therefore they are being unfair.
If someone asks me if I believe in God, I tell them I'm an agnostic. This isn't a "no" answer. This isn't a "yes" answer. This is a refusal to answer your belief question based on the grounds that there isn't enough knowledge to make a sound opinion about your god.
Indeed Agnostic has adopted a new meaning and people are using it correctly to describe a belief system. Agnosticism is a rejection of the forced dichotomy of atheism and theism, that is the purpose of it.
+CraftyMiscreant Agnosticism also holds another connotation of rejecting Atheist attempts to usurp them among their ranks. They don't identify with the connotations Atheism has acquired as well in the same way many people don't identify with the connotations Feminism as obtained.
there is one scientific question which makes atheism wrong: the question of the origin of the universe and the origin of the laws of physics. atheists admit that they do not have evidence of the origin of the universe and of the origin of the laws of physics, but they believe that it all just came from nothing. contrary to this, science permits the possibility that the laws of physics were created by some larger intelligence. that is why atheism is in conflict with the science. I consider myself agnostic and I think that all religions are wrong and that all Gods of all religions are false, but I think (and it is what I think, not what I believe) that it is more logical that laws of the physics and the universe were actually created by some higher intelligence. It is simply a question of pure logic. atheism is (by my opinion) illogical and it is a religion of its own.
How do you know the universe has a origin? How do you know it isn't infinite like a current hypothesis is suggesting? I am agnostic too, agnostic atheist. That's because atheism doesn't claim god doesn't exist.
***** The 2nd law does not apply to the universe... it is not a closed system. There are a few hypothesis that state the universe is infinite. it is possible.
Zanticus Yeah the big confusion comes when you don't label the people who dismiss theists' claims differently based upon how they treat "nonexistence" claims. Despite popular opinion of many self-described atheists from the Austin area, there really are MANY MANY people who not only do not believe theists's claims of a god existing, but also go further to assert their own claims that there is no god, never was, never needed to be. There's a HUGE difference between those people, and those who dismiss that claim as well. Classifying them all as just "atheists since they're not theists" is insufficient. There's as much difference between a non-believer of theists claims and a theist as there is between a non-believer of claims that god doesn't exist, and those who assert it. Modernly to the chagrin of the austin atheists club, the term "atheist" is being used to describe solely the people who make the claim that they believe no god exists, no creator exists, no deity whatsoever, and the people who dismiss this claim and dismiss the theists claim a god does exist are described as "agnostic".
the atheist experience is great - but from his very replies you can see he takes none of these ideas seriously at all - and for good reason! *but* - if you are going to disprove a flat earth and make a forum - or a channel to argue these principles and you want to assume the high ground for the audiences sake of learning, then you would think one would want to know *all* about these ideas - and not brush them aside as a "waste" of time(not saying he is wrong)...as he is now most certainly not arguing from a point of *knowing* .....as an atheist arguing all these things on a radio channel one should know and not generalize or at the very least refrain from debating the way he did if he didn't know jack about the subject. (the caller was nuts too) knowing an ideas absurdities and there deeper wonders will only ever put one in a position of superior argument..even if the don't believe it.......as they can only argue from "knowing" and from that he doesn't put himself in the best position of argument as a prominent atheist as he is openly refuting these philosophies on a generalized basis with out even understanding them( not saying he is right or wrong) ...if he would have know anything about the hilarious solipsism besides his dismissal based on the "general idea that they believe they are the only mind" he would have ended that debate right there on the basis of *knowing*....but the problem is he didn't read much about solipsism and only thought briefly on the absurd notion of there only being one mind.....so his bias has kept him from being able to refute solipsism from a true point of understanding and knowledge. (as solipsism can also loosely translate into eastern ideas of us all being part of the singular being....the one true "godhead") I'm not hating on the guy...I'm just saying if anything was a waste of time it was that part of the conversation where they both debated about something like they knew all about it with out knowing any of it.
yes, you either do or do not believe there is a god, but you also do or do not believe there isn't a god. thus the need for 3 classifications for the 3 possible answers to the two questions. (yes, and yes is an impossibility, but no, and no are not).
The {no, yes} set of responses you propose would be given by anti-theists who are rare among the population of most atheist. Probably similar in proportion and dogmatism among atheists as fundamentalist Christians are among theists.
Saying "they're saying 'agnosticism means ________' so they don't even know what the term agnostic even means", is no different than them saying "people are saying things like 'his head literally exploded when he heard the news', so they don't even know what the term 'literally' even means." Yet now the definition "to add emphasis without being literally true" sits alongside the original definition in the dictionary because people just kept using it that way, and it became so pervasive, that its commonly accepted and understood. The way "atheist" and "agnostic" are currently USED or "misused", determines their definitions. Atheist is mainly used to portray a person who asserts the negative claim, anti-theist just isn't used. Agnostic is mainly used to distance the believer from the perceived "negative claim" that they see atheists as making. This is more than likely because they use the a- prefix definition of "opposite to" rather than the "not" definition.
Theists and Atheists are just like 2 men in a totally dark room looking for a black cat, that isn't there. The difference is Theists have found it. ;-)
I have no evidence that there is life anywhere but on Earth. But I have this delusion that there is probably extraterrestrial life, I'm just not sure. I'm not sure that all the physical forces can be explained by one theory. But I support the delusional effort to do so and that does cost something. Would you like a longer list?
how come none of these people realise that they hear an echo because they have THEIR FRIGGIN TV VOLUME TURNED UP WHILST TALKING THRU THE PHONE? oh... they're Amerikan... *OH.. they're Texican* {nevermind}
There's gotta be a way to MEME or make a video to make a visualization of the hilariousness that is an atheist and an agnostic arguing in a comment board. A Trump supporter and Hillary supporter argue online they couldn't disagree more about everything. . . . a few back and forths, An Anti-abortionist and a Feminist argue online they disagree about everything but at least are orbiting around a subject. . . . about twice the size thread An atheist and an agnostic argue online, they agree about essentially EVERYTHING, their positions are essentially the same. . . . cue argument thread of DOOM, resurrected years later and re-resurrected years after that with flame hate and vitriol that leave the first four people mentioned aghast.
Do you believe there is a god? AND Do you believe there is no god? Theist: Do you believe there is a god? YES Do you believe there is no god? No. Atheist: Do you believe there is a god? NO Do you believe there is no god? Yes. Agnostic: Do you believe there is a god? No Do you believe there is no god? No. Yes, its binary, and yes there is a distinction, and yes atheist means you believe there is no god. Grab your merriam webster's dictionary: Definition of ATHEISM 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity See that definition 2b? Yup, that means "atheism" DOES mean that atheism used as "believes there is no diety" is a correct usage of the word.
Agnosticism does not address belief about the existence of God. "Atheist: Do you believe there is a god? NO " "Agnostic: Do you believe there is a god? No " You have defined them to be the same. The extension of your question is redundant. Any atheist who responds YES to the question "Do you believe there is no God" would be called a *strong atheist* or *anti-theist*. They have the burden of proof by virtue of making a claim. Agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic
The belief is easily inferred by your definition. Again, as athiests say belief is binary, you either do or do not. Its obvious from the agnostics belief about knowledge that they neither believe in god nor do they believe in the non-existence of god. The second question is not an extension and it is not redundant. Its not the same question. Its a wholly different question, and a wholly different portion of belief.
x1134x I am not sure what epistemology you are using as a basis for your claim. If you ask anyone the simple question "Do you believe that any gods exist?" and they respond with a "no" then that person has defined himself / herself as being an *atheist*. It's an a priori conclusion. Having a *belief* in something is basically the same as *accepting a claim* (presumably after using some form of reasoning to assess the truth value of it). The theist claim is that *God is real and exists* and the atheist response is *I do not accept that claim due to lack of evidence* therefore *I do not believe this claim*. If you asked the question "Do you believe that no gods exist" them the majority of atheists will say "no" (aside from the strong atheists/gnostic atheist). Even then you have to still define what you mean by the word "God" and even reference a specific deity as there have been so many. *I *do not believe* X" " I *believe* NOT X" One is a dismissal of a claim and the other is an acceptance of the contrary claim.
