Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Agnostic on DDO

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.

"I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable."

This is a straw man really. I am completely willing to accept a reality that exists beyond the realm of what Isee as logically acceptable, I just don't see why the reality has to be:

a) Supernatural and not just another type of nature we aren't aware of with different laws

b) Involving a supernatural intelligent conscious being

Involving your justification for agnosticism

There is no way to demonstrate proof that there is an invisible being in my garage who cannot interact with physical reality and cannot be interacted with by physical reality. There is also no way to prove that this being does not exist in my garage by any means.

According to your logic, is it reasonable to be "agnostic" about the invisible being in my garage because it can't be proved or disproved?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:47:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.

Haven't seen this one for awhile.

Tell me, are you a hard agnostic about the existence of a Judeo-Christian God who created the world in less than a week as compared to the empirically verifiable billions of years actually involved?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:49:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:47:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.

Haven't seen this one for awhile.

Tell me, are you a hard agnostic about the existence of a Judeo-Christian God who created the world in less than a week as compared to the empirically verifiable billions of years actually involved?

Quick follow-up:

Are you a hard agnostic about whether the world is flat or spherical?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:09:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So... you're an agnostic atheist like me. Cool story, bro. (Is it possible to say that WITHOUT it sounding condescending...? It's unintentional, I swear.)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.

To say that God is "definitively supernatural" is to assert " truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:16:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 9:15:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.

To say that God is "definitively supernatural" is to assert a "truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god"
Irkutsk
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 1:30:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Agnostics are p*ssies".

I used to be agnostic, then I chose deism. I came to the conclusion that something had to have created the universe, that it didn't just happen because of the random motions of subatomic particles. There must always have been an initial catalyst, whether a god or something else.
Life is like radiation. A uniquely damaging event. Perhaps I will live another thirty years. Perhaps I will die tomorrow. But I have no regrets. I was sometimes forced to make difficult choices. But enough is enough. As Vladimir would say, you can only die once, make sure it is worth it.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 3:06:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hi, I'm an Agnostic. I like to call myself a "hard agnostic" partially because it specifies that I'm not just an indecisive atheist and partly because it sounds dirty.

My position is simply that there really can be no truth value associated with anything that has to do with the existence of god, whether you claim god exists or does not exist.

I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable.

I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

I will specifically target atheists who seek to show that God cannot exist using science and logic, because I think that neither one of those are suitable for eliciting a reasonable truth value on something that is definitively supernatural.

I will specifically target theists who attempt to use science or logic to justify their God because I find it ignorance, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Logic and science WILL UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that God cannot exist because they are natural methods by which we experience this universe and the fact of the matter is that if you use logic and science to prove the supernatural, you are using it incorrectly and you deserve to be punished.

This is what I do as a hard agnostic, this is what I believe, and this is how I will argue.

Theists should stop pretending I am a dogmatic atheist who has no respect or regard for religion.

Atheists should stop treating me like a brainless theist who clings to perverted philosophical nonsense and archaic arguments debunked time and time again.

Would you agree that the existence of God under a given definition might entail observable effects? If so, why do you not believe that the lack of these effects would prove the nonexistence of God, so defined?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:01:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 1:30:18 AM, Irkutsk wrote:
"Agnostics are p*ssies".

I used to be agnostic, then I chose deism. I came to the conclusion that something had to have created the universe, that it didn't just happen because of the random motions of subatomic particles. There must always have been an initial catalyst, whether a god or something else.

So are you an agnostic deist or a gnostic deist? Does anyone here actually know what the 21st-century definition of "agnostic" is?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 8:41:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 1:30:18 AM, Irkutsk wrote:
"Agnostics are p*ssies".

I used to be agnostic, then I chose deism. I came to the conclusion that something had to have created the universe, that it didn't just happen because of the random motions of subatomic particles. There must always have been an initial catalyst, whether a god or something else.

Okay then, what caused God? Why must the Universe be caused? ...but you accept that God is uncaused and infinite. For all we know, the Universe could have always existed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:41:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true" - Nietzsche

Sorry, I disagree with you insofar as I can't respect anyone (intellectually) for relying on faith as the sole or significant factor in justifying their belief... Otherwise, I could use faith alone to justify believing in anything. I have faith that unicorns exist. Do you still respect me? Probably, but you don't have to respect this idea if I give you no other reason to.

Anyway, this post is silly insofar as everyone is agnostic. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim (I don't know whether or not God exists) whereas atheism is a claim about one's beliefs (I don't believe that God exists). I am an agnostic atheist: I don't know whether or not God exists, but I don't believe God exists. Both theists and atheists alike are or should be agnostic; it would be presumptious and outright ridiculous to claim one knows whether or not God exists for certain. I guess ALL of our "knowledge" claims are really belief claims - especially if knowledge is defined as justified true belief - but I digress.

