Boxcar Goes Agnostic !?!?

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

How can you rank better or worse in this case where the two concepts in question are talking about totally different things? It's not like a lack of belief in god requires you to reject the idea that we can't know anything with 100% certainty - they're two totally separate ideas.

well, the way i see it... its like asking: which idea is better, that heavenly dictates mandate we don't keep dogs as pets, or that we should brush our teeth at least once a day as recommended by dentists?

once of them is better than the other. If I remember correctly, the argument had been whether Agnosticism (as a separate and unique belief apart form either theism or atheism) was more or less legitimate, useful, and good than Atheism (as a belief apart from Agnosticism)

I had in my mind that the belief that sentience requires doubt is a much better belief than that no gods exist. I might be arguing apples and oranges, but I'm still arguing food.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

Atheism leads to nothing philosophically. Agnosticism lead to happiness in understanding the nature of everything and your ability to understand the first cause, leading to ease of mind in proclaiming lack of knowledge, which leads to progress.

I'm late to this particular party and I apologize in advance if this point has been made. But I really don't think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Technically, I'm an agnostic, in that I'm always open to new information, which implies that I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong. However, as a practical matter, while I'm open to the possibility of god(s), I consider the probability to be so vanishingly small that my small amount of doubt does not materially impact how I order my life.

In practice, agnosticism as it pertains to the question of god is just a technicality, at least until data which currently is either unavailable to us, invisible to us or beyond our ken, presents itself.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

"Still, you made the claim that it was fake gold, and denied my claim that your useless anti-agnostic atheism was less valuable than Agnosticism. Show that anti-agnostic atheism is more valuable and that Agnosticism is worthless."

and

Ok.
Agnosticism = without A, gnostic having "knowledge", ism a belief or idea. Meaning "without beliefs about knowledge"; but in a more pleasant sense, Agnosticism is the idea of being in a state of lacking beliefs about knowledge being certain and distinct. word originated from Huxley. Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism = without belief in gods. word originated from the Roman Empire. Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but in more pleasant terms, it is the idea of being in a state of lacking belief in deities

I'm asking catman to show me the reasons he believes that having no god beliefs is better than understanding one's lack of absolute certainty. If he isn't an anti-agnostic atheist.

First I'm not at all sure that your 'definition' above is valid. you writ 'A.gnostic' (which means 'without knowledge' and then, producing 'ism' out of nowhere, gives it a definition of 'beliefs without knowledge'. What I would quote from the reference you give :-

"All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence,"

agnosticism or gnosticism relates to what one knows (or claims to know) but belief based on that knowledge is a different thing. The reference should show whay atheism - non - belief where the evidence is not good enough to warrant it is better than belief in what one does not know.

Now I am not saying that I am denouncing your views as 'fake gold'. That's for Catman to argue, but to counter your "claim that your useless anti-agnostic atheism was less valuable than Agnosticism."


"Show that anti-agnostic atheism is more valuable and that Agnosticism is worthless." is simply, as I said, forcing Catman to defend a position he doesn't hold.
If I may take the liberty of guessing what he meant, he thought your beliefs or claims based on agnosticism (inadequate knowledge) was 'fake gold'. I have to concur, unless you can give some sound reasons to believe it.

That said, it should be clear enough that a worldview based on only giving belief to what has sound evidential basis (which is what results in atheism where the knowledge is inadequate) is more valuable than beliefs based on inadequate knowledge ((beliefs based on inadequate knowledge).

It could also be argued that holding an 'agnostic position' on gods is well enough, but failure to consider what one's belief - position should be based on agnosticism is not only absurd, but in fact I don't believe anyone really does it. I come suspect that what 'agnostics' really do is try to justify a half - belief in some god - idea or other which is really justified by the evidence. I'm not sure that your apples and oranges analogy helps to clarify the matter, but I'll have a look.

In fact yes ". its like asking: which idea is better, that heavenly dictates mandate we don't keep dogs as pets, or that we should brush our teeth at least once a day as recommended by dentists? one of them is better than the other."

Yes, the dental advice is based on validated medical knowledge and is valuable. The divine embargo on keeping dogs as pets is merely the unjustified orders on an unproven god and is without any real value.

While pointing up the looming question of what 'knowledge' is valid (with 'how do we know what we know?' lurking in the wings) it actually seems to support Catman's argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

At last a P.s that takes up a whole post. I suppose an entire post of footnotes wouldn't work...?

I may have been unfair is suggesting that you got 'ism' out of nowhere. after all, we talk of agnosticism and aren't other 'isms' belief - systems and even social movements? Why not agnosticism?

So I may have been unfair, but after a rethink, I have to say that, either agnosticism refuses to address the belief - position resulting from not knowing, or its belief - position is of not - knowing, in the sense of not being able to decide whether to believe in a god or quasi - divine concept like Karma or Thetans.

I have long taken the view that such fence - sitting is either based on not having the evidence available for consideration or not troubling to consider it.

I'd consider the important distinction between a postulated planning creative force and any of the personal gods and their religions as two different things with diffeent claims and different relative evidence and thus different degrees of 'knowledge' for and against.

Where the agnosticism discussion rests is logically (if not actually) on a possible cosmic mind. Even here I have argued with Boxcar, King David, Supersoul, Redshadows (who have all argued magnificently) and others that anything less than convincing reasons to take a creative cosmic mind as probable rather than possible is not enough for belief and disbelief atheism) is logically mandatory.

Unless one refuses to make a decision and takes an agnostic - fence - sitting 'agnostic' position for no reason that I can see but a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is, claims and the rational position for it.

[catman]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

Still, you made the claim that it was fake gold, and denied my claim that your useless anti-agnostic atheism was less valuable than Agnosticism. Show that anti-agnostic atheism is more valuable and that Agnosticism is worthless.

I am an agnostic atheist. How can I profess an "anti-agnostic atheism" and consider agnosticism "worthless"? It is the only rational choice IMO.

Your claim that agnosticism always leads to progress also awaits verification, although I think it likely would. We are having a debate without agreed-upon definitions. I concur with George H Smith's definitions and consider that as an agnostic, one still either believes or doesn't believe. If one had knowledge, he wouldn't need belief.