Not according to the reference materials and doctorates of philosophy I consulted when researching the matter. Its as simple as this: The "definition" of "literally" means that the act being described happened exactly as conveyed. Yet colloquially, and commonly the term is "misused" to describe impossibilities such as "his head literally exploded when he heard the news". Its "misused" SO MUCH , that now the dictionaries have updated to have an additional definition encompassing the use as emphasis without conveying literal truth. The same is true with the term agnostic. People use it to convey that not only do they not believe in a god, but also they do not believe there isn't or cannot exist a god of some sort. Its so common, that that's the new definition of agnostic. And no, you don't have to define a specific deity for the "do you believe that no gods exist question". That question encompasses all possible descriptions of a deity.
RE atheists " we're not selling something new; we're not buying what your selling" Beautiful! Really sums up where the burden of proof is too
Bringing up solipsism is just a way of derailing whatever conversation you were having before that point. It's like being presented with an essay, and, rather than reading the essay, starting on a tangent about how language is an arbitrary construct that we just agree to entertain for the purpose of communication. It's been a non sequitur every time it's come up, in my experience.
If the caller was a solipsist, then Matt did not hang up on him. The caller hung up on himself.
Ah but if solopsism is true then you imagined all that....... and this comment. And I don't exist.
peepee in bootyhole
This may be my favorite episode of Atheist Experience. It should be required viewing for anyone wanting to start a debate with an atheist.
Why?
Matt absolutely nails it at the 27 minute mark. This breed of agnostic intentionally distorts the fact that absolute certainty doesn't exist to justify belief in anything. If you press them on it, they will stick to their guns and claim that we should be agnostic about unicorns, leprechauns, big foot, etc. They aren't actually being intellectually honest. They're being incredibly dishonest and the fact that they spend the vast majority of their time attacking atheism leads me to believe that they are closeted theists. They are willing to claim that they don't have absolute certainty about the beginnings of the universe but it's clear in the positions that they take, that they see theism in one form or another as the more likely proposition. The fact that they won't sack up and take that position is what makes them cowards.
I think it has more to do with an idea presented in George Orwell 1984 - that being along the philosophy that humans truly don't know. we can only perceive and we are very flawed in our perception...and our truths are only good from a humans point. that 2+2=5 and one can make someone believe this
..if this is a truth, it scares many humans. it doesn't mean there are unicorns, but if if you are tortured into the thought that the horse is a unicorn, that is enough to *see* the horn that is not there on the thing that was only a horse or goat all along. see this as an idea to the reason of this philosophy.
The problem with many atheists(i have many friends who are atheists) is they have chosen to abandon and toss aside many ideas of philosophy based on positivism, scientific and analytically thought. the ideas need to stop being literalized, on both sides!
There are things to pick and choose arguments for. There is no need to impose ones reality unto others - as that will always lead to a dystopian society. These people exist and its how they feel and what they believe, unless you choose to kill and murder them, what will you do about it - we can educate people, that's about all that can be done and has been done,they are still here. lets not lead to irrational reasons to obliterate thoughts. we don't need to be thought police, but it is always good to refute it with good knowledge.
that's why they wont take sides. there is no sides. read more philosophy.
Patrick Thompson Its stupid to compare belief in a creator's existence to the earthly existence of unicorns, leprechauns, big foot etc. Why? because the amount of evidence for the two are not the same. We actually DO have VERY GOOD evidence that unicorns, leprechauns, big foot, etc do not exist on earth. MUCH MUCH more evidence than we have as to whether the universe has a creator.
Each and every claim of a deity or creator's existence is dismissed by agnostics, simply because the evidence is insufficient.
Each and every claim of a deity or creator's lack of existence is dismissed by agnostics, simply because the evidence is insufficient. It really is that easy to end up not believing in anything. You just reject claims other's put forth, because they have no meaningful evidence. Press me on it, and I'll tell you unicorns do not exist, because the evidence IS sufficient. Same with leprechauns and big foot.
It's odd how this agnostic sounds just like a theist, he's only railing against atheists, never has a bit of criticism for theism at all he's just calling atheists all kinds of names.....,huh....weird. I agree with Matts statement about how these agnostics are just people trying to act more intellectual than everyone else, and I'd add my belief that these agnostics are actually theists who don't have the balls to just admit it and go be theists.
Matt and Jen r perfect together and bring common sense and logic to a new level!
Some of my favorites are Jen and Tracie. They have great and varied experiences to draw on.
CALLS @ 30:08
The call from John about solipsism was confusing. I might misunderstand solipsism, but if you are the only mind that exists, what's the point calling a show and argue that you are? You must then already know/believe that the show, and the people in it, is only in your own mind, so you are actually arguing with yourself?
Seems totally pointless.
Your right, it is totally pointless.
agreed. He could just sit at home and argue with himself about why he created matt and the show and why he's imagining it all
Surround sound... Must be the reason 😊
Solipsism is a massive waste; it has 2 concept categories:
1. You are the only mind in existence. This is pure bullshit, loaded with arrogance -- that this one mind could conceive of both Bach's toccata &fugue in D minor, and 'Boot Scootin' Boogie', and perform both with no ability to demonstrate the skill to perform them. The arrogance is furthered by the idea that this mind could conceive of the universe as it is, and would not be aware of it until 'reading' Hawking's works.
2. You are a brain in a vat, being fed conceptual experiences, a la the matrix. While proving this false is nearly impossible, one need not disprove it -- those who claim it even as a possibility carry the burden of proof.
It's why I so enjoyed the episode with Matt & Jeff Dee, talking to Charles from Austin, dishonest asshole that he was (likely flying high on something, too), who waited until the abrupt end of the call to admit being a solipsist. Matt hung up on him within 2 seconds. Pure beauty.
I think it's different for everyone, but "Agnostic" was what I defined myself as when being fresh out of religion, but still believing in God, but just not sure what to believe about him. I became Atheist soon after. :-)
I envy you. I had a similar experience where I stopped being a catholic but looked for another denomination of Protestantism, didn't like it, stopped believing in the god of the bible about five years ago (called myself agnostic) and became atheist this year. Whew!
Good for you👍
If solipsism is true, then I am mighty proud of what my mind is able to create.
John's call (and presuppositional apologetics now in vogue) gave me an idea. Presuppostional Hard Nihilism.
1. I can be sure that my mind exists in some form.
2. I can't be sure other minds exist.
3. Other minds could be figments of my mind.
Why try to prove something to a figment of my imagination?
--- yeah. It's not fleshed out. And it may already be covered with standard Nihilism rhetoric. I dunno. I haven't delved. But as Matt talked, the idea of (Going in, "I win", is built in) presupposing victory popped into my head.
I have decided that, for all who read this, I will give you +2 on all of your character's saving and reaction rolls for 3 days.
Whenever Matt talks about the bat cruise, I can't help but think of Batman and Robin cruising the streets in the Batmobile :-D
Solipsism is arguing with yourself and not knowing the result. It makes no sense. If I am talking to myself, I agree with me.
Can't people make the distinction between reality, and an experience of reality?
I can see Jen flying the helicopter and making a safe approach and landing. She's one cool lady!
I think the reason people call themselves agnostics instead of atheists is because it does not explicitly say "the emperor has no clothes" while saying you are an atheist does. Theists react more negatively to being told that you don't believe their fairy tale than being told that you don't know whether their fairy tale is true or not. You may actually not believe in their fairy tale while being agnostic, but you haven't actually said it. They appreciate your discretion.
Curse them leprechauns for stealin' my dough.
1.13.36 were not buying what your selling, as u have nothing 2 sell...
So sick of the cowards who think they are a middle ground "agnostic"
That depends on what you mean by "agnostic."
Most people think of it as some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism, but theism and atheism are particular answers to a particular metaphysical question, whereas agnosticism (as a philosophy) is an answer to the question of what is and is not knowable.
Under the colloquial definition, I would agree with you, but I don't agree if we are talking about the more formal definition of agnosticism as the latter allows for both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
Remember that most atheists are agnostic atheists. Also respect.
Cowards, lol. If you measure courage by how strong one's religious convictions are, you've lived a very soft life.
GodDidJesusInTheButt
That's a bit backwards. It doesn't take much intellectual courage to be honest about one's beliefs, so if you can't even do that, you're probably an intellectual coward.
I do think using the word "courage" in this context is a bit confusing and not really necessary. It's usually used to put down the other person.
