know not or not know? and is there a better term than agnostic? (Buddhism, America)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Well if it helps fill in your life and give some meaning to your existence...




That was a bit emotional. It does not surprise me as my experience of atheists is that they are most often very emotional.
Sometimes they even conflate this emotion with 'logic'.

I have no prejudice against atheism. I simply see the variety of positions under that umbrella as counter productive and pretty much as pointless as theism. (Indeed the two only exist as props for each other.)

I understand that from an emotional level this can be interpreted as being 'prejudiced' (simply by my asking the awkward Q's) but that is the position of an agnostic. It belongs to neither the theist or atheist camps, and sometimes this attracts the prejudice and accompanying scorn and condemnation from those belonging to one or the other camp who cannot bear the thought of there being a position uniquely outside of either camp.



Surely not?! Surely there is a comprehensive list of things which would be regarded as evidence of G()D which would have even the most staunch anti theist atheist renouncing their position forevermore!

Or, more likely the question itself shows that there is no answer which can be regarded as 'evidence for G()D existing' and thus the question cannot be answered and is not an honest demand in the first place.



There you go. You are a 'special' type of atheist. An anti-god-of-the-bible atheist!
By gum! Yet there is such great opportunity to demand evidence of the existence of this one idea of G()D. How about in a bush that burns but is not consumed, or a voice in the garden, or an angelic visitation or perhaps an extraterrestrial probing! The list of possible ways in which evidence could be demanded just on that one idea of G()D is quite impressive!

Brushing joviality aside for the moment, in relation to the 'goal-posts' these were established by Camp Atheism in a more ignorant age (though an arrogance which persists in today's times) and the position of the goal-posts placed is incorrect in the first place.

But you go ahead an believe they are correctly positioned because quite understandably you NEED them in the position they are or your faith in atheism would likely melt under the light of a new found support of truthfulness and integrity for which atheism lacks and is not that supportive of.



Excuse me? Why the dishonesty? (oh yes - silly me! I just explained that!)

I am not belonging to the camp which demands evidence for G()D! YOU and your proverbial 'we'-meisters in Camp Atheism are the ones calling for that evidence! Sorry bud but it is unacceptable for you to lay that burden on me. I have no need for 'evidence' and cannot even think of one type of situation whereby such experience could be called 'evidence of G()D existing or not existing'!

That is because I am agnostic about such things.

So your retort is too emotionally based and twisted and erroneous for that! On another level it is extremely hilarious!

Allow me to elaborate...

You said you 'refuse my demand' but I made no demand! I simply wanted atheists to state what kind of evidence of G()D existing they would accept as evidence of G()D existing. The demand for such evidence comes from Camp Atheism! Not from The Path of Agnosticism.

The Path of Agnosticism requires no such evidence (for the obvious logical reasons already stated)

If the cry from the never regions of Camp Atheism require evidence of G()D from Camp Theism, then all I am pointing out (from The Path of Agnosticism.) is that they who make demand for such evidence are required to clarify as to exactly what kind of evidence they would accept.

From the point of view of the agnostic, the atheist is being cunning and deceptive in making such demands because they really cannot even clarify what the mean by the demand, when challenged to make that clear.



That is so hilariously misleading as to deserve being quoted a second time!

<Laughing so hard!




Good lordy! Just when I thought it couldn't get much funnier! *belly laughs holding stomach!*

Short answer.

I am an agnostic. I have no need to debunk atheism in favor of theism or theism in favor of atheism. An individual (holding an honest position) will understand that.

Look... seriously *wipes tears away* the problem with Atheism is that it tends to want to claim ownership of everything which isn't theism (we have discussed this before you and I) and your reply here verifies the atheistic need (emotionally based) to have everything identified in either one camp or the other and have absolutely no tolerance for anything which proclaims to be in neither camp and will attempt to ridicule those who are by, making such statements as the above, claiming agnostics are merely apologists for theists' etc sorry but no... We are a breed unto ourselves free from the belief systems of either Camp.





But it isn't. It is about distinguishing the agnostic from the theist and the atheist.




Correct. As explained previously, the addition clarifies the position of the agnostic in relation to the position of the atheist.



That is why it was altered. Also it was actually necessary to show how leaving things out distorts what remains.

