Does atheism differ from agnosticism? - Page 4

Trakar · 21st November 2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I don't want you incorporated, and I don't care about the numbers. That I am an atheist has nothing at all to do with the reason I say you are one. I don't want you on the team; there's no team to want you on. It's simply a fact. You don't have to call yourself an atheist. You don't have to buy a t-shirt. You are an atheist if you are not a theist. There is no logically possible middle ground..

Without meaning to get too pedantic, an a-theos ist would be one who actively does non-god, it isn't a passive state of non belief or adoxia.

-ist, which comes from the Greek suffix -istes, forms agent nouns, that is, nouns that denote someone who does something.

the PC apeman · 21st November 2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

My primary issue is that "atheism" is a belief system in non-god (a-theos), if you wish to express non-belief then the more appropriate terminology would revolve around a-dox or non-belief. If you wish to cliam that you have no belief in god(s) I've no problem with that. Adoxtheism, however, would be describing a belief system that that doesn't believe in god (the "ism" is somewhat redundant, and somewhat contradictory as you seem to be wanting to use it). If you want to claim lack of beliefs you are adogmatic or adoxic, but it doesn't make much sense to talk about a belief system without beliefs, (which, BTW, is basically the conclusion that the early Greek philosophers came to with regards to the original term I mentioned, "adoxastôs").

adoxtheos is a fine start. But what form of it would I use it in this sentence: _____________ is on the rise. Adoxtheism seems natural to me. -ism here meaning state, not belief system or practice.

PS. Is botulism a belief in sausages? Is racism a belief that there are races?

Apology · 21st November 2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Those that are telling you are an atheist - and that includes me - apparently use the word quite differently than you do yourself.

Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you.

Rasmus · 21st November 2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist?

A theist, for any meaningful use of the term "Christian".

Marquis de Carabas · 21st November 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist?

Theist. What is confusing you?

Rasmus · 21st November 2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true.

You're just not getting it, are you? You will always be either an atheist or a theist - no matter what else you may or may not be.

Quote:

I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you.

Why do you assume it should confuse me?

I am not even confused that you withhold judgement as to whether god exists or not.

You, however, appear to have a problem with the idea that an atheist does not have to claim that there certainly isn't a god. But they don't have to do that according to the definition I use.

Marquis de Carabas · 21st November 2007, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you.

Actually, deism is a subset of theism. You are now a theist. Try again.

Irony · 21st November 2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you.

*cough* Technically a deist is a theist.

Edit: darnit, beaten while I was searching for that ducking smiley.

Apology · 21st November 2007, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Actually, deism is a subset of theism. You are now a theist. Try again.

If it's a subset it differs from theism.

It doesn't really matter though, 20 minutes haven't passed, so I've changed my mind again and I'm an atheist now. I also have another 20 minute interval in which to change sides yet again. It's likely that I will.

Irony · 21st November 2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

If it's a subset it differs from theism.

It doesn't really matter though, 20 minutes haven't passed, so I've changed my mind again and I'm an atheist now. I also have another 20 minute interval in which to change sides yet again. It's likely that I will.

Only in the sense that golden retrievers differ from dogs.

On a side note: Why are the longest and bloodiest wars on this forum always over semantics?

Marquis de Carabas · 21st November 2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

If it's a subset it differs from theism.

Only by being more specific. If you're a deist, you're a theist.

Marquis de Carabas · 21st November 2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Irony

On a side note: Why are the longest and bloodiest wars on this forum always over semantics?

They are about semantics, not over semantics.

Rasmus · 21st November 2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

If it's a subset it differs from theism.

No.

"Houses" is a subset of "buildings". But houses are not differing from buildings.

"Apples" is a subset from "fruit". But apples are not differing from fruit.

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

What I'm saying is that you have to ignore that for such a question to not seem absurd.

Fine--so I'm asking you to ignore it and concentrate on the logical argument being made.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Sure it does, because there are theists who can also be agnostic. The "problem" most arguments about agnosticism I've seen have is that they don't fit the binary claim of theism or atheism. I don't see that as a problem, because a religion like Buddhism has a similar structure and yet still exists as a relevant philosophical state. Basically, I'm saying a metaphor for why agnosticism is a logically tenable position separate from (but not exclusive of) atheism already exists in the religious belief of Buddhism.

And I'm saying that there are either theist Buddhists or atheist Buddhists and no usefully defined group that can be labelled "agnostic" Buddhists. If you think there is (i.e., if you think that there is some coherent, valid position that should be labeled "agnostic" and will be distinct from both a coherent, valid "theism" and a coherent, valid "atheism" I really wish you'd just say what it entails).

Originally Posted by GreNME

I think the Dawkins example is an acceptable one in its simplicity. "Validity" is going to vary depending on the position of the person interpreting it, though.

No, validity depends on logical consistency. Please note I'm not using "valid" here to mean "true" or "correct." I think theists are wrong, for example, but I still believe you can give a coherent account of theism. What I am arguing is that you can't coherently distinguish "atheism" from "agnosticism" without making one term or the other describe an absurd position.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Not in this case it isn't, because it is appealing to ridicule. The absurd reduction is the mechanism to reach the appeal to ridicule.

I don't know what you mean here, but I do know that the term "reductio ad absurdum" does not describe a form of logical fallacy. It describes a way of exposing someone else's logical (or factual) fallacies. Don't take my word for it--just try Googling it.

cafink · 21st November 2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

This one always amuses me, and which is why I stand firmly in the "have not made a choice, feel no need to make a choice" camp as described by Apology earlier.

Comparing Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or many other religious beliefs to believing in unicorns or invisible bunnies seems to ignore, whether implicitly or explicitly, the social inertia (or you could say baggage) of the history of the belief in terms of cultural history. They aren't really comparable concepts outside of a vacuum where no other factors but the belief exist. Now, fifty or a hundred or a thousand years from now, if there is a Church of the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church that exists, then I could see them as being not only comparable but in fact extremely similar in terms of holding a faith. There seems to be no rhetorical logic behind the argument except to commit the logical fallacy of reduction to absurdity.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical argument that assumes a claim, demonstrates that the claim leads to an absurdity, and concludes that the assumption must therefore be incorrect.

