https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

"What people are really after is what is my stance on spirituality or God? If I had to pick a word, it'd be 'agnostic', a word to refer to someone who doesn't know, hasn't really seen evidence for or against, but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it's there but otherwise will not be forced to think something that is not otherwise supported.
It's odd that the word, atheist, even exists. I mean I don't play golf, but is there a word for 'non-golf players'? Do non-golf players get together and strategize? Do no skiers get together and talk about the fact that they don't ski? I can't do that. I can't gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn't believe in God. I just don't have the energy for that. And so agnostic separates me from the conduct of atheists. Whether or not there's strong overlap between the two categories. And at the end of the day, I'd rather not be any category at all."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2020 04:01PM by schrodingerscat.

I like to get around (now) non-Mormons and talk about Mormonism.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like to get around (now) non-Mormons and talk
> about Mormonism.
Seems like this is why the ExMo Conferences died. Once you wake up to the reality Mormonism is bullshit, how much more are you going to believe its bullshit based upon speeches about how full of bullshit it is?
After awhile it just seems like you're just mimicking an Anti-General Conference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2020 05:08AM by schrodingerscat.

I have no idea what you mean. I've been coming here a long time. I've never been to the ExMo Conference. I heard it was nice.

Conferences don't exist to please you.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conferences don't exist to please you.
ExMo Conferences don't exist.

Silly, they do! They are just the dark matter of many Internet conferencings!

I go to exmo conferences to gas up on Dark Energy. It's real, you know...

If an atheist saw ghawd flying, he wouldn't think it was a 'mystery', he would instead try to formulate an hypothesis explaining what he was seeing.

If a Deist stumbled across ghawd's dead body, he wouldn't look for clues regarding His demise; he'd just form a lynch mob.



What do these two observations have in common? And no fair peeking!

I don't really care do U?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't really care do U?

Then why identify yourself with something you don't believe in if you don't care so hard?

Another pop star with another superficial opinion. . .

God is in the space around his axle of atheism. Cat just isn't entangled in the dark matter of popularizing science enough to see it.

Belief or non-belief in God is not just an arm-chair question.
It is socially and culturally relevant in a society where laws and social policy are often highly influenced by such views. (As we are seeing right now!) This makes a logical and rational examination of the question much more important (to whatever extent it can be examined) than a discussion about golfers and skiers. The fact that NDT fails to recognize this contrast demonstrates a remarkable shallowness in his thinking.

Moreover, there is a sense in which the more or less politically safe stance of agnosticism--where one not only refuses to make a personal commitment, but states that the question cannot even be objectively addressed--offers a free logical pass to popular theism that it does not deserve. It suggests that the argument for God is on equal logical and metaphysical footing as the argument for denial, which it most certainly is not! Although Deism and Pantheism can, and have been, supported by reasoned (and even compelling) theoretical and philosophical argument, in such cases the idea of "God" is stretched beyond any practical Being available for worship and a personal living faith. The apologetic (and convoluted) writings of highly regarded modern Christian theologians, like Alvin Plantiga, Richard Swinburne, and William Hasker, to name a few, really do fall flat when pressed against the standard of logic and evidence.

Back to NDT, my suspicion is that he very much enjoys his popularity as a science guru. As such, perhaps he is being cautious not to offend those who might take offense if he took a more dogmatic attitude against religion. Alternatively, maybe he is just ignorant of the issues and arguments involved in the God question; an ignorance implied by the statement that he does not have the "energy" for such engagement.

(As a reading suggestion, I recommend Anthony Flew's conversion book, written later in his life, called "There is a God." This book is interesting in that he recounts in a nutshell all of his famous and compelling atheist arguments and then discusses how science brought him to Deism. His co-author seems to take this as a newly found tolerance toward mainstream Christianity, which it clearly should not be. One can see quite clearly that mainstream Christianity, and the idea of a personal God, cannot overcome Flew's original arguments against God, even if one comes to accept Deism as a creative intelligence.)

All he is saying is that scientific knowledge is always provisional. They form conclusions based on the best available evidence. If new evidence comes along, and stands up to rigorous vetting, then the accepted canon of scientific knowledge changes to accommodate the new evidence.

All knowledge is provisional. Hardly an earthshaking statement.

As far as I am concerned, the difference between atheist and agnostic, besides spelling, is how convincing one sees the evidence or lack of evidence for a particular god. I see very little in the world that is successfully explained by positing the existence of a Middle Eastern god of Abraham. If evidence of such a being comes along, I will consider it, but for now, I consider myself an atheist.

