Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

[Stormwatch]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is that the atheist does want to waste his time with a "maybe" for which there is no evidence.

[|darc|]

There's a difference between hearing of an idea and accepting it's likelyhood, no? He's refusing to comment on the probability of God's existence. Sounds pretty close to refusing to determine God's existence, ie saying it's unknowable.

That's Weak atheism. Agnosticism is saying there's no way of knowing. He didn't say that. He said nothing occurred to him that proved he does exist, therefore he doesn't believe (and doesn't care).

[jaredfogle]

I personally view God as an idea and nothing more. A human concept.

I think that's pure atheism, though I consider myself a religious man.

[The Alchemist]

That's Weak atheism. Agnosticism is saying there's no way of knowing. He didn't say that. He said nothing occurred to him that proved he does exist, therefore he doesn't believe (and doesn't care).

You wrote this before and I understood it then; it depends how you interpret what he wrote. I can see your point but mine also stands. In all likelyhood he is both an agnostic and a weak atheist.

[Specially Cork]

Im not agnostic in any way. Because I completely 100% dont believe in the existance of God.

What I was trying to get across is that my refusal to believe in God didnt come about as the result of an actual decision I made, because nothing has ever caused me to question the existance of God, so I never made a decision about God's existance. My disbelief in a God was something that was just inbuilt into the way I live my life. Which was the point I was trying to get across in answer to Soully's comments.

Its kinda difficult to explain.
When I say "I never made a decision" I am not implying that I am undecided. I am implying that a decision never had to be made.

It is like a lot of Christians for example, dont decide to believe in God. For them, God is just the way life is, because they have been brought up in a Christian environment and God has factored in their life from the beginning.
My disbelief in God works on the exact same principle as that.

[Ex-Cyber]

Im not agnostic in any way. Because I completely 100% dont believe in the existance of God.

Plenty of agnostics "completely 100% don't believe in the existence of God". Agnostics believe, in varying scopes and degrees, that the existence and nature of God are simply unknown or unknowable in a concrete sense (barring, perhaps, direct intervention by God).

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

[IiLuSiv]

I have absolute faith in the non-existence of God and anyone who believes he exists is a blasphemer against logic, because you have no proof that he does exist!

I don't need proof that he doesn't for the lack of evidence on the other side proves it enough to me.

See what I am getting at?

[greay]

I have absolute faith in the non-existence of God and anyone who believes he exists is a blasphemer against logic, because you have no proof that he does exist!

I don't need proof that he doesn't for the lack of evidence on the other side proves it enough to me.

See what I am getting at?

And you're a blasphemer against logic for saying so. When you say "logic" I think you mean "common sense".

[Specially Cork]

Plenty of agnostics "completely 100% don't believe in the existence of God". Agnostics believe, in varying scopes and degrees, that the existence and nature of God are simply unknown or unknowable

You should really read what you typed before you post it, because maybe you could stop yourself posting stuff that makes no sense whatsoever.

A person who "completely 100% doesnt believe in the existance of God" is an atheist. Because that is the definition of the word:

a?the?ist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
- Source: http://www.dictionary.com

and...

A person who claims the existance of God is unknowable, is agnostic. Because that is the definition of the word:

ag?nos?tic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

An agnostic cannot completely disbelieve in the existance of God, because then they are atheist. That is what the word exists for. There is no patchy grey area, there is no need for philisophy. It is simple facts, with simple definitions.
Atheists - God definitly doesnt exist
Agnostics - Cannot be sure

That is all there is to it.

[IiLuSiv]

And you're a blasphemer against logic for saying so. When you say "logic" I think you mean "common sense".

And what does common sense mean?

[Ex-Cyber]

You should really read what you typed before you post it, because maybe you could stop yourself posting stuff that makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe if you paid attention to what I wrote (and, for that matter, what you wrote), it would make sense.

A person who "completely 100% doesnt believe in the existance of God" is an atheist. Because that is the definition of the word

A person who "doesn't believe" something is not the same as a person who believes its opposite. I do not believe that gods exist. In that sense, I am an atheist. However, I do not believe that I have affirmative knowledge of their nonexistence (nor do I seek it).

a?the?ist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
- Source: http://www.dictionary.com

and...

A person who claims the existance of God is unknowable, is agnostic. Because that is the definition of the word:

ag?nos?tic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Yeah, I can cherry-pick dictionary definitions and twist them around my point, too, but I won't. Dictionaries only document usage, and they are never completely comprehensive. "Atheist" and "agnostic" have multiple senses, and you have obviously quoted only the most extreme ones here.

An agnostic cannot completely disbelieve in the existance of God, because then they are atheist.

They cannot believe that God definitely does not exist. They can lack any belief in God, which falls within the senses of the word "disbelieve". I won't quote a dictionary here; you know where to find one.