In the case of the "unicorn" argument, the claim is that it is reasonable to believe in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. The absurdity that it leads to is that it is equally reasonable to believe in other beings, such as unicorns, for which there is no empirical evidence.

Ignoring the "social inertia" of religious beliefs is the very point of the comparison, because "social inertia" is not a good reason for adopting a belief. Evidence is, and indeed, the evidence for the existence of unicorns is every bit as good as that for the existence of god (according to most traditional definitions of "god," anyway). The mere fact that millions of people have held a belief for thousands of years does not in itself make that belief likely to be true.

Originally Posted by Apology

I've never understood why atheism would want to incorporate people into their group that clearly don't want to be a part of that group, unless it's to make up for their lack of numbers.

No one has asked you to join a group of which you don't want to be a part. They've simply asked you, "do you believe in god?" Since you have said more than once in this very thread that you "do not believe God exists," that, like it or not, makes you an atheist by definition.

Yes, you could then go on to say more about your non-belief, such as that you are not completely sure. That's a completely reasonable position, and one with which I think most here would agree. But that's not the question that was asked.

To use the analogy you drew in a previous post, the question you are being asked is, "Do you like men?" You are answering, "No, I am bisexual." Your answer is contradictory. Being bisexual means you do like men; it just happens to mean some other things in addition to liking men. Similarly, being agnostic means that you do not have a belief in god. Yes, it means some other things in addition to your non-belief, but it still entails non-belief--atheism.

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

If it's a subset it differs from theism.

It doesn't really matter though, 20 minutes haven't passed, so I've changed my mind again and I'm an atheist now. I also have another 20 minute interval in which to change sides yet again. It's likely that I will.

Apology, you're proving my initial point rather nicely here. You're saying that "agnosticism" doesn't describe a coherent, valid philosophical position in respect to the existence of god--rather it's a socially useful descriptor of people who are hesitant about which position they wish to adopt.

The point of my question was not "does agnosticism serve a function as a term in social use" but "does it describe a position that can be coherently and usefully distinguished from atheism (or from theism)."

The fact that your only way to demonstrate "agnosticism" is by switching from the clearly defined "theism" to the equally clearly defined "atheism" suggests that the answer to that last question is no.

GreNME · 21st November 2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by bignickel

Except,
1. There is a group of people who believe in god/s: they're called theists. Everyone who is not in that club is called an atheist. Unless you can say 'yes' to "Do you believe in god/s?", you're out here with the rest of us.

Please explain where the religion of Buddhism sits in this either/or statement.

Originally Posted by bignickel

2. An agnostic position is not a position of hubris, it's the exact opposite. It an admission of not being able competent enough to judge evidence that shows the existence of a being outside the universe. That's not hubris, that's humility.

Ahh, the good old "you're stupid" argument.

Originally Posted by bignickel

3. There's lots of people who say they are agnostic atheists, Michael Shermer among them.

That has little to do with the price of tea in China.

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist?

Your question points to exactly why I see no value in the term "agnostic." People like Apology want to say "I am neither theist nor atheist, I'm in the middle--agnostic." But if it makes perfect sense to also speak of "theist agnostics" and "atheist agnostics" then the term is just hopelessly muddled. "Not knowing" is the (actual) state of all atheists and all theists. It is the self-described state of most (I would say almost all) atheists and (probably) most theists. It does not describe a coherent, separate, position on the relevant issues.

fls · 21st November 2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Apology

I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be comfortable with any of the groups and will never choose one.

You seem to like hanging out in the fuzzy part of fuzzy sets. I can empathize as I tend to do the same (and similarly get in trouble for it

).

When you visualize the shifting nature of the degree of membership in the two groups (theism/atheism), do you see them as complementary (as the degree of membership increases in one, it decreases in the other) or independent (the degree of membership varies in one with no effect on the other)?

Linda

GreNME · 21st November 2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by cafink

Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy.

It is when it's used to appeal to ridicule.

Originally Posted by cafink

It is a logical argument that assumes a claim, demonstrates that the claim leads to an absurdity, and concludes that the assumption must therefore be incorrect.

See above. When it's used as an excuse to ridicule, which has consistently been the case in my experience on this subforum, it falls into fallacy.

Originally Posted by cafink

In the case of the "unicorn" argument, the claim is that it is reasonable to believe in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. The absurdity that it leads to is that it is equally reasonable to believe in other beings, such as unicorns, for which there is no empirical evidence.

Like I said, show me the Unicorn Orthodox Church and we can agree on this claim. Otherwise it is an intellectually lazy assertion.

Originally Posted by cafink

Ignoring the "social inertia" of religious beliefs is the very point of the comparison

Which is why it fails.

Originally Posted by cafink

, because "social inertia" is not a good reason for adopting a belief.

And this is why I find such arguments amusing. Arguing from a vacuum is no way to make a point about a social construct.

Originally Posted by cafink

Evidence is, and indeed, the evidence for the existence of unicorns is every bit as good as that for the existence of god (according to most traditional definitions of "god," anyway). The mere fact that millions of people have held a belief for thousands of years does not in itself make that belief likely to be true.

Since I already pointed out it isn't the antiquity, you are making a strawman point. See my comments regarding the Church of FSM.

fls · 21st November 2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

They are about semantics, not over semantics.

That was the funniest thing I've seen today. Thanks for the laugh.

Linda

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Please explain where the religion of Buddhism sits in this either/or statement.

There is no "religion of Buddhism"--there are many different religions that go by the name. Some are theist, some are atheist. They are all "agnostic"--which is why "agnostic" is not, in my view, a philosophically useful term.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Ahh, the good old "you're stupid" argument.

I know this wasn't addressed to me--but I think you were misreading his argument, here. I don't see how saying that agnosticism is a position of humility is accusing anyone of stupidity. "Humility" is usually regarded (except by Nietzscheans and a few others) as a positive quality.

ETA: GreNME, I would very much like to see you give a positive definition of "agnosticism"--one that is coherent, but distinguishable from "atheism" (without relying on defining atheism so narrowly that it becomes an absurd position). I do find it surprising that so many people are willing to say "it's obvious that there is a coherent 'agnostic' position" but that no one is willing to have a go at defining it.

