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.
You realize I'm an atheist, right? Just one who's capable of showing that atheism can be argued against.
I'd like to point out that I made the subtle move of defining agnosticism as 'the question of god being neither knowable nor unknowable' rather than 'the question of god is forever unknowable rather than knowable'. Is it different or the same to know that something is neither knowable nor unknowable versus knowing something is unknowable? I know what my answer is...(so does Donald Rumsfeld, presumably, lol)...
Are you then amending this post or did I get you wrong the first time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
It's not a trap designed by the religious--you're showing your decades-old thinking. Any given person needs to be able to think about any given thought. These days, in 2018, it's accepted that agnosticism is the most rational position--that god will never be either knowable or unknowable. From there, it is typically assumed that atheism is more rational than theism--this is the conventional doctrinaire thought process of today.
I don't know, is that more rational?
I'd say agnosticism is indeed the more rational position, and from there, there is no rational way of de[i]ciding between atheism or theism, as we're defining the terms.
You were talking about mathematics after posting your belief that agnosticism was more rational. And if intelligent entities do not simply exist, then that decreases the probability that a god simply existed. That is knowledge the agnostic must be ignorant of, or has never thought about, yet is a rational argument for the none existence of a first cause god. Which makes atheism more rational, oder?
Now you could logically argue for some other, plausible type of god that we do not know about in an attempt to rescue agnosticism, but that also has a flaw. For every possible thing that can exist, there are more versions of that thing that could exist but do not. So if we do not know of the existence of this god due to lack of evidence, then the probability it does not exist is greater than the probability that it does.
I do not know if my English is good enough explain this, so an example. The date of my birthday. For every possible date, there are 364 possible other dates (ignoring leap years). So without any evidence for my the date of my birthday, if you claim it is one date, you are probably wrong.
You were talking about mathematics after posting your belief that agnosticism was more rational. And if intelligent entities do not simply exist, then that decreases the probability that a god simply existed. That is knowledge the agnostic must be ignorant of, or has never thought about, yet is a rational argument for the none existence of a first cause god. Which makes atheism more rational, oder?
Now you could logically argue for some other, plausible type of god that we do not know about in an attempt to rescue agnosticism, but that also has a flaw. For every possible thing that can exist, there are more versions of that thing that could exist but do not. So if we do not know of the existence of this god due to lack of evidence, then the probability it does not exist is greater than the probability that it does.
I do not know if my English is good enough explain this, so an example. The date of my birthday. For every possible date, there are 364 possible other dates (ignoring leap years). So without any evidence for my the date of my birthday, if you claim it is one date, you are probably wrong.
one small flaw ... you have a birthday no matter how many guesses are wrong. so the claim that you have a birthday is far more valid than the reverse.
so there is a form of the birthday and to deny anything that supports that claim is short-sighted, foolish, and flat wrong.
weak atheist
strong atheist
militant atheist
agnostic atheist
gnostic atheist
new age atheist (as opposed to old age?)
old age atheist
hmmm ... exactly what are we talking again?
some want flags, symbols, meeting places and some have whole websites dedicated to spreading atheism. I mean regardless of the definition and that fact we all fall under one flag, the data suggest there are fractions within the over group. i mean, yeah, no way is atheism divided up like religion, but to dismiss any kind of difference within the group and that people form up behind those differences is short-sighted. In fact, its wrong.
When theists say "your atheism is a religion", I answer "yeah, how does that opinion change the fact that you have a guy dying, waking up, and flying away?'
All atheists are godless, but how that godlessness is expressed or classified differs among said atheists. For instance, post-deconversion, my ex-husband later realized he's a strong/explicit atheist and apatheist. He doesn't believe in the existence of deities of any kind and just doesn't care about a First Cause.
Whereas I'm a relative atheist -- strong/explicit relative to deities in ancient mythos, but am agnostic (I waver on weak and strong) relative to a First Cause, the Force/Tao or Prime Mover. My husband is the same. It's very concept-dependent and driven by how such a concept is defined. Anthropomorphic and omnimax, based on the amalgamation and evolution of El-Yahwism with philosophical monotheism? This concept doesn't even register to me as relevant, because it just doesn't exist, nor does it fit within Israelite mythology, history, and theology. It's like trying to make Thor into a monotheistic creator deity when his mythos does not support it.