BTW, I said "a particular god" above, because, as the aphorism goes, everyone is an atheist about all the other gods except theirs.

> I see very little
> in the world that is successfully explained by
> positing the existence of a Middle Eastern god of
> Abraham.

Yes, but that doesn't negate the possibility of some other "god." That's why I'm agnostic. I don't accept the statement that an agnostic believes the existence of God can not be proved. I simply don't believe it has been proved and, frankly, don't really care. If there is a deity somehow related to life on earth, s/he is either sadistic or incompetent--and neither deserves anything approaching worship.

Actually I am rather fond of Ganesha, but I don't see much in the world that would be explained by its existence either.

And of course Iemanja is hot. I am willing to approve of that. :)

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am rather fond of Ganesha, but I don't
> see much in the world that would be explained by
> its existence either.

Me too!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, but that doesn't negate the possibility of
> some other "god." That's why I'm agnostic. I
> don't accept the statement that an agnostic
> believes the existence of God can not be proved.
> I simply don't believe it has been proved and,
> frankly, don't really care. If there is a deity
> somehow related to life on earth, s/he is either
> sadistic or incompetent--and neither deserves
> anything approaching worship.

It seems to me that your mistake is equating agnosticism with a determination of "possibility" or "provability." Logical possibility (or provability) is not how scientific claims are assessed, and neither should questions about God be so assessed. The question is always about logic, reason, and evidence. Based upon your last sentence, you seem to be an atheist posing as an agnostic. (i.e. you don't believe in God, but admit that such a determination is not provable because, after all, the existence of God remains possible.

An agnostic is someone who has considered the evidence (of whatever sort deemed to count as evidence) and has in good faith determined that such evidence does not favor one position over another. That does not sound like your view.

No, you are insisting on arbitrary definitions. I suggest you read the alternatives in any reputable dictionary.

And your description of science is inaccurate. Where there is no, or inadequate, data the scientific judgement is "I don't know," which is literally what the Greek agnostic means.

You are confused.

As you suggest, being an agnostic may sometimes be defined, in whole or in part, as encompassing a view that a final determination of the God question is metaphysical; and therefore not subject to proof one way or the other, and as such must be deemed uncertain.

But this view is not, and cannot be, the defining position for an agnostic. There are two reasons for this: First, what one takes to be true in life, scientifically or otherwise, is not based solely upon what can be proved as certain. Neither is it based upon a claim that some alternative view is “impossible.” In virtually every case, belief formation is based upon an assessment of evidence, arguments, and one’s experiences. In short, provability and certainty are far too limiting to apply to belief formation—even about the God question.

Second, nearly all people who identify as atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) and nearly all people who identify as theists (all of those I mentioned above) would readily agree that they could be wrong; i.e. that their view is not “provable,” not "certain," and that the opposing view is not "impossible." Thus defining agnosticism in terms of one’s beliefs about provability (or non-provability) or possibility (or impossibility) fails to distinguish the agnostic from either the atheist or the theist. This is precisely the source of confusion about the application of these terms; particularly atheism and agnosticism.

Given the above, like defining an "atheist" or a "theist," an "agnostic" has to be defined as one’s mental belief state after considering the evidence, arguments, and experience. In short, an agnostic believes that the evidence, arguments and their experience, does NOT allow them to make a judgment, or form a belief one way or the other on the issue. They are genuinely undecided! The issue of “proof” or "possibility" is beside the point.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All he is saying is that scientific knowledge is
> always provisional. They form conclusions based on
> the best available evidence. If new evidence comes
> along, and stands up to rigorous vetting, then the
> accepted canon of scientific knowledge changes to
> accommodate the new evidence.

That is NOT all he is saying. We know that because with respect to other questions that are subject to empirical evidence he takes a (provisional) stand based upon the evidence available. Here he insists on remaining neutral out of convenience not out of an assessment of the evidence.
>
> All knowledge is provisional. Hardly an
> earthshaking statement.

Maybe so, but we still take a stand and form believes based upon evidence and our personal experiences.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the difference between
> atheist and agnostic, besides spelling, is how
> convincing one sees the evidence or lack of
> evidence for a particular god. I see very little
> in the world that is successfully explained by
> positing the existence of a Middle Eastern god of
> Abraham. If evidence of such a being comes along,
> I will consider it, but for now, I consider myself
> an atheist.