I think the most important thing to remember is that the whole God conversation is silly because everybody defines God differently. I can talk to a Unitarian Universalist and their concept of God could be so vehemently different from a Baptist's that in saying "I believe God exists" they're not even referring to (remotely) the same thing. I'm all about the wonder of the universe and some of my views may dare even be classified as spiritual (ick :P) but I won't call myself a theist. And Kleptin, it doesn't matter how you define yourself because people on DDO will pigeonhole you however we see fit ;)
President of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:52:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:41:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/10/2012 8:19:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I respect theists who conclude that God exists on the basis of their faith and personal sense of connection and devotion.

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true" - Nietzsche

Sorry, I disagree with you insofar as I can't respect anyone (intellectually) for relying on faith as the sole or significant factor in justifying their belief... Otherwise, I could use faith alone to justify believing in anything. I have faith that unicorns exist. Do you still respect me? Probably, but you don't have to respect this idea if I give you no other reason to.

Anyway, this post is silly insofar as everyone is agnostic. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim (I don't know whether or not God exists) whereas atheism is a claim about one's beliefs (I don't believe that God exists). I am an agnostic atheist: I don't know whether or not God exists, but I don't believe God exists. Both theists and atheists alike are or should be agnostic; it would be presumptious and outright ridiculous to claim one knows whether or not God exists for certain. I guess ALL of our "knowledge" claims are really belief claims - especially if knowledge is defined as justified true belief - but I digress.

I think the most important thing to remember is that the whole God conversation is silly because everybody defines God differently. I can talk to a Unitarian Universalist and their concept of God could be so vehemently different from a Baptist's that in saying "I believe God exists" they're not even referring to (remotely) the same thing. I'm all about the wonder of the universe and some of my views may dare even be classified as spiritual (ick :P) but I won't call myself a theist. And Kleptin, it doesn't matter how you define yourself because people on DDO will pigeonhole you however we see fit ;)

The US leading authority on Nietzche (N) disagrees. According to Dr. Conway N put forth a belief construct that required morals and ethics a well as a strong education.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:33:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:52:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
The US leading authority on Nietzche (N) disagrees. According to Dr. Conway N put forth a belief construct that required morals and ethics a well as a strong education.

Disagrees with what?
President of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 11:42:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:33:04 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/11/2012 9:52:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
The US leading authority on Nietzche (N) disagrees. According to Dr. Conway N put forth a belief construct that required morals and ethics a well as a strong education.

Disagrees with what?

Faith not wanting to know.
Irkutsk
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 1:31:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 8:41:07 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/11/2012 1:30:18 AM, Irkutsk wrote:
"Agnostics are p*ssies".

I used to be agnostic, then I chose deism. I came to the conclusion that something had to have created the universe, that it didn't just happen because of the random motions of subatomic particles. There must always have been an initial catalyst, whether a god or something else.

Okay then, what caused God? Why must the Universe be caused? ...but you accept that God is uncaused and infinite. For all we know, the Universe could have always existed.

The statement in bold is not antithetical to the assertion that a "god" figure exists.
Life is like radiation. A uniquely damaging event. Perhaps I will live another thirty years. Perhaps I will die tomorrow. But I have no regrets. I was sometimes forced to make difficult choices. But enough is enough. As Vladimir would say, you can only die once, make sure it is worth it.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 2:29:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tell me, are you a hard agnostic about the existence of a Judeo-Christian God who created the world in less than a week as compared to the empirically verifiable billions of years actually involved?:

No, because that is an aspect of something that can actually be refuted with evidence, it is therefore sufficiently debunked. But that's only one aspect about God that was described by people. The problem is that "God" is a vacuously vague term that essentially means something different to each person. Because of the law of non-contradiction, all propositions of God cannot be simultaneously correct. But it is conceivable that God could exist and still have every single human being misunderstand what God is.

The point is that it's useless speculation, and spending inordinate amounts of time trying to dissuade people is an uphill battle with no winners...

Why no winners? Because none of it is provable!

God's existence and non-existence are equally unprovable propositions. Therefore the default position of Agnosticism seems to be the most logical.

And not all agnosticism is the same, either. Dawkins belief scale helps with confusion.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.

6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I rate at a 5.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 2:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay then, what caused God? Why must the Universe be caused? ...but you accept that God is uncaused and infinite. For all we know, the Universe could have always existed.:

We know the universe is not eternal based on the evidence. That, of course, does not de facto mean that "God" was the Prime Mover or First Cause. For all we know, an imploded universe could have created this universe.

But what we can know is that this universe most certainly had a beginning which means it has a conceivable end.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 2:47:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 2:33:11 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Okay then, what caused God? Why must the Universe be caused? ...but you accept that God is uncaused and infinite. For all we know, the Universe could have always existed.:

We know the universe is not eternal based on the evidence. That, of course, does not de facto mean that "God" was the Prime Mover or First Cause. For all we know, an imploded universe could have created this universe.