Discussing philosophical positions is fine and is obviously useful but it is also often little more than an intellectual game/exercise. It is one of the reasons I like Matt in that he is perfectly capable of going down that route but he is also a pragmatic person.
For me I am simply a "non-believer" I think its an easier and a less convoluted term. it avoids a lot of defining terms and waffle.
A non-believer could still be taken as you being a deist. You're just a non-believer in the same way as you are not a follower? Since as a diest there may be nothing to follow, since the god in question is not a personal one. So there may still be a need to define your terms.
MikeTall88
Not really, deists still believe in a God. I'm a non-believer - I have no belief in the existence of Gods.
about sollipsisms, from the point of proving the existence of god, wouldn't claiming that no other mind exists kinda takes away any chance of convincing us that the hypothetical alternate reality is actually real?
End of announcements: 5:20
Agnostic: I don’t know yet :)
-yet-
"agnostic": I will not allow people which I don't allow myself. Knowledge.
11:24, no they're now called "lying theists" or "delusional theists". We already know they really classify as "agnostic" theists because they don't know anything, and we know they don't know, so their claim of knowledge is meaningless. Just as meaningless as discussing "these people claim to be human, and these people claim not to be human". We know they're all human. Its just idiocy to even discuss such claims.
My perceptions have a very sturdy foothold in reality, I know this because my perceptions serve me extremely well. Solipsism is a useless position and it the knowledge of it, if it is true, is absolutely worthless.
Agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions. Agnosticism is to Knowledge. Atheism is to Belief.
I really get tired of the agnostic debate. The entire debate is skewed. I am 46 and have studied religion since I was brought up on bogus charges in the Army when I was 19 being accused of practicing witchcraft in the barracks and having a coven. I wrote the below on another vid after reading one agnostic after another act like they had the superior position and yes the snobbery. As well I do not worship science. It is ever changing. We may never know why some things are the way they are. Dawkins btw say he was a 6 leaning 7. His scale was expanded btw. When I say real below I am saying reality. If there is another reality we are not perceiving it. That other reality is unknown to us. What I wrote:
What is truly amazing is how we are still embroiled into this argument that is nothing more than philosophical hand waving, a basic Philosophy 101 of Special Pleading, the old Agnostic vs Atheist debate.
As said before Huxley promoted science as being the model to explain the natural world and that religion was an invalid model to do so. What some hold onto was his next comment, “at best highly unlikely.” But the reality is agnostic as in without gnosis as in knowledge was saying the Supernatural is unknowable to us. Not well it could exist on some planet on the other side of the galaxy. It was saying the unreal was just that not real and we could never know the unreal because if we did it would not mean it was unreal but real and thus again we never knew the unreal.
So as we explore the Universe whatever we find will be real, it will be explained by the natural world even if we currently do not have the knowledge of science to understand it at that moment. Atomic theory btw was started back in 475 BCE in Greece. Other Greeks and Romans expanded on it and then it went dormant till the Renaissance when we moved into the modern era of science.
Now on to the Special Pleading, we like to think we are such smart almost hairless human apes but with our Philosophical Hand Waving we have kept ourselves down with the lower primates and among the dumb monkeys.
We have taken Harry Potter and all the characters within these scriptures we call fiction writing and broken them down to their basic hero and anti hero archetypes and then have said well I cannot say those archetypes are not real and do not exist. Why if I do that I have made an extraordinary claim and now I must prove that Harry Potter does not exist. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. Etc etc. All the while acting like I am being logical. Ignoring the fact that we are talking about fiction writing. And to be clear things made up that are not real.
If we took all the fiction writing we have today and transported them back 2000 years and hell we do not even have to go that far many would look at all of this as non fiction and think these events happened. And why would a polytheistic world doubt what the Jews and later Christians said to have actually happened? Their gods did things too. They performed miracles as well. So wouldn’t they think it was real unless they were starting to see that all of this was fantasy and made up. But then again every religion is atheist to another religion in most cases. Why my make believe things are real but yours are not. Why yours is just silly but mine makes perfect sense.
Many and this includes some agnostics and atheists are not going to think I am serious for using Harry Potter or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, or even the bogeyman because NO one thinks for even the slightest that any of these things are anything more than literary inventions and not real. No one says well you can’t say they do not exist. Come on dumb monkeys. You know. You know. Yes, you know. This is fiction. This is how we humans learned ethics and how to handle conflicts etc. We create stories to teach ourselves moral lessons.
We have taken what a bunch of goat herders have written down about how they think the world is and strip them of specific details down to basic archetypes and then saying to what is left WELL YOU CAN’T PROVE IT DOES NOT EXIST while IGNORING that they are all literacy characters that are designed as teaching tools. We learn this in ENGLISH COMP AND LITERATURE.
In Comparative Mythology and Cultural Anthropology we see that religion is nothing short of cultural evolution and that most of the worlds myths stem from Ancient Egypt just spitting out the same things but with each new cultural slight spin on it. None of it was ever real and none of these goat herders or dirt farmers knew about some entity on the other side of the galaxy. They had no clue. So if we found such an entity A) it was never what they were talking about and B) it will be a natural entity. See unreal above. BUT we better hope that this species likes us and does not see us in its way for its own survival or our own species will be doing the Ghost Dance and Trail of Tears on the road to our own extinction.
And how could I possible accept this? The same way I accept macroevolution since the macro is nothing but a series of micro levels. I have no reason not to believe that the micro level workings of today would not work the same as the micro level workings 200 million years ago. I have no reason and better yet rational reason to believe that chemical bonding on this side of the galaxy will not work the same on the other side. Gravity measurements will fluctuate but the math will remain the same. Meaning I can calculate it.
So we see micro literature and have no reason to believe that on the macro level it is any different. Rationally we can look and see how primitive man believed the heart was where the soul was. Think little monkeys think. Why would they think that? What is the difference between a dead man and one who is alive? I am primitive man and I only have my senses to guide me. Could I not put my hands on the chest of one I think is asleep and feel nothing but on mine I feel a beating. But this still does not quite explain why they thought it was where the soul was. What else was different between a dead man and one who is alive? We see the chest is not moving and our hand over their mouth we feel nothing yet on ourselves and others who are standing around we see our chests moving and we feel something on our hands that are held over our mouth. Yes they were all mouth breathers. Go with it.
So that thing we call breath must have left their body and that breath is your soul. Hence why some words could not be spoken out loud and were considered too sacred to speak with your soul. Then came the question well where did the soul go? Hence why the Egyptians did not preserve the brain but the heart and why they felt in the afterlife one had their heart weighed and if heavier than a feather then you were devoured and hence why the Maya and Aztecs did not bash open some ones skull and toss their brains to the gods to appease them but ripped open their chest to tear out their still beating heart.
And thus our journey begins in believing fiction writing was real but it was NEVER real, all literary devices no different than Harry Potter. Oh but all some will get from this is WELL YOU CANNOT SAY THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST and we are back to being dumb monkeys not fit to be next to the great apes as we wrestle back down to the hand waving of Philosophy 101 and believe we are being honest and truthful when we are just deluding ourselves and one reason why we cannot have nice things.
It is time for the children to grow up.
That was a whole lot of words to say we have been debating about the wrong things for far too long my friend! science is a hand waving philosophy as well i might add. its just refined and has reaped us many rewards, but it requires the philosophy of science and adhering to this "philosophy" to work.
thank you for your words though.
I still think it is more complex than the way you describe (though of course then you would have never been able to stop typing, lol)
but i think it is one of many important aspects as to why this phenomenon exists.
-that is, trying to connect and perceive a reality external to us....which i believe came from the inability to relate to what they experienced, namely from hallucinogenic substances
- and it very well may be fictional stories of all kinds but because of their limiting language and limited perception of reality they relied heavy on metaphor and analogy
- something we as modern humans have mostly forgotten in our scientific and analytic nature, using a much more direct way to describe something
....and *somehow* the majority of us forgot that was the case all along, and that language only developed to better literalize our perceived reality....disconnecting use from stories of learning.
(like we do when relating to science as our language is becoming outdated in comparison to relate to science in a modern and much more efficient way)\
(that doesn't mean reality external to use doesn't exist.....but it is safe not to bother ones self in a place they don't "exist" in, even more so when it starts affecting our reality in very real ways. like religious wars. )
shadowthrone That was a whole lot of words for saying what? You agree with me or do not agree with me? And my word count should be unimportant. It displays a dismissive tone like I needed your permission to type anything. Gee really? Politics requires some philosophical hand waving as well but that is ALL that agnosticism is today.