Macoy · 21st November 2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Cello Man

Sometimes metaphor communicates more clearly than a literal definition.

http://cectic.com/039.html

I don't know which one is which. Certainty causes havoc on this planet.

GreNME · 21st November 2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

Fine--so I'm asking you to ignore it and concentrate on the logical argument being made.

That's a ridiculous request. Beliefs aren't exclusive to their social affiliation and interpretation. Removing social context is a poor way to go about this argument, and is intellectually lazy.

Originally Posted by Yoink

And I'm saying that there are either theist Buddhists or atheist Buddhists and no usefully defined group that can be labelled "agnostic" Buddhists. If you think there is (i.e., if you think that there is some coherent, valid position that should be labeled "agnostic" and will be distinct from both a coherent, valid "theism" and a coherent, valid "atheism" I really wish you'd just say what it entails).

Originally Posted by Yoink

No, validity depends on logical consistency. Please note I'm not using "valid" here to mean "true" or "correct." I think theists are wrong, for example, but I still believe you can give a coherent account of theism. What I am arguing is that you can't coherently distinguish "atheism" from "agnosticism" without making one term or the other describe an absurd position.

There are times you can distinguish the two, and there are times you can't.

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

Understand?

Originally Posted by Yoink

I don't know what you mean here, but I do know that the term "reductio ad absurdum" does not describe a form of logical fallacy. It describes a way of exposing someone else's logical (or factual) fallacies. Don't take my word for it--just try Googling it.

Which is why I went on to explain what the mechanism does-- it appeals to ridicule using reduction to an absurd degree. Hope that helps you understand it better.

the PC apeman · 21st November 2007, 01:27 PM

GreNME,
Is there some belief X such that...

we can agree it is irrational to hold X,
has a sufficiently established set of adherents,
and you would not find to be a ridiculous comparison to belief in a god?

cafink · 21st November 2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Like I said, show me the Unicorn Orthodox Church and we can agree on this claim. Otherwise it is an intellectually lazy assertion.

Now you are committing a logical fallacy--argumentum ad populum. That belief in god is more popular than belief in unicorns does not make the existence of god more likely than that of unicorns.

Quote:

And this is why I find such arguments amusing. Arguing from a vacuum is no way to make a point about a social construct.

It is when the point of the argument is that, in a vacuum, the two beliefs are equally tenable. Are you claiming that belief in god is more reasonable than belief in unicorns just because a lot of people believe in god and almost no one believes in unicorns? Because that's pretty much the only difference between the two beliefs.

GreNME · 21st November 2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

There is no "religion of Buddhism"--there are many different religions that go by the name. Some are theist, some are atheist. They are all "agnostic"--which is why "agnostic" is not, in my view, a philosophically useful term.

What if someone is agnostic but not a Buddhist?

Originally Posted by Yoink

I know this wasn't addressed to me--but I think you were misreading his argument, here. I don't see how saying that agnosticism is a position of humility is accusing anyone of stupidity. "Humility" is usually regarded (except by Nietzscheans and a few others) as a positive quality.

I didn't get the memo that stated everyone must define the world according to Nietzche (which actually sounds more like Rand than Nietzche, but Rand was a big fan of Nietzche so the distinction may not mean much). Questioning the competence in a blanket statement like that is, indeed, an accusation of stupidity.

Originally Posted by Yoink

ETA: GreNME, I would very much like to see you give a positive definition of "agnosticism"--one that is coherent, but distinguishable from "atheism" (without relying on defining atheism so narrowly that it becomes an absurd position). I do find it surprising that so many people are willing to say "it's obvious that there is a coherent 'agnostic' position" but that no one is willing to have a go at defining it.

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

There are some who would also argue that there are A who are neither B nor C at all, and also some who are BC. Still, such claims still do not fall exclusively into B or C. The binary if-then statement doesn't apply.

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

There are times you can distinguish the two, and there are times you can't.

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

Understand?

Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean?

Atheism means:
Theism means:
Agnosticism, by contrast, means:

I really think this would help.

As to your "some A are B, some A are C"--this would be fine if "Agnostic" purported to be a term utterly unrelated to the positions described as "theist" and "atheist" (that is, if there were no people in the world who said--like Apology--"I'm neither theist nor atheist, I'm agnostic"). If A was "German" for example, that would be fine: some Germans are atheist, some are theist--fine.

But "agnostic" isn't such a term. It is an term with an inherently unstable meaning that simply muddies the conceptual waters (again, if you disagree, please provide a stable definition). It suggests a "via media," but on most definitions is either coterminous with atheism or makes no useful distinction between atheists and theists.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Which is why I went on to explain what the mechanism does-- it appeals to ridicule using reduction to an absurd degree. Hope that helps you understand it better.

Fine--just don't use a long-established rhetorical term that has a fixed and well understood meaning for something quite different. You are objecting to religion being ridiculed. That is not a "reductio ad absurdum."

GreNME · 21st November 2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by cafink

Now you are committing a logical fallacy--argumentum ad populum. That belief in god is more popular than belief in unicorns does not make the existence of god more likely than that of unicorns.

You really haven't been reading my posts. I already said arguments like the Church of FSM are valid despite not coming from a popular position because unlike your unicorn analogy the person who developed the FSM argument was not intellectually lazy about it. All you have to do is show the Unicorn Orthodox Church (or whatever you wish to name it) and you might have a point. Bringing up unicorns and fairies or whatever are not an apt comparison because they aren't like analogies.

Originally Posted by Yoink

It is when the point of the argument is that, in a vacuum, the two beliefs are equally tenable. Are you claiming that belief in god is more reasonable than belief in unicorns just because a lot of people believe in god and almost no one believes in unicorns? Because that's pretty much the only difference between the two beliefs.

The need to argue it from a vacuum is exactly what makes the argument ridiculous. People don't develop their beliefs in a vacuum. If you can't place it in context then you should rethink your approach at the argument.

Darat · 21st November 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean?

Atheism means:
Theism means:
Agnosticism, by contrast, means:

I really think this would help.

...snip...

