clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
> the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
> towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
> as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:

Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> > The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> > It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

> That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
> are atheists.

I was talking about the *colloquial* usage of the term "agnostic", which
invariably means "I don't have a stance in one way or another on the
subject of whether a god exists."

(In philosophy "agnosticism" means something different, as I described
in my previous post.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> > views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

> It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
> is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
> common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact,
they are rather independent concepts that deal with different questions.
A person *can* be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Atheism deals with belief in a god.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

They don't even discuss the same subject matter.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 22:03, schrieb clipka:
> Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>>
>> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
>> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
>> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
>> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)
>
> Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Had to find this again on Youtube, just for the fun of watching it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>
> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

Would you say...

( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> > The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
> >
> > Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

> Would you say...

> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
you are.

Take for example, the definition in the The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the
belief that there exists none."

I know that many people for some reason want theism and atheism to be
the extreme ends of the spectrum and agnosticism to be right in the
middle, and all three to deal with the exact same subject, but that's
just not what the terms mean.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:

> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.

I actually find it pretty easy:


* I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or 
what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for 
sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may 
be, it may be wrong.


something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor 
to anyone else.


believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature 
to be.


fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme 
something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by 



fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief 
re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits 



I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the 
agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.



currently think the supreme something's nature is:

* I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme 
something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its 
nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout 
the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove 
it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such 
an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is 
nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.


humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.




Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the 
"commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 00:19, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>>
>>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
>> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
>> Would you say...
>
>> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
>> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
>> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
> Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
> you are.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[27] 
contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an 
assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it 
requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as 
compatible with agnosticism,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and has also 
been contrasted with it.[35][36][37] A variety of categories have been 
used to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I interpret the term to require "a conscious, explicit rejection", 
because to me that appears to be closer to the typical use of the term 
in common English, i.e. when used neither colloquially, nor as a 
technical term of philosophy, nor as a technical term of conservative 
Christianism.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:08:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After
> long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism
> can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you
> are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and
> disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can
> check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear
> that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the
> same god meant.

That's a very interesting argument.  I like it.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 4:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>
>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
> Would you say...
>
> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
Umm. No, because it is "still" possible to conclude that all "extant" 
definitions of such a god are absurd (i.e., existing religions), while 
**provisionally** discounting one that is not yet defined, *but* still 
allowing that one's own knowledge may be insufficient to draw a 
conclusion. This is pretty much the stance of even the supposed "strict 
atheists", I have ever had describe their position. Even the ones that 
don't hold it do so on the sole basis that its an unnecessary addition 
to existing theory, which has consistently shown no evidence, or reason 
to suppose one might find such evidence, of supernatural entities, 
including gods.

Its still a "provisional" stance, but, in the same sense that one would 
not reject, say, the law of gravity, without a significantly radical 
replacement, and the necessary evidence to show that it possessed 
attributes which explain things the current concept does not. I.e, as 
close as possible to impossible, as possible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:08 PM, andrel wrote:
> Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god
> does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a
> part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will
> be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)
>
Actually, my take would be much the same, I think, as that of PZ Myers. 
If a god did show up, and did things that seemed to defy natural laws, 
there would be a few moments of disconcert, then I would start thinking, 
"How exactly did they do that?" The default position would not be to 
presume that there was no explanation, or that the best explanation was 
that it was really god, but, rather, that they are doing something that 
is *possible* to achieve, and I just don't know exactly how yet.

This is, of course, the dead opposite of religious belief, where one 
"expects" to have some things only be possible if the god is the one 
doing it, and how they did it to be unexplainable, and unreproducible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message