Why does Richard Dawkins sound like an Agnostic? (reject, Revelation, atheists)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have a different definition. Can I assume that you are Agnostic, then?
Of course. Agnosticism is my knowledge position about gods. As in fact it logically must be for everyone (those who claim to know are either mistaken or deluded, based on whether they claim to know on evidential grounds or faith) else.
Based on that not -knowing (agnostic) position, I hold the logically -mandated no belief position. Which is called atheism. That applies to Dawkins as well, and I believe he knows that well enough and uses 'agnostic' as a tactical ploy as he knows that it doesn't cause churchmen to rear up whinnying in alarm the way 'atheist' does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Yes, you already said that you thought the definition was irrational. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.
I think he means that agnosticism is not being sure whether a god exists or not, while atheism is being sure that it doesn't. In fact this is true, but not irreconcilable, even without various application of atheism to different god -claims. because of course, talking about a first -cause creator, or even the postulated creator of DNA and talking about the god of the Bible is two different things.
It does get complicated but ask away. One thing I am pretty confident about is the rationale of atheism and its symbiosis with agnosticism. Cor..d'you recall a terrible thread with some prat who just wouldn't accept what agnosticism and atheism really meant...no Gldnrule is a paragon of reason compared to him..
Yes, you already said that you thought the definition was irrational. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.
I'm not sure myself. But now, every position other than agnostic seems kind of absurd. Even though I would have considered myself an agnostic theist, since I do believe there was something separate that caused our origins.
But I do tend to agree more with atheist's positions. I don't know why they don't like the term agnostic.
I'm not sure myself. But now, every position other than agnostic seems kind of absurd.
Why? Agnosticism is compatible with lots of other things.It only addresses a single question about reality, so by necessity it has to be combined with other things.
Quote:
But I do tend to agree more with atheist's positions. I don't know why they don't like the term agnostic.
Typically because people play all sorts of word games using it. I personally don't like the idea that gods are somehow epistemologicaly different than all sorts of other made-up ideas, so there's no real justification for creating a separate word which specifically applies to that particular brand of fiction.
Why? Agnosticism is compatible with lots of other things.It only addresses a single question about reality, so by necessity it has to be combined with other things.
Typically because people play all sorts of word games using it. I personally don't like the idea that gods are somehow epistemologicaly different than all sorts of other made-up ideas, so there's no real justification for creating a separate word which specifically applies to that particular brand of fiction.
But many theists (including some Christians) think of God as unknowable and indescribable. And so people think that atheists are denying the unknown god.
I'm not sure myself. But now, every position other than agnostic seems kind of absurd. Even though I would have considered myself an agnostic theist, since I do believe there was something separate that caused our origins.
But I do tend to agree more with atheist's positions. I don't know why they don't like the term agnostic.
We are fine with the term agnostic - except when it is used apparently caving into a fear of being seen to use the term 'atheist' or when an agnostic is held up as being more tolerant and reasonable that denialist extreme atheist or even more logical since atheists cannot know a God doesn't exist unless they know everything and have looked everywhere in the universe. such garbage used to bash us with does get up our nose, to be sure.
I can be cool with your sortagod -theist supposition that something had to have been behind the universe, Life and everything. I prefer a position that physics are so increasingly woo these days that who knows what the cosmic origins were, and since (correctly assessed) there seems no sign or spoor of any sortagod in what we can find out about, I am firmly in the 'don't believe, pending some convincing evidence' camp.
But many theists (including some Christians) think of God as unknowable and indescribable. And so people think that atheists are denying the unknown god.
That is certainly the way they think of us, but they are wrong. At least about the "Rationale" (1) of atheism. It gets complicated because we must admit that we cannot disprove a god or even be sure there isn't one, but yes, we are also sure! Just as ..bugger off, I will drag Santa into it if I want.. and fairies, and leprechauns!...just as technically we cannot disprove any of those things or even be 100% sure they don't exist, but yes, we say flatly they don't and nobody tells us that we are being irrational, extremist and fundamentalist as a-santa-sts.
And yet there is no better evidence for a god than those, or at least the god of the Bible seems just as unfeasible. And you cannot logically buy credibility with numbers, length of tradition or free soup.