A slight rearrangement of your three called for definitions:

Theism means: Someone who believes a god exists
Atheism means: A label for someone who is not a theist
Agnosticism: A philosophical position that holds that the knowledge of whether god exists or not is in principle not knowable.

An atheist can only exist and be defined because there are theists, whilst theists do not require atheists to be defined.

GreNME · 21st November 2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean?

Atheism means:
Theism means:
Agnosticism, by contrast, means:

I really think this would help.

Help who? Agnosticism, by contrast, means: neither exclusively atheist nor exclusively theist.

Originally Posted by Yoink

As to your "some A are B, some A are C"--this would be fine if "Agnostic" purported to be a term utterly unrelated to the positions described as "theist" and "atheist" (that is, if there were no people in the world who said--like Apology--"I'm neither theist nor atheist, I'm agnostic"). If A was "German" for example, that would be fine: some Germans are atheist, some are theist--fine.

But "agnostic" isn't such a term. It is an term with an inherently unstable meaning that simply muddies the conceptual waters (again, if you disagree, please provide a stable definition). It suggests a "via media," but on most definitions is either coterminous with atheism or makes no useful distinction between atheists and theists.

I'm going to need to draw you a picture using a Venn diagram, aren't I?

Originally Posted by Yoink

Fine--just don't use a long-established rhetorical term that has a fixed and well understood meaning for something quite different. You are objecting to religion being ridiculed. That is not a "reductio ad absurdum."

Reducing to absurdity is the method of the ridicule. Try not to be so pedantic about it. Do you honestly think that there is a way to use that argument that does not involve ridicule?

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

What if someone is agnostic but not a Buddhist?

You haven't told me what you mean by "agnostic." The question you ask does not seem to be logically related to the claims that I made.

Originally Posted by GreNME

I didn't get the memo that stated everyone must define the world according to Nietzche (which actually sounds more like Rand than Nietzche, but Rand was a big fan of Nietzche so the distinction may not mean much).

Again--I'm saying that most people DON'T define the world (did you mean word?) in the way Nietzsche did, and THEREFORE I don't think Cafink was being insulting when he said that agnosticism is a position of humility. I am saying that MOST people (presumably including Cafink and you) think that humility is good.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Questioning the competence in a blanket statement like that is, indeed, an accusation of stupidity.

Again--if he was saying that agnostics show humility, he is NOT questioning their competence. Is that clear now?

Originally Posted by GreNME

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

There are some who would also argue that there are A who are neither B nor C at all, and also some who are BC. Still, such claims still do not fall exclusively into B or C. The binary if-then statement doesn't apply.

That isn't a definition of agnosticism. It is your claim of how your definition relates logically to other definitions. Without you giving a substantive definition we can't tell if you're right.

For example, if you define "agnosticism" as "not knowing" then in fact all B are A and all C are A--so the term serves no function (it is redundant). If you define it as "speaks German" then you would be right about the relationship of A to B and to C, but it would be too odd a definition to be useful. So, again, I'd be very grateful if you'd actually venture a definition of the term.

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Help who? Agnosticism, by contrast, means: neither exclusively atheist nor exclusively theist.

Help us clarify what it is that we are discussing. Help me find out if I'm right in my suspicion that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are hopelessly muddled in their conceptual implications and that one of them should be eliminated from philosophically strict discussions of the issue of belief in God.

As to your definition, I'm afraid it doesn't help. By my definition, "theists" believe in a god or gods, "atheists" do not believe in a god or gods. So it is logically impossible to be "neither exclusively atheist nor theist" (although it is possible--as Apology shows--to be successively theist and atheist; even remarkably rapidly). So--if you want to demonstrate that your definition is logically coherent you'll need to provide definitions of "theist" and "atheist" that are not mutually incompatible. In itself that is easy enough: my contention is that you can't provide such definitions and have them be conceptually coherent positions that would describe the actual position of a well-informed "theist" or "atheist." But I'd love to be proved wrong.

cafink · 21st November 2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

You really haven't been reading my posts. I already said arguments like the Church of FSM are valid despite not coming from a popular position because unlike your unicorn analogy the person who developed the FSM argument was not intellectually lazy about it. All you have to do is show the Unicorn Orthodox Church (or whatever you wish to name it) and you might have a point. Bringing up unicorns and fairies or whatever are not an apt comparison because they aren't like analogies.

Aside from their levels of popularity (both historically and today), how does belief in unicorns or fairies differ from belief in god? What empirical evidence is there for the belief in god that does not also apply to unicorns or fairies?

JoeEllison · 21st November 2007, 01:59 PM

Agnosticism just feels bogus to me. It doesn't seem to be a legitimate position at all. Is anyone withholding judgment on the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, or dragons? Since gods fall into the same category as any other mythological creature that most people DON'T believe in, the idea of holding an ambivalent position towards them seems like a fraud.

My impression, based on talking to people over time, is that "agnostics" are basically theists without a chosen religion.

Macoy · 21st November 2007, 01:59 PM

Someone once said that agnosticism allowed one to travel the chaotic nature of the universe, rather than the transitory illusion of order.

JoeEllison · 21st November 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Macoy

Someone once said that agnosticism allowed one to travel the chaotic nature of the universe, rather than the transitory illusion of order.

Does that actually mean anything?!?!?

Marquis de Carabas · 21st November 2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Does that actually mean anything?!?!?

I was actually admiring the sentence for how utterly malleable it is. You can rearrange the words almost at will, and it always seems to be saying something deep. It's a masterful work of horsehockey, really.

Agnosticism allows one to travel the universal chaos of nature, rather than the orderly transition of illusion.

Chaos orders one to travel the natural universality of agnosticism, rather than the transitory allowance of illusion.

Macoy · 21st November 2007, 02:10 PM

Only that the universe and mathematics contain aspects of chaotic behaviour, and as a result things might turn up unexpectedly.

Yoink · 21st November 2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Macoy

Only that the universe and mathematics contain aspects of chaotic behaviour, and as a result things might turn up unexpectedly.

To take that probably more seriously than it was meant: that still wouldn't usefully distinguish agnostics from either theists or atheists. That is, both theists and atheists can happily agree that "things might turn up unexpectedly."