But what we can know is that this universe most certainly had a beginning which means it has a conceivable end.

That's the problematic presumption most people make. The largest piece of evidence you could use to corroborate a finite universe is the Big Bang Theory. But the observations on which Big Bang was founded, such as redshift, could be explained without the theory. Big Bang is not "de facto" evidence of the beginning of the Universe.

So, really, what evidence do you have for thinking the universe must have started?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 6:02:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 2:29:36 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Tell me, are you a hard agnostic about the existence of a Judeo-Christian God who created the world in less than a week as compared to the empirically verifiable billions of years actually involved?:

No, because that is an aspect of something that can actually be refuted with evidence, it is therefore sufficiently debunked. But that's only one aspect about God that was described by people. The problem is that "God" is a vacuously vague term that essentially means something different to each person. Because of the law of non-contradiction, all propositions of God cannot be simultaneously correct. But it is conceivable that God could exist and still have every single human being misunderstand what God is.

The point is that it's useless speculation, and spending inordinate amounts of time trying to dissuade people is an uphill battle with no winners...

Why no winners? Because none of it is provable!

God's existence and non-existence are equally unprovable propositions. Therefore the default position of Agnosticism seems to be the most logical.

And not all agnosticism is the same, either. Dawkins belief scale helps with confusion.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.

6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I rate at a 5.

I agree but would phrase things slightly differently.

YEC isn't just "an aspect" of God. The YEC Christian God is quite distinct from a liberal interpretation Christian God. The history of the universe is more similar under YEC Christian versus YEC Jewish Gods than under YEC Christian and Liberal Interpretation Christian Gods.

I would argue that just as we can distinguish gods by label (Jewish God v. Islamic God v. Greek Gods), we can also distinguish between gods who leave differing levels of evidence behind.

So, we can assign a truth value to the YEC Christian God (namely, false).

Now, if you go through all the iterations of God, there will be some which cannot be falsified (like deism) and some that can.

Therefore, I consider myself a STRONG atheist as it pertains to empirically verifiable gods and a weak atheist/pure agnostic for others.

However, this stance contradicts the OP which claims statements about God can have no truth value.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:34:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:45:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable."

This is a straw man really. I am completely willing to accept a reality that exists beyond the realm of what Isee as logically acceptable, I just don't see why the reality has to be:

a) Supernatural and not just another type of nature we aren't aware of with different laws

That falls well within my definition of "supernatural". Essentially, your acceptance that there may be another type of nature with different laws takes you outside my scrutiny. However, that also means that your atheism isn't a subset of pure logic. That means we have nothing to argue about.

According to your logic, is it reasonable to be "agnostic" about the invisible being in my garage because it can't be proved or disproved?

Yes. Philosophically, my stance is agnostic. Practically, I live as if though this invisible thing does not exist. This is a practical outgrowth of the agnosticism, as regardless of the ultimate truth value, there is no impact on how I live my life. I get irritated when people assume that Agnostics are confused fence-straddlers, and that seems to be your current viewpoint.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:36:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:47:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
Tell me, are you a hard agnostic about the existence of a Judeo-Christian God who created the world in less than a week as compared to the empirically verifiable billions of years actually involved?

Philosophically, the term "empirically verifiable" is meaningless to me, so I am agnostic. Practically, I accept the latter over the former because regardless of the philosophical outcome of either case, the latter is simply the more relevant choice since logic and science, which are tied to the natural world I exist in, actually affect me.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:39:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 1:30:18 AM, Irkutsk wrote:
"Agnostics are p*ssies".

I used to be agnostic, then I chose deism. I came to the conclusion that something had to have created the universe, that it didn't just happen because of the random motions of subatomic particles. There must always have been an initial catalyst, whether a god or something else.

You have absolutely no logical reason to accept that there must be an original cause at all. Either accept it as faith or accept that there's a flaw in your logic. If anything, your acceptance of deism makes *you* a "p*ssy" because it is more clearly indecisive fence-straddling than agnosticism is.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 11:00:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:36:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 8:47:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
Tell me, are you a hard agnostic about the existence of a Judeo-Christian God who created the world in less than a week as compared to the empirically verifiable billions of years actually involved?

Philosophically, the term "empirically verifiable" is meaningless to me, so I am agnostic. Practically, I accept the latter over the former because regardless of the philosophical outcome of either case, the latter is simply the more relevant choice since logic and science, which are tied to the natural world I exist in, actually affect me.

Do you consider yourself able to assign truth values to statements like "the cat is on the mat" (given proper context)?
Irkutsk
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 1:25:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:39:36 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/11/2012 1:30:18 AM, Irkutsk wrote:
"Agnostics are p*ssies".

