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.
Yeah, the "Brights" label is a bit off putting as it is really easy for others to infer that it means they are not bright. Discussions with open minded believers are already uncomfortable enough for them without adding in implied name calling.
I did find the posts on the FB page linking to a lot of articles that I find interesting though.
Hi there, monumentus . . . my intrepid and tenacious detractor. How ya doing? Still trying to associate me with Creationism, eh? Sad, very sad.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, eh? Sad, very sad. But as a tactic - one you appear to use against me with remarkably frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I didn't see him associating your with Creationism. He made an analogy / example of Creationist thought processes with yours
Thanks. It is useful to know that this frequent need to straw man my arguments and invent things I never said does not go unnoticed by other people too.
What I said was that Agnosticism is closer to the default than is atheism.
Try to keep focused.
I'm not sure to which post that was a response. however....
You did, but what you are missing is that it is a different use of the words from the way it is used to define (if you will) atheism (and before you say it, the usage we find in a lot of dictionaries gives the one usage, or the other, or both. The give usages, not guaranteed correct definitions).
I argue - we argue - that the way we use it is more tenable than this idea of agnosticism as a sort of more reasonable middle -ground. That only works by presenting a sort of uncertainty about the validity of the god -claims as being more open minded and that only works by misrepresenting atheism as being closed -minded. This our non- belief or disbelief has to be presented as some sort of extremist denial.
you make nice diagrams. Make this one:
new born humans. Know nothing about gods (agnostic knowledge position) you said this yourself.
They believe nothing about gods and are (technically) a-theist, by default.
The human is taught about gods. they know what they are taught but they still do not know whether any gods really exist. None of us really do. In fact, technically, everyone is agnostic. The only difference is whether we believe or not. the belief position is everything. the knowledge position is undeniable but irrelevant (1)
So, given that nobody can be sure, we either believe the god -claims (agnostic theist) or we do not and we are an agnostic non -believer (agnostic a-theist, even if we don't use the term).
Some believe all their lives. Other come to disbelieve and so come back to the same agnostic non -belief as the lifetimers (I am one myself and my non belief is the same as the deconvert's disbelief (2). It would be handy to make a semantic distinction between non -belief (someone who never did) and disbelief (someone who came to reject it). In fact I think you did, but tried to make out that this represented so sort of extreme rejection. This is where you are wrong and are misrepresenting atheism/non -belief or whatever. Putting 'agnosticism' in the middle as some sort sort of reasonable middle -ground is nonsense and a misuse of the no -knowledge position.
(1) rather like 'The universe exists/reality exists.' Of course, but so what?
(2) I suspect that, since trying to make agnosticism the reasonable position and atheism the unreasonable one has been shown false, you are trying to make non -belief the reasonable position (admitting agnosticism) and disbelief the extreme position held by those nasty loudmouthed New atheists. But that is shown false, too. There is no difference, apart from deconversion. In fact the deconvert is more likely to have lingering hankerings for belief than the lifetimer.
In conclusion. I understand the way you are using the terms and they are a common misunderstanding. It was one I held myself until I understood it better. The reason that it is wrong is because it makes nonsense of the knowledge position of agnosticism and turns it into a belief -position.
If you feel the need to explain to people that don't know what the terms mean, just tell them one is, as mentioned above, a term of believe and the other is intellectual. If the discussion isn't worth it, just say atheist so you don't confuse them
Yep that's what I do (the bolded) in order to avoid the "discussion". Around here I'm a degenerate, but that's just the South being the South. I'm technically an agnostic atheist but try explaining that to these, well, you know. Everyone seems to be more concerned right now about the SC flag issue. Yikes.
If the discussion isn't worth it, just say atheist so you don't confuse them
ditto old cold and N -S's. I say "I am atheist by definition but not against anybody". The only logical position when a person truly doesn't know is "belief". I understand that. If you are wrong, no big deal. They don't have to "believe" in the "religion" but they certainly can believe in "god". Its only when people force beliefs on others that most of us get annoyed. That even annoys most believers. Uniformly there are many dorks like me that need better answers than 'just because". So I need more than a person's word.
What I said was that Agnosticism is closer to the default than is atheism.
Try to keep focused.
yup. With this topic the only logical answer is "I don't know". Then after that it seems believing in "god" is a way to go for many. If you are wrong, no big deal. At least I understand that.
The trick is keeping "religion" separated from "god". We don't know many traits about god so how can religion claim to know the only true god. That's just silly. It's as silly as saying there is "no-nothing" more. Both belief systems claim more knowledge than we have and counter observations. Keeping in mind that taking "literal belief systems" as real is bad for most people and can be dangerous to those that live near these people. Just like living near a pack of mandrill's.
I'm not sure to which post that was a response. however....
You did, but what you are missing is that it is a different use of the words from the way it is used to define (if you will) atheism (and before you say it, the usage we find in a lot of dictionaries gives the one usage, or the other, or both. The give usages, not guaranteed correct definitions).
I argue - we argue - that the way we use it is more tenable than this idea of agnosticism as a sort of more reasonable middle -ground. That only works by presenting a sort of uncertainty about the validity of the god -claims as being more open minded and that only works by misrepresenting atheism as being closed -minded. This our non- belief or disbelief has to be presented as some sort of extremist denial.
you make nice diagrams. Make this one:
new born humans. Know nothing about gods (agnostic knowledge position) you said this yourself.