That is what the word exists for.

Sorry, but I'll take Russell's word over yours.

there is no need for philisophy

Agnosticism is a philosophical tenet, and exists because of the study of philosophy. If "there is no need for philosophy", then the word as we know it would not exist.

[Specially Cork]

I do not believe that gods exist. In that sense, I am an atheist. However, I do not believe that I have affirmative knowledge of their nonexistence (nor do I seek it).

There is nothing in that that links with being agnostic. Admitting that you have no knowlege of their nonexistance, but still concluded that they definitly dont exist, still makes you 100% atheist.

You would only become agnostic if you concluded that because you have no knowledge, you are undecided on God's existance. But you have made it quite clear that you have decided he doesnt exist, so regardless of anything else, you are atheist.

Yeah, I can cherry-pick dictionary definitions and twist them around my point, too, but I won't. Dictionaries only document usage, and they are never completely comprehensive. "Atheist" and "agnostic" have multiple senses, and you have obviously quoted only the most extreme ones here.

Cherry pick? I took the first and only definitions of each word.

They cannot believe that God definitely does not exist. They can lack any belief in God

Thats the same thing rephrased. How can you possibly lack any belief in God whatsoever, yet concede that he may exist at the same time? That is surely, partly believing in God?

Sorry, but I'll take Russell's word over yours.

Its not about taking his word over mine, but rather taking his word over what the dictionary says. If this Russel bloke wants to add a new level of depth to the definition of "agnostic" then he is quite free to do so, but that doesnt automatically make it "right".

I personally disagree with his view of "agnostic", wheras you obviously dont, and I doubt much is going to change that. So I move to lay this argument to rest, because my mind isnt going to change on this, and I doubt yours will either, and I will continue to define myself as "atheist" because I dont believe in God, and that is all.

[Ex-Cyber]

Admitting that you have no knowlege of their nonexistance, but still concluded that they definitly dont exist, still makes you 100% atheist.

you have made it quite clear that you have decided he doesnt exist

You've misread my post. While I certainly haven't "concluded that they definitely don't exist", I don't dispute that "atheist" could reasonably describe my lack of belief that gods exist. However, since we seem to disagree on the definition of "atheist" (and "disbelief", for that matter), I don't really know what significance this has.

Cherry pick? I took the first and only definitions of each word.

Maybe their scraper was temporarily broken or something. Dictionary.com has really gone downhill in the past couple of years...

How can you possibly lack any belief in God whatsoever, yet concede that he may exist at the same time? That is surely, partly believing in God?

You're drawing a false dichotomy, as you have throughout this discussion. Consider the question of whether the following statement is true or false:

Code: Select all

There are an infinite number of primes p such that p + 2 is also prime.

I personally disagree with his view of "agnostic", wheras you obviously dont, and I doubt much is going to change that. So I move to lay this argument to rest, because my mind isnt going to change on this, and I doubt yours will either, and I will continue to define myself as "atheist" because I dont believe in God, and that is all.

What you call yourself is a question for you to answer, and as far as it goes, I don't see any logical issue with considering your beliefs to be atheist. I just think that you've grossly oversimplified agnosticism.

edit:

Its not about taking his word over mine, but rather taking his word over what the dictionary says. If this Russel bloke wants to add a new level of depth to the definition of "agnostic" then he is quite free to do so, but that doesnt automatically make it "right".

Dictionaries do not actually define words, they document the definitions that arise from prior usage, and must discard or condense much of the meaning and history of a word in order to be feasible to publish (though one might argue that the OED is an exception). Russell's writings are an important part of the prior usage of "agnostic" and "agnosticism". So just to be clear: yes, I do take his word over the dictionary's.

[Lartrak]

Admitting that you have no knowlege of their nonexistance, but still concluded that they definitly dont exist, still makes you 100% atheist.

Perhaps it would help to state that you can be an agnostic atheist. They're not mutually exclusive.

[greay]

And you're a blasphemer against logic for saying so. When you say "logic" I think you mean "common sense".

And what does common sense mean?

Common sense != logic.

Common sense is largely a gut feeling, and is more tied to emotion than it is anything else. It's also sometimes wrong. Logic is a formal way do divine truth, and properly applied will give you truth. (of course, it's possible to make mistakes in logic (like you did above))

i.e, since best guess is for various reasons the (non)existence of God is unprovable, to say that belief in God is blaspheming against logic is... Well, illogical. (for the record, I don't believe in God)

[IiLuSiv]

Common sense != logic.

