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.
Whose calculated probabilities do you tell them you are using... your own or someone else's? Obviously, not Unwin's, right?
Sorry, I left out Dawkin's Seven point spectrum of theistic probability. Is this what you were referring to, his scale, which is unlike a percentage number?
Quote:
Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What do you mean by "fence sitting agnostics"? On the spectum of "knowledge", you either claim to have knowledge of god (gnostic) or you admit that you do not have knowledge of god (agnostic). One choice or the other. Where does fence-sitting come into play?
Unless you're confusing it with belief. On the spectrum of belief, there are only 2 choices. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. There is no fence sitting. Let's say someone asked you the question "do you believe in god."? If you cannot answer affirmatively "yes, I believe in god", then you are by definition an atheist in regards to belief. You still can claim that you do not "know" whether or not god exists (agnostic), but you additionally would currently be without a belief in one (atheist). That doesn't mean that you don't think gods are "possible", just that you do not currently actively believe in any particular god. All agnostics either have a belief in god (theist/deist) or they don't (atheist). You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition. Sort of like being bald.....
Frankly, I have never met, nor can I imagine, a self-proclaimed agnostic who also believed in God. Such a person would have to hold 2 propositions at the same time: 1) whether or not there is a God is unknowable and 2) I believe in God. I understand that such a mishmash of ideas is possible in a solitary brain, but I pity the person who holds such views. All believers I know say that God is knowable, through some kind of twisted reason or by faith in the revelatory power of their subjective experience. And all agnostics that I know say that they are about 99.9999% sure that there is not God, but they call themselves agnostic to express the notion that the God question is untestable and unknowable and actually, not terribly interesting. I 've never met a 50-50 agnostic.
Actually, I have met a number of agnostic theists and deists on message boards as well as in real life. I remember my college RA was an agnostic theist, who was raised a christian and believed in god, but admitted that she could not claim to have knowledge of god (agnostic), because she never had any kind of personal experience of god or revelation. She just took it on faith.
Here is a link that may explain it better than I do:
Are the agnostics that you arguing with, theists/deists or atheists? It seems that since you say that they are arguing with you about being an atheist, that they must therefore believe in god (otherwise, they'd be atheists themselves). If they believe in god, then they must think there is more than an equal chance of god existing, so it doesn't make sense what you (or they) are saying.
Nope they are not theists or atheists. They just say "no one knows".
Sorry, but they are one or the other. They either have a belief (theist/deist) in god or they don't (atheist). No two ways about it. If they do not currently have an active belief in any particular god, then they are by default, without belief (atheist). Sure, they can also be agnostic (which has nothing to do with belief, but rather KNOWLEDGE of god), but they still would be either with or without belief.
Actually, I have met a number of agnostic theists and deists on message boards as well as in real life. I remember my college RA was an agnostic theist, who was raised a christian and believed in god, but admitted that she could not claim to have knowledge of god (agnostic), because she never had any kind of personal experience of god or revelation. She just took it on faith.
Here is a link that may explain it better than I do:
Mythunderstood--
Thanks for the link. I understand the distinction that you're trying to make between knowledge and belief, but I don't find it to be terribly compelling or useful. Your friend who could not claim to have personal knowledge of god (which you say makes her agnostic) but believed anyhow, probably wouldn't go so far as to say that god is unknowable or that the god question is inherently unanswerable (my definition of agnosticism). I think she's just like most chistians who have some doubts because they know they are professing belief in something that cannot be verified. This would make most christians agnostic according to your definition, which is not practical.
Again, according to your definition, the only way one could not be labeled an agnostic would be to claim personal knowledge of god. From where I sit, show me a person who claims to have personal knowledge of god (not just belief but knowledge, going along with your distinction) and I'll show you either a lunatic or a fool.
mythunderstood][/b] ...On the spectrum of belief, there are only 2 choices. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. There is no fence sitting...
But what do you mean by "believe" and "god?"
Do I believe in a Christian god? No. Hindu gods? No. Ahura-Mazda? No.
Do I believe in the unknowable? Yes. The unfathomable? Yes. The incomprehensible? Yes.
If the first three are someone's conception of god, I am an atheist. If it's the second three, I am not an atheist.
Is my belief immutable? No. Is my belief a foundation for action? Yes.
Is my belief arrived at logically? Yes (I would like to think). Is my belief logical to others? Not necessarily.
I would define belief as: "the mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something"
I would define god as: "any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship"
I would not consider believing in the vague concepts of the "unknowable", "unfathomable" or "incomprehensible" as having a belief in god.
Sorry, but they are one or the other. They either have a belief (theist/deist) in god or they don't (atheist). No two ways about it. If they do not currently have an active belief in any particular god, then they are by default, without belief (atheist). Sure, they can also be agnostic (which has nothing to do with belief, but rather KNOWLEDGE of god), but they still would be either with or without belief.
Don't say "sorry" to me (what are you apologizing for?), I wish you could tell them that yourself, then you will hear their ridiculous responses.
