I think it is very hard to avoid the illusion of being certain as well. I'm not sure if I would say such is a problem, actually I think problems are just subjective judgment on a neutral reality, — Yohan

I think it can be an advantage, even, especially if you are good at something or have the potential to be. If the goal is never to make a mistake, then it's a problem. But if you commit to a hypothesis or theory or belief, it allows you to move forward. If you are detective and when you think someone is guilty or withholding information, for examples, and, yes, are wrong once in a while, it still can make you a better