So, in the context of, say, Canaanite deities, like El/Yahweh, then I'm a strong, explicit atheist. Just as I am relative to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Mayan, Mesopotamian, etc., deities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
It's not a trap designed by the religious--you're showing your decades-old thinking. Any given person needs to be able to think about any given thought. These days, in 2018, it's accepted that agnosticism is the most rational position--that god will never be either knowable or unknowable. From there, it is typically assumed that atheism is more rational than theism--this is the conventional doctrinaire thought process of today.
I don't know, is that more rational?
I'd say agnosticism is indeed the more rational position, and from there, there is no rational way of de[i]ciding between atheism or theism, as we're defining the terms.
Agnosticism relative to abstract-ill-defined Prime Mover, sure. But one could argue it's not more rational to be agnostic relative to Apsu, Odin, Loki, El-Yahweh, Baal, Mithras, Horus, et al. They're deity characters in ancient folklore and literature. How many people are agnostic relative to Ahura Mazda? And yet Ahura Mazda, as a concept, predates the Abrahamic gods. Ahura Mazda of the Gathic tradition is also way cooler than either El or Yahweh. I don't have a goat in this race because these arguments are almost always framed in the context of classical, Abrahamic theism. El-Yahweh, to me, is what Zeus and the Greek pantheon are to most others. Comparative religion is my field of study and I enjoy it immensely. I even enjoy studying ANE religions, but I approach it as literature and understand it in its proper context. I find various ancient traditions fascinating, but I don't think these mythical and fantastical characters exist.
they will have to disengage soon. the only way a less valid stance has a chance against a more valid stance is to ignore the more valid stance and focus on something else to confuse the natives.
there is no rational evidence that atheists do not form up with different expression of the same belief. its just human habit to do so.
the question is more of why must they fight it so hard? it doesn't matter in the end. it doesn't give the omni godders any more validity to say 'yeah, we have different interpretations.".
You realize I'm an atheist, right? Just one who's capable of showing that atheism can be argued against.
I'd like to point out that I made the subtle move of defining agnosticism as 'the question of god being neither knowable nor unknowable' rather than 'the question of god is forever unknowable rather than knowable'. Is it different or the same to know that something is neither knowable nor unknowable versus knowing something is unknowable? I know what my answer is...(so does Donald Rumsfeld, presumably, lol)...
I just don't see the point in mulling over all that.Whether we consider that a god is unknowable, or it is knowable but we don't know and perhaps never can. "Don't Know" is all that we have to worry about.
The Worry being, what can we know or find out? It seems to me that you start with what can be demonstrated and work from there. Anything that we can't is not known. But we can speculate.
As I said, asking questions is fine. Just that, on the basis of what you posted, it seems that Gray has some wrong ideas.
You were talking about mathematics after posting your belief that agnosticism was more rational. And if intelligent entities do not simply exist, then that decreases the probability that a god simply existed. That is knowledge the agnostic must be ignorant of, or has never thought about, yet is a rational argument for the none existence of a first cause god. Which makes atheism more rational, oder?
Now you could logically argue for some other, plausible type of god that we do not know about in an attempt to rescue agnosticism, but that also has a flaw. For every possible thing that can exist, there are more versions of that thing that could exist but do not. So if we do not know of the existence of this god due to lack of evidence, then the probability it does not exist is greater than the probability that it does.
I do not know if my English is good enough explain this, so an example. The date of my birthday. For every possible date, there are 364 possible other dates (ignoring leap years). So without any evidence for my the date of my birthday, if you claim it is one date, you are probably wrong.
That's perfectly understandable.Agnosticism is indeed perfectly rational. But it is a question not an answer.
Evidence and indeed plausible hypotheses and especially the more plausible hypotheses, help us to provide some answers or possible answers. This is indeed what the god -debate is all about. Don't Knowism gets us nowhere.