Science is both agnostic and atheistic because it has no knowledge of any supernatural or belief in it.
As I said Huxley who coined the phrase to describe himself and others like him are more like atheists today than agnostics are today. Science does make an experiment and then say well here are the results and its shows this substance is largely copper but you know it just might be a rainbow out of a unicorn's ass. Do you get that? It does not leap to the supernatural for unexplained things. When it says well we are not sure about this it is not saying well it could be satan, hmmmm.
Now do you mean theoretical physics perhaps? That is still going off what we know by what we have conducted experiments on. We know that DNA is in all life that we know. We know that DNA requires water. So where we find water we might just find life. NOW we know theoretically that their may be life based on silicone but that is NOT supernatural belief nor philosophical hand waving.
Religion is cultural evolution. I already covered what you typed so did you actually read it or just skim it and then wanted to talk like you agree about it? And why does it have to be complex for it to make sense?
MOST religious stem from Ra Theology. That is they are the retelling of the stories from ancient Egypt. Christianity, Islam, Judaism stem from this. Judaism has a mixture of Mesopotamia as well. Now what came before them? Actual gods, right? Surely not the same thing just not recorded in history, right? Of course no it must be this external reality, right? This other dimension ... oooo ahhhhh. *cue spooky music*
Ug sees Gog laying by a tree. Gog does not respond. Ug looks at Gog and is confused. He does not know what to do. He puts his hand to Gog's chest and feels nothing. He puts his hand to his own chest and feels movement. He puts his hand over Gog's mouth and feels nothing. He puts his hand over his own mouth and feels movement but cannot see it. (Yes both Ug and Gog were mouth breathers.) What does Ug get from this? How does he explain this? Ug believes that Gog's life force has left his body. Ug still has his life force because he can feel it still. Ug tells others. They ask Ug, "but where did it go?" Now Ug says...
This is the basis right there and why ancient Man believed our life force was in the center of our chest or hmm the heart. That is what the word means. They had no way of knowing that our brain is who we are. They had no way of measuring it. So their mythology stated the heart upon death would be weighed. This life force became known as your soul. This is why certain words because sacred and/or words no one or only specially trained people could speak. Why? Because you spoke them with your soul and you might summon those entities etc.
This is the basis for all religions. Ug is sitting with his children and thunder is heard and then lightening strikes a tree. Ug is frightened but more pissed at his kids who will not eat their meat so Ug says, hear that? That is Krom sitting high on his mountain in the clouds. He is mad that you have not eaten your meat. You cannot have your pudding till you eat your meat.
These stories get tuned to the culture they are told in. They get altered slightly. We still speak in metaphor and analogy. These were prime tools throughout all the middle ages as most people were illiterate. Bards would sing songs with some moral lesson. Robyn Hoode is a prime example. We still see metaphor and analogy in our literature and media.
What happens is context is lost over the ages and people forget the original context. That is what is so funny about Christian bible study in that it differs so much from say Judaism over the SAME verses. So we have lost the original context of the retelling of these stories. Which is what a joke about a Pope is inferring. A Pope dies after spending decades dedicated to the church and once in Heaven he wants to rush to the Library so he can read the original texts. Hours go by when a loud scream can be heard in the otherwise silent library, :IT'S CELEBRATE!!!"
Now losing the context would be no different if we took a Tom Clancy novel and buried it to be dug up 1000 years from now. How would those people know that was a fiction book and not take it as literal events? They might dig up a sign that says Baltimore and somewhere else dig something else that talks of the CIA while an old phone book is discovered that has a Jack Ryan in it. Does this mean all of those events actually happened?
Now what do you mean by external realities? If there are parallel universes that does not make them supernatural. And reality in of itself is external to us. We simply live in it. Reality would not cease to exist if we did. This is why the supernatural is unknowable to us. As we expand our knowledge of reality we see no evidence of any supernatural. And again if there is a multiverse it is still reality not realities. Did you mean supernatural then?
Devin MacGregpr No i agree with you man, i do indeed! I'm sorry i didn't make it clear that I meant it sucks that's what our language has become(so convoluted), your points are clear to me so far, maybe i dont see all you imply when you apply these words but they translate well enough! (but most lack this ability to apply critical thought it seems) - and that it truly is such a simple reason why every thing has become so convoluted!
I dont think thats all agnosticism is today(though a majority are), though i think all the magical and whimsical things do need to be excluded if anyone ever wants to take them seriously in an age of critical thought.
what i mean i supposed would be the current type of philosophy we are headed today, that *can* help us understand why these types of things exist in a more thorough nature, so that mankind might transcend such folly.(being "post-positivism" and bringing together every ones fallible theories - the article i will link describes what im trying to say well i think, with out typing it all here!.....dang language)
www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
like i said, i agree with the B.S. about supernatural philosophy, we have transcended that for the body of people that matters, to continue in progression of mankind. These people will be here though and just need to be ignored to the best we can and inform those who care.
I agree we still do speak in metaphor and analogy ("we are stuck in a linguistic trap all that is is metaphor" -Robert Anton Wilson)
- like the link i showed you. but there is still distinction to be made, and we can "transcend" our current view of understanding how copper is not just copper, how even though our machines show us this information, maybe we are still lacking perception to find other things out there beyond what we know.
like how plato pondered about a perfect sphere, though no perfect sphere is in nature, the simple fact that we can think of it but not perceive it leads us to understand "external reality" - but with the touch of science this is becoming ever more apparent in our ability to perfect a theory.(taking into account the theory of every ones postulations...even the B.S. ones we say are B.S....because they just paradoxically have to be there lol...)
Again, im not even arguing the crazy creation theorys that somehow a lot are still debating about in some type of literal manner! (because they aren't applying critical thought like you and i are right now, they only learned to see things in a strait forward literalized and analytic way , "lacking metaphorical" type of views - they dont even realize thats all language is! they think it is the literal translation of "reality", and therefore loose basis *with* reality
I do like your words, therefor i engaged in conversation with you! sorry it came off wrong :) i didnt think i was being so critical and opposed to what you said! just putting my twist on it! As liking what you said, i might like to hear more! (even if it is not what i know currently and currently believe, i would always like to hear others and therefore further my own knowing!)
Devin MacGregpr Also sorry i didn't get to elaborate more, it was late.
But like the link I posted in my previous text, about post-positivism - it gives us a way of thinking that all theories are fallible in some way, scientists are humans, and therefore are bound to the bias and emotions of mankind. That logic still derives from humans postulation of what knowledge and truth is and how to attain it. Leading us to believe that one can not truly find attainable knowledge of "the truth" with logic, or anything for that matter. That is to say we can't ever understand "reality" in its "truest form", as for humans this is absolutely impossibly and we can only reflect upon it through triangulation of all peoples limited perceptions of the organic beings that we know we are; their thoughts, emotions, theories and all...So we should take care to literalize ideas like god....Which is why many ancient Jews wouldn't even give "god" a name(all that is is metaphor)...and why there was initiation for a lot of the esoteric stuff...because it took too long to ramble on about other humans ideas if those particulars aren't interested to begin with! (which is now what is happening to science and the anti science people)
- It will take a lot more to describe in the most accurate way "true/external reality" than even what our current sciences can attain, I believe.(I'm not trying to credit some creationist god)
- That we need to triangulate (as that link describes it in a neat way) all these ideas and theories and say in a "sense" (not literal what so ever) that they are *all* true in some way, false in some way and a mixture of the both in...in some way (as they are moral metaphorical stories that don't require what modern days literal interpenetration claims....)
-Many agnostics take the philosophy of deism(and even druidism....like the mystical people), but they view it as it is one of the *better* (not only) ways to say what something is*like* as we can never say what something *is* (as science in the positivist view claims)....because all that is is metaphor.
