Quote :

"The atheist/agnostic distinction is pretty dumb to me."

Why? Can you provide any reasoning? Because until you do, you sound pretty stupid.

Quote :

"The "impossible to know" thing seems pretty wishy-washy."

Oh, so you've discovered a way we can answer questions without an answer? Brilliant, do share.

Quote :

"It's also impossible to know that we're not in the matrix, but everyone believes we're not in a computer simulation instead of being "matrix agnostic"."

This is another claim that is not falsifiable due to the nature of the claim. Technically, agnostics are agnostic on every question that cannot be answered. Your matrix question is meaningless because it cannot be answered. While you tried to make agnostics look silly by bringing up such a question, you really only displayed your own ignorance of how falsifiability works.

4/7/2006 1:21:01 PM

i've considered the possibility of a matrix-existence and determined that i don't care (probably because whenever I start to care, they just rewrite my software amiright)

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : s]

4/7/2006 1:28:23 PM

Quote :

"i don't see how an atheist could be anything but a fatalist"

huh?

Quote :

"While you tried to make agnostics look silly by bringing up such a question, you really only displayed your own ignorance of how falsifiability works."

Hey, I'm on your side (mostly). I realize a brain-in-a-vat scenario cannot be proven false, but when there is absolutely no evidence for it, I don't think it's wrong to take a position against it.

4/7/2006 4:42:18 PM

The original poster has yet to return to this thread.

4/7/2006 5:14:43 PM

Quote :

"I realize a brain-in-a-vat scenario cannot be proven false, but when there is absolutely no evidence for it, I don't think it's wrong to take a position against it."

if its not wrong to take a position against it because there is no evidence for it, then it is equally not wrong to take a position for it because there is no evidence against it.

4/7/2006 5:41:27 PM

No, seems to me the burden of proof is on the theists.

4/7/2006 10:37:24 PM

^

Bingo

4/7/2006 11:10:04 PM

the burden of proof is on anyone that makes an assertation about anything that is not empirically self-evident, or demonstrable, or otherwise already proven.

so obviously theists have a burden of proof when make assertations that god(s) exist

but atheists, if they claim that there "definitely are not any god(s)", then they have a burden of proof to show that they looked everywhere.

thats why agnostics win.

FWIW, i'm a militant agnostic: "I don't know and neither do you".

4/8/2006 1:56:28 AM

Quote :

"No, seems to me the burden of proof is on the theists."

4/8/2006 2:17:04 AM

oh god...

4/8/2006 3:32:09 AM

Quote :

"but atheists, if they claim that there "definitely are not any god(s)""

But very few atheists would ever claim there definitely are not any god(s). Most would say, like with ghosts, the burden of proof for something supernatural and not falsifiable would be on those claiming the supernatural.

Most would say
I don't believe in ghosts. (leaving open the possiblity of changing their mind if they encountered enough evidence)
NOT
I have faith there are no ghosts or I'm sure theres no way there could possibly be ghosts.

4/8/2006 10:39:19 AM

Quote :

"But very few atheists would ever claim there definitely are not any god(s)."

Atheism -- the theory or belief that God(s) do not exist.

Anybody who does not hold the above belief is not an atheist.

4/8/2006 10:47:42 AM

i think ghosts in all likelyhood don't exist. being supernatural i realize they are impossible to disprove, so i'm open to the possibility of ghosts if new evidence arises.

it would be wrong to call me agnostic, implying lack of confidence, skepticism, or undeveloped feelings on ghosts.


I would say I don't think ghosts exists, not its definitely impossible for ghosts to exist. If you are defining atheism as people who say "there definitely are no god(s)" then I've yet to knowling meet an atheist. If you allow for atheists being someone who lacks religion b/c they've seen no evidence to have theists beliefs but are open to the possiblity of changing if that evidence arises, then I've met very many atheists.

4/8/2006 11:07:19 AM

Quote :

"If you are defining atheism as people who say "there definitely are no god(s)""

The English language defines it this way. I don't understand why people don't educate themselves on the common usages of terms before using them.

What you're thinking of is somebody who is "areligious". Atheism is a very precise belief with a very precise definition. People either hold the belief of atheism or they do not. If they do, they are called "atheists".