I used to be agnostic, then I chose deism. I came to the conclusion that something had to have created the universe, that it didn't just happen because of the random motions of subatomic particles. There must always have been an initial catalyst, whether a god or something else.

You have absolutely no logical reason to accept that there must be an original cause at all. Either accept it as faith or accept that there's a flaw in your logic. If anything, your acceptance of deism makes *you* a "p*ssy" because it is more clearly indecisive fence-straddling than agnosticism is.

NO UR A P*SSY!!!1!!!1!

anyways. . . the task at hand is whether everything stemmed out of something or out of nothing. I say it stemmed out of something. This something is a deist "god". I say it stemmed out of something because something can't come out of nothing for no reason. There has to be an initial catalyst. 1+1=2 unless the plus sign isn't there.
Life is like radiation. A uniquely damaging event. Perhaps I will live another thirty years. Perhaps I will die tomorrow. But I have no regrets. I was sometimes forced to make difficult choices. But enough is enough. As Vladimir would say, you can only die once, make sure it is worth it.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:15:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 11:00:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
Do you consider yourself able to assign truth values to statements like "the cat is on the mat" (given proper context)?

I don't consider anything of the sort in any circumstance similar to that. I simply operate as a normal person does in the reality we perceive. There's no controversy or even much thought.

However if you *really* want to pick at and overestimate it, you could say that I make a preliminary decision to accept that this reality and this natural universe is all there is, then think logically from there.

All logic and science, axiomatically, are based on the assumption that the limits of our logic/ability to reason match the boundaries of reality. It sounds presumptuous, but it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable, natural, and common.

This is why logic and religion are INCOMPATIBLE.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:22:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 1:25:14 AM, Irkutsk wrote:
NO UR A P*SSY!!!1!!!1!

NO U!!! :P

anyways. . . the task at hand is whether everything stemmed out of something or out of nothing. I say it stemmed out of something. This something is a deist "god". I say it stemmed out of something because something can't come out of nothing for no reason. There has to be an initial catalyst. 1+1=2 unless the plus sign isn't there.

I went through a couple of changes myself. I was a Christian up until the age of 12, an atheist by the age of 16, a deist for about a month, then an atheist again until I was 20, and I finally settled into Agnosticism.

The transition from Christianity to Atheism was effortless. The transitioning for the others, however, were tumultuous.

I accepted Deism for the same reason you do; I simply could not let go of Causality. Thus, what I did was accept a deistic God in the bare minimum sense, as the initial cause of the universe. From there, I argued against all anthropomorphisms of that initial force, cutting away a tree branch by branch until nothing but the roots remained.

I was confronted by an individual much wiser than myself and started to hack away at the root: Why do we accept that all things have a cause?

It occurred to me that I was committing the same error that theists do: We assume about the universe what we see around us.

Just because everything we see seems to have a cause, there's absolutely no logical reason why we conclude that the universe itself has to have a cause. By observation, we can just as logically conclude "All things have a cause except the universe, which has no cause".

It's not even a case of "nothing from nothing". The concept of the universe always existing sits well with me. Why doesn't it sit well with you?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:26:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 2:29:36 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And not all agnosticism is the same, either.

*From wiki

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[17] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."


Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Spiritual Agnostic
Agnostics who follow a devoted practice to traditionally religious spiritual practices in the absence of the knowledge of God while being irreligious.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 6:29:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:34:31 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 8:45:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"I respect atheists who conclude that God does not exist on the basis that they are unwilling to accept that reality exists beyond the realm of what they see as logically acceptable."

This is a straw man really. I am completely willing to accept a reality that exists beyond the realm of what Isee as logically acceptable, I just don't see why the reality has to be:

a) Supernatural and not just another type of nature we aren't aware of with different laws

That falls well within my definition of "supernatural". Essentially, your acceptance that there may be another type of nature with different laws takes you outside my scrutiny. However, that also means that your atheism isn't a subset of pure logic. That means we have nothing to argue about.

According to your logic, is it reasonable to be "agnostic" about the invisible being in my garage because it can't be proved or disproved?

Yes. Philosophically, my stance is agnostic. Practically, I live as if though this invisible thing does not exist. This is a practical outgrowth of the agnosticism, as regardless of the ultimate truth value, there is no impact on how I live my life. I get irritated when people assume that Agnostics are confused fence-straddlers, and that seems to be your current viewpoint.

"However, that also means that your atheism isn't a subset of pure logic."

"Essentially, your acceptance that there may be another type of nature with different laws takes you outside my scrutiny. However, that also means that your atheism isn't a subset of pure logic. "

Nobody with logic would say it's impossible to be another type of nature we aren't aware of... So I doubt being able to accept something like that would be going against "pure logic" lol