Spirituality
20 Jul 11
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI do not buy the validity of the following assertion:
I hardly see agnosticism as being a socially acceptable position. In this forum, as in most arenas, the naive and ignorant delight in their attempts to belittle anybody who doesn't share their opinion, and those who are prepared to claim themselves agnostic invariably fall into a small minority. And as for your patronising assertion that I may not ha ...[text shortened]... possibilities exist, and that is, in a nutshell, the definition of the term 'agnosticism'.
If neither P or ~P is provable, then P and ~P are possible.
...which I think encapsulates your assertion about the provability of god.
The possibility of P or ~P stands to be proven, as part of any proof that P or ~P is actual.
I think you might mean 'conceivable.' There is a rich literature on the distinction between possibility and conceivability. Rich but boring, IMO.
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI don't know, but I gotta say I can't remember the last time someone came down on me like a ton of bricks like this when I wasn't even addressing them or even making particularly strong-worded statements. There are some other threads around here you could mine and perhaps find more things to take offense at.
I am amused that you find me sensitive. Why do you imagine that Huxley went to the trouble of coining the term 'agnostic' in the first place?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastScientism is another can of definitional worms.
Yes, in theory I suppose. At least as regards the existence of a god, and even more specifically, the existence of a certain God. Generally the terms atheism and agnosticism don't go beyond that particular, narrow issue.
More broadly there is scientism, which broadens the agnostic approach to all realms of inquiry.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357You are undoubtedly correct, I probably should have used 'conceivable' rather than 'possible'. I allow myself the use of the term 'possible' based on anecdotal evidence from a number of people whose opinions I deeply respect, who have proved to be extremely rational and reasonable and who, to my unfailing confusion, maintain an unshakable belief in the bible and their christianity.
I do not buy the validity of the following assertion:
If neither P or ~P is provable, then P and ~P are possible.
...which I think encapsulates your assertion about the provability of god.
The possibility of P or ~P stands to be proven, as part of any proof that P or ~P is actual.
I think you might mean 'conceivable.' There is a rich literature on the distinction between possibility and conceivability. Rich but boring, IMO.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastI would not normally respond in such a manner, but as you no doubt realise I found your categorisation somewhat insulting.
I don't know, but I gotta say I can't remember the last time someone came down on me like a ton of bricks like this when I wasn't even addressing them or even making particularly strong-worded statements. There are some other threads around here you could mine and perhaps find more things to take offense at.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt is wider and more precise. Let us examine the root of the term, shall we?
See my previous post. You choose to define 'atheist' as encompassing what I would call 'atheist' in addition to what I would call 'agnostic'. The definition which you choose to follow is therefore wider and thus less precise than that which I follow.
As I pointed out earlier, the 'A' in 'atheism' means to 'be without.' Well, to be without what? Theism, of course. To be an atheist means to be without theism, which encompasses all non-theists. Therefore, all non-theists are atheists. You, sir, are an atheist, although you try mightily to throw that term off and claim another, which you mistakenly perceive as being "more precise."
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettI again refer to a previous post. Why do you think Huxley was motivated to coin the term 'agnostic'?
It is wider and more precise. Let us examine the root of the term, shall we?
As I pointed out earlier, the 'A' in 'atheism' means to 'be without.' Well, to be without what? Theism, of course. To be an atheist means to be without theism, which encompasses all non-theists. Therefore, all non-theists are atheists. You, sir, are an atheist, although ...[text shortened]... that term off and claim another, which you mistakenly perceive as being "more precise."
23 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I would not normally respond in such a manner, but as you no doubt realise I found your categorisation somewhat insulting.
I don't buy into agnosticism either. There are those, I suppose, who just haven't "put much thought" into whether a god exists or not, but deep down they almost certainly have a proclivity one way or another. Too, being "agnostic" seems more socially acceptable, as you have intimated; they can say they're "neutral" or are "keeping an open mind".
Let's parse this quote out, shall we? 😉
It is, admittedly, rather clumsy in wording.
But, it is a fact that I personally don't take the agnostic position, and therefore I "don't buy into agnosticism".
Now, some self-described agnostics -- usually the very young -- say they are agnostic because they haven't given the matter a whole lot of thought, or don't think they've learned enough to form a belief one way or the other. A couple have told me this, but it was years ago when I was very young myself.
However, I'm skeptical. I think that deep down some agnostics (I cannot claim all, to be sure) have a "feeling" in one direction or the other: either there is a god or there isn't. But they may feel that this "feeling" could be swayed in the opposite direction if presented additional information, so they may honestly not think of themselves as being truly atheist as such.
What of agnostics who really have no feeling one way or the other? I think they exist and are the real deal, but as rwingett has pointed out, this puts such an individual into the atheist category by default. It's very simple, really: either you believe in a supernatural god or you do not. If you have not come yet to the point where you're prepared to believe in a god, then you are an atheist. You cannot say you are not an atheist today because you might become a theist tomorrow. The terms are opposites, and it is not a false dichotomy. The term "agnostic," then, is left with little substance.
Finally, I do think there are some people -- not you of course -- who say openly that they are agnostic at cocktail parties because they think that will make them less of a pariah and seem less combative. Call it politeness. Some would say it's craven. I don't know, but in the vernacular the word is often abused thus.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWell, in Wikipedia it says he was "well known for advocating and taking psychedelics."
I again refer to a previous post. Why do you think Huxley was motivated to coin the term 'agnostic'?
More seriously, though, the definition of an agnostic that I find in circulation is this: "A person who claims neither belief nor disbelief in god."
So, without claiming to believe in god, such a person is an atheist. If that person finds such a term vulgar and offensive, there's nothing for it -- protestations that he "doesn't disbelieve in god either" notwithstanding. That only translates thus: "I haven't ruled out the possibility that a god exists," which, juxtaposed to the fact that the person does not claim belief in god, leads to the logical conclusion that the person is an "a-theist": atheist.
If that doesn't wash with you, then I'm afraid I'm out of detergent.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastAt one point I got so frustrated with the whole question of God that I started calling myself an apatheist. (I didn't get that term from anybody else, but it's so obvious a coinage that I'm sure I'm not the first to use it.)
Well, in Wikipedia it says he was "well known for advocating and taking psychedelics."
More seriously, though, the definition of an agnostic that I find in circulation is this: "A person who claims neither belief nor disbelief in god."
So, without claiming to believe in god, such a person is an atheist. If that person finds such a term vulgar and o ...[text shortened]... atheist.
If that doesn't wash with you, then I'm afraid I'm out of detergent.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by pyxelatedI've seen it tossed about before. I think Bill Maher has used it.
At one point I got so frustrated with the whole question of God that I started calling myself an apatheist. (I didn't get that term from anybody else, but it's so obvious a coinage that I'm sure I'm not the first to use it.)
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettYou grow tired because you bang your head off a wall spouting a false premise hoping this will make me believe it.
I grow tired of wasting my time on the repetition of this point. But for clarity's sake I will do so yet again. It makes no sense to label dogs and chairs as atheists because they are incapable of ever believing in a god, or in anything else for that matter. Human babies will eventually grow into human adults who are capable of believing in god and a great ...[text shortened]... rror of your ways and that we can quit going around and around on this tiresome merry-go-round.
A baby can not conceptualise God, therfor can not hold a disbelief in it....it doesn't matter what happens after later.
Atheism requires the knowledge of theism in order to make a distinction. If it does not, please go back to the table and chair statement as it holds true.
A baby can not hold a belief or disbelief in something it can not concieve...get over it .