-*Not* that it cant go hand in hand with science, but i think a new language entirely would have to come from this understanding of our "new" world, and it will take quite a long time I'm sure, to formulate a better language. A language that doesn't deny what we *obviously* know and have learned of our world....that *obviously* a man isn't in the sky....in some literal sense...(eastern philosophy approaches it in a way that was "beyond its time" IMO
- trying to use the natural laws and explanations, its imperfections and the fractal nature of our experience to relate to the "unattainable" "perfection of all forms" )
I am not saying you are wrong, but the theory you put forth, from my understanding, assumes that mankind, "Ug", was a stupid idiot who only lived in the natural world to only survive and did not ponder the nature of the place he lived in such a deep manner that we might think. That humans now discredit, discount and do not/should not listen to past time rhetoric because we have come to know the world better than they. (which, like i say, is not "wrong")
- Terrence Mckenna and others would give theories showing how many of these "god cultures" and other cultures were heavily influences by hallucinogenic substances - and there mixing of all kinds of substances that changed their perception of where they were among countless other things, If you google key words "moses dmt" all kinds of theories come up that we didnt think about before.
*Many* of the translations of ancient cultures are now being proven to be absolute crap, border-lining forgery. The Egyptian book of the dead is mostly B.S. - Sumerian translations are mostly wrong.... "the annunaki" are never even mentioned and people show proof of this, from their theories of translation.
Which leads us to start questioning our understanding of what these people meant and what they were even talking about....and if the "idiots" in the past like the kings james bible folks got the crap wrong too! (as you say) just like we do about all our current translations because our perceptions block us from true knowing of lost languages. they are lost. the context is not there!
So modern time has such a complex and convoluted misunderstanding with the past people, all the way from translations of the words, to how we think these people lived, what and how they thought, and what they knew. How they lived and what they did from our now *current* understanding paints an entirely different picture of these civilization going back tens of thousands of years, with many of the "drug cultures" producing fascinating "knowledge" under the idea of heavy metaphor that was much more than just more stories...
*Did they know that one can only say what something is like and not what something is a long time ago, something we are currently coming to understand, maybe again -but it a much higher way of understanding?*
....They just didn't have a way to relate it how we can, or the tools because their cultural and language evolution wasn't "up to par" - but they were still homo sapiens and their brains worked fantastic, just like ours.
They might have used these stories to get there children to eat food, sure - is that all they pondered, I highly doubt it....
Its peculiar modern mainstream academia ignores most of these postulations of hallucinogenic substances(and other ideas) having a play in changing our perception of language and reality(though the studies are picking up again!) (I bet the CIA knew ;) lol)
It might help us understand why they wrote about "god" - "but got it all wrong"...and why people still today who don't read the bible think about "god" but in a different yet still entirely "wrong way"
- its complex because our language has evolved right now (as it did then) to a very interesting stage of how we are going to choose to relate to reality in the future! Interesting indeed! We need this stuff to be here unless *more* Ugs try to tell us about what thunder is in 2000 years with their anti science crap. they paradoxically *need* to be here and these debates from the *pettiest to the most grandiose* have to exist....because they have to!
I am not nitpicking at your *great* analogies, but let us just ponder the fantasies relation in metaphor to reality! Can we deduce that the CIA is *only* fantasy because it was written by a fantasy writer? can his works be inspired by reality and his *ideas* of it? they are only metaphorical ideas that we can use to relate to reality, but like you say, the children do need to *wake up* and see what it is they are reading....for its many *truths falsehoods and most of all, like you said, in context*
- As Darwin says, why push these things unto the masses so aggressively? are they ready for it? If it is pushed to them they will resist! and so now look what we have! we have creationist museums.
Thanks again for your words, I again didn't mean to come off rude or anything as such!
On a side note I like how Alan Watts puts it - we are all "god" playing a game on the very stage of "our" "creation" talking about this perplexing thing we are all in.... that we are all it! - the creation and the creator are not so separate in thought after all! we very well might be the godhead in a fun way!
- (these are just words)
- basically, what *if* we are all the godhead. (is this literal? I dunno... and probably not :) but DMT stories sure are fun though! and so is thinking and talking about it! - ideas, any and all!
- pushing religious ideas to unwilling people though, i am not defending that! but the magic of the Idea, and language as Alan Moore(guy who wrote v for vendetta) would say - *is magic* as Aleister Crowley always light to play and hint at.
And so i think we still have agnostics because they have a different way of viewing it and it has to exist, like all the rest!....and its just a word to conglomerate a bunch of people that actually, and truly, in all probability probably view the world quite separate from any one else's views if they all got together and just let their thoughts fly free of judgement!
Phelan Who are you aiming your comment at?
The agnostic debate is a god debate. It is a special pleading debate because it takes an archetype out of a story to which is the only way we know of the archetype and then tells us we cannot say it is not real.
Shadowthrone does not understand why Jews do not say their godhead's name (which he has one) out loud. I thought I made that clear with talking of the Egyptians and hearts etc. When you speak you speak with your breath and your breath was considered your soul. When you die you do not have it. So ancient man believed this was your soul. Some words were sacred and could only be said by trained individuals or otherwise one could cause chaos and invoke those entities wrath.
For those interested in _Proposition 8_ - it's history and conclusions, look here:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
And this is the issue with stating that common sense conclusions based on reality are up for argument really hurt. Observable facts have to hold some prevalents over Imperceived Notions of reality.
Such an interesting topic, such a letdown with the solipsism debate. I wish I was a brain in a jar so no-one would mention solipsism again!.
5. I always wonder why they call it ''hold'' when he puts them on hold I know it as ''on silent'' or ''secrecy''
Permanent ignore? ...
The problem with Atheist defining Agnostic belief is the same as Theist defining Atheist belief...you all get it wrong because you base it on what YOU want, not what the true position is.
Theist = A person who believes in a God based on either unsupported faith or evidence they accept or belief that proves there is a God.
Atheist= A person who rejects the claims for the existence of a God because they dont accept the evidence presented for the existence of that God.
Gnostic = A person who focuses their attention on religion, dogma and edicts that are used to govern their life.
Agnostic - A person who doesn't use religion, dogma or edicts to govern their life.
Gnosticism and Agnosticism are about the religion, not the belief in God. But if you ask a Atheist they will say its about the belief in a God. Look up the term Gnostic, then explain how the opposite of that has anything to do with the non-belief is a God.
Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "learned", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world.[1] Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[3] However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic.
So Agnosticism must be the opposite of that...
The opposite of someone who travels west, isn't someone who doesn't travel west. Its someone who travels east. Thus Atheist means you believe the opposite of theists, not that you don't believe.
x1134x
well yes and no...
Theist believe the evidence for God. Atheist DONT believe the evidence for God.
Gnostic is a belief in RELIGION and worship, Agnostic is the disbelief in worship or religion.
Atheist twist Agnostic to be nearly the same as what they think..doubt in God... that is the problem I am addressing.
yes agnostic distinguishes among those that are not theists, which ones believe there is no god (atheists) and those who do not believe that either (agnostics)
x1134x
see that is where you are wrong, agnostics dont necessarily believe there is no God. agnostics dont believe in religion... the choice of accepting God is separate from religion.
I didn't say agnostics don't believe there is not god, I said they don't believe that.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims-are unknown or unknowable. So in that, We are all agnostic, whether we like that fact or not.
We're all agnostic and nostic and theist and atheist, if we count in all propositions and all Gods, yes.
MikeTall88 Not to forget, afairyeists
No, Sean -- agnostic simply means "without knowledge", i. e., you don't know. As it relates to god belief, NO ONE KNOWS -- not that it's unknowable. But yes, everyone who is honest with him/herself will admit to agnosticism on the god question.
Simply, everyone is truly either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Don't know but believes, or don't know and doesn't believe.
Holy crap there is a lot of confusion here about the modern use of the adjectives agnostic/gnostic and nouns atheist/theist. Honestly people it is not that hard. One term refines the other. It is a knowledge claim combined with thee basic belief about a single proposition. This paradigm has been around for quite some time, but does indeed seem to be a recent way of thinking about belief and knowledge nonetheless. Anyone who says they don't know if a god exists is an agnostic. Anyone that still believes in a god regardless of they know for sure is a theist. Anyone who doesn't answer "yes" to "do you believe a god exists" is an atheist, who can then go on to state they KNOW no gods exist (gnostic or strong atheism) or don't believe but don't know for sure no gods could exist (agnostic or weak atheism). Look up weak and strong atheism and you should be able to find support for the gnostic/agnostic adjective paradigm.