The atheist leaves things out, (as in the case of the affirmation you presented) and my adding to that affirmation was an honest attempt at placing what was left out, back in - because that is actually the way it is. Your affirmation - in leaving something out that is actually part of atheism and being atheist, lacks integrity.

See? An atheist isn't just someone who lacks belief in G()D(s) (as your affirmation stated) but also (and this is the kicker) believes that G()D(s) do not exist!

Yes!

So when you left that bit out and tried to dovetail agnosticism in with atheism, (based on that faulty affirmation) you attempted a type of fraudulence to which I attempted to correct by including the real state of the atheist position (also believes that G()D(s) do not exist) in order to show that the affirmation not only was incomplete but that in its incompleteness one can attempt to make atheists out of agnostics whereas when the affirmation is complete (presented honestly) there is no way an agnostic can be called an atheist.

Of course the argument then branched out into WHY atheists believe their are no G()D(s) but that is besides the point and is no justification for leaving affirmations incomplete and therefore misleading.








Certainly! I even gladly go the extra lengths to show exactly WHY it was an honest thing to do. Not that I will convince the emotionally charged atheists (for I am not deluded into thinking that is likely) but because it is Saturday morning, I am insulated from the frost outside, cosy, happy jovial and appreciative of the laughs they have provided me.

Plus there will be readers now and in the future who will understand what I have shown here about the nature of atheism and may choose to travel the path of the agnostic in preference to being herded within the less than honest restrictions of Camps Theism and Atheism.

THAT, would be worth the effort.

Well - looks like the Sun-G()D has melted Jack Frosts efforts and given me opportunity to do some other things I love doing, outside and away from pointing out obvious atheist and theist erroneous-isms.

Thanks for the belly laughs!

I don't think I need to post a lot. Just point up a lack of a case and a reliance on ad hominem.

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Well if it helps fill in your life and give some meaning to your existence...

That was a bit emotional. It does not surprise me as my experience of atheists is that they are most often very emotional.
Sometimes they even conflate this emotion with 'logic'.

There are a couple of point I might address.

I have no prejudice against atheism. I simply see the variety of positions under that umbrella as counter productive and pretty much as pointless as theism. (Indeed the two only exist as props for each other.)

So you say. How you see it is your own choice. When you argue that atheism isn't what we say it is and that it is what you say it is, we counter it.

I understand that from an emotional level this can be interpreted as being 'prejudiced' (simply by my asking the awkward Q's) but that is the position of an agnostic. It belongs to neither the theist or atheist camps, and sometimes this attracts the prejudice and accompanying scorn and condemnation from those belonging to one or the other camp who cannot bear the thought of there being a position uniquely outside of either camp.

I understand that meaning of 'agnostic'. But it is actually untenable. It can only be made to look as though it works by making atheism something that it isn't. It is not a flat denial of any possibility of a god, though it can often sound like it. Your idea of agnosticism is, at best, one of degree: being more inclined to swallow the various arguments like first cause or 'Order' or Consciousness. That is merely down to not understanding the arguments correctly. In fact your 'agnostic' is one who is more easily bamboozled by the theist arguments. This is not a preferable position to ours. It can only be made to look like it by misrepresenting our position as flatly denialist if not emotional.

Surely not?! Surely there is a comprehensive list of things which would be regarded as evidence of G()D which would have even the most staunch anti theist atheist renouncing their position forevermore!

Or, more likely the question itself shows that there is no answer which can be regarded as 'evidence for G()D existing' and thus the question cannot be answered and is not an honest demand in the first place.

Well..in that case, I don't why you asked for it. Aside from a purported God arriving and having to convince us, providing evidence for a god in the situation we have is hard. E.g supposed evidence such as the history of Israel and the Church, and the evidence of the Bible used to be regarded as good evidence, but it has rather collapsed. So it is a bit like 'What evidence would convince you the world is flat?' It is hard to say what, because there is now so much evidence that it isn't.

The reason I say that producing evidence is up to the person making the claim (apart from it being basic logic) is because you are trying to make our inability to come up with some way of proving what has become increasingly untenable with more knowledge is a frankly dishonest way of making it seem our fault that there is no good evidence and that is somehow invalidating the atheist claim. Don't you see how dishonest that is?

