Agnosticism - bit of a cop-out?

Originally posted by rwingett
No. To not believe X is not the same as to believe not X.

And so atheism is to not believe X (there is a God). That is, to assert that a true/false value should not be assigned to X. And agnosticism is similar the atheism, except they are waffling, maybe it's true, and maybe it's false.

Atheism is more certain that X can not be determined true or false, and agnosticism just doesn't know which way to go (maybe because they think there could be a definition of a real God that is true, but they don't know what that definition is).

Is that fairly close?

Originally posted by dottewell
Let's face it, unless you believe in God, it seems pretty unlikely he exists.

So are agnostics saying they are 50-50 on the matter?

Are they saying they consider it very unlikely, yet possible, there is a God?

If so, how vanishingly small would the odds have to be, in their opinion, before they admitted they believed God did not exist?

After al ...[text shortened]... nsequences does that have for their view of the odds of a specifically Christian God existing?

I wanted to get back around to why I thought agnosticism was a cop-out.

People tend to think of agnosticism as being a separate position somewhere between theism and atheism. This conception is false. The reason being is that there are only theists and atheists in this world. Everyone is one or the other. Agnosticism, in my opinion, is a subcategory of both theism and atheism, i.e. agnostic theist, agnostic atheist. There can never be anyone who is just an agnostic. If you believe god is true, or are willing to act as though he is true, then you are a theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. Which is to say that you are without theism.

The term 'agnostic' only arose due to the misconception that all atheists claimed to know that god didn't exist. When we realize that this is completely false, then we begin to see that atheism actually encompasses agnosticism. The term 'agnostic atheist', then, is sometimes used as being synonymous with 'weak' or 'soft' atheism, which is contrasted with 'strong' or 'hard' atheism.

But that's my opinion. If somebody really wants to call themselves an agnostic, I seldom begrudge them the option.

Originally posted by Coletti
And so atheism is to not believe X (there is a God). That is, to assert that a true/false value should not be assigned to X. And agnosticism is similar the atheism, except they are waffling, maybe it's true, and maybe it's false.

Atheism is more certain that X can not be determined true or false, and agnosticism just doesn't know which way to go (mayb ...[text shortened]... eal God that is true, but they don't know what that definition is).

Is that fairly close?

It has not been demonstrated to be true. Therefore it will be assumed to be false. That is an atheist. Does that clarify things?

An agnostic will suspend all judgement on the matter.

Edit: I wanted to clarify this. When I say: "It has not been demonstrated to be true. Therefore it will be assumed to be false." I do not mean that it must be proven to be true in order to be believed. Things that are demonstrated to have a high degree of good evidence and a high likelihood of being true will be believed with a high degree of confidence. Things that have a smaller degree of good evidence will be treated as possibly being true. Things that have little or no good evidence will be assumed to be false.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, to an outside observer, one could not distinguish between a person who acts as though some claim is false, and a person who acts as though some claim is false AND believes it is false, correct?

I suppose.

But don't start on me with the 'truth value of X'. I have a bad cold and I'm getting drowsy.

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you think any other gods have a greater chance of existing than the christian god?

Nope. No gods I've heard of.

Originally posted by dottewell
I believe there is not an elephant in my bedroom. (Shortly I will be able to verify...)

If you think the odds of a Christian God existing are approaching zero, surely you believe there is no Christian God? (Not the same as knowing there is no Christian God.)

If we're going to get technical, belief means you think there is a more than 50% chance of the thing being true.

If you think the odds of a Christian God existing are approaching zero, surely you believe there is no Christian God? (Not the same as knowing there is no Christian God.)

I hold that the chance that the Xian God does not exist is greater than 50%. Therefore I believe the Xian God does not exist.

Originally posted by dottewell
Let's face it, unless you believe in God, it seems pretty unlikely he exists.

So are agnostics saying they are 50-50 on the matter?

Are they saying they consider it very unlikely, yet possible, there is a God?

If so, how vanishingly small would the odds have to be, in their opinion, before they admitted they believed God did not exist?

After al ...[text shortened]... nsequences does that have for their view of the odds of a specifically Christian God existing?

Let's face it, unless you believe in God, it seems pretty unlikely he exists.

The power I have!

Originally posted by rwingett
That's a little different. You could disprove that a tangible thing exists at a specific location. But you can't prove, for example, that invisible pink unicorns do not exist somewhere. Or magic elves. Or god. You cannot disprove the existence of these things. But the point is that you don't need to. It is incumbent upon the person making the claim to provi ...[text shortened]... ot prove his claim false. But the claim can safely be treated as though it were false.

The idea of the example was to choose something that could not be disproved (practically), but was clearly false.