4/8/2006 11:29:16 AM

I don't believe in god, but might change my mind if new evidence came up.
&
Humans can't Know.
&
I haven't made a decision yet.
&
Or I'm to indecisive to come to a decision ever..
&
I'm too confused to decide.

You’d lump in the first with the rest? I think atheist & agnostic sort of apples & oranges. There isn’t a nice cut off point between… there’s some overlap. By your definition I’ve never met an atheist.

Maybe you are right about the definition & I am wrong, in which case the term agnostic is fairly broad, not descriptive, & useless.

[Edited on April 8, 2006 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

4/8/2006 11:39:27 AM

Agnosticism is not the first one at all. You've given me no proof that God does NOT exist, and no proof that he does exist, either. So I have no choice but to not decide.

An atheist has decided there is absolutely no god, and a theist has decided that god/gods exist.

Where is the overlap there?

4/8/2006 12:39:04 PM

some people say i'm not going to believe in something supernatural until i get evidence

some people say i'm not going to make a decision on supernatural until i get evidence

some people say i'm going to have faith in the supernatural

call them what you will. but the way most ppl seem to want to define atheist is in a way that there aren't really many or maybe any atheists.

4/8/2006 12:43:34 PM

Nobody "wants" to define atheist a certain way.

Atheist has a specific definition. It is somebody who believes in atheism. Where is the confusion here?

Agnosticism is a fairly defined belief is as well. I'd lump the people who "aren't sure" because of lack of proof into the areligious category, just based on what the words mean. Agnostics believe you -can't- know, because of the nature of the question of God's existence. People who just aren't sure because of lack of proof and therefore reserve judgement on that motive are areligious.

4/8/2006 12:53:40 PM

okay? whats the appropriate term for someone who doesn't believe in god, just like they don't believe in ghosts, but would start believing in god if presented with evidence?

give me a one word answer… agnostic or atheist

and that will clear up all the confusion for me. Give me more than a one word answer and it wont clear it up.

4/8/2006 1:19:47 PM

areligious

4/8/2006 1:24:14 PM

indifferent?

4/8/2006 1:43:31 PM

Indifferent isn't a bad term, but areligious is a little more relevant to the topic.

People who just don't have a religion. Nothing more specific than that.

4/8/2006 1:47:53 PM

I've always found it funny that asexual doesn't mean that something doesn't have sex, it means it reproduces by itself. A monk is not asexual for instance.

4/8/2006 1:52:58 PM

commonsensical.

The problem with your question is that is something that would describe anyone who does not already believe in god. And assuming you after seeing the evidence consider it good enough to prove a god. Which I think is pretty much impossible even if the fucker showed up at your front door and is like, hey bitch im yo lord.

Because, well, the first question Id ask would be, prove it. Which, if he does, he may prove he has magical cosmic powers. But, then he has to prove hes still a god, and the only one...etc and it just gets very complicated at that point. I mean, how do you know hes not just an alien with psychic powers? Or the a devil, or demon?

The real god may not show up, satan does, and now you're worshiping satan. Bet that wont get ya into heaven. So....yeah.

It's a question with no answer...but if you could answer it, you would be commonsensical.

4/8/2006 1:54:37 PM

That's not a bad way to define it either.

But, since it actually has no answer, we should find a term that doesn't apply to a fictitious world.

4/8/2006 2:00:48 PM

What is up with this chart anyway? Atheists don't believe the question of God's existence is answerless, they believe they have the answer.

4/8/2006 2:36:23 PM

That chart is seriously messed up. They're using atheism as the broad term for anyone who has a doubt in theism.

4/8/2006 3:02:48 PM

That's because they are stupid.

4/8/2006 4:02:54 PM

I don't understand why people still keep missing my point.

Theism and atheism are only "categories" once somebody has brought up a true/false question that has no answer. People who believe they have the answer fall on either side of the line.

Any hypothetical answerless question you can come up with has a "for" and "against" crowd. The crowd that believes you cannot answer these kinds of questions (and thus have no stand on the issue) do not "doubt" one side or the other. They deem the entire question meaningless, pointless, and fruitless.

4/8/2006 4:34:35 PM

An exercise in futility.

4/8/2006 4:49:34 PM

McDanger, your point is fine- I don't understand the continued confusion either.