And either way these are just stupid labels. One can change their position as evidence presents itself. It isn't a big deal to be in one box or the other as long as you are justified in your position. And being in one box doesn't mean you have to stay there, tow the party line, or be an activist. Just keep looking for evidence to justify your position or assume the default state of lacking a belief until that justification comes. Don't be scared of words like atheism. If you don't currently have an active belief that a god exists you are an atheist. Doesn't mean anything more than that.
***** Well, I am certainly not trying to shoehorn anyone into any category. But with true dichotomies and the spectrum they represent, people necessarily fall within those boundaries on their own by definition.
Dichotomy 1: Know it or don't claim to know it.
Dichotomy 2: Believe it, or don't believe it.
One has to check off a box of each category just to be rational. As such, anyone on the face of the planet Earth is in one of four positions:
Agnostic THEISM
GNOSTIC theism
Agnostic ATHEISM
GNOSTIC atheism
It isn't like a 3rd position could exist for either dichotomy (gnostic/agnostc and theism/atheism) so necessarily people fall into these categories.
To deny this as some unjustified set of arbitrary categories... here is another pair of boxes people must fall into: dead and alive. Stating this fact doesn't make me some authority that wants to classify people. It is merely showing a dichotomy that must be all inclusive and thereby inescapable for classification.
And these classifications are only useful in conversation anyway. It makes short the explanation of one's view of god claims (provided people know the definitions of those categories and understand the dichotomies they represent). It isn't for some nefarious purpose that we identiify categories for people. It is a useful tool for describing people.
And it is indeed possible for people to identiify with more than one of these categories dephe context. If only one claim is addressed, for example, that Thor causes thunder, then I am a gnostic atheist regarding Thor. I not only do not believe that god claim, but know for a fact that no god is responsible for making thunder. But generally, for any POTENTIAL god claim I have to be an agnostic atheist, as I certainly cannot know that NO god could potentially exist but so far remain unconvinced and thus lack a belief in any god claims so far presented.
Thus even these categories, though representing true dichotomies, offer the freedom in alignment with the complexity of human beliefs and knowledge.
***** Yup. It seems that some don't understand the difference between belief and knowledge and because of that lack of understanding CANNOT understand the distinction between agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism. What I find interesting is that for a Gnostic theist then belief IS knowledge due to their flawed use of faith as their primary justification. They would intrinsically lack the capability of understanding the distinction, even if it is well defined and described to them.
Gregory Dearth "Anyone who says they don't know if a god exists is an agnostic."
And anyone who says they can't figure out whether they believe in any gods(as many agnostics are doing these days) is an idiot.
FourDeuce01 lol. That is the way I see it. Belief is not voluntary. You either have a belief or you don't. If you are unsure, you are speaking to the level of confidence you have in the belief of an assertion, as a knowledge attribute. A person that is unsure can still believe a god exists. A person could also be unsure that a god does not exist. It is so simple.
Does anybody smell a media grab with this letter? Not much different than all the anti-atheist books with "New Atheism" in the title.
Just a thought - a solipsist has no burden of proof, because if his/her mind is all there is, whatever they believe is already proved to the satisfaction of the only mind that exists. Of course, debating with figments of your imagination seems rather pointless anyway.
I find it absolutely absurd that this conversation even has to take place! We don't have this argument about Santa Clause! I'm a 9.9999999...out of 10!
I'm an 11 (*10^inf).
Ow Matt by discussing against agnostics here you do make a mistake, Jenn makes the point rightly the Something or Nothing is a bit of a strange stance for a agnostic, it could be a bit of something or mainly nothing, or maybe even in different degrees ;)
But by saying you are a gnostic atheist (with almost near certainty) and then argue that indeed the nothing is the default position, thats with near certainty almost dipping your toes in the water ;) But i do know what you mean though.
Regards,
The audio is too low..
2:38 matt says "Guadalupe" but pronounces it "gwad-a-loop" I always thought that word was pronounced "gwad-a-loo-pay" it is the address of the austin history center. Do people in Texas use alternate pronunciations of spanish words?
If you think you're a brain in a vat and I think I'm a brain in a vat, than doesn't that prove solipsism to be untrue?
Yes, but... maybe I only think I'm a brain in a vat because I'm an idea in your head, and you decided I should think I'm a brain in a vat!?!?
The agnostic who wrote this article says agnosticism Is about knowledge/ lack of knowledge and I don't care about what people don't know, and those claiming TO have knowledge must demonstrate it, not just assert it. So to me, 'agnosticism' is completely irrelevant and pointless.
davids11131113 That's not really what agnosticism is about. Its the archaic (old and no longer used) definition.
1:11:17 "then you're out of gas!" ROFL, dammit Jen that's funny
What is the name of the opening song, and who's it by? I love it.
When I say I don't believe in a god and they ask me to prove it, I say I can not prove that I don't believe it, if me making the statement is not enough. How would you have me prove my disbelief. Then they revise and ask me to prove god does not exist. And of course I then say I never made the claim that a god doesn't exist, I only said I don't believe.
Ask them how they would like to be shown something not existing.
Kel is on an alien craft,
Every religion has a lifetime curve. It starts at a known time, grows, declines and disappears at some other time later. All dead religions have followed this pattern. There is every reason to believe all existing religions will follow the same pattern. Some time in the future, Christianity will die. Why wait ?
And when a religion dies we recategorise it as 'mythology'.
In Australia the term Agnostic seems to mean having two way bet either way you win
Dear, the AGNOSTIC formerly known as incomprehensible, yes Jen is atheist, not believing in god/not convinced of gods existence, though would add she finds the god claim extremely unlikely, matt goes further believing/being convinced there is no god, I'm with Jen. Bottom line as long as the individuals concerned understand how words are used communication can proceed, have a good day.
Of course childish fairy tales are not reality. "supreme being" Is a childish stone age concept that doesn't belong in the 21st century.
I hate these kinds of agnostics with every fiber of my being. They are blatantly dishonest, and deserve no amount of admiration they end up getting by lying to people with bad critical thinking skills.
To be fair, sometimes it's just a stepping stone to atheism. if agnosticism prevents the theist from voting on harmful legislation, I'm all for it. Would I rather they jump to atheism right away and skip the lack-of-religion-but-still-poor-critical-thinking-skills phase? Sure. But better baby steps than no steps.
Being Neutrois or Agender is a gender all on its own despite lacking gender. The lack of a position has become a position in that former binary question of atheist or theist.
+DeviantDespot
The term 'asexual' is probably more commonly used and would be synonymous with 'without gender' I guess. The term "atheist" has had a bad press for a long time. The term 'agnostic' merely means "without knowing" or "without knowledge" if you prefer. That's the original meaning anyway.
There is no way to prove a god does not exist. Thus, I can't be absolutely certain there is not one. And so, technically, I'm agnostic. But I don't bother with the label, and I don't think anyone else should. We're already a tiny minority, why divide ourselves any further? The important bit is we're atheists. We do not believe there is a God. We're gonna need each other, let's not fight about petty shit.
But you're also an atheist, because you don't actively believe in a God.
Ecksy Dee That is perfectly true. If pressed, I would identify myself as an agnostic atheist. I know that an atheist doesn't claim to know there is no God, but so many people think so that the modifier sometimes becomes necessary.
Could anyone please inform me on where the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism came from? It isn't found in any of the main philosophical/theological dictionaries which define atheism as the belief that there is no god. If you want to propose a new definition, don't assert that anyone who doesn't use it is wrong.
The fact is that most people who self-label as agnostic atheists, do believe that it is more likely that there is no god. It also includes people who are genuine fence sitters which is why it's silly to equate them. All this talk of agnostic atheism just seems to be weasel words in an effort to define one's position as a non-position. If you think that god's existence is even slightly improbable then you have to justify that claim contrary to what Dillahunty says here.
*****
It has been the trend lately to state that agnostics are atheists, which is what I am disagreeing with. Even according to your definition, agnostics don't outright reject the claim in the way atheists do.
slothape You seem to think that a word has power. Call me a double arsed belly-dancing purple striped llama farmer, if it makes you happy; it will not change the philosophical position that I hold.
Perhaps you might come up with a description that better suits my, and a great many other people's position on the question "does god (or gods) exist?" Which we would answer with: "That seems fantastically, mind bendingly, colossally unlikely"
If you think the claim that unicorns are even slightly improbable, then you have to justify that claim.