Common sense is largely a gut feeling, and is more tied to emotion than it is anything else. It's also sometimes wrong. Logic is a formal way do divine truth, and properly applied will give you truth. (of course, it's possible to make mistakes in logic (like you did above))

i.e, since best guess is for various reasons the (non)existence of God is unprovable, to say that belief in God is blaspheming against logic is... Well, illogical. (for the record, I don't believe in God)

Common sense is a varied concept which differs from societal, group and individual levels, it is just a way of saying, "it is obvious" or "I am right" without a real reason for it.

Philosophers find the definition of common sense to be unknown and discard the term entirely. It seems more to be a saying within America and to a lesser extent other English speaking countries than any real concept.

For you to say say common sense is logic, is not true and shows a lack of knowledge of the term.

The reason why it isn't logic is that, it is irrational, and logic cannot accept the irrational as it is irrational which is synonymous with illogical which makes logic collapse into itself.

One must ask, why is something illogical, and people will reply it is irrational, which is a synonym, the doubts about logic altho less pronounced than that of common sense are there, and logic can be considered a religion or faith of common times. Just like Chrisitianity which discards non-Christian ideas as blashpemy, science discards arguments it cannot explain as illogical or irrational. Hence why I used the words, blasphemy against logic. As the argument for Atheism has very little difference than that of Deism. Since they both require faith to acknowledge the belief or non-belief of God, since one has no idea how the universe or the particles which exploded to create the Universe (which is another THEORY, and to believe in it requires FAITH) came to be, to discard the idea of God is well, retarded. It would be like discarding evolution since one cannot see animals changing before them, instead that they are just there. For one to study how the world and universe came to be, one must lookin into all theories, especially the most popular ones.

To say it is logical to be an atheist is wrong, it is not logical, it is a faith based opinion. Agnosticism would be more investigative as you cannot know with the knowledge we have now.

I myself could be considered an atheist, not because I believe in the non-existence of God, but I see it as irrelevant, as I do not know know whther or not I exist, nor if others can see what I do, nor if I am even awake. There are too many unknowns in our own world as it is and our own 'life?' to begin to argue about lofty arguments such as the existence of God.

[greay]

"!=" means "not equal"

So you pretty much agree with me on that part. And then you go on to say that atheism is illogical, which I pretty much agree with for the reasons you state. Logic concerns itself with things that can be proven or disproven, and the existence of God is neither.

I think I see where I misunderstood you earlier. When you said believing in logic was a blasphemy against logic, I thought you meant that the converse was true, which in fact you weren't.

So, we're in agreement. Argument dissolved.

[Digital Chaos]

So this is kind of like the main theory behind anarchism. Negative behaviour is the result to an adverse reaction to authority.

Not at all. Anarchy is a rebellion against authority. What's described here is doing terrible things & justifying it because you imagine the authority says it's okay.

Umm..

<Political Science Major>
Anarchy, in spite of what 10th grade skater punks try to tell you, is an absence of authority. True anarchists believe that negative behaviour is a result of pressure from authority. The main principle behind Anarchism is that people are inherently good and can get along fine without authority.
</Political Science Major>
The article didn't really describe either of our conjectures but yours could work too. People will think they can get away with anything if they can go to the confessional the next morning to repent.

Going along with this same idea, when The Man tells you that people are inherintly war like it's just another way for him to keep you down. By saying that people are more willing to accept going to war, and violence.

[Stormwatch]

Ever wonder where gods go when they die? Here's the answer...

"Buried cities are beneath our feet; the ground on which we tread is the pavement of a tomb. See the pyramids towering to the sky, with men, like insects, crawling round their base; and the Sphinx, couched in vast repose, with a ruined temple between its paws. Since those great monuments were raised the very heavens have been changed. When the architects of Egypt began their work, there was another polar star in the northern sky, and the southern cross shone upon the Baltic shores. How glorious are the memories of those ancient men, whose names are forgotten, for they lived and labored in the distant and unwritten past. Too great to be known, they sit on the height of centuries and look down on fame. [...]

The men are dead, and the gods are dead. Naught but their memories remain. Where now is Osiris, who came down upon earth out of love for man, who was killed by the malice of the evil one, who rose again from the grave and became the judge of the dead? Where now is Isis the mother, with the child Horus in her lap? They are dead; they are gone to the land of the shades.

Tomorrow, Jehovah, you and your son shall be with them."

William Winwood Reade (1838 - 1875)
English historian, explorer, and philosopher

[DaMadFiddler]

Ooh, ooh, a religious argument! Can I jump in?

Here's more or less the conclusion I've come to. (Sorry; it's kind of long, so the best way for me to summarize it is in the form of this conversation I had with a friend a while back on AIM).

By the strict categories you guys are using, this would probably classify me as "agnostic." I prefer to think of it as "what makes sense," at least to me.