Based upon this assessment, what possible motivation would NDT have for taking a provisionally neutral position. Do you think he views the evidence and arguments as neutral? I doubt it. Rather, I suspect he sees the evidence the same way you do, but has other motivations for taking the public stance that he does.

> we still take a stand and form
> believes based upon evidence and our personal
> experiences.

Wrong. If you cannot define "God," and no one can, then there is no evidence that can falsify the proposition. In such circumstances "taking a stand" means judging without evidence.

You may not be comfortable with uncertainty, but science is.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > we still take a stand and form
> > believes based upon evidence and our personal
> > experiences.
>
> Wrong. If you cannot define "God," and no one
> can, then there is no evidence that can falsify
> the proposition. In such circumstances "taking a
> stand" means judging without evidence.

People define "God" all of the time in perfectly legitimate and intelligible ways: For example, one definition of "God" is "The intelligent agency that is responsible for the creation of the universe." Another is, "A supreme intelligence in the universe that loves all mankind and is interested in the well being of each person."

Once such definitions are offered, it is perfectly intelligible to then consider the evidence for or against the existence of such a Being or entity. That is precisely why there is a huge literature, including within scientific circles, that discusses the evidence in this regard. (e.g. the strong anthropic principle; or the nature and abundance of "evil."

"Falsification" is beside the point, because a proposition can be non-falsifiable but still be have evidence in its favor. Many scientific theories, like String Theory, are non-falsifiable, but still have evidentiary support. The question of "God" is also non-falsifiable, but, at least for some people, does have evidentiary support. The Big Bang, for example, arguably provides evidentiary support for the creation of the universe; with the existence of natural law providing evidence for an intelligent agent behind such creation.

Well I don't believe that you are correct. One definition of 'Intelligence' is the following.

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

You take words and make an argument for God, not a definition. God can't be defined in words unless you reduce the concept of "higher power" or "creator" or "Universe" down to something you and other people can understand and agree upon for your own convenience. You aren't defining something but opining about it here in your post.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I don't believe that you are correct. One
> definition of 'Intelligence' is the following.
>
> "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and
> skills."
>
> You take words and make an argument for God, not a
> definition. God can't be defined in words unless
> you reduce the concept of "higher power" or
> "creator" or "Universe" down to something you and
> other people can understand and agree upon for
> your own convenience. You aren't defining
> something but opining about it here in your post.

But, that is the point! We all can understand exactly what "intelligence" means by your definition above. There is no reason whatsoever why one cannot apply this term (with this definition) to a creative intelligence as explaining the universe. You do not have to know anything more about the matter to make the claim meaningful. The claim, "The universe was created by an intelligent agent," is as meaningful as anything else being created by an intelligent agent. That is why people can argue about it.

Suppose, you find an old rusty watch on the beach. Can you not conclude that the watch was made by an intelligent agent without knowing anything of the details about the nature or identity of that being?

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suppose, you find an old rusty watch on the beach.
> Can you not conclude that the watch was made by an
> intelligent agent without knowing anything of the
> details about the nature or identity of that
> being?

That is the point. No definition. No idea about the nature or identity of that being. And being implies something separate from the watch/Universe thing you have going. Is the creator of the rusty watch the creature your find inside of it. Is this what a little homunculus inside your head told you?

>> "Suppose, you find an old rusty watch on the beach. Can you not conclude that the watch was made by an intelligent agent without knowing anything of the details about the nature or identity of that being?"

Of course we can assume the watch was made by an intelligent being....because we have direct experience with watches and know they are made by intelligent humans. We can go to a factory and see them being made.....or youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoO7PtR0ujY

Can't do that with god. No one has any direct experience or observation of any god creating a universe, a planet, a life, etc. So it is not a given assumption that an intelligent being created life and the universe like the watch in your example.

That's right, but the point is that the watch has certain characteristics of order that can be pointed to in order to raise questions and make judgments about its source.

The universe also has certain characteristics of quite remarkable order that makes the question of its source arguable and meaningful; and subject to further discussion and consideration--even if at the end of the day the idea of an intelligent agent is rejected as such a source.

>> even if at the end of the day the idea of an intelligent agent is rejected as such a source.

Yes, and some of us have already reached that part of the day, so no more need to discuss.

