Possibility and "just might" is a far cry from where people take it. Which is why I actively oppose it.
I'm back. What you're saying does indeed describe how religion has become more compartmentalized if not denigrated over time. But that wasn't the primary point I wanted to make. The bolded part in your quote of me wasn't drafted as artfully as it should have been.
What I really meant was that because human intellect is both finite and limited, it may never be possible to have a complete understanding of existence, reality, other universes or planes of reality, etc. That's not necessarily true but it's a possibility. If it is true however, and it is certainly true now, then you have to admit the possibility of supernatural, paranormal phenomena are real. It doesn't prove that they are, only that they can't rationally be excluded.
It may be that by taking psychotropics or engaging in years of daily meditation, extreme fasting or a host of other religious and mystical practices might, just might, open up other realms that are beyond our ability to perceive or understand w/o such interventions.
This is the true agnostic point of view. We recognize that an infinite variety deities, universes and even things we can't even begin to conceive of, can't rationally be dismissed as fiction or fairy tale. At the same time, they shouldn't necessarily be accepted as fact either. We genuinely have no preference either way and in the most extreme case, don't even recognize the question as valid.
Depending on what flavor of atheism you espouse, it can be a belief since the negation of belief is still a belief.In the bulk of the situations where the silly idea that agnosticism is incompatible with atheism comes up (and I've seen it a lot), it is when a theist is attempting to shift the burden of proof to an atheist. Claims along the lines of "atheism takes faith too!" or "atheism is false because you can't know there are no gods" are common in such situations.
Balderdash. The negation of "to believe X" is "not to believe X," it isn't "to believe not-X." I can demonstrate it if you really can't work this out on your own.Depending on what flavor of atheism you espouse, it can be a belief since the negation of belief is still a belief.
What you mean to say is that the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. No reasonable person can claim to know categorically that no gods exist.But some people who call themselves atheist are really closer to agnosticism than atheism.
That depends on which god we're talking about. Certain god-concepts are demonstrably inconsistent. The rest are simply unfalsifiable.They don't claim that one can prove the negative proposition that god does not exist.
You seem to still be suffering under the idea that there is only one conceivable god around which all of these notions orbit. The fact is one can be a gnostic atheist with respect to certain formulations of "god," while an agnostic atheist with respect still to others.Rather they make the more reasonable claim that they refuse to believe in the absence of proof.
If you do not believe in a god, then you are not a theist. You are therefore an atheist. If you do not have knowledge about a god's existence, then you are not a gnostic. You are therefore an agnostic. If both of these are simultaneously true, you are an agnostic atheist.That's what I would consider a form of agnosticism rather than atheism.
I really do not believe in Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, or Vampires in reality either.
A billion followers of any of the above could try to tell me otherwise, I still would not.
I guess they would label me as a non follower of their beliefs, its a tag.
Does that matter really to me personally, other than what they interpret to be true ?
As I said if you'd paid attention, it depends on what version of atheism you espouse. If you are a 'there is no god' atheist, then this is painfully obviously a belief. Just a negative one. Both A and not A are statments in Aristotelian logic. If you are going to claim that the positive statement is a belief, you can't then say the negative one isn'tBalderdash. The negation of "to believe X" is "not to believe X," it isn't "to believe not-X." I can demonstrate it if you really can't work this out on your own.
No because that term is nonsense. But keep humping it and maybe in a couple of decades it will be recognized.What you mean to say is that the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. No reasonable person can claim to know categorically that no gods exist.
I was using god as short hand for all supernatural belief as well as all personal knowledge and belief that transcends human logic. It get tedious to spell out what I mean every single time.That depends on which god we're talking about. Certain god-concepts are demonstrably inconsistent. The rest are simply unfalsifiable.
Sweet Jesus. Will you at least ATTEMPT to understand what I've posted?You seem to still be suffering under the idea that there is only one conceivable god around which all of these notions orbit. The fact is one can be a gnostic atheist with respect to certain formulations of "god," while an agnostic atheist with respect still to others.
Wrong. An atheist is one who disavows the existence of "god" (in the broader sense noted above). One who simply neither believes nor doesn't believe is an agnostic. At least that's the way the rest of the world views these terms.If you do not believe in a god, then you are not a theist. You are therefore an atheist. If you do not have knowledge about a god's existence, then you are not a gnostic. You are therefore an agnostic. If both of these are simultaneously true, you are an agnostic atheist.
And is seems you need to learn to read.Do you know what a dichotomy is? It seems like you don't.
As I said if you'd paid attention, it depends on what version of atheism you espouse. If you are a 'there is no god' atheist, then this is painfully obviously a belief. Just a negative one. Both A and not A are statments in Aristotelian logic. If you are going to claim that the positive statement is a belief, you can't then say the negative one isn't
No because that term is nonsense. But keep humping it and maybe in a couple of decades it will be recognized.
I was using god as short hand for all supernatural belief as well as all personal knowledge and belief that transcends human logic. It get tedious to spell out what I mean every single time.