21st November 2007, 12:25 PM	#121
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,920	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas I don't want you incorporated, and I don't care about the numbers. That I am an atheist has nothing at all to do with the reason I say you are one. I don't want you on the team; there's no team to want you on. It's simply a fact. You don't have to call yourself an atheist. You don't have to buy a t-shirt. You are an atheist if you are not a theist. There is no logically possible middle ground.. Without meaning to get too pedantic, an a-theos ist would be one who actively does non-god, it isn't a passive state of non belief or adoxia. -ist, which comes from the Greek suffix -istes, forms agent nouns, that is, nouns that denote someone who does something.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,920

21st November 2007, 12:26 PM	#122
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku My primary issue is that "atheism" is a belief system in non-god (a-theos), if you wish to express non-belief then the more appropriate terminology would revolve around a-dox or non-belief. If you wish to cliam that you have no belief in god(s) I've no problem with that. Adoxtheism, however, would be describing a belief system that that doesn't believe in god (the "ism" is somewhat redundant, and somewhat contradictory as you seem to be wanting to use it). If you want to claim lack of beliefs you are adogmatic or adoxic, but it doesn't make much sense to talk about a belief system without beliefs, (which, BTW, is basically the conclusion that the early Greek philosophers came to with regards to the original term I mentioned, "adoxastôs"). adoxtheos is a fine start. But what form of it would I use it in this sentence: _____________ is on the rise. Adoxtheism seems natural to me. -ism here meaning state, not belief system or practice. PS. Is botulism a belief in sausages? Is racism a belief that there are races?
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

21st November 2007, 12:28 PM	#124
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by Beth I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist? A theist, for any meaningful use of the term "Christian".
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

21st November 2007, 12:32 PM	#125
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Beth I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist? Theist. What is confusing you?
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st November 2007, 12:33 PM	#126
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by Apology Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. You're just not getting it, are you? You will always be either an atheist or a theist - no matter what else you may or may not be. Quote: I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you. Why do you assume it should confuse me? I am not even confused that you withhold judgement as to whether god exists or not. You, however, appear to have a problem with the idea that an atheist does not have to claim that there certainly isn't a god. But they don't have to do that according to the definition I use.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

21st November 2007, 12:27 PM	#123
Apology Reader's of the Boden Codex Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,578	Originally Posted by Rasmus Those that are telling you are an atheist - and that includes me - apparently use the word quite differently than you do yourself. Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you.

21st November 2007, 12:34 PM	#127
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Apology Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you. Actually, deism is a subset of theism. You are now a theist. Try again.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st November 2007, 12:37 PM	#128
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by Apology Fine, I'm a deist now. Don't call me an atheist or a theist because neither of those are true. I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 20 minutes, so I may or may not still be a deist tomorrow. Sorry if that confuses you. cough Technically a deist is a theist. Edit: darnit, beaten while I was searching for that ducking smiley.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Last edited by Irony; 21st November 2007 at 12:38 PM.

21st November 2007, 12:38 PM	#129
Apology Reader's of the Boden Codex Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,578	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Actually, deism is a subset of theism. You are now a theist. Try again. If it's a subset it differs from theism. It doesn't really matter though, 20 minutes haven't passed, so I've changed my mind again and I'm an atheist now. I also have another 20 minute interval in which to change sides yet again. It's likely that I will.

21st November 2007, 12:47 PM	#130
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by Apology If it's a subset it differs from theism. It doesn't really matter though, 20 minutes haven't passed, so I've changed my mind again and I'm an atheist now. I also have another 20 minute interval in which to change sides yet again. It's likely that I will. Only in the sense that golden retrievers differ from dogs. On a side note: Why are the longest and bloodiest wars on this forum always over semantics?
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

21st November 2007, 12:47 PM	#131
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Apology If it's a subset it differs from theism. Only by being more specific. If you're a deist, you're a theist.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st November 2007, 12:48 PM	#132
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Irony On a side note: Why are the longest and bloodiest wars on this forum always over semantics? They are about semantics, not over semantics.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st November 2007, 12:49 PM	#133
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by Apology If it's a subset it differs from theism. No. "Houses" is a subset of "buildings". But houses are not differing from buildings. "Apples" is a subset from "fruit". But apples are not differing from fruit.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

21st November 2007, 12:52 PM	#134
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by GreNME What I'm saying is that you have to ignore that for such a question to not seem absurd. Fine--so I'm asking you to ignore it and concentrate on the logical argument being made. Originally Posted by GreNME Sure it does, because there are theists who can also be agnostic. The "problem" most arguments about agnosticism I've seen have is that they don't fit the binary claim of theism or atheism. I don't see that as a problem, because a religion like Buddhism has a similar structure and yet still exists as a relevant philosophical state. Basically, I'm saying a metaphor for why agnosticism is a logically tenable position separate from (but not exclusive of) atheism already exists in the religious belief of Buddhism. And I'm saying that there are either theist Buddhists or atheist Buddhists and no usefully defined group that can be labelled "agnostic" Buddhists. If you think there is (i.e., if you think that there is some coherent, valid position that should be labeled "agnostic" and will be distinct from both a coherent, valid "theism" and a coherent, valid "atheism" I really wish you'd just say what it entails). Originally Posted by GreNME I think the Dawkins example is an acceptable one in its simplicity. "Validity" is going to vary depending on the position of the person interpreting it, though. No, validity depends on logical consistency. Please note I'm not using "valid" here to mean "true" or "correct." I think theists are wrong, for example, but I still believe you can give a coherent account of theism. What I am arguing is that you can't coherently distinguish "atheism" from "agnosticism" without making one term or the other describe an absurd position. Originally Posted by GreNME Not in this case it isn't, because it is appealing to ridicule. The absurd reduction is the mechanism to reach the appeal to ridicule. I don't know what you mean here, but I do know that the term "reductio ad absurdum" does not describe a form of logical fallacy. It describes a way of exposing someone else's logical (or factual) fallacies. Don't take my word for it--just try Googling it.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

