Agnosticism Is A Way To Stay On The Fence, Until It Falls

originally posted by: luthier

I think what he is saying is atheism that makes a claim without proof is worse than having faith. Maybe because of the hipocrisy involved.

What? NO.

Atheism is Lack of Belief - - nothing more.

Claim of what exactly? There's no claim.

An individual atheist may make a claim - - but, that is that individual atheists philosophy. It only represents that individual.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

I think what he is saying is atheism that makes a claim without proof is worse than having faith. Maybe because of the hipocrisy involved.

What? NO.

Atheism is Lack of Belief - - nothing more.

Claim of what exactly? There's no claim.

An individual atheist may make a claim - - but, that is that individual atheists philosophy. It only represents that individual.

Annee, we have been through this. The study of philosphy recognizes two different points of view within atheism.

Until a proper word is created for the multitude of atheists that believe God could not exist, as in a specific ideology within the broader lack of beliefs you have to accept this large group into broader atheism.

Atheism unfortunately has to carry the people who believe a designer or entity is NOT possible. Philosphy as a study has encountered this schism for centuries so it defines two "hard" or "soft" mentalities.

I would agree with you however that a true atheist would not hold a belief that a god/designer/entity/ could never possibly exist as this would be a theory without evidence. That seems to me a belief. Where as saying I don't believe in god is an entirely different line of thinking. There may be no interest in the subject of God at all which is fine. It's hardly a proven theory. So why bother. That is different from forming the conclusion god as a construct is impossible.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

This is from the point of view of the western tradition of philosphy started in ancient greece with the first recorded atheist Diagoras in ancient greece. Concepts that elevated or stifled society arose from philosphical ideas in a padogy where the arguements for and against God have taken place and been studied.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

I think what he is saying is atheism that makes a claim without proof is worse than having faith. Maybe because of the hipocrisy involved.

What? NO.

Atheism is Lack of Belief - - nothing more.

Claim of what exactly? There's no claim.

An individual atheist may make a claim - - but, that is that individual atheists philosophy. It only represents that individual.

Annee, we have been through this. The study of philosphy recognizes two different points of view within atheism.

NO. Atheism means one thing only. Lack of belief in a god.

"Atheist/Atheism" is a NOUN.

The philosophy comes from individuals expanding their personal thoughts of atheism.

a reply to: Annee

OK so sufis and sunni are the same?

Jews and catholics?

When large groups of ideas collect there become new words for sub groups.

It's much easier for study to understand the two very different viewpoints within atheism because large groups have two different views within the same group. You can easily and readily look this up. Positive and negative atheism.

What you are doing is using YOUR definition of atheism verses the general consensus. Which honestly is no better or worse. Just know that the majority of academic philosphy holds the view that atheism has two distinct viewpoints.

a reply to: luthier

That is a fair and reasonable way of looking at the situation objectively. It is inevitable for people of ANY label that a small portion of those who claim to run under that banner will taint the vast majority of those who all fall under that banner.

The objection I believe Annee is making is that, in this particular case, the onus should not be upon the atheist to state that they are "hard" (explicit) or "soft" (implicit) in their views, when the definition of their label implies they are implicit by default, AFTER they have already been assumed to be explicit without any expression of their own.

Basically 99.99% of people that have a vehement dislike for atheists maintain that dislike by assuming the atheist they are talking about is explicit in their approach, when only knowing they are an atheist (and not having heard any of their views) alone does not specify that. The vast majority of atheists are implicit in their lack of belief and it is therefore incredibly unfair that the onus is on them to defend an already unjust assumption about their position before they were even brought into the conversation.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Basically 99.99% of people that have a vehement dislike for atheists maintain that dislike by assuming the atheist they are talking about is explicit in their approach, when only knowing they are an atheist (and not having heard any of their views) alone does not specify that. The vast majority of atheists are implicit in their lack of belief and it is therefore incredibly unfair that the onus is on them to defend an already unjust assumption about their position before they were even brought into the conversation.

That was nicely written.



(still thinking about implicit though) atheistblogger.com...

a reply to: Annee

O.o

Annee and myself, who have on SO many occasions in the past not agreed and were not properly willing to entertain the other person's perspective on almost every other topic imaginable, have been able to see eye to eye on THIS topic. Not only that, Annee could have quietly admitted so but was brave enough to still post so as well, even knowing our history together.

Maybe what we are both saying is worthwhile in this particular case.

Thank you Annee, there is room for compromise between us. Even at this point it seems like its only this topic.

originally posted by: Annee
That was nicely written.

(still thinking about implicit though) atheistblogger.com...

