Atheist vs. Agnostic Label

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

I got you j, but what I'm claiming is that there is data. For example, the many religions that exist with their traditions and their scriptures. That's data isn't it?

Hi Will

One cannot use the writings of religions to support a claim without exterior supporting data, so, no it is not sufficient.

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

What you're claiming is that the existing data in the example I just stated, isn't enough for you to support claiming God exists. Am I right so far?

There is no credible data either way so we are left with what people imagine is evidence.

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

But there is data. And also, there's everyone's decision about it. Which may be right or wrong.

As of yet nothing that stands up to scrutiny.

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

My claim is that eventhough some of us claim there's insufficient data, we are nonetheless forced to make a bonafide free will decision. Based on the data that exists.

Whether or not being forced to decide means we don't really have free will, is just another decision we're being forced to make.

Well, it would appear that I may be somewhat resistant to being forced to accept insufficient data as acceptable in these matters.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Notice Alice isn't paying attention to where she's going.

 

 

Hi Will

Exactly the point of the gif.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

One cannot use the writings of religions to support a claim without exterior supporting data, so, no it is not sufficient.

There is no credible data either way so we are left with what people imagine is evidence.

As of yet nothing that stands up to scrutiny.

Well, it would appear that I may be somewhat resistant to being forced to accept insufficient data as acceptable in these matters.

jmccr8

 

But the level of sufficiency the data is is what a person decides it is.

Do you agree everyone is free to decide this forced decision?

 

 

[Aquila King]

I long for the day where I can tell someone "I don't know" and they simply believe what I say, without them feeling the need to write literal essays on the different nuances of various similar terms... 

[XenoFish]

"I don't know" appears to be the only valid answers. Everything else is an opinion.

[+Sherapy]

11 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Here is a video of Matt Dillahunty. He is one of the most recognized atheists is America.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

Herein he discusses the different terms and how they relate to each other.

Feel free to watch the whole video, but for the main point go to 12 mins in. There is a 5 minute chunk that kind of sums up the point.

I would like to discuss the difference in claims of belief and knowledge pertaining to gods.

For example, "I know God exists" and "I believe God exists." Or "I know God doesn't exist" and I don't believe God exists."

Which way do you state your position and why? 

 

Onlooker,

I try and default to Agnosticism as my base perspective, yet, at times I think the theist and the atheist have had a strong argument, strong enough to conclude that their perspective had weight, as far as that  can be in matters of god, simply because there is so much we don’t know. 

Namely, Thomas Aquina’s The Five Ways, his argument for First Cause is strong.

For the Athiest, the problem of evil, namely evidential evil is very strong in the sense it dismantles infinite perfection. 

Etc. etc. 

We have many differences in nuance when it comes to the perspectives of each position too.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Sherapy

[onlookerofmayhem]

If things weren't complicated enough, I found this diagram.

[danydandan]

I call myself an agnostic theist, is that so bad?

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

A theist is an atheist in regards to other gods. Interesting how that works. 

A monotheist is an atheist in regards to other gods. Although strangely, a monarchist usually isn't an anarchist to other kings and queens.

@Liquid Gardens

There is more than one way to end up agnostic. I can imagine a dedicated Bayesian (they love line segments, and hate triangles) diligently starting an investigation with "an uninformative prior," probably 50-50, and then applying all the available evidence. That step goes fast, and the all-but-nonexistent evidence moves the prior assessment not at all. So, 50-50 it ends up.

If so, then equipoise is a fine reason to accept neither categorical answer. You can even "tilt" and still be an agnostic. I have a Bayesian friend whose threshold for acceptance is generally 70-30, so even if she favored one or the other categorical answer in Qog, but if it worked out to, say, only 65-35 in whichever direction, then she'd be an agnostic. (IRL she accepts YES on QoG.)

However, one place where the Bayesians and I diverge is that I reserve for myself (and whoever cares to join me) an "investigative phase," during which time I have no commitment to any subsegment of the line segment being representative of my confidence. I think this is more psychologically realistic than a typical Bayesian insistence on "there's always some best estimate" of where I fall on the line segment, or at least a representative proper subsegment.

(My position annoys Bayesians, however, there is no consensus among them how prior assessments should be estimated, except maybe a consensus that I'm doing it wrong )

As to responsiveness, I hold that any yes or no question has three responsive answers: (I accept) YES, (I accept) NO, and I lack the requested information at this time. With Qog, I answer with the last of those three, because I'm in my "investiagtive phase." a situation I predict will persist longer than I do.

 

[XenoFish]

Yeah, definitely going stick with igtheism.

[danydandan]

I want to start a movement called idontgiveacrapeitherwayism. Anyone interested?

[MWoo7]

And you can't have a beard.

I'm IN ! 