21st November 2007, 01:01 PM	#135
cafink Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 140	Originally Posted by GreNME This one always amuses me, and which is why I stand firmly in the "have not made a choice, feel no need to make a choice" camp as described by Apology earlier. Comparing Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or many other religious beliefs to believing in unicorns or invisible bunnies seems to ignore, whether implicitly or explicitly, the social inertia (or you could say baggage) of the history of the belief in terms of cultural history. They aren't really comparable concepts outside of a vacuum where no other factors but the belief exist. Now, fifty or a hundred or a thousand years from now, if there is a Church of the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church that exists, then I could see them as being not only comparable but in fact extremely similar in terms of holding a faith. There seems to be no rhetorical logic behind the argument except to commit the logical fallacy of reduction to absurdity. Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical argument that assumes a claim, demonstrates that the claim leads to an absurdity, and concludes that the assumption must therefore be incorrect. In the case of the "unicorn" argument, the claim is that it is reasonable to believe in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. The absurdity that it leads to is that it is equally reasonable to believe in other beings, such as unicorns, for which there is no empirical evidence. Ignoring the "social inertia" of religious beliefs is the very point of the comparison, because "social inertia" is not a good reason for adopting a belief. Evidence is, and indeed, the evidence for the existence of unicorns is every bit as good as that for the existence of god (according to most traditional definitions of "god," anyway). The mere fact that millions of people have held a belief for thousands of years does not in itself make that belief likely to be true. Originally Posted by Apology I've never understood why atheism would want to incorporate people into their group that clearly don't want to be a part of that group, unless it's to make up for their lack of numbers. No one has asked you to join a group of which you don't want to be a part. They've simply asked you, "do you believe in god?" Since you have said more than once in this very thread that you "do not believe God exists," that, like it or not, makes you an atheist by definition. Yes, you could then go on to say more about your non-belief, such as that you are not completely sure. That's a completely reasonable position, and one with which I think most here would agree. But that's not the question that was asked. To use the analogy you drew in a previous post, the question you are being asked is, "Do you like men?" You are answering, "No, I am bisexual." Your answer is contradictory. Being bisexual means you do like men; it just happens to mean some other things in addition to liking men. Similarly, being agnostic means that you do not have a belief in god. Yes, it means some other things in addition to your non-belief, but it still entails non-belief--atheism.

21st November 2007, 01:07 PM	#136
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by Apology If it's a subset it differs from theism. It doesn't really matter though, 20 minutes haven't passed, so I've changed my mind again and I'm an atheist now. I also have another 20 minute interval in which to change sides yet again. It's likely that I will. Apology, you're proving my initial point rather nicely here. You're saying that "agnosticism" doesn't describe a coherent, valid philosophical position in respect to the existence of god--rather it's a socially useful descriptor of people who are hesitant about which position they wish to adopt. The point of my question was not "does agnosticism serve a function as a term in social use" but "does it describe a position that can be coherently and usefully distinguished from atheism (or from theism)." The fact that your only way to demonstrate "agnosticism" is by switching from the clearly defined "theism" to the equally clearly defined "atheism" suggests that the answer to that last question is no.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

21st November 2007, 01:10 PM	#137
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by bignickel Except, 1. There is a group of people who believe in god/s: they're called theists. Everyone who is not in that club is called an atheist. Unless you can say 'yes' to "Do you believe in god/s?", you're out here with the rest of us. Please explain where the religion of Buddhism sits in this either/or statement. Originally Posted by bignickel 2. An agnostic position is not a position of hubris, it's the exact opposite. It an admission of not being able competent enough to judge evidence that shows the existence of a being outside the universe. That's not hubris, that's humility. Ahh, the good old "you're stupid" argument. Originally Posted by bignickel 3. There's lots of people who say they are agnostic atheists, Michael Shermer among them. That has little to do with the price of tea in China.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st November 2007, 01:15 PM	#138
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by Beth I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist? Your question points to exactly why I see no value in the term "agnostic." People like Apology want to say "I am neither theist nor atheist, I'm in the middle--agnostic." But if it makes perfect sense to also speak of "theist agnostics" and "atheist agnostics" then the term is just hopelessly muddled. "Not knowing" is the (actual) state of all atheists and all theists. It is the self-described state of most (I would say almost all) atheists and (probably) most theists. It does not describe a coherent, separate, position on the relevant issues.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

21st November 2007, 01:15 PM	#139
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Apology I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be comfortable with any of the groups and will never choose one. You seem to like hanging out in the fuzzy part of fuzzy sets. I can empathize as I tend to do the same (and similarly get in trouble for it ). When you visualize the shifting nature of the degree of membership in the two groups (theism/atheism), do you see them as complementary (as the degree of membership increases in one, it decreases in the other) or independent (the degree of membership varies in one with no effect on the other)? Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st November 2007, 01:18 PM	#140
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by cafink Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. It is when it's used to appeal to ridicule. Originally Posted by cafink It is a logical argument that assumes a claim, demonstrates that the claim leads to an absurdity, and concludes that the assumption must therefore be incorrect. See above. When it's used as an excuse to ridicule, which has consistently been the case in my experience on this subforum, it falls into fallacy. Originally Posted by cafink In the case of the "unicorn" argument, the claim is that it is reasonable to believe in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. The absurdity that it leads to is that it is equally reasonable to believe in other beings, such as unicorns, for which there is no empirical evidence. Like I said, show me the Unicorn Orthodox Church and we can agree on this claim. Otherwise it is an intellectually lazy assertion. Originally Posted by cafink Ignoring the "social inertia" of religious beliefs is the very point of the comparison Which is why it fails. Originally Posted by cafink , because "social inertia" is not a good reason for adopting a belief. And this is why I find such arguments amusing. Arguing from a vacuum is no way to make a point about a social construct. Originally Posted by cafink Evidence is, and indeed, the evidence for the existence of unicorns is every bit as good as that for the existence of god (according to most traditional definitions of "god," anyway). The mere fact that millions of people have held a belief for thousands of years does not in itself make that belief likely to be true. Since I already pointed out it isn't the antiquity, you are making a strawman point. See my comments regarding the Church of FSM.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st November 2007, 01:18 PM	#141
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas They are about semantics, not over semantics. That was the funniest thing I've seen today. Thanks for the laugh. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st November 2007, 01:19 PM	#142
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by GreNME Please explain where the religion of Buddhism sits in this either/or statement. There is no "religion of Buddhism"--there are many different religions that go by the name. Some are theist, some are atheist. They are all "agnostic"--which is why "agnostic" is not, in my view, a philosophically useful term. Originally Posted by GreNME Ahh, the good old "you're stupid" argument. I know this wasn't addressed to me--but I think you were misreading his argument, here. I don't see how saying that agnosticism is a position of humility is accusing anyone of stupidity. "Humility" is usually regarded (except by Nietzscheans and a few others) as a positive quality. ETA: GreNME, I would very much like to see you give a positive definition of "agnosticism"--one that is coherent, but distinguishable from "atheism" (without relying on defining atheism so narrowly that it becomes an absurd position). I do find it surprising that so many people are willing to say "it's obvious that there is a coherent 'agnostic' position" but that no one is willing to have a go at defining it.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Last edited by Yoink; 21st November 2007 at 01:22 PM.

