Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Atheism is the neutral stance.

Redfordnutt
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 5:14:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

Is it agnoticism or atheism? Atheism is not a neutral stance. Agnoticism is. Michio Kaku would be an agmostic, neutral. He says god might exist, might not. That's neutral. An atheist says god does not exist. That is a non-neutral stance and borders on a religious belief taken on faith.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Redfordnutt
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 5:25:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:14:16 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

Is it agnoticism or atheism? Atheism is not a neutral stance. Agnoticism is. Michio Kaku would be an agmostic, neutral. He says god might exist, might not. That's neutral. An atheist says god does not exist. That is a non-neutral stance and borders on a religious belief taken on faith.

I don't like calling it agnosticism becuase it seems to give theists the illusion that their beliefs are on a level playing field with the other side of the argument. Theists say that it is 50-50 chance for each if you are an agnostic.

But I would assume everyone would technically be agnostic about a 9000 metre high Rabbit with HDMI cables as limbs, yet we would all Basically be of the opinion that no such being exists and could say we are a-900metrerabbitists (atheists).

Obviously proving a negative is almost impossible, but in reality just because our human mind hypothesizes some thing that another human mind cannot retort has no bearing on whether the hypothesis is true and correct.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 6:39:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god due to fact that empirical evidence does not exist to support the belief. Within that worldview, there is a spectrum of people whose beliefs range from a staunch belief there is no god to what is called agnostic atheism (as you pointed out).

source - https://en.wikipedia.org...

Theist want to say that atheism always means a strong stance against god's existence but is solely for their own purposes. They WANT to believe that so they don't feel alone in making absolute statements with no evidence. Ignorance loves company.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:35:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

In the eyes of God and Christ there are no neutrals. You are either on their side or you are, by default against them.

Simple as that.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:46:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 8:35:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

In the eyes of God and Christ there are no neutrals. You are either on their side or you are, by default against them.

Simple as that.

That's what all psychopathic dictators say, too.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:49:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

Well, if some fool on DDO says it is clearly the neutral position, it is.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 9:27:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:14:16 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

Is it agnoticism or atheism? Atheism is not a neutral stance. Agnoticism is. Michio Kaku would be an agmostic, neutral. He says god might exist, might not. That's neutral. An atheist says god does not exist.

Wrong. Atheism is not, by default, a belief against every possible god. That is much like theism isn't a belief for every possible god. Atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive positions. Why is this SO hard for some theists to understand?

That is a non-neutral stance and borders on a religious belief taken on faith.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 9:30:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
My stance is that there's no factual and convincing evidence of the existence of any god so I will act as if that is the case until such evidence is presented. Then I will have to reevaluate my stance based on that evidence.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 10:20:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 9:30:52 PM, dhardage wrote:
My stance is that there's no factual and convincing evidence of the existence of any god so I will act as if that is the case until such evidence is presented. Then I will have to reevaluate my stance based on that evidence.

Yes we all know by now that you are content to ignore the obvious evidence that exists, though how you can refuse to accept demonstrable facts I have no idea.

But, it's your choice and will be until Jehovah removes all who wish to remain in denial.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:02:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

Hello, Redfordnutt

This represents a disappointing chasm between the layman's realm and the philosophical one. In the layman's realm, terminology is constantly in flux- changing depending on its use. Philosophy tries its best to maintain static terminology.

I mention this because from a philosophical worldview, there are six major stances:
1. Strong Atheism (There is no god)
2. Weak Atheism (I do not believe that at least one god exists, but I might be wrong)
3. Weak Agnosticism (I do not know, but someone might)
4. Strong Agnosticism (I do not know, and we cannot know)
5. Weak Theism (I believe that at least one god exists, but I might be wrong)
6. Strong Theism (at least one God exists)

So, as far as philosophy is concerned, agnosticism is the middle ground, which is exclusive from Atheism and Theism. It is the lack of any belief, while Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
These distinctions actually led Richard Dawkins to the conclusion that all people are agnostics, they just don't know it (though he retains the classification of 'Atheist' for recognition purposes, much in the same way a Hollywood actress keeps her last name after marriage)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:22:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the neutral position.

Clear to whom, evaluated how?

I'm not sure why neutral is desirable. I view it this way:

1) Human knowledge is constantly developing in scope, detail and accuracy. With it are growing our methods for developing knowledge, our evaluation criteria, our fact-base, and hence our confidence.
2) The scope, detail, accuracy, methods, fact-base, and evaluation criteria for knowledge were much worse at the time when ancient religious scriptures were written, and ancient traditions formed.
3) Either one elects to apply the full spectrum of modern epistemology to ancient scriptures and traditions -- as one does for all other forms of knowledge -- or one quarantines them in part or whole from those standards.
4) If you apply the full spectrum of modern epistemology, ancient scriptures and traditions aren't just false like unicorns -- they're invalid like a psychotic delusion, meaning: nobody producing such a claim in modern times would meet the necessary criteria to be taken seriously.
5) Yet if you 'grandfather' ancient scriptures and/or traditions, you'll tend to do it just to those of your culture and allied beliefs, on the presupposition that your culture's are worthy while no others are.

Which is the 'neutral' position then? And isn't neutral here synonymous with 'passive' or 'noncommittal'?

Is a passive, noncommittal position even ethically justifiable?

Either you support best-practice modern epistemology without fear of favour, or you're fearful of the consequences of taking an episemological stand, or you're playing favourites.

Which is it?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 6:33:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:22:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the neutral position.