Sweet Jesus. Will you at least ATTEMPT to understand what I've posted?
Wrong. An atheist is one who disavows the existence of "god" (in the broader sense noted above). One who simply neither believes nor doesn't believe is an agnostic. At least that's the way the rest of the world views these terms.
And is seems you need to learn to read.
I might be able to, in certain cases, agree with you that agnosticism is fundamentally different from theism or atheism. But only in those cases where the type of agnostic is one who doesn't recognize the validity of the question as to whether or not god (in the broad sense I noted above) exists. In every other case, even the dictionary .com definition supports the view I've expressed here. Agnostics neither believe nor not believe. That means that they are outside of both "theist" camps - both theist and atheist.You are missing the point, that is the Root meanings of Theist and Gnostic are fundamentally different. Agnostic does not fit between Theist and Atheist, because it is measure of a different thing. Some people, the reason why the dictionary partly agrees with you(you seem to have cherry picked the one definition that agrees with you, ignoring the alternatives), have used the term Agnostic to describe themselves as being between, but this is an inaccurate usage of the root terms.
Yes, more or less.If you Know there is a god, you are gnostic , meaning you have Knowledge of it. If you don't Know, you are agnostic, meaning you don't have Kwowledge of it.
That is becoming the common parlance. The problem with it however is that the definitions of agnostic and atheist now overlap.If you Believe there is a god, you are theist, if not atheist.
You keep harping on this and it is just fundamentally wrong.
I might be able to, in certain cases, agree with you that agnosticism is fundamentally different from theism or atheism. But only in those cases where the type of agnostic is one who doesn't recognize the validity of the question as to whether or not god (in the broad sense I noted above) exists. In every other case, even the dictionary .com definition supports the view I've expressed here. Agnostics neither believe nor not believe. That means that they are outside of both "theist" camps - both theist and atheist.
The dictionary .com definition is wrong for 'atheist'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist?s=t
If you compare the two you will see that they are essentially synonymous. This is the result of people misusing the terms and not understanding how they are supposed to be used. Just like "literal" now officially means both literally and not literally.
It's because of that sort of confusion that you need absurd oxymorons like gnostic atheist.
Yes, more or less.
That is becoming the common parlance. The problem with it however is that the definitions of agnostic and atheist now overlap.
That's an artificial distinction since it's obvious that the type of knowledge we're talking about is knowledge of god/supernatural. For most people, that falls w/in the realm of faith/belief not knowledge. And both definitions bear me out on this.That's because Belief is not what Agnostic/Gnostic concerns itself with. Knowledge and Belief are not the same thing. Agnostic(not Know) Atheist(not Believe) is an accurate and proper term.
That's an artificial distinction since it's obvious that the type of knowledge we're talking about is knowledge of god/supernatural. For most people, that falls w/in the realm of faith/belief not knowledge. And both definitions bear me out on this.
You're just making that up. Since there is no kind of proof that can definitively establish the existence of the supernatural, almost by definition, the type of "knowledge" you're talking about is really just a particularly high level of belief.It is not artificial. What most Theists call "Knowledge" is actually Faith. Yet another unique term that's related to Belief. Knowledge requires Evidence or at least some kind of repeatable demonstration.
The line between them is fuzzier than you probably imagine.You conflate belief and knowledge on the regular?
Maths would like to have a word.
You're just making that up. Since there is no kind of proof that can definitively establish the existence of the supernatural, almost by definition, the type of "knowledge" you're talking about is really just a particularly high level of belief.
Don't misuderstand. I do agree that the idea of knowledge exists on a continuum. What I don't agree with is that you can have any sort of reproducible proof for any particular belief.
The line between them is fuzzier than you probably imagine.
I think I must have misread your post. It sounded like you were saying religious knowledge had to be reproducible. I think we both agree that's not the case.I Believe that a 1 pound lead ball will fall at the same rate as a 10 pound lead ball.
Is that reproducible enough? In regards to that, the fact that it is True and Reproducible makes it Knowledge.
In contrast, many Believe that Prayer heals the sick. No matter how many times that claim is tested, it is not Reproducible and certainly is not Knowledge, it is Faith. The Bible defines it thusly
Hebrews 11:1New International Version (NIV)
Faith in Action
11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Again, not Knowledge.
It is only fuzzy, because you are making it so. Once you learn the roots of the words, the differences are quite clear.
I think I must have misread your post. It sounded like you were saying religious knowledge had to be reproducible. I think we both agree that's not the case.
As to whether religious knowledge can legitimately called knowledge or not, is something we can argue indefinitely. However for people that honestly believe that they possess such knowledge, for them, it has the same import as what you're calling knowledge.
The fact of the matter is that we all make our own reality. Just like there is a great deal that is real but you don't yet know, there is also a great deal that you don't yet know that is in fact real.
I think I must have misread your post. It sounded like you were saying religious knowledge had to be reproducible. I think we both agree that's not the case.