Let's take invisible unicorns, though, which may be better.

Are you really saying that you don't believe the statement...

"Invisible unicorns exist"

...is false? Cos I do.

I would categorise people in this way.

Firstly, those who believe the statement "God exists" has meaning - of which some say it is true (theists), some that it is false (atheists), and some that it cannot be determined whether it is true or false (agnostics).

Then there are those who believe the statement "God exists" has no meaning. Thus the question whether it is true or false simple cannot arise. It would be like asking whether "Babababababa" is true or false.

There may be a third category, i.e. those who believe we cannot determine whether "God exists" has meaning. God only knows what we'd call them.

Originally posted by dottewell
The idea of the example was to choose something that could not be disproved (practically), but was clearly false.

Let's take invisible unicorns, though, which may be better.

Are you really saying that you don't believe the statement...

"Invisible unicorns exist"

...is false? Cos I do.

I would categorise people in this way.

Firstly, those ...[text shortened]... not determine whether "God exists" has meaning. God only knows what we'd call them.

It's invisible pink unicorns. The infamous IPU.

I think it is very highly unlikely that invisible pink unicorns exist. But as I cannot conclusively prove their non-existence, I will always stop just short of claiming they do not exist. I will always allow for the slightest possibility that I may be wrong.

Saying that there is an extremely low probability that invisible pink unicorns exist is as far as I am prepared to go.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's invisible pink unicorns. The infamous IPU.

I think it is very highly unlikely that invisible pink unicorns exist. But as I cannot conclusively prove their non-existence, I will always stop just short of claiming they do not exist. I will always allow for the slightest possibility that I may be wrong.

Saying that there is an extremely low probability that invisible pink unicorns exist is as far as I am prepared to go.

I'm familiar with the IPU - I dropped the "pink" to avoid the paradox of something being invisible and pink, since I was hoping to talk about the possibility of the existence of something which at least could be conceived of.

I guess we differ partly because you tie knowledge and belief together very closely; I think one can believe something doesn't exist while admitting one doesn't know that to be the case.

Originally posted by dottewell
I'm familiar with the IPU - I dropped the "pink" to avoid the paradox of something being invisible and pink, since I was hoping to talk about the possibility of the existence of something which at least could be conceived of.

I guess we differ partly because you tie knowledge and belief together very closely; I think one can believe something doesn't exist while admitting one doesn't know that to be the case.

The pink part of the IPU must be taken on faith, of course. 😉

I rigorously maintain my position for a very specific reason. Maintaining a passive non-belief in X, while avoiding an active belief in the non-existence of X, is the only way I can ensure I do not have to share in the burden of proof.

If someone claims X exists, this is one claim with the entire burden of proof being upon him.

If someone claims X exists, and I claim X does not exist, this now becomes two separate claims, with the burden of proof being distributed among us. For this reason I will never claim that X does not exist, or that I believe in the non-existence of X.

Originally posted by rwingett


I think it is very highly unlikely that invisible pink unicorns exist. But as I cannot conclusively prove their non-existence, I will always stop just short of claiming they do not exist. I will always allow for the slightest possibility that I may be wrong.

Saying that there is an extremely low probability that invisible pink unicorns exist is as far as I am prepared to go.

This is silly. If you think it is very highly unlikely that they exist, then you believe that they don't exist. That's what belief is. Ask bbarr, your former fellow freethinker and professional beliefmeister.

You won't make any claims unless you are certain of their truth? Or is it only claims of existence and non-existence that you won't make without certainty?

You have said that if there is "the slightest possibility" you are wrong, you won't hold the belief, out of fear of the burden of proof. Are you saying certainty is a necessary condition for belief? Nonsense.

Originally posted by rwingett
Which gods have a higher probability of existing? And why?

Some type of Deist one; a Creator who doesn't take an active interest in how many hairs everybody has on their head and is not weighed down by the irrational baggage of the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. etc.

Originally posted by dottewell
Let's face it, unless you believe in God, it seems pretty unlikely he exists.

So are agnostics saying they are 50-50 on the matter?

Are they saying they consider it very unlikely, yet possible, there is a God?

If so, how vanishingly small would the odds have to be, in their opinion, before they admitted they believed God did not exist?

After al nsequences does that have for their view of the odds of a specifically Christian God existing?

I'm Agnostic because I belive Jesus just might have given his life for us, and just may be the son of God. I'm also not willing to throw out the hundreds of other religions and say there is only one true one. That is what being Agnostic is to me. Not a cop out, I'm not the one who is telling many faithful in other religions They Are Wrong.

P-

I'm agnostic about all sorts of things. One of those would be whether some conscious force created the universe. I'm also an atheist because I am not a theist.