And don't have the cheek to flip that off as an 'emotional' reaction or post a lot of belly -laughter in lieu of being able to produce a credible response.

You say that you are 'agnostic' "I am an agnostic. I have no need to debunk atheism in favor of theism or theism in favor of atheism."

I agree. So am I. But the logical mandate of not knowing is not believing. If you don't believe, what are we arguing about? If you do, why? If you have reasons for your belief, what are they? If they are not based on some sound evidence, they are unpersuasive. If they are, why are you asking us to produce a list of evidences that we would require to convince us?

You have ignored all of the refutations of your arguments and just keep on with this argument that an agnostic is somehow holding a more reasonable position than an atheist, backed up with some ad hom about emotion ("we are 'anti -theist, not a-theist". It is not your business to tell us what we are, thanks). This is not even a new or uncommon argument. Theists have for decades made atheism look like a dogs' dinner by misrepresenting what it is.
It is certainly par for the course to sidestep the matter of sheer lack of decent evidence and engage in a lot of semantic fiddling and ad hominem.

And before you say it - I am not doing an ad hom on you, much less imputing personal reasons why you are taking up cudgels for "G()d" against unbelief. I am pointing out the flaws in your case.

And yet more dishonesty "I understand that from an emotional level this can be interpreted as being 'prejudiced' (simply by my asking the awkward Q's)" you are making the most you can of this problem of producing evidence for God. Which is your business, not ours - and ignoring that we did what you asked but you just demanded more. And you have invented some scenario of us accusing you of prejudice because we can't produce the list of evidence that might prove a god - which was not connected with it at all. Your dishonesty gets worse all the time.


I don't mind what you believe. If you post it, and it looks wrong, we say so. Response with foisting misrepresentations of the way we reason and playing the 'too funny to answer' evasion doesn't actually help your case.

This stuff does indeed warrant being posted a second time:

"That is so hilariously misleading as to deserve being quoted a second time!

<Laughing so hard!

Good lordy! Just when I thought it couldn't get much funnier! *belly laughs holding stomach!*

"Look... seriously *wipes tears away* the problem with Atheism is that it tends to want to claim ownership of everything which isn't theism (we have discussed this before you and I)"

And not a bit of explanation. Just mocking laughter. And I don't recall a discussion on atheism wanting to "claim ownership of everything which isn't theism" but the short answer is that atheism is the rationalist view as applied to the god -claims. It you find fault with rationalism claiming everything that isn't irrational, that's your problem.

Correct. As explained previously, the addition clarifies the position of the agnostic in relation to the position of the atheist.



That is why it was altered. Also it was actually necessary to show how leaving things out distorts what remains.

Only to suit your claimed views on us. They are wrong as explained previously and here. Your insistence that it was a correct and "honest " thing to do to amend our explanation of ourselves to fit your prejudiced (because you still refuse to listen to us) view of atheist and atheism merely makes your dishonesty worse.

Of course the argument then branched out into WHY atheists believe their are no G()D(s)

I recall. You were told that wasn't atheism. But of course your whole argument rests on misrepresenting atheism, and refusing to be corrected. As I say. This is standard tactics of theist apologetics.

I would like to reiterate one point or question. You say that you are agnostic (so am I) An agnostic does not know whether a god exists. So the logic is that you do not believe in the god claim until there is good reason to. Either you don't believe or you do. If so, why?

P.s

Plus there will be readers now and in the future who will understand what I have shown here about the nature of atheism and may choose to travel the path of the agnostic in preference to being herded within the less than honest restrictions of Camps Theism and Atheism.

THAT, would be worth the effort.

Let me explain to the readership that this just looks like an appeal to ...well it is hard to avoid the suspicion that it is an appeal to be half -believing of god claims, rather than not believing any of them until some decent evidence is produced to support them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Since I have been mentioned in this otherwise incomprehensible thread, I feel compelled to respond. I resonate with Rotagivan's consciousness rhetoric, but Arq's prosaic notions of evidence and materiality still leave me unmoved.

I'm surprised that you find it incomprehensible. It has a lot of misconceptions in it, for sure, but the subject matter and arguments don't seem to be causing anyone else any comprehension problems. For the rest... "I resonate with Rotagivan's consciousness rhetoric, but Arq's prosaic notions of evidence and materiality still leave me unmoved"

Well that we could have bet our annual income on. All you "Consciousness = God" - mongers come out of the same cloning -vat.