The first """objective sound reasoned idontgiveacrapeitherwayism agnostic  "

Edited April 14, 2019 by MWoo7

[eight bits]

@onlookerofmayhem

The diagram is historically wrong: agnostic is a consciously coined word from the late 19th Century, minted by a known originator, Thomas Huxley. It is simply not the opposite of anything called gnostic (nor is there any such thing that I know of except a catch-all word for a retrospective category of ancient Christian schools that all lost out to what became orthodox Christianity - not in any sense the "opposite" of agnostic and nothing to do with "believing" anything "with utmost confidence.").

In contrast, atheist is an organic word, whose root versions have been in use far longer than the English language has been around, and in use with meanings sensibly related to idea of being without gods. (As is typical of organic words, the precise meaning has changed over time, and still is changing). Theist is a natural formation from the organic atheist to designate its opposite; gnostic is not a natural development from the coined agnostic, and is already a word in its own right which means something else in the same field as one finds terms like atheist and agnostic.

 

 

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

And you can't have a beard.

I'm IN ! 

The first """objective sound reasoned idontgiveacrapeitherwayism agnostic  "

Sweet a follower. Now I know how Jesus felt. The power, I like it.

Now send me money so eghhhhh ........ because.

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I want to start a movement called idontgiveacrapeitherwayism. Anyone interested?

You mean apatheism?

[danydandan]

25 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You mean apatheism?

I know what I said sounds exactly, and I mean that exactly, like Apatheism but it's not. It's different. It has more letters and therefore more complex.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I know what I said sounds exactly, and I mean that exactly, like Apatheism but it's not. It's different. It has more letters and therefore more complex.

The more complex it is the more confused people will be about it. They Will make thread after thread, engaging in heated flame wars over who has the right definition. Do you really want that chaos? 

[danydandan]

46 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The more complex it is the more confused people will be about it. They Will make thread after thread, engaging in heated flame wars over who has the right definition. Do you really want that chaos? 

Yes. 

I want it all. 

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

But the level of sufficiency the data is is what a person decides it is.

Do you agree everyone is free to decide this forced decision?

 

 

Hi Will

Yes, people are allowed to make decisions, but why do you insist that they are forced? I am not forcing anything on you to decide anything as your choices are your own we are just discussing here.

jmccr8

[XenoFish]

Hmm. Would it be possible to be an Omni-Theist or an Omni-Atheist? Why single any god/s/ess's out?

Edited April 14, 2019 by XenoFish
Brain hurty

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

And you can't have a beard.

What?!!! Heresy!

I'm creating a break away belief of idontgiveacrapeitherwayism, called bearded-idontgiveacrapeitherwayism.

[MWoo7]

RIGHT!!!!!!!!! hahahhaa! /\  /\  /\  /\  /\   /\   /\ ^ ^ ^ ^   /\  /\  /\  /\  /\   /\   /\  x_x ... >_ < ..~( :-|  ) no beards!?!?!? Why that's sacrilegious ! ... oh and you have to grow your hair long too!  Don't forget that new-age whatever thing ///? non-conformist I forget the lingo/jargo.

Edited April 14, 2019 by MWoo7

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Horta said:

Something usually overlooked but very relevant to these discussions is not so much the belief, but the definition of god being discussed. This is where christians often (wrongly) get their pov of atheists. It's possible to be quite sure the biblical god doesn't exist and be able to support that claim (to the same confidence level of fairies for instance), while still being open to the possibility that a god of some sort could exist. In the same way that if someone feels quite sure that odin doesn't exist, it says nothing about their overall beliefs.

Something also overlooked is that most rational, science based atheists will never attach absolute certainty to what they accept as knowledge itself, let alone belief.

Agnosticism has become a way of avoiding the question more than anything else. It's possible for a genuine agnostic position to require every bit as much faith and belief as a theist. To claim no knowledge of god is common to atheists as a starting point. To go further and claim knowledge of god is impossible for humans acquire if it does exist (which is also an agnostic position) is  a very strange position requiring an awful lot of belief. Seems irrational in itself.

 

Horta, 

For instance: what knowledge of god 

can we claim, what facts are we using, not what do we belief about god. I think this is the distinction.

 This is the Agnostic’s first question and Atheists’  first questions, Correct?

Is this the point you are making? Just seeking clarity. 

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

And yet hands down, everyone makes a claim. Which thus reveals, the data is there. Otherwise, no one would make a claim.

 

So what's really going on here?

 

To me, it looks like everyone is being forced to make a bonafide free will decision. A decision about what the data points to. And in my opinion, these choices, like swords, are what we will either die, or live by.

 

 

Will, we are considering what facts support the claims. 

The facts determine the conclusion.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

5 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

You're claiming that you don't claim things about God.

Which is a claim, in and of itself. 

 

 

Being forced, may or may not be reasonable to make a decision. I suppose it's just another choice one is being forced to make.

 

 

But your statement infers the data is there.

Whether or not it's sufficient is a decision. Just like it's a claim.

 

 

Will, he doesn’t make a generalized claim whether or not god does or doesn’t exist. 

He simply posted a sentence to state his position. 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Sherapy