(1) The anthem of the New atheist army
That is certainly the way they think of us, but they are wrong. At least about the "Rationale" (1) of atheism. It gets complicated because we must admit that we cannot disprove a god or even be sure there isn't one, but yes, we are also sure! Just as ..bugger off, I will drag Santa into it if I want.. and fairies, and leprechauns!...just as technically we cannot disprove any of those things or even be 100% sure they don't exist, but yes, we say flatly they don't and nobody tells us that we are being irrational, extremist and fundamentalist as a-santa-sts.
And yet there is no better evidence for a god than those, or at least the god of the Bible seems just as unfeasible. And you cannot logically buy credibility with numbers, length of tradition or free soup.
(1) The anthem of the New atheist army
But even Santa represents something that is known to all men. There is a spirit/feeling inside people that wishes to give gifts to all people everywhere without discrimination. The only limiting (according to some songs) factor being the good/bad behavior of the recipient.
I have heard fundamentalists claim to have been exorcised of demons bearing names like Inferiority and Depression.
It seems that most people have an intuitive tendency to personify unknown things. And if those things are a part of a greater creative force of good and justice which has been built into the universe, then maybe there is some unconscious reasoning behind it.
Indeed. In fact that would be (like comparative religion and the 'Which god?' argument) reason to doubt religion -organized religion - even if we conceded a possibility of a god (some sortagod) that we are really able to contact through the mystical experience or variants of it. It was in pursuit of that I entered Buddhism and if I didn't succeed, blame the inability of my knees to tie themselves into knots.
That was some time ago and since then I have had to give more credibility to biological explanations for this feeling. I don't rule out a cosmic entity - I don't even object to it, in principle. In fact it is rather those who believe in it and get annoyed when we suggest other possibilities who are unreasonable and closed -minded - but I have to say that I had to be on the disbelief/agnostic side even on that Cosmic Sorit god, and since then (NDE's and OOB's which I find very interesting, aside) the case for a biological and indeed evolutionary origin and cause of those feelings becomes even more persuasive, for me.
Whether others buy that or not is up to them, but discussion has rather led me to think that mental effects/instinctive delusion has a good case to make and the other side start screaming in block capital or weeping sulkily if we don't agree with their preferred belief. Very irrational.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,509,244 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Actually, it's nothing more than an intellectually honest acknowledgment that, unlike believers than claim to be 100% sure about things nobody can be sure of, we must allow for the fact that neither god(s) or no god(s) so far, can not be proven to that 100% extent.
To fit your way of thinking, all honest theists would have to identify as agnostics also
That's pretty much it.
As I view it. To be intellectually honest, one (I think) must admit "I don't know" when it comes to issues of both the metaphysical/non-material (which the hard sciences doesn't have the tools to deal with.) and the new age'ers.....as I'll term it...cosmic connectedness (mostly (I think) because we still have a lot knowledge gaps when it comes to both the quantum and the cosmic.)
Granted with that said. One can also be extremely skeptical of claims made by pundits that "believe" in either of those positions. I think the obvious reason (as least for this board) for this, is the lack of their "credible" evidence. Of course that's always the trick....isn't it. What constitutes "credible" evidence?
Though I think from being on this board long enough.....what constitutes "credible" here is...what the greater scientific community (hard sciences) decided on as "credible." So from my pov that is the standard here on this board.
Let me also say that atheism from my pov is a emotional decision. Granted some people will try the use the word "irrational " to describe it. Which I find to be only partial true. As I said earlier it is a emotional decision...but...along the way to that "irrational" decision the process is typically utilizing rational trains of thought and is usually evidence based. So the final decision is irrational/emotional but the path that lead to that decision is typically not.
Honestly if someone said to me that they resolutely personally believe/not believe in deitie(s) It would not strike me as anything of any concern. But if someone is trying intellectualize/rationalize arguments/debates from 100% positions toward the general population at large....well then...they have to show "credible" and most likely "conclusive" evidence that their position is sound. If they can great! But if they can't..........
But many theists (including some Christians) think of God as unknowable and indescribable. And so people think that atheists are denying the unknown god.
Seems to me that not knowing an unknowable god is the only possible choice available to us - believers included.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gldnrule is a paragon of reason compared to him..
Just as ..bugger off, I will drag Santa into it if I want..
and fairies, and leprechauns!...just as technically we cannot disprove any of those things or even be 100% sure they don't exist, but yes, we say flatly they don't and nobody tells us that we are being irrational, extremist and fundamentalist as a-santa-sts. 