Sorry NihonKitty, this is absolutely false . . . once you strip ALL extant the religious mumbo jumbo and unverifiable beliefs about God . . . which have no scientific relevance to the existence or non-existence of a GENERIC God. The ONLY scientific issues are:
Creator/No Creator
Direction/ No Direction
Intelligence/ No intelligence
ALL the absurd, unreasonable, and otherwise human concocted BELIEFS about said God have NO role in the determination of the basic issue itself . . . no matter HOW ridiculous or invalid they are.
Now . . . once we scrap all that detritus from the debate and deal only with the scientifically verifiable evidence as it impinges on the generic issue . . . Dawkin's probability estimate is toast.
EVERYTHING we have learned about the universe reveals an undeniable intelligence to the astonishing and amazing processes and "properties" that we encounter. They have very specific "unrandom and unchaotic" direction to them . . . or we could never discover what they were, replicate them and satisfy ourselves of their reality.
When we add LIFE to the equation . . . it becomes even stronger because the single most unambiguous evidence for direction is the existence of the astonishing "survival drive." The single strongest evidence for ANY kind of intelligence is our amazing consciousness. For it to have evolved from unconsciousness without intelligence and direction has to be the "Hail Mary" expectation or "Mother of all Unlikely" expectations in science.
Whatever else you reject in the absurd and foolish human beliefs ABOUT God . . . the EXISTENCE of God is hardly unlikely or improbable . . . given the massive evidence of intelligence and direction we have found ENABLING AND USING science itself.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Because something is unrandom and unchaotic means it was made by something intelligent. First of all explain that "intelligence" that created it in the first place. Who created it? Where did it come from? First of all everything is the way it is, because there is no other way. In other words if things were different we wouldnt be here right now, it's a chance a coincidence that things happened this way.
As for things being unchaotic and unrandom, quantum theory/physics/mechanics strongly disagrees with you. The primeval universe was entirely random and chaotic.
Thanks for the link. I understand the distinction that you're trying to make between knowledge and belief, but I don't find it to be terribly compelling or useful.
I don't find it useful for someone to claim they are agnostic without telling us what it is that they believe. Who cares whether a person thinks that we can/cannot have knowledge of god. That doesn't tell us anything! It is more useful to find out whether or not they believe in god (and why) despite not having knowledge.
Quote:
Your friend who could not claim to have personal knowledge of god (which you say makes her agnostic) but believed anyhow, probably wouldn't go so far as to say that god is unknowable or that the god question is inherently unanswerable (my definition of agnosticism). I think she's just like most chistians who have some doubts because they know they are professing belief in something that cannot be verified. This would make most christians agnostic according to your definition, which is not practical.
She was the first person I met that identified themselves as agnostic, yet believed in god. I actually find it more common in deists who believe in an impersonal non-interactive god. Many of them are agnostic in that they believe a god such as this cannot be known.
Quote:
Again, according to your definition, the only way one could not be labeled an agnostic would be to claim personal knowledge of god. From where I sit, show me a person who claims to have personal knowledge of god (not just belief but knowledge, going along with your distinction) and I'll show you either a lunatic or a fool.
Actually, I find quite a number of christians who do claim to have knowledge "gnosis" (proof; personal revelation) of god (not that I would necessarily agree with their "proof"). Heck, many of them claim to have a personal relationship with god/jesus! However, I really think many are either using the word wrongly, or they are equating having a personal feeling/experience as "knowledge".
On the other hand, most atheists are in fact agnostic, meaning that they do not have a belief in god but do not claim to have knowledge that god does in fact exist/not exist. If something is supernatural, it is defined as "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man". How could an atheist (or really anyone for that matter) claim that something outside of their knowledge or experience does/doesn't exist? How can you have knowledge about something defined specifically as being "outside the knowledge of man"?
Only those who make claims of knowledge (strong/gnostic atheists and strong/gnostic theists) have the burden of proof to prove their claims.
Since the majority of atheists are NOT claiming knowledge, we have nothing to prove. We merely do not believe the theists’ claims that their deity exists. Now if most theists admitted that they had no "knowledge" of god and didn't know for sure whether or not he existed, but they still believed in him......then there would be nothing to prove or argue about. Isn't that why they call it a leap of "faith"? People can believe whatever they want, right or wrong. It doesn't matter. But when you claim that your god does exist as a fact, then you have the burden of proof to back up your "knowledge" claims.
Last edited by mythunderstood; 02-15-2010 at 01:11 PM..
I would define belief as: "the mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something"
I would define god as: "any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship"
I would not consider believing in the vague concepts of the "unknowable", "unfathomable" or "incomprehensible" as having a belief in god.
Then to you I am atheist. I have no objection to that whatsoever. But I certainly believe in divinity, though it has none of the characteristics of your definition.
Don't say "sorry" to me (what are you apologizing for?), I wish you could tell them that yourself, then you will hear their ridiculous responses.
Well, ask them the following:
Since you claim not to be atheists, then which god do you believe in?
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.