21st November 2007, 01:21 PM	#143
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by Cello Man Sometimes metaphor communicates more clearly than a literal definition. http://cectic.com/039.html I don't know which one is which. Certainty causes havoc on this planet.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

21st November 2007, 01:26 PM	#144
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Yoink Fine--so I'm asking you to ignore it and concentrate on the logical argument being made. That's a ridiculous request. Beliefs aren't exclusive to their social affiliation and interpretation. Removing social context is a poor way to go about this argument, and is intellectually lazy. Originally Posted by Yoink And I'm saying that there are either theist Buddhists or atheist Buddhists and no usefully defined group that can be labelled "agnostic" Buddhists. If you think there is (i.e., if you think that there is some coherent, valid position that should be labeled "agnostic" and will be distinct from both a coherent, valid "theism" and a coherent, valid "atheism" I really wish you'd just say what it entails). Originally Posted by Yoink No, validity depends on logical consistency. Please note I'm not using "valid" here to mean "true" or "correct." I think theists are wrong, for example, but I still believe you can give a coherent account of theism. What I am arguing is that you can't coherently distinguish "atheism" from "agnosticism" without making one term or the other describe an absurd position. There are times you can distinguish the two, and there are times you can't. Some A are B. Some A are C. Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C. Understand? Originally Posted by Yoink I don't know what you mean here, but I do know that the term "reductio ad absurdum" does not describe a form of logical fallacy. It describes a way of exposing someone else's logical (or factual) fallacies. Don't take my word for it--just try Googling it. Which is why I went on to explain what the mechanism does-- it appeals to ridicule using reduction to an absurd degree. Hope that helps you understand it better.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts} Last edited by GreNME; 21st November 2007 at 01:27 PM.

21st November 2007, 01:27 PM	#145
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	GreNME, Is there some belief X such that... we can agree it is irrational to hold X, has a sufficiently established set of adherents, and you would not find to be a ridiculous comparison to belief in a god?
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

21st November 2007, 01:28 PM	#146
cafink Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 140	Originally Posted by GreNME Like I said, show me the Unicorn Orthodox Church and we can agree on this claim. Otherwise it is an intellectually lazy assertion. Now you are committing a logical fallacy--argumentum ad populum. That belief in god is more popular than belief in unicorns does not make the existence of god more likely than that of unicorns. Quote: And this is why I find such arguments amusing. Arguing from a vacuum is no way to make a point about a social construct. It is when the point of the argument is that, in a vacuum, the two beliefs are equally tenable. Are you claiming that belief in god is more reasonable than belief in unicorns just because a lot of people believe in god and almost no one believes in unicorns? Because that's pretty much the only difference between the two beliefs.

21st November 2007, 01:33 PM	#147
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Yoink There is no "religion of Buddhism"--there are many different religions that go by the name. Some are theist, some are atheist. They are all "agnostic"--which is why "agnostic" is not, in my view, a philosophically useful term. What if someone is agnostic but not a Buddhist? Originally Posted by Yoink I know this wasn't addressed to me--but I think you were misreading his argument, here. I don't see how saying that agnosticism is a position of humility is accusing anyone of stupidity. "Humility" is usually regarded (except by Nietzscheans and a few others) as a positive quality. I didn't get the memo that stated everyone must define the world according to Nietzche (which actually sounds more like Rand than Nietzche, but Rand was a big fan of Nietzche so the distinction may not mean much). Questioning the competence in a blanket statement like that is, indeed, an accusation of stupidity. Originally Posted by Yoink ETA: GreNME, I would very much like to see you give a positive definition of "agnosticism"--one that is coherent, but distinguishable from "atheism" (without relying on defining atheism so narrowly that it becomes an absurd position). I do find it surprising that so many people are willing to say "it's obvious that there is a coherent 'agnostic' position" but that no one is willing to have a go at defining it. Some A are B. Some A are C. Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C. There are some who would also argue that there are A who are neither B nor C at all, and also some who are BC. Still, such claims still do not fall exclusively into B or C. The binary if-then statement doesn't apply.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st November 2007, 01:36 PM	#148
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by GreNME There are times you can distinguish the two, and there are times you can't. Some A are B. Some A are C. Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C. Understand? Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean? Atheism means: Theism means: Agnosticism, by contrast, means: I really think this would help. As to your "some A are B, some A are C"--this would be fine if "Agnostic" purported to be a term utterly unrelated to the positions described as "theist" and "atheist" (that is, if there were no people in the world who said--like Apology--"I'm neither theist nor atheist, I'm agnostic"). If A was "German" for example, that would be fine: some Germans are atheist, some are theist--fine. But "agnostic" isn't such a term. It is an term with an inherently unstable meaning that simply muddies the conceptual waters (again, if you disagree, please provide a stable definition). It suggests a "via media," but on most definitions is either coterminous with atheism or makes no useful distinction between atheists and theists. Originally Posted by GreNME Which is why I went on to explain what the mechanism does-- it appeals to ridicule using reduction to an absurd degree. Hope that helps you understand it better. Fine--just don't use a long-established rhetorical term that has a fixed and well understood meaning for something quite different. You are objecting to religion being ridiculed. That is not a "reductio ad absurdum."
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