I should not have celebrated too soon, but I do believe maybe the words implicit and explicit is a case of focussing on the semantics because we don't think our point has been understood by others, but let's wait and find out first when the other member responds.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I agree nearly 100 percent with everything said in your response.

I hold no judgment or as little as I can train myself to have towards beliefs or lack of beliefs so I don't have any hatred for atheists. I am an atheist about 50 percent of the time and some where in deism and pantheism the rest. I find most all viewpoints valid until falcicious error occurs in the arguments themselves. A first cause makes more sense then a virgin birth and miracles to me but I could provide a decent argument a multiverse may have a virgin birth. Theism for me is harder to swallow but I can handle listening and thinking about the concepts, certainly plenty of wisdom mixed into the mistakes man made. Usually I try and imagine what metaphor the folklore is trying to get across or if there could have been some version of reality somehow different when time and space were different in our universe.

Cosmology is really useless for almost anybody. So many people just have a piece they fit into the psyche. When you start studying modern physics say bosonic where you have 26 dimensions god doesn't sound so crazy. I don't mean because the the modern cosmology isnt valid,I mean because what we are hypothisizing reality may be based on observation, is really far out stuff. Wouldn't there have to be one universe in the multiverse that God did exist?

That was more a philosophical joke but seriously reality whether you choose science or theology is pretty weird stuff.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Thank you Annee, there is room for compromise between us. Even at this point it seems like its only this topic.

Ya never know.

a reply to: luthier

Knowing requires no belief... it just is, the faith and belief is the maybe maybe not.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Knowing does require a belief. Or else your literally using faith which may or may not be "real". The universe doesn't care if you know you can walk on water. If you can't your going to drown or at least get wet.

a reply to: luthier

Lol um nope. Doubt is required or else it just is.... it cant ever be more than what it is when left at just what it is. Make it something else? Well... then one is dealing with delusional creativity of concepts.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

You have made an empty statement.

Who gets to decide what is is?

You or god?

The nature of what is is is unknowable currently.

As in things are only what they are, it is only what it is.

Vernacular and language are fluid. What is is, changes as you learn more or it stays the same if you don't.

a reply to: luthier

The uncreated is unformed unmade unborn beyond concept... it just is. One step out of that is all else but yet unattached it also just is. The delusion or ignorance that grasps has already been made, created, formed by all life known and unknown. Calling a tree doesn't make it a tree, agreeing it is a tree does. What good is such grasping at a tree when nothing is there to communicate it? Echo echo echo nothing yelling at nothing.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

The tree can't possibly exist without an observer.

Existence requires an observer. Otherwise it's entirely unknowable and uninterwsting to consciousness. Something can't exist without an observer . If no observer exists anywhere nothing exists. If a tree falls in the forest,..then it's subject to a probability waveform. There is a dimension where the tree falls and one where it does not. There is one the tree never existed as well.

This modern aproach in string theory and others is a lot like shrodingers cat in quantum mechanics.

Existence is a concept from consciousness which comes from observation..

See the anthropic principle.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Most agnostics are really agnostic atheists.

Those that do not know but are afraid to find out?

I guess you can be both but it sounds rather boring..as boring as religions.

You don't believe for excitement. You believe because that is what the evidence collected shows.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Have you tried a sensory deprivation tank yet? I was reading up on sensory deprivation therapy recently. Apparently its super relaxing. Some even have religious experiences in them. Then once you get out everything is supposed to look brand new again.

The salts are quite refreshing especially if you are low on magnesium.

Had to spend quite along time personally in the tank before my mind started wandering..at least 4.5 hours.

It is expensive and takes many times to get REAL good at letting go.

Worthwhile experience...also try the Lucia Light No.3 if you have a wild imagination like i do you can have truly breathtaking journeys into restfulness.

I'll keep that in mind. I was thinking about trying it once to see what it is like.

a reply to: luthier

Aren't you doing exactly the same thing? Using YOUR definition?

It sounds like maybe Academic Philosophy is advancing specious semantic layers in offering 'accepted' definitions.

a reply to: Salander

Not really no. I am using philosophy.

Do you not understand the different perspective of "I don't believe in god" vs "no god could possibly exist".

Because of the common occurrence throughout history of those two views being different different descriptors are made.

This is so while learning to debate rationally you understand the arguments.

It also helps understand atheism does not mean you believe God does not exist. It means you don't hold beliefs in god.

However, hard atheism has a problem with claims as does theology. Lack of proof.

If you use science as your argument then hard atheism becomes even harder.

In the model of the multiverse or all possible outcomes, wouldn't one be a universe with God, miracles, virgin births, etc....whether using string theory, m theory, bosonic theory...

It's a half tung and cheek statement but also a possible reality.