As to whether religious knowledge can legitimately called knowledge or not, is something we can argue indefinitely. However for people that honestly believe that they possess such knowledge, for them, it has the same import as what you're calling knowledge.
The fact of the matter is that we all make our own reality. Just like there is a great deal that is real but you don't yet know, there is also a great deal that you don't yet know that is in fact real.
Not really. I'm an agnostic, remember? My only objective is to help people, both theist and atheist, try to have a broader and less parochial view of belief. All of the atheists I've ever talked to have this narrow minded obsession with the idea that anything that cannot be empirically demonstrated is bullshit.So you never wanted a discussion.
see above.Oy vey.
Knowledge has to be reproducible. Otherwise it is something other than Knowledge.
We are debating it indefinitely, but need not be. What Religious people call Knowledge, if/when they do amounts to little more than gut instinct and really wanting something to be true. That is not Knowledge.
Uhh, no, just no. Reality is what Reality is. We have control over how we interact with it, but it is beyond our control.
You keep coming back to what we don't Know, like it is a valid point. Just because we don't Know things doesn't make various often contradictory Claims legitimate. Claims are only legitimate existent knowledge if they can be shown to exist.
Not really. I'm an agnostic, remember? My only objective is to help people, both theist and atheist, try to have a broader and less parochial view of belief. All of the atheists I've ever talked to have this narrow minded obsession with the idea that anything that cannot be empirically demonstrated is bullshit.
I understand the desire to have that sort of simplistic view. It's comforting and let's you avoid dealing with the bigger questions in life. What you need to understand is that for most of the population on the planet, you are in the minority.
Of course that doesn't necessarily make the majority right. But it does mean that you need to be more open minded.
In this regard I would call your attention to Godel's completeness theorem. He proved conclusively that no system of mathematics can validate all true conclusions. In other words, every system of mathematics is incomplete.
So it's not difficult to extrapolate from that and realize that your world view might also be incomplete.
see above.
Ridiculously false. Logical negation doesn't depend on any type of person, atheist or otherwise. The negation of "I believe X" is "I do not believe X" no matter who you are.As I said if you'd paid attention, it depends on what version of atheism you espouse.
Certainly there are some atheists that would claim that 0 gods exist, but these are a subset of atheists. ALL atheists do not believe a god exists -- that's because believing a god exists is what makes you a theist. Not doing that -- not believing as distinct from believing not -- is what makes you fail to be a theist, and thus an atheist.If you are a 'there is no god' atheist, then this is painfully obviously a belief. Just a negative one. Both A and not A are statments in Aristotelian logic. If you are going to claim that the positive statement is a belief, you can't then say the negative one isn't
You confuse your own ignorance for actual incoherence.No because that term is nonsense.
It is recognized now, your ignorance of that fact notwithstanding.But keep humping it and maybe in a couple of decades it will be recognized.
That's conveniently said after the fact. Perhaps you should take care to say what you mean in the future.I was using god as short hand for all supernatural belief as well as all personal knowledge and belief that transcends human logic. It get tedious to spell out what I mean every single time.
I do understand what you've posted. I've seen this argument a thousand times if I've seen it once. I've spent decades debating apologetics on online forums, and yours is one of the most common canards vaunted by the greenhorns. You are wrong, and all that remains is to see how far you are willing to go to protect your pride by refusing to admit it.Sweet Jesus. Will you at least ATTEMPT to understand what I've posted?
If he does not believe in a god, then he is not a theist. He is therefore an atheist. That's how dichotomies work.Wrong. An atheist is one who disavows the existence of "god" (in the broader sense noted above). One who simply neither believes nor doesn't believe is an agnostic.
What proportion of atheists view it that way?At least that's the way the rest of the world views these terms.
That gave me a chuckle.And is seems you need to learn to read.
And I'm saying that mere humans are in no position to judge any number of things, including but not limited to belief systems.What you call Open Minded is actually the opposite. You refuse to use your Mind to weed out legitimate claims from BS claims. Instead of using your Mind, you are just accepting everything as equally valid.
Some things are True, some things are False. The only way to tell the difference is to Judge them.
I feel the same way about your willful ignorance so I'll just say this in response.I see this will require more hand-holding than I expected. How disappointing.
<snip>
And I'm saying that mere humans are in no position to judge any number of things, including but not limited to belief systems.
You know who atheists remind me of? Charles Holland Duell. He is the commissioner of the patent office who is alleged to have said that there was no need for a patent office since everything that could be invented had been invented.
This is why I say that atheists (and theists) are narrow minded. Because in your arrogance you think that your puny human brain is capable of understanding all of the mysteries of the universe.
It may turn out that in fact our puny brains are capable of doing just that. But to assume that is the case is simple, bald-faced hubris.
I feel the same way about your willful ignorance so I'll just say this in response.
I don't believe in god or the supernatural and I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. As I said several pages ago, atheists want as broad a definition of what atheism is as possible. And to some extent, you and your ilk are winning as shown by the confusion that already exists in the definitions I quoted earlier.
But I do not and never will consider myself an atheist.