You are correct (If I get you rightly) that with hypotheses, it is irrational to opt for one, just because one likes it, and pretend it is true. This is the fatal flaw in faith -based thinking. In rational thought, considering all suggestions (hypotheses) and seeing which fit the information better is what science is all about. Which is 'always getting things wrong' is the right way to go about it. Picking (or being taught) one hypothesis and rejecting any contrary evidence is doing it wrong.
Now, I'm suggesting that Gray was doing it wrong, because it seems that he's developed or picked up some hypotheses and there needs to be some discussion. Just a simple correction - that he means 'types of atheists' rather than 'types of atheism' would clear up a lot of error at one go. But immediately we run into the problem that this can be applied to anyone. So it is nothing to do with atheism, unless it can be shown that the atheism is the factor in this behaviour.
Of course atheism does, really undeniably, change the human mindset. But is that the cause of these different human types? I suggest that the Type (which is common to many other humans) is adapted to the atheism. For example, one can be a pacifist or a ...non-pacifist, and just as with religion, atheism can be adapted to it: "We should regard all these people as fellow humans" (or Fellow creations of God) or "These are our enemies, let's get 'em!" (or "God wants us to destroy these evil people") You adapt the Ism to the Type. The Ism is not the cause of the type.
Whether that works with Gray's book (I think it does, or rather refutes it) or not is the matter for discussion. Though just what is beef is with atheism at all is another question
All atheists are godless, but how that godlessness is expressed or classified differs among said atheists. For instance, post-deconversion, my ex-husband later realized he's a strong/explicit atheist and apatheist. He doesn't believe in the existence of deities of any kind and just doesn't care about a First Cause.
Whereas I'm a relative atheist -- strong/explicit relative to deities in ancient mythos, but am agnostic (I waver on weak and strong) relative to a First Cause, the Force/Tao or Prime Mover. My husband is the same. It's very concept-dependent and driven by how such a concept is defined. Anthropomorphic and omnimax, based on the amalgamation and evolution of El-Yahwism with philosophical monotheism? This concept doesn't even register to me as relevant, because it just doesn't exist, nor does it fit within Israelite mythology, history, and theology. It's like trying to make Thor into a monotheistic creator deity when his mythos does not support it.
So, in the context of, say, Canaanite deities, like El/Yahweh, then I'm a strong, explicit atheist. Just as I am relative to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Mayan, Mesopotamian, etc., deities.
Agnosticism relative to abstract-ill-defined Prime Mover, sure. But one could argue it's not more rational to be agnostic relative to Apsu, Odin, Loki, El-Yahweh, Baal, Mithras, Horus, et al. They're deity characters in ancient folklore and literature. How many people are agnostic relative to Ahura Mazda? And yet Ahura Mazda, as a concept, predates the Abrahamic gods. Ahura Mazda of the Gathic tradition is also way cooler than either El or Yahweh. I don't have a goat in this race because these arguments are almost always framed in the context of classical, Abrahamic theism. El-Yahweh, to me, is what Zeus and the Greek pantheon are to most others. Comparative religion is my field of study and I enjoy it immensely. I even enjoy studying ANE religions, but I approach it as literature and understand it in its proper context. I find various ancient traditions fascinating, but I don't think these mythical and fantastical characters exist.
And there I was thinking that atheism was a simple "No god -belief".
If you're a nihilist, this sort of thinking is not confusing in the slightest. You, as a sentient human, wonder whether you'd be better off as a dog, or just having never been born. If you don't understand what it's like to think such thoughts, then you don't get John Gray. And given that you're just some random Texan (it is however to your credit that you read Straw Dogs in the first place), it is of course unlikely you even know what the word 'nihilism' means.
I am not some random Texan though I live in Texas currently. I have lived in many states and was born in New York. I read quite widely and I do know what nihilism means. I simply disagree with you that John Gray is so fantastic. That does not mean I don't *get* him. I disagree with him that what he does is productive in terms of human sentience.
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.
I just don't see the point in mulling over all that.Whether we consider that a god is unknowable, or it is knowable but we don't know and perhaps never can. "Don't Know" is all that we have to worry about.
And there I was thinking that atheism was a simple "No god -belief".