21st November 2007, 01:38 PM	#149
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by cafink Now you are committing a logical fallacy--argumentum ad populum. That belief in god is more popular than belief in unicorns does not make the existence of god more likely than that of unicorns. You really haven't been reading my posts. I already said arguments like the Church of FSM are valid despite not coming from a popular position because unlike your unicorn analogy the person who developed the FSM argument was not intellectually lazy about it. All you have to do is show the Unicorn Orthodox Church (or whatever you wish to name it) and you might have a point. Bringing up unicorns and fairies or whatever are not an apt comparison because they aren't like analogies. Originally Posted by Yoink It is when the point of the argument is that, in a vacuum, the two beliefs are equally tenable. Are you claiming that belief in god is more reasonable than belief in unicorns just because a lot of people believe in god and almost no one believes in unicorns? Because that's pretty much the only difference between the two beliefs. The need to argue it from a vacuum is exactly what makes the argument ridiculous. People don't develop their beliefs in a vacuum. If you can't place it in context then you should rethink your approach at the argument.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st November 2007, 01:41 PM	#150
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,732	Originally Posted by Yoink Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean? Atheism means: Theism means: Agnosticism, by contrast, means: I really think this would help. ...snip... A slight rearrangement of your three called for definitions: Theism means: Someone who believes a god exists Atheism means: A label for someone who is not a theist Agnosticism: A philosophical position that holds that the knowledge of whether god exists or not is in principle not knowable. An atheist can only exist and be defined because there are theists, whilst theists do not require atheists to be defined.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 21st November 2007 at 01:44 PM.

21st November 2007, 01:42 PM	#151
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Yoink Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean? Atheism means: Theism means: Agnosticism, by contrast, means: I really think this would help. Help who? Agnosticism, by contrast, means: neither exclusively atheist nor exclusively theist. Originally Posted by Yoink As to your "some A are B, some A are C"--this would be fine if "Agnostic" purported to be a term utterly unrelated to the positions described as "theist" and "atheist" (that is, if there were no people in the world who said--like Apology--"I'm neither theist nor atheist, I'm agnostic"). If A was "German" for example, that would be fine: some Germans are atheist, some are theist--fine. But "agnostic" isn't such a term. It is an term with an inherently unstable meaning that simply muddies the conceptual waters (again, if you disagree, please provide a stable definition). It suggests a "via media," but on most definitions is either coterminous with atheism or makes no useful distinction between atheists and theists. I'm going to need to draw you a picture using a Venn diagram, aren't I? Originally Posted by Yoink Fine--just don't use a long-established rhetorical term that has a fixed and well understood meaning for something quite different. You are objecting to religion being ridiculed. That is not a "reductio ad absurdum." Reducing to absurdity is the method of the ridicule. Try not to be so pedantic about it. Do you honestly think that there is a way to use that argument that does not involve ridicule?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st November 2007, 01:45 PM	#152
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by GreNME What if someone is agnostic but not a Buddhist? You haven't told me what you mean by "agnostic." The question you ask does not seem to be logically related to the claims that I made. Originally Posted by GreNME I didn't get the memo that stated everyone must define the world according to Nietzche (which actually sounds more like Rand than Nietzche, but Rand was a big fan of Nietzche so the distinction may not mean much). Again--I'm saying that most people DON'T define the world (did you mean word?) in the way Nietzsche did, and THEREFORE I don't think Cafink was being insulting when he said that agnosticism is a position of humility. I am saying that MOST people (presumably including Cafink and you) think that humility is good. Originally Posted by GreNME Questioning the competence in a blanket statement like that is, indeed, an accusation of stupidity. Again--if he was saying that agnostics show humility, he is NOT questioning their competence. Is that clear now? Originally Posted by GreNME Some A are B. Some A are C. Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C. There are some who would also argue that there are A who are neither B nor C at all, and also some who are BC. Still, such claims still do not fall exclusively into B or C. The binary if-then statement doesn't apply. That isn't a definition of agnosticism. It is your claim of how your definition relates logically to other definitions. Without you giving a substantive definition we can't tell if you're right. For example, if you define "agnosticism" as "not knowing" then in fact all B are A and all C are A--so the term serves no function (it is redundant). If you define it as "speaks German" then you would be right about the relationship of A to B and to C, but it would be too odd a definition to be useful. So, again, I'd be very grateful if you'd actually venture a definition of the term.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

21st November 2007, 01:52 PM	#153
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by GreNME Help who? Agnosticism, by contrast, means: neither exclusively atheist nor exclusively theist. Help us clarify what it is that we are discussing. Help me find out if I'm right in my suspicion that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are hopelessly muddled in their conceptual implications and that one of them should be eliminated from philosophically strict discussions of the issue of belief in God. As to your definition, I'm afraid it doesn't help. By my definition, "theists" believe in a god or gods, "atheists" do not believe in a god or gods. So it is logically impossible to be "neither exclusively atheist nor theist" (although it is possible--as Apology shows--to be successively theist and atheist; even remarkably rapidly). So--if you want to demonstrate that your definition is logically coherent you'll need to provide definitions of "theist" and "atheist" that are not mutually incompatible. In itself that is easy enough: my contention is that you can't provide such definitions and have them be conceptually coherent positions that would describe the actual position of a well-informed "theist" or "atheist." But I'd love to be proved wrong.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

21st November 2007, 01:54 PM	#154
cafink Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 140	Originally Posted by GreNME You really haven't been reading my posts. I already said arguments like the Church of FSM are valid despite not coming from a popular position because unlike your unicorn analogy the person who developed the FSM argument was not intellectually lazy about it. All you have to do is show the Unicorn Orthodox Church (or whatever you wish to name it) and you might have a point. Bringing up unicorns and fairies or whatever are not an apt comparison because they aren't like analogies. Aside from their levels of popularity (both historically and today), how does belief in unicorns or fairies differ from belief in god? What empirical evidence is there for the belief in god that does not also apply to unicorns or fairies?

21st November 2007, 01:59 PM	#155
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Agnosticism just feels bogus to me. It doesn't seem to be a legitimate position at all. Is anyone withholding judgment on the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, or dragons? Since gods fall into the same category as any other mythological creature that most people DON'T believe in, the idea of holding an ambivalent position towards them seems like a fraud. My impression, based on talking to people over time, is that "agnostics" are basically theists without a chosen religion.