If you think the claim that Leprechauns are even slightly improbable, then you have to justify that claim.
If you think the claim that giant banana eating bat-eared giraffes from a planet in orbit around the star Rigel are even slightly improbable, then you have to justify that claim.
also, most people's definitions of a god can easily be refuted, so give me your best, most accurate definition , and I'll have a go at falsifying it.
Its only using partial definition. You can look it up in the dictionary:
Definition of ATHEISM:
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The "rejection of a claim" people seem to not have read 2b, nor do they understand the derivation of the word. Atheist literally means "the opposite of theist" the opposite of something is its complement, its actual opposite, not the entire set of things that are not the original thing. i.e. the opposite of a person traveling west is not someone who doesn't travel west, its someone who travels east. Thus the opposite of a theist, an atheist actively complements the belief of the theist who believes in a deity by believing there is no deity.
Atheist and agnostic are contemporarily used to make the distinction of belief about the nonexistence of gods, A claim can be made that "there is no deity" just as there is a claim that "there is a deity" people who describe themselves as agnostic do so to convey that they reject both claims.
***** Take it up with merriam webster. Thats where we get the definition of terms. You can also look it up the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'm sure the people who wrote that book and have doctorates in philosophy know more about the meaning of the word, its derivation, and historical usage than you do. If you disagree with reference material, YOU are the one who is not too bright.
***** Again you're picking and choosing definitions and choosing to ignore ones that do not support your point. When I look up "a prefix" in the dictionary I also see "opposed to, opposite". . . So I'm still right. Merriam webster and the Stanfor Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written by people with doctorates in philosophy, know more about the word usage, derivation, and contemporary usage than you do. And I'm not religious, so that was a total swing and miss ad-hominem logical fallacy. I can see you're not going to be confused by facts, your mind is already made up.
The claim that there is only 1 answer the question "do you believe in a god" is ridiculas. Its not a yes or no question. There is a third option, and that is to say "There is no possible way for me to assess that question so i cant answer it yes or no."
Its like asking someone if they believe shrödingers cat is alive or dead.
If you honnestly believe that you dont have any information to assess that question then how can you honnestly say wether you believe or not.
"do you believe in a god"
accept => theism
everything else (not accept/confused/undecided) => a-theism
[a-] meaning without
a-theism = without theism / without acceptance of theism
"if they believe shrödingers cat is alive" +
"you dont have any information to assess that question"
if you dont have any information then the honest approach is you are without acceptance of a belief that shrödingers is alive or dead.
that doesnt mean you are proposing a belief merely stating without a particular belief.
superstd You sir/mam are correct.
I agree. How Matt should have put it is if asked the "do you believe in god" question, if you answer anything but "yes" you are to some degree an atheist.
Do you believe in god?....
"I don't know" = agnostic atheist
"not sure" = agnostic atheist
"I can't no" = agnostic atheist
"I know there is no god" = gnostic atheist
"yes" = theist
Do you believe in unicorns?
"I don't know" = agnostic aunicornist
"not sure" = agnostic aunicornist
"I can't know" = agnostic aunicornist
"I know there is no unicorns" = gnostic aunicornist
"yes" = unicornist
Study those analogies and you will figure it out.
david vitrogen got it =)
tigerw222 Sadly..so many others do not and out of fear of the stigma of the term "atheist" rather resort to as much logical fallacies as a creationist to weasel and squirm their way around truth. Or, they just rant incoherently lol.
At least for me:
Atheist=There is no God
Theist=There is a God
Agnostic=There could or could not be a God and we have no way of knowing. If God does exist, cool. If God doesn't exist, okay. I think the difference is that being Agnostic means that you are not okay with such certainty in either direction.
Close, but Agnostic is a supporting attribute to Theism/Atheism.
Agnostic Theist=Cannot prove or disprove a god, but I believe there is one.
Agnostic Atheist=Cannot prove or disprove a god, but I reject your claim of one.
Gnostic Theist=I know god exists.
Gnostic Atheist=I know god does not exist.
Many Atheists are Agnostic Atheists, because if they were shown evidence of a god, most would change their view. Most Atheists do not believe absolutely that they know that god does not exist.
Wild Child Use your brain. Is there really such thing as a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist? No, there isn't. We call those people liars. They simply BELIEVE they "know". Thus rendering gnostic/agnostic used in this way totally meaningless.
What if it is, I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, therefore I cannot make a statement of belief?
You cannot make a statement of knowledge.
x1134x I never said that gnostic Theists or Atheists are justified in their beliefs. Just that too many people think that Agnostic is the in between of Theist and Atheist and are totally misinterpreting the meaning. I've heard countless people commenting with "I don't know if there is a god or not, I'm Agnostic". No you're an idiot. They simply BELIEVE they "know". If they believe something, then in there mind to them they know. These are mostly the Theists who claim that they know there is a god and "talk" to him on a daily basis. Very rarely will you find a Gnostic Atheist. Because most understand that their is no absolute knowledge.
Appreciate it!
I'd love to know if this writer ever saw this / what his response would be
@medexamtoolsdotcom
Insulting others is not the best way to get your point across
nothing is worse than a
tired boring discussion on solipsism
Someone should explain to Steve that “the atheist doctrine” is nonsense.
“I know the atheist arguments…”
He obviously doesn’t understand the atheist arguments.😜
While this show slams the suggestions of Ron, the person writing the article that they discuss early on. While technically they may be correct, as in gnosticism, and agnosticism deal with what you know and theism and atheism deal with what you believe the majority of people see it differently. Most people believe theism is believing in god with a high degree of certainty and Atheism disbelieving in god with a reasonable bit of certainty whereas they see being agnostic as unsure, or sitting on the fence so to speak. I would suggest therefore they are being unfair.
Yes, which is why it is important to address when the topic is stated incorrectly.
KrunchyJD "the majority of people see it differently"
Source?
KrunchyJD Just grow the fuck up and learn that sometimes you're just fucking wrong, idiot
I love the background
It's amazing. That solipsism conversation was the most boring thing I've ever listened to. m
If someone asks me if I believe in God, I tell them I'm an agnostic.
This isn't a "no" answer. This isn't a "yes" answer.
This is a refusal to answer your belief question based on the grounds that there isn't enough knowledge to make a sound opinion about your god.
Indeed Agnostic has adopted a new meaning and people are using it correctly to describe a belief system. Agnosticism is a rejection of the forced dichotomy of atheism and theism, that is the purpose of it.
+CraftyMiscreant Agnosticism also holds another connotation of rejecting Atheist attempts to usurp them among their ranks. They don't identify with the connotations Atheism has acquired as well in the same way many people don't identify with the connotations Feminism as obtained.
DeviantDespot Hey dude. Sorry I just now read your comment. I completely agree with you. :D
+CraftyMiscreant That isn't an answer at all.
FourDeuce01
And the lack of knowledge about God isn't a question at all.
Funny how that works. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Dudeism is lit, *dude.*
That's like, your opinion, man.
there is one scientific question which makes atheism wrong: the question of the origin of the universe and the origin of the laws of physics. atheists admit that they do not have evidence of the origin of the universe and of the origin of the laws of physics, but they believe that it all just came from nothing. contrary to this, science permits the possibility that the laws of physics were created by some larger intelligence. that is why atheism is in conflict with the science. I consider myself agnostic and I think that all religions are wrong and that all Gods of all religions are false, but I think (and it is what I think, not what I believe) that it is more logical that laws of the physics and the universe were actually created by some higher intelligence. It is simply a question of pure logic. atheism is (by my opinion) illogical and it is a religion of its own.
Bunk reasoning, atheism makes no claim about the origin of the universe.
How do you know the universe has a origin? How do you know it isn't infinite like a current hypothesis is suggesting? I am agnostic too, agnostic atheist. That's because atheism doesn't claim god doesn't exist.
Zan -
Big strawman -- enough said.
***** The 2nd law does not apply to the universe... it is not a closed system. There are a few hypothesis that state the universe is infinite. it is possible.