Anyway, enjoy:

Vanessa G:: I'm thinking about a minor in philosophy.
DaMadFiddler: neat
DaMadFiddler: but what happened to neuroscience?
Vanessa G:: I want to write something.
Vanessa G::
DaMadFiddler: [nods] writing is good
Vanessa G:: I want to do EVERYTHING.
DaMadFiddler: join the club
Vanessa G:: I want to know everything there is to know.
DaMadFiddler: good luck with that one
Vanessa G:: They only offer one neuroscience course at my
school.
DaMadFiddler: ...ucsc...*wink wink nudge nudge*
Vanessa G:: And if I want to take that one I have to take
psych 5, 8, and one other class to get into it.
DaMadFiddler: well...it wouldn't give you all the
knowledge offhand, but it may very well be possible
that you could achieve your goal by figuring out the
root equation
Vanessa G:: Wait, I'm sorry. They offer one in the psych
dept. and one in the bio dept.
DaMadFiddler: I've been fostering this idea for
several years now (I'm using it for a subplot in a
book I'm writing) about physics.
Vanessa G:: Root equation?
DaMadFiddler: basically, that the Universe may all
stem from one essential truth, or law, or equation, or
however you want to think of it. Just one root thing,
and everything else stems from or is extrapolated from
that, like fractal patterns.
Vanessa G:: Like... sqt(x)?
Vanessa G:: XD
DaMadFiddler: well...it would have to be something far
more complex than that
Vanessa G:: OOOOH FRACTALS ARE PRETTY.
DaMadFiddler: but you get the idea
Vanessa G:: Like, the entire universe is governed by math
essentially?
Vanessa G:: Or recursion?
DaMadFiddler: because, if you think about it,
everything is related to everything else. Any tiny,
seemingly imperceptible change in the system has
immeasurable ripple effects on everything else, if you
sit down and figure out all the possible direct and
indirect effects of the change.
DaMadFiddler: that, combined with how everything seems
to be based on identifyable patterns
DaMadFiddler: so we keep trying to figure out "laws"
of physics
DaMadFiddler: and they work, well enough
Vanessa G:: Isn't there a book like that? The Da Vinci
Code?
DaMadFiddler: but there's always some tiny flaw
Vanessa G:: I haven't read it.
Vanessa G:: But, a friend was telling me about it.
DaMadFiddler: yeah, a book came out on the topic a
couple of years ago
DaMadFiddler: I was really pissed when it happened,
because I'd been working on this story since high
school and now it wasn't going to sound original
Vanessa G:: AWW/
Vanessa G:: Poor kitty cat.
DaMadFiddler: but yeah...I think the reason none of
our "laws" work *quite* right is because we're taking
the wrong approach.
DaMadFiddler: Humans think and analyze by separating.
DaMadFiddler: divide, classify, understand what things
are by noticing its differences from everything else.
DaMadFiddler: Our minds work all backwards.
DaMadFiddler: You can't ever truly know the accurate
truth about one particular thing
DaMadFiddler: because the only way to have it 100%
correct is to have the root from which it stems
DaMadFiddler: and if you have the root, you can figure
out anything--thus you understand everything as a
whole
DaMadFiddler: but it's all just branches of a base, so
you can't really just know one part.
DaMadFiddler: which is why we're screwed.
DaMadFiddler: Because we have to learn everything all
at once, or we won't learn anything
DaMadFiddler: we can keep coming up with substitute
ideas, which work well enough to get us by...which is
what we do
DaMadFiddler: but the actual, accurate truth has to be
learned as one big whole.
DaMadFiddler: and I'm not sure if our minds could
handle that. It depends partially on how complex the
root is (whatever it is), and partially on whether
there is any way we could ever be able to get to that
root with the way our minds function.
DaMadFiddler: ...at least, that's my belief.
DaMadFiddler: I know it's kind of goofy and weird.
Vanessa G:: THERE IS NO TRUTH.
Vanessa G:: THERE IS ONLY YOU.
Vanessa G:: AND WHAT YOU MAKE THE TRUTH.
Vanessa G::
Vanessa G:: To quote a friend of mine.
DaMadFiddler: [laughs] how very existentialist.
DaMadFiddler: that's very psychological, though. I'm
trying to take the rational approach, rather than the
psychological or philosophical.
Vanessa G:: Yeah, I see that.
DaMadFiddler: [shrug] I don't know if it's right or
not--and if I *am* right, then there's no way I'll
ever be able to know for sure that I'm right. I just
thought it was interesting, so I decided to use it in
a story.
Vanessa G:: I'm sure it'd be possible to get to the root.
It's called reverse engineering.
DaMadFiddler: yes, but the root and its branching may
function differently than we think it does
Vanessa G:: And finding patterns in the way everything is
related.
DaMadFiddler: just because we have a dissective system
of learning.
DaMadFiddler: so we're trying to take everything in
through a flawed system of reasoning to begin with.