When it comes to truth, opinions are irrelevant. Arguments over the existence or nonexistence of god are ridiculously futile. Your opinion does not matter. My opinion doesn't matter. The Pope's opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't matter. If there is a god, then there IS a god. If there is no god, then there IS no god. It's that simple. Arguments have no effect on the reality. Your belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. And it makes no difference.  Your opinions and belief cannot alter the truth.  If there is a god, would the world be different than a world without a god? We would remain subject to the same occurrences and calamities either way while the universe looks on with pitiless indifference. And why should I care as long as there is a Kentucky Fried Chicken down the street?

Just for the record, I do not exist. Does that make ME an atheist?

If the premise is false, then all conclusions are true. I know, seems odd, but it works out that way. Trust me.

So yes, you are an atheist. You are also not an atheist. Isn't it marvelous?! Isn't it wonderful?!

Razortooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When it comes to truth, opinions are irrelevant.
> Arguments over the existence or nonexistence of
> god are ridiculously futile. Your opinion does not
> matter. My opinion doesn't matter. The Pope's
> opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of Neil
> deGrasse Tyson doesn't matter. If there is a god,
> then there IS a god. If there is no god, then
> there IS no god. It's that simple. Arguments have
> no effect on the reality. Your belief or lack of
> belief is irrelevant. And it makes no difference.
>  Your opinions and belief cannot alter the truth.
>  If there is a god, would the world be different
> than a world without a god? We would remain
> subject to the same occurrences and calamities
> either way while the universe looks on with
> pitiless indifference. And why should I care as
> long as there is a Kentucky Fried Chicken down the
> street?

So, what about the truthfulness of Mormonism? Are arguments and opinions about Mormonism also "irrelevant" and "ridiculously futile?" Most of us found our way out of Mormonism because such arguments and evidence WERE relevant and NOT futile.

The same is true with regard to the question of God. People indeed are entrenched in their positions, but that does not mean that opinions are irrelevant, or that arguments based upon evidence do not have objective validity, and thus the ability to persuade on occasion. And it certainly does not follow that opinions about God do not matter. Do you think the opinions about God of Amy Barrett and her supporters do not matter?

You seem to have missed my point. That's okay. You'll feel better after going to KFC.

ouch!

Something for you to weigh and consider, Razortooth:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-data-is-never-raw

Snippet:

“In the memorable words of Geoffrey Bowker, informatics professor at the University of California, Irvine, “Raw data is both an oxymoron and a bad idea; to the contrary, data should be cooked with care.” “Raw” carries a sense of natural or untouched, while “cooked” suggests the result of cognitive processes. But data is always the product of cognitive, cultural, and institutional processes that determine what to collect and how to collect it. In this sense, “raw data” is indeed a contradiction in terms. In the ordinary use of the term “raw data,” “raw” signifies that no processing was performed following data collection, but the term obscures the various forms of processing that necessarily occur before data collection.“

God is processing. Tastes like chicken.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2020 10:33AM by Elder Berry.

Great point! This raises the whole question of science as a social construct that was so popular in the 80s and 90s (and still relevant today!). There is no question that "data" is very much influenced by theory, experiment, or a given scientist; sometimes with disastrous results.

There is a wonderful book, called "The Disunity of Science" edited by Peter Galison and David J. Stump, that addresses these issues in detail from all points of view. My favorite essay in this compilation is by Arthur Fine, called, "Science Made Up: Constructivist Sociology of Scientific Knowledge." The essay walks the line between the extremes of scientific dogmatism and social constructivism (post modernism) in an attempt to find a middle ground, while acknowledging the general legitimacy of both science and the constructivist criticisms.

You want a wing or a leg?

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: How about "ex-theists" then?

I'm with NdGT, why attach your identity to a group whose behavior you don't agree with? IOW, he thinks its wrong to tell other people how to think or what to believe, based upon how you identify them. He doesn't identify as an atheist because he finds religious architecture, language and music inspiring and doesn't want to be told he can't wish an astronaut, "God's Speed" when there is a long and meaningful tradition of doing so.

Why can't you just say you do things your way and tell us what 'your way' is?

How come you seem to need to validate how you operate by, like a faithful family dog, bringing us bits and pieces of the internet?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can't you just say you do things your way and
> tell us what 'your way' is?
>
> How come you seem to need to validate how you
> operate by, like a faithful family dog, bringing
> us bits and pieces of the internet?

Because I appreciate the opinions of intelligent thinkers. And I appreciate the fact that they call bullshit on the false, Us vs. Them dichotomy.