Zanticus Yeah the big confusion comes when you don't label the people who dismiss theists' claims differently based upon how they treat "nonexistence" claims. Despite popular opinion of many self-described atheists from the Austin area, there really are MANY MANY people who not only do not believe theists's claims of a god existing, but also go further to assert their own claims that there is no god, never was, never needed to be. There's a HUGE difference between those people, and those who dismiss that claim as well. Classifying them all as just "atheists since they're not theists" is insufficient. There's as much difference between a non-believer of theists claims and a theist as there is between a non-believer of claims that god doesn't exist, and those who assert it. Modernly to the chagrin of the austin atheists club, the term "atheist" is being used to describe solely the people who make the claim that they believe no god exists, no creator exists, no deity whatsoever, and the people who dismiss this claim and dismiss the theists claim a god does exist are described as "agnostic".
the atheist experience is great - but from his very replies you can see he takes none of these ideas seriously at all - and for good reason!
*but* - if you are going to disprove a flat earth and make a forum - or a channel to argue these principles and you want to assume the high ground for the audiences sake of learning, then you would think one would want to know *all* about these ideas - and not brush them aside as a "waste" of time(not saying he is wrong)...as he is now most certainly not arguing from a point of *knowing*
.....as an atheist arguing all these things on a radio channel one should know and not generalize or at the very least refrain from debating the way he did if he didn't know jack about the subject. (the caller was nuts too)
knowing an ideas absurdities and there deeper wonders will only ever put one in a position of superior argument..even if the don't believe it.......as they can only argue from "knowing"
and from that he doesn't put himself in the best position of argument as a prominent atheist as he is openly refuting these philosophies on a generalized basis with out even understanding them( not saying he is right or wrong) ...if he would have know anything about the hilarious solipsism besides his dismissal based on the "general idea that they believe they are the only mind" he would have ended that debate right there on the basis of *knowing*....but the problem is he didn't read much about solipsism and only thought briefly on the absurd notion of there only being one mind.....so his bias has kept him from being able to refute solipsism from a true point of understanding and knowledge. (as solipsism can also loosely translate into eastern ideas of us all being part of the singular being....the one true "godhead")
I'm not hating on the guy...I'm just saying if anything was a waste of time it was that part of the conversation where they both debated about something like they knew all about it with out knowing any of it.
Omg you either believe or not there is no in between
yes, you either do or do not believe there is a god, but you also do or do not believe there isn't a god. thus the need for 3 classifications for the 3 possible answers to the two questions. (yes, and yes is an impossibility, but no, and no are not).
The {no, yes} set of responses you propose would be given by anti-theists who are rare among the population of most atheist. Probably similar in proportion and dogmatism among atheists as fundamentalist Christians are among theists.
Kizah Stehl Being unsure is a reasonable belief.
antitheists atheists, same thing. Definition of the a-prefix: Opposite to or against.
x1134x big fail, a-prefix mean 'not' .. not 'against'. anti =/= a
No problem :)
ooh steve sounds a little triggered! lol nothing we havent heard before from theists...
I love the show, but the theme music blows.
Not an unpopular opinion, I always skip it.
Saying "they're saying 'agnosticism means ________' so they don't even know what the term agnostic even means", is no different than them saying "people are saying things like 'his head literally exploded when he heard the news', so they don't even know what the term 'literally' even means."
Yet now the definition "to add emphasis without being literally true" sits alongside the original definition in the dictionary because people just kept using it that way, and it became so pervasive, that its commonly accepted and understood. The way "atheist" and "agnostic" are currently USED or "misused", determines their definitions. Atheist is mainly used to portray a person who asserts the negative claim, anti-theist just isn't used. Agnostic is mainly used to distance the believer from the perceived "negative claim" that they see atheists as making. This is more than likely because they use the a- prefix definition of "opposite to" rather than the "not" definition.
“You have to use the bible to prove the bible.”
You can’t use the bible to prove the bible, Steve. That’s why you fail.🤡
Jen was such a hottie, lol.
yeah look mate who the fuck is jean mate
Jen is so freakin' hot. There, I said it.
you have remarkably wide opinion of hot
@@FoamingPipeSnakes Looks are tertiary, intelligence is secondary, the mind is primary. I'm probably older than you though (44)
Theists and Atheists are just like 2 men in a totally dark room looking for a black cat, that isn't there. The difference is Theists have found it. ;-)
I have no evidence that there is life anywhere but on Earth.
But I have this delusion that there is probably extraterrestrial life, I'm just not sure.
I'm not sure that all the physical forces can be explained by one theory.
But I support the delusional effort to do so and that does cost something.
Would you like a longer list?
how come none of these people realise that they hear an echo because they have THEIR FRIGGIN TV VOLUME TURNED UP WHILST TALKING THRU THE PHONE?
oh... they're Amerikan...
*OH.. they're Texican*
{nevermind}
hi, who can tell me about madeleine mo..her? i couldn't get the name right..
got it.. it's Madalyn Murray O'Hair..
There's gotta be a way to MEME or make a video to make a visualization of the hilariousness that is an atheist and an agnostic arguing in a comment board.
A Trump supporter and Hillary supporter argue online they couldn't disagree more about everything. . . . a few back and forths,
An Anti-abortionist and a Feminist argue online they disagree about everything but at least are orbiting around a subject. . . . about twice the size thread
An atheist and an agnostic argue online, they agree about essentially EVERYTHING, their positions are essentially the same. . . . cue argument thread of DOOM, resurrected years later and re-resurrected years after that with flame hate and vitriol that leave the first four people mentioned aghast.
Do you believe there is a god? AND Do you believe there is no god?
Theist: Do you believe there is a god? YES Do you believe there is no god? No.
Atheist: Do you believe there is a god? NO Do you believe there is no god? Yes.
Agnostic: Do you believe there is a god? No Do you believe there is no god? No.
Yes, its binary, and yes there is a distinction, and yes atheist means you believe there is no god. Grab your merriam webster's dictionary:
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
See that definition 2b? Yup, that means "atheism" DOES mean that atheism used as "believes there is no diety" is a correct usage of the word.
Agnosticism does not address belief about the existence of God.
"Atheist: Do you believe there is a god? NO "
"Agnostic: Do you believe there is a god? No "
You have defined them to be the same. The extension of your question is redundant. Any atheist who responds YES to the question "Do you believe there is no God" would be called a *strong atheist* or *anti-theist*. They have the burden of proof by virtue of making a claim.
Agnostic:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic
The belief is easily inferred by your definition. Again, as athiests say belief is binary, you either do or do not. Its obvious from the agnostics belief about knowledge that they neither believe in god nor do they believe in the non-existence of god. The second question is not an extension and it is not redundant. Its not the same question. Its a wholly different question, and a wholly different portion of belief.
x1134x
I am not sure what epistemology you are using as a basis for your claim. If you ask anyone the simple question "Do you believe that any gods exist?" and they respond with a "no" then that person has defined himself / herself as being an *atheist*. It's an a priori conclusion. Having a *belief* in something is basically the same as *accepting a claim* (presumably after using some form of reasoning to assess the truth value of it).
The theist claim is that *God is real and exists* and the atheist response is *I do not accept that claim due to lack of evidence* therefore *I do not believe this claim*. If you asked the question "Do you believe that no gods exist" them the majority of atheists will say "no" (aside from the strong atheists/gnostic atheist). Even then you have to still define what you mean by the word "God" and even reference a specific deity as there have been so many.
*I *do not believe* X" " I *believe* NOT X"
One is a dismissal of a claim and the other is an acceptance of the contrary claim.
Not according to the reference materials and doctorates of philosophy I consulted when researching the matter. Its as simple as this: The "definition" of "literally" means that the act being described happened exactly as conveyed. Yet colloquially, and commonly the term is "misused" to describe impossibilities such as "his head literally exploded when he heard the news". Its "misused" SO MUCH , that now the dictionaries have updated to have an additional definition encompassing the use as emphasis without conveying literal truth. The same is true with the term agnostic. People use it to convey that not only do they not believe in a god, but also they do not believe there isn't or cannot exist a god of some sort. Its so common, that that's the new definition of agnostic.
And no, you don't have to define a specific deity for the "do you believe that no gods exist question". That question encompasses all possible descriptions of a deity.
x1134x Oh,
I
HATE
when
people
use
literally
the
wrong
way.
My head figuratively explodes!!!!
Looks like she finally washed her hair...oh my, was that a dreaded ad hominem attack? Lol....She just looks cleaner in this vid.
Envy is a sin ;-)
+propoetide Not at all. It could be a motivation to accomplish, or acquire, something through one's own efforts.
Vertical Horizon Hence the ;-)