They believe nothing about gods and are (technically) a-theist, by default.
The human is taught about gods. they know what they are taught but they still do not know whether any gods really exist. None of us really do. In fact, technically, everyone is agnostic. The only difference is whether we believe or not. the belief position is everything. the knowledge position is undeniable but irrelevant (1)
So, given that nobody can be sure, we either believe the god -claims (agnostic theist) or we do not and we are an agnostic non -believer (agnostic a-theist, even if we don't use the term).
Some believe all their lives. Other come to disbelieve and so come back to the same agnostic non -belief as the lifetimers (I am one myself and my non belief is the same as the deconvert's disbelief (2). It would be handy to make a semantic distinction between non -belief (someone who never did) and disbelief (someone who came to reject it). In fact I think you did, but tried to make out that this represented so sort of extreme rejection. This is where you are wrong and are misrepresenting atheism/non -belief or whatever. Putting 'agnosticism' in the middle as some sort sort of reasonable middle -ground is nonsense and a misuse of the no -knowledge position.
(1) rather like 'The universe exists/reality exists.' Of course, but so what?
(2) I suspect that, since trying to make agnosticism the reasonable position and atheism the unreasonable one has been shown false, you are trying to make non -belief the reasonable position (admitting agnosticism) and disbelief the extreme position held by those nasty loudmouthed New atheists. But that is shown false, too. There is no difference, apart from deconversion. In fact the deconvert is more likely to have lingering hankerings for belief than the lifetimer.
In conclusion. I understand the way you are using the terms and they are a common misunderstanding. It was one I held myself until I understood it better. The reason that it is wrong is because it makes nonsense of the knowledge position of agnosticism and turns it into a belief -position.
The whole baby thing is a marketing ploy. babies don't walk, know words, or talk either. If you left a pack a babies alone in the woods and only fed them what would they think when they got older? There is only one time we had that event take place and what happened?.
But I think you are correct for the most part. The trouble is the misuse of the words. So don't use the words and describe what you think. That's what I did. Dump convoluted phileo's logic like above, and use observations and draw the best conclusion you can.
without the words "atheist, agnostic, theist".
There is no Omni dude.
And nothing is not rational either.
So now what?
The baby thing comes out of the debate about whether we are born believers or not. or whether we are born with an innate knowledge of god or not. The knock -on is the idea that going or being atheist leaves a 'god -shaped bottle' that we feel needs to be filled.
While the 'marketing aspect is always there, Understanding what this feeling really is, is science. The 'God -instinct' is real, but is it an innate knowledge of God (or a god) or an instinct we have and we invent gods to answer the need?
It's possible that it is a real god we have an instinctive knowledge of, but it is also plausible that it isn't. If not then the teaching we get about gods and religions just exploits this feeling and giving up god -belief just returns us to the same non- knowledge and non -belief we had as babies, except of course that is is a rejection of the claim rather than no knowledge of the claim.
The point I am making to Rota is that is is factually and logically wrong to say that the non -knowing (instinct apart)and not believing is the same thing and the awareness and rejection of the God -claim does not make it some different kind of non -knowledge and non -belief, just because we know we don't know and have decided not to believe.
The baby thing comes out of the debate about whether we are born believers or not. or whether we are born with an innate knowledge of god or not. The knock -on is the idea that going or being atheist leaves a 'god -shaped bottle' that we feel needs to be filled.
While the 'marketing aspect is always there, Understanding what this feeling really is, is science. The 'God -instinct' is real, but is it an innate knowledge of God (or a god) or an instinct we have and we invent gods to answer the need?
It's possible that it is a real god we have an instinctive knowledge of, but it is also plausible that it isn't. If not then the teaching we get about gods and religions just exploits this feeling and giving up god -belief just returns us to the same non- knowledge and non -belief we had as babies, except of course that is is a rejection of the claim rather than no knowledge of the claim.
The point I am making to Rota is that is is factually and logically wrong to say that the non -knowing (instinct apart)and not believing is the same thing and the awareness and rejection of the God -claim does not make it some different kind of non -knowledge and non -belief, just because we know we don't know and have decided not to believe.
Yes, I agree. "Not knowing" and "not believing" are not the something. A baby not knowing how to speak and me not knowing how to speak German are not the same thing. The whole baby thing needlessly confuses the issues when a person as simple as me is fact based. Its so simple, why even talk about it @confusing@.
I don't "believe" in Omni dude because there is not one shred of evidence for "poof there it is". I don't "believe" in "no-nothing" because there is not one once of evidence to hold to that claim. Both stances counter observations so I can only attribute such stances as illogical emotional in nature. People need to believe in them.
Babies don't know poop from china bowls, so what. When the back end smells, change it. Move on.
Back to the basics:
No Omni dude: it counters all observations
nothing what so ever: it counters all observations
So now what do we do?
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.
How ya doing? Still trying to associate me with Creationism, eh? Sad, very sad.
Everyone seems to be more concerned right now about the SC flag issue. Yikes.
Understanding what this feeling really is, is science. The 'God -instinct' is real, but is it an innate knowledge of God (or a god) or an instinct we have and we invent gods to answer the need?