But you needn't cudgel your brain trying to participate in the discussion. You have long been sussed and debunked . I think I have now "Sussed" our pal Rota (1) and we are now in the process of debunking him. We have now passed the 'evidence that isn't evidence of anything, much' stage and are at the crafty tricks and trying to needle us stage.

It goes like this:

1. I believe in God (nobody that spelled it "G()d" could be other than a believer).
1(a) because there is no good evidence for a God I have picked on the 'Consciousness proves God' apologetic. Because it is nice and obscure with a lot of Unknowns that can be made to look like good evidence.

2. Atheists do not believe in God. What is worse is, they are making a good case to others. I must do something about this. Publicly debunking them should do it. But how?
2 (a) The attempt to make Consciousness = God has rather fallen flat.

3. Make atheism look unreasonable, arrogant and above all wrong. I know - take the unreasonable Theist unquestioning belief position and apply it to atheism. Make something called 'agnosticism' a 'sweet reasonable' position, making atheism look bad. If they deny it, stick to my guns. There's no way they can prove what they think if I deny what they say they think.
3 (a) of course, I had better pretend I am an 'agnostic' too - can't crap on my own nest. Hopefully they won't have noticed that a G()d -believer is what I am.

Science makes predictions. let's see how this one pans out.

[Rotagivan]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

All I know for a fact is that no one and nothing has ever managed to offer me any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.

Least of all anyone on this forum.

And as such I simply do not subscribe to the claim on any level and I fail to believe it. That is it. If you or anyone else wants a term or label for that.... so be it.... but I feel no requirement to use one myself or identify myself by one.



For me: Yes and No.

I am more than happy to tell you what FORM evidence should take. It is remarkably simple. I see evidence as a process not a thing. And the process is very easy:

1) State clearly what your claim is.
2) List concisely the things you think support the claims.
3) Explain clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim in 1.

THAT is evidence for me. It could not be simpler.

However I would never tell you what things I would accept in step 2. Ever. For many reasons but the two most important are:

1) Firstly if I constrain my expectations in this fashion then I might risk missing the real evidence when it arrives. If I close my mind to all but certain things that I would accept, then I would pre-decline something I was not expecting. That is close minded and dangerous. So I remain open as to what can be in 2, and leave it up the claimant to explain it in 3.

2) It is just not the done thing. You do not see scientists writing papers saying "Here is my claim, now what will make you all believe it?" or a lawyer saying "I think the accused did it.... anyone wanna tell me what will convince you of this???". That is just comedy. We should not be doing that. The person claiming something should be telling US what their evidence is, not the other way around.

But you skirt around the point I was making.

In the case of a scientist or a lawyer these work within the structure of the physical universe which has to do with visible things.

G()D as an idea is often not a visible thing.

A lawyer and a scientist would not claim invisible things and then when challenged ask 'what kind of evidence would you accept?' and not expect an answer to that question.

A judge or jury would say to the lawyer "well we would expect 'this or that' type of evidence before we can accept your defense."

A scientist would expect his peers to say "well we expect certain predictions to be evident from your claims and these are not there."

In other words, they will not just take someones word for something. They will say, 'Sorry, but we need to see the evidence of you claim."

Now what is the claim of theists?

Or what is the claim from - lets say - Judaism... they claim to be G()Ds chosen people right?

So what would the answer to this claim be from atheists? "Show us the evidence!" ? Okay says the Jew. What kind of evidence would you expect and accpet as evidence to that claim?

And the atheist would answer... (what would the atheist answer?)

From what you have said (you and other atheists) is that you would reply to them. "YOU made the claim, so YOU provide the evidence!"

To which the Jew would reply "Oy Vey! you demand evidence that we are chosen by G()D but do not even comprehend what it is you are asking for! BUPKES "

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

But you skirt around the point I was making.

Nope. I was making my own point in response to your question. So it would seem the false accusation of skirting around your point is intended for little more than to allow you to skirt around mine. The question was about asking someone for evidence but not specifying what evidence you would accept, and I answered the question.

