I'm just not interested, that's all. — Jake
I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. — Jake
I just politely requested that you supply us the correct 'instructions' for what I was lead to believe is a method for seriously challenging atheism. — praxis
So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you? — Jake
But we do have evidence. After thousands of years of investigation and dialog led by some of the best minds among us, we have compelling evidence that we have no compelling evidence to support either belief or disbelief. That is, we have strong evidence of our ignorance.
1) We had a huge investigation.
2) We uncovered an important fact.
3) We don't like that fact.
4) So we keep doing the same thing (God debate) over and over again expecting different results, ie. the definition of stupidity.
There is an alternative to this stupidity.
1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use. — Jake
The best test to see if the theist really wants to explore the vulnerability of theism is to simply observe whether they are already engaged in such an inquiry on their own. Are they already on the job? Or are they sitting back waiting for someone else to do the work so that they can repeat their memorized slogans.
S has shown us what he really wants to do, and that is what he's doing in this thread. He wants to sell atheism, sell his imaginary cleverness, and get in to ego food fights. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that. Everyone should proceed with that agenda and enjoy the process.
I'm just not interested, that's all. I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. For the moment I see no evidence that such a conversation is going to emerge here, so this is my last comment on the matter. — Jake
Hi, the following seems long winded but it's actually one simple statement repeated & fleshed out, before it returns back to the one simple statement.
PROBLEM:
There is a lot of confusion today between the terms Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism.
We now see people who are Agnostic Atheists, Agostic Christians, Atheist Agnostics and that's just the beginning.
I'm not sure what the dictionaries state on the matter but l'd like to cut through all the confusion.
FACT #1: Our beliefs fluctuate, as the Muslims believe: Faith (Iman) goes up and down.
Therefore: Labels addressing our thoughts in toto, are not useful, as we hold manycontradictory internal beliefs. Those contradictory beliefs are a good thing because it means we have an internal dialogue going on, it means we have reasoned our faith.
FACT #2: Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism - these labels are NOT meaningless.
Deep inside, we know what each of these things is. We just know.
SOLUTION (= middle way between Fact #1 & #2, & the carnival of chimaeric appellations arising from the three labels Atheist, Agnostic, Theist): Let each of these terms relate to what the lips profess, regardless of the backend operations in the mind, the arguments to-and-fro in the backs of our minds. The label "Atheist" / "Agnostic" / "Theist" relate to the end conclusion of our bourgeoning internal dialogue on the matter with its many concessions to atheism & theism - the label is the END product of ALL that:
Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"
Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"
Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science.
NOTES:
* Agnosticism thus becomes unthinkable for a sentient being, a human with higher faculties intact. How can we, as creatures of refined aesthetic, be so perfectly on the fence between two rival beliefs? Have we no aesthetic inclination either way, at the very least?
Also how can two rival beliefs be so perfectly matched as to justify Agnosticism as a permanent camp?
* Agnostic Atheism = intellectual dishonesty. Atheists know that they cannot scientifically dismiss God, as God / Atheism are unfalsifiable. Therefore, they sit on the fence. Yet devoid of aesthetic (such that they cannot even feel preference for one camp over the other), they try to voice their materialism in a simultaneous declaration of Atheism, which totally contradicts the entire point of Agnosticism in my scheme.
* Therefore l feel we can now do away with "Agnosticism" + "Agnostic Atheism". This leaves just Atheism and Theism. Therefore my solution is elegant.
CONCLUSION:
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are now redefined as what the lips actually profess, not the mind in toto.
It follows that Agnosticism as such doesn't exist.
It also follows that Agnostic Atheism is intellectually dishonest.
I would also like to make the charge of intellectual dishonesty against Atheism because God/No-God are unfalsifiable concepts, and as l've explained: Muslims at least consider the religious to be Believers, not Knowers, hence you cannot accuse them of being unscientific in violating unfalsifiability. I'm happy to leave that for another discussion though.
Feel free to argue but l'd like to state: Beyond page 1 of this debate, l will likely switch off as will most other casual visitors.
Please read this OP thoroughly before raising a point that has already been covered. I believe this OP is watertight. It's imperative that we adopt these new definitions of Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism.
You seemed to suggest that clarification of symbols or concepts would be productive to a discussion such as this one. — praxis
We had 2 threads currently debating the definition of atheism, so I merged them. — fdrake
Yep, it would. But S was not interested in it. — Mariner
I can't undo it, nor would I if I could. The two threads were examining different definitions of atheism. You can continue talking just as before. — fdrake
I was wondering if you’ve thoroughly challenged your own lofty position. In claiming “our” ignorance, you’re saying that both theists and atheists are ignorant and don’t know the truth of the matter. — praxis
You can claim your own ignorance. No one would object to that. Agnosticism, I think it’s called. — praxis
mean by god — Mariner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.