I don't believe so, but I could be wrong on this one. I think its moderate, but not necessarily any more neutral then any other classification.

Clear to whom, evaluated how?

I'm not sure why neutral is desirable. I view it this way:

1) Human knowledge is constantly developing in scope, detail and accuracy. With it are growing our methods for developing knowledge, our evaluation criteria, our fact-base, and hence our confidence.
2) The scope, detail, accuracy, methods, fact-base, and evaluation criteria for knowledge were much worse at the time when ancient religious scriptures were written, and ancient traditions formed.
3) Either one elects to apply the full spectrum of modern epistemology to ancient scriptures and traditions -- as one does for all other forms of knowledge -- or one quarantines them in part or whole from those standards.
4) If you apply the full spectrum of modern epistemology, ancient scriptures and traditions aren't just false like unicorns -- they're invalid like a psychotic delusion, meaning: nobody producing such a claim in modern times would meet the necessary criteria to be taken seriously.

Ok

5) Yet if you 'grandfather' ancient scriptures and/or traditions, you'll tend to do it just to those of your culture and allied beliefs, on the presupposition that your culture's are worthy while no others are.
This goes against my beliefs. I don't consider any culture to be superior or worthy. They all just live differently, and they all naturally have their own benefits and consequences, mine included. Do I feel a need to work with my culture? No, if I don't like it I'll just leave.

Which is the 'neutral' position then? And isn't neutral here synonymous with 'passive' or 'noncommittal'?

Is a passive, noncommittal position even ethically justifiable?

Either you support best-practice modern epistemology without fear of favour, or you're fearful of the consequences of taking an episemological stand, or you're playing favourites.

Playing favorites? No not that one.

Best practice-epistemology? Not gonna make that claim either.

Which is it?

I just am what I am, and I don't care what you think about me, nor do I feel any urge to convert you.

That is neutrality. Is it desirable? Well no, because we just keep doing our own thing. There is no desire.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 6:50:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 6:33:27 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:22:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the neutral position.

I think its moderate, but not necessarily any more neutral then any other classification.
That's Redford's claim rather than mine, Quad, but I agree with you. Atheism itself is moderate in that rejection of faith doesn't call for prescriptions on or the abolition of religion. But I agree it's not intrinsically neutral.


Clear to whom, evaluated how?

I'm not sure why neutral is desirable. I view it this way:

1) Human knowledge is constantly developing in scope, detail and accuracy. With it are growing our methods for developing knowledge, our evaluation criteria, our fact-base, and hence our confidence.
2) The scope, detail, accuracy, methods, fact-base, and evaluation criteria for knowledge were much worse at the time when ancient religious scriptures were written, and ancient traditions formed.
3) Either one elects to apply the full spectrum of modern epistemology to ancient scriptures and traditions -- as one does for all other forms of knowledge -- or one quarantines them in part or whole from those standards.
4) If you apply the full spectrum of modern epistemology, ancient scriptures and traditions aren't just false like unicorns -- they're invalid like a psychotic delusion, meaning: nobody producing such a claim in modern times would meet the necessary criteria to be taken seriously.
Ok

5) Yet if you 'grandfather' ancient scriptures and/or traditions, you'll tend to do it just to those of your culture and allied beliefs, on the presupposition that your culture's are worthy while no others are.
This goes against my beliefs. I don't consider any culture to be superior or worthy.
Really? You do not believe that cruelty or injustice can be determined objectively, outside cultural frames?
So you do not believe (for example) the regime of North Korea to be cruel and unjust?

Else, if you believe cruelty and injustice can be objectively discerned, would these not be criteria for measuring in part, a culture's worth?

if I don't like it I'll just leave.
You can do that because your culture upholds your right to do so. So your moral indifference in fact exploits a principle of justice fought for and granted to you by people who cared more about it than you presently do.

Are you aware that in most history of civilisation, the right to travel was heavily constrained? Mediaeval serfs couldn't travel without an overlord's permission. Women seldom could. In ancient China, the right to travel even to another province had to be authorised by bureaucracy. Obviously, in totalitarian regimes like North Korea or the former USSR, travel was circumscribed too. In times of emergency (e.g. the refugee emergency in Europe), border control has also tightened.

Which is the 'neutral' position then? And isn't neutral here synonymous with 'passive' or 'noncommittal'?
Is a passive, noncommittal position even ethically justifiable?
Either you support best-practice modern epistemology without fear of favour, or you're fearful of the consequences of taking an episemological stand, or you're playing favourites.
Playing favorites? No not that one.
Understood and accepted, on the proviso that some moral questions may be objective and therefore to uphold them may not be playing favourites.

Best practice-epistemology? Not gonna make that claim either.
Because you believe nobody can, or because you haven't looked into it?

I just am what I am, and I don't care what you think about me, nor do I feel any urge to convert you.
That is neutrality.
Or is it moral apathy?

There is no desire.
Really? Then how can there be compassion or justice -- or indeed anything beyond self-interest?

I acknowledge and respect what you said about not converting others. But what about moral and ethical conversations -- are they legitimate? If not, by what authority can moral apathy say they're not?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 7:33:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

not according to God it isn't, the word says you are either for or against God, it seems that the fence that agnostics or atheists sit upon actual belongs to those who are not for God and are therefore by definition against God.

not a neutral stance at all.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:00:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:07:46 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
I suppose its more agnostical atheism if you want to be completely correct, but it is clearly the nutrual position.

It depends on how you define atheism. Merely "lacking belief" is neutral but rejecting "God exists" as untrue or false still falls under the umbrella of atheism and it's not a neutral position.