[Rotagivan]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Nope. I was making my own point in response to your question. So it would seem the false accusation of skirting around your point is intended for little more than to allow you to skirt around mine. The question was about asking someone for evidence but not specifying what evidence you would accept, and I answered the question.

And I in turn showed your answer to have flaws.

[Rotagivan]

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

And I in turn showed your answer to have flaws.

No you did no such thing. What you did was special pleading, an attempt to modify the standard of evidence for the god claim to be different to the standards everyone else has to adhere to. You did not highlight flaws, you introduced some.

But of course still waiting to here how a direct answer to a direct question is "skirting the point". It is no such thing, I called you on it, and predictably you have failed to justify it either.

You asked about a standard of evidence and the basis for it. I explained mine. You have failed to address it, let alone highlight flaws in it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

That's a very nice picture but drawing a diagram of a use of agnosticism in relation to atheism that is not the way we use it and which moreover, is used to level a false description of atheism, does not make it valid.

I remind you again, that YOU said that we are all born agnostic. It surely cannot be denied that the belief -system of the new borns is non -belief in gods, until they are taught it.

Agnosticism in then not some half -way point between not knowing or believing anything about gods and believing in them, so why should it be for those of us who have found that what we were taught does not stack up?

Only one reason - in order to misrepresent atheism as being an untenable total rejection of any possibility of a god and propose agnosticism as a more rational 'it's possible' stance. And that is only for the purposes of unfairly trashing atheism.

You at least concede this disbelief based on agnosticism. But where you are wrong is in saying that atheism has added belief that gods do not exist.

That of course depends on the gods one is talking about. But, even then that does not overlook the remote possibility that a god does exist even in the absence of any of the evidence we should expect if it was real (1) nor does it make any difference to the rationale of atheism - if you don't care for the way atheists come across, that's up to you. But don't misrepresent atheism as a result of it, let alone use your evident beef with us to discredit atheism as a whole by misrepresentation. And is it does not validate your commonly -held but actually wrong and untenable idea of the relationships between atheism, agnosticism and theism.

It may be satisfying (not to say convenient) to you to have agnosticism as a 'reasonable' middle ground between two strident and loudmouthed extremist views. But that does not make it correct.


(1) such as the Bible stacking up in the face of archaeology and history, the Bible itself being coherent.

(Since you posted:

Or what is the claim from - lets say - Judaism... they claim to be G()Ds chosen people right?

So what would the answer to this claim be from atheists? "Show us the evidence!" ? Okay says the Jew. What kind of evidence would you expect and accpet as evidence to that claim?

that is a definite God - claim where I can see what evidence we should expect)

People getting all the same Inspirations. Undeniable interventions from a god that is always doing things that are beyond natural causes. If you say that God doesn't need to do anything to prove itself or do what we expect, then -as I said - it is hard to say what sort of evidence we could expect you to produce.

Final p.s If you doubt that atheists find a god unlikely. check the poll results. Overwhelmingly 'very little chance'. a couple of 'convinced'. I am tending that way even over first -cause god, even if I have no really sound alternative explanation. I am convinced that God described in the Bible does not exist - but that is not the only god -claim there is.

[ReachTheBeach]

OP popping back in. I dropped out for a couple of pages of "rant a given" philosophy because there seems to be point in debating it; your words will just get twisted or ignored.

I just wanted to reiterate that the question I asked (not the poll; that was just to find out whether the people who are answering are mostly coming from the same place and at this point nearly 70% are) is what label to use because people can't agree whether agnostic is different than atheist or an adjective that can be applied. Ten pages in, I think we have pretty soundly proven that disagreement is very real. I still wish there was a better term. If I only say atheist, many people assume I am arrogant and closed minded. If I tack on agnostic, some people see it as an opening to witness to me and they really don't like it if I turn the tables and show them they are agnostic also (IME, most people harbor doubts; the "faithful" just push past them).

[TRANSPONDER]

I hear you. I still say that agnostic -based atheism is the original and still the best. Being sound, accurate and correct. Of course it has a bad rap, but I reckon the thing to do is correct 1,000 plus years of theist slander, vilification and misrepresentation, by explanation, correction and discussion. Not by changing our name and pretending that we are something different as though (as Sheriff Roy Bean put it in the film) "We wuz ashamed of it"