In other words, he has been assimilated - no us and them anymore.

Neil de Grasse Tyson on life's greatest question:
https://youtu.be/v13PZxymKVE

I don't think using the word agnostic helps classify much. Everyone is an agnostic, whether they call them self agnostic or not. If they weren't agnostic, they would have proof for their "knowledge" of God. What they have is a faith-belief, NOT KNOWLEDGE.

So, the reason many of us who do not hold a belief in God also use the word atheist is for further clarification. Being atheist does not necessarily mean they would not consider verifiable proof. Being atheist does not necessarily mean they are making a statement whether or not the question of gods is provable. Being atheist does not necessarily mean they care at all about the question of gods.

Like many famous people (often scientific educators or people who write books), some do not want to risk however these labels are used against them. They do not want to alienate people who define them differently. I agree with NGT on the topic, but to me, he is skirting his thoughts about faith belief vs. knowledge.

Depending on who I am talking to, I might use the word agnostic. Adding atheist or apostate can stop the conversation if they are conditioned to reject those labels.

Lovely response. Mr. Tyson doesn't want to alien "them" in the Us vs. Them dichotomy but he loves to call atheists on their bullshit! ;)

Does "atheist" mean:

1. I don't believe in God

or

2. I believe there is no God.

People are always trying to put us atheists in category #2 when most of us are really in category #1.

That's right.

The words "atheist" and "agnostic" have multiple definitions. It's possible for someone of pedantic inclination to decide which definitions to use and then make statements based on it about other people, but that practice is arbitrary and reductive.

It's a silly exercise.

God is someone of pedantic inclination. And needs followers for their fakebook.

These statements are logically equivalent--if one assumes that the terms "God" and "believe" are identical in both, and that there is no logical significance in the use of the words "in" in the first statement, and "there is" in the second statement.

Statement 1 implies that the person understands what "God" means; has considered the issue of God's existence; and has rejected the proposition that God exists. As such, within her set of beliefs there is an affirmative belief that God does not exist.

Statement 2 is just a carry-over of the implication already present in Statement 1.

There is no such thing as an atheist that has only "an absence of belief in God." The only person in that category is someone who has never considered the issue and thus has no belief one way or the other. An atheist clearly *has* considered the issue, and clearly *has* formulated a belief about it.

Note, finally, that the above is a purely logical distinction, and not based upon my own "arbitrary" definitions. There might be many definitions of "atheist" but all have to assume that the atheist has considered the issue of God and has taken some sort of a (negative) stance on the issue. Any such stance must also be a substantive mental state or belief. One cannot both consider a proposition, decide on its truth value, and then claim that the resulting mental state is merely a lack of belief, rather than a substantive mental commitment.

Finally, the above logical point is only silly to those who do not understand it.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, the above logical point is only silly to
> those who do not understand it.

It is very silly. Your reduction is absurd.


1. I don't believe in God (God could exist but I don't believe)

or

2. I believe there is no God (No God exists)

Sorry NO!

Neither statement says anything about whether or not God "could exist." And both statements by their use of the term "believe" leave open the possibility that they could be wrong. In short, they are both statements about beliefs, i.e. mental states, not about the fact of the matter of God's existence.

what escapes you?

The first sentence says the evidence of God does not rise to the level necessary for me to believe in her existence.

The second sentence says the evidence against God rises to the level for me to conclude that she does not exist.

The first evaluates the proposition that God exists; the second judges the proposition that God does not exist.

The two statements are fundamentally different. Clearly.

No!!! Neither sentence says anything about evidence, for or against. All they state is the person's "belief" about God, regardless of how such belief was formed.

Moreover, there is nothing in either statement about "evaluations" or "judgments" beyond the mere belief itself which in both cases is the belief that God does not exist. As such, for reasons stated, they are equivalent--assuming my assumptions as stated.

You cannot read into the statements whatever you want in order to create a logical distinction.

But it was a nice try!

Not much for logic, are you.

LOL! Words have meanings and nuances of placement. Semantics in grammar.

If I were confronted I could choose the weak or strong answer. I've told many people I don't believe in God. And they rejoin with clarifying questions usually like if I believe there is no God.

It is pretty clear to people I talk to about God.

I believe Salviati just went off in another thread on the meanings of "atheist" and "agnostic," a thread in which he again insisted that his preferred definitions of those terms are the only valid ones. He assuredly does NOT understand words and grammar.

Those sentences are not at all equivalent.