4/8/2006 5:45:59 PM

Quote :

"The crowd that believes you cannot answer these kinds of questions (and thus have no stand on the issue) do not "doubt" one side or the other. They deem the entire question meaningless, pointless, and fruitless."

why do you keep adding this part?

Quote :

"They deem the entire question meaningless, pointless, and fruitless."

I don't think it is necessary to the definition and for some may cause confusion.

4/8/2006 6:24:15 PM

McD can you make a chart that has theists, atheists, areligious, & agnostics on it?

4/8/2006 6:57:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it is necessary to the definition and for some may cause confusion."

Me neither.

Agnostics can still find the question meaningful at least.

4/8/2006 8:32:12 PM

I find the question INCREDIBLY meaningful yet impossible to answer.

It's infuriating.

4/8/2006 8:40:47 PM

Quote :

"McD can you make a chart that has theists, atheists, areligious, & agnostics on it?"

Sure thing -- but let me do it when I'm not so drunk. It'll probably look like a stick figure basketball tournament after this many pitchers of beer.

4/9/2006 12:45:21 AM

thanks. all the self-proclaimed atheists i know are apparently actually areligious... i'd like to have something to show them to put them in their place

4/9/2006 1:31:52 AM

agnostics are atheist-lite. They are too much of a pussy to actually say there is no god/gods. Eventually 99% of agnostics become atheists. As for me, I'm a stone cold atheist and nothing will happen to disprove atheism to me. God does not exist.


p.s. fuck this, "I'm not religous, I'm spiritual" bullshit. I want to punch people in the face when they say that.

4/9/2006 3:46:07 AM

I'm not religous, I'm spiritual

4/9/2006 4:44:19 AM

I'm not religous, I'm spiritual

4/9/2006 4:44:43 AM

shut, i can't spell today

*religious

4/9/2006 4:51:07 AM

shutup? or shit?

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 4:57 AM. Reason : ]

4/9/2006 4:55:45 AM

It's not that agnostics are pussies to say god doesn't exist, they just come to the realization that god's existance is an unanswerable question. The proper answer to that question from them is simply put we dont know. It's null and therefore shouldn't even be debated within the context of logical conversation. Outside of logic you can either try to believe in santa claus or do everything to deny his existance.

4/9/2006 5:02:14 AM

^^wow, I am out of it.

4/9/2006 5:20:25 AM

Quote :

"agnostics are atheist-lite. They are too much of a pussy to actually say there is no god/gods."

How many times do I have to make the same argument?

edit: btw I'll get on that chart soon, I gotta run out for a bit. What the FUCK did I post last night?

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2006 10:05:15 AM

Gamecat

Quote :

"" 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.""

From an epistimological standpoint these are very different beliefs.

The belief that I do not know whether there is a God and the belief that the truth of God is unknowable are quite different, and the difference largely hinges on your perseption of knowledge and truth itself.

Do you know that you are sitting a computer? Is this even a knowable fact? Do you know that aleins have or have not visited the earth? Is this a knowable fact?

Many atheist define atheism as the lack of belief in God - that is atheism. This does not necessarily mean that one believes that there is not a God nor does it mean that one believes that the question is unknowable.

It all turns on whether you believe knowledge obeies the law of the excluded middle. I would argue that posteriori knowledge does not.

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 11:25 AM. Reason : foo]

4/9/2006 11:24:58 AM

Quote :

"Do you know that you are sitting a computer? Is this even a knowable fact?"

Technically you can't prove it, because you're dependent on your senses giving you reliable data. Our baseline is our perceptions while alert and sober -- so we don't really have a way to confirm those. However, if this is all some big illusion then it doesn't matter either. The illusion has rules just as if it were real.

Quote :

"Do you know that aleins have or have not visited the earth? Is this a knowable fact?"

Yes it is, because it's conceivable to find evidence from something that has actually happened. You could falsify a theory of aliens visiting the Earth.

4/9/2006 12:19:47 PM

lol

4/9/2006 12:40:20 PM

Okay I didn't mean to make it sound like I believed aliens have visited here.

I meant "could happen". Aliens visiting the earth would be a physical event, producing physical evidence and disrupting and setting off new chains of events.

4/9/2006 12:42:49 PM

You know, it could be "some big illusion" that "has rules just as if it were real."

Lest we forget that the evidence is "dependent on your senses giving you reliable data."

4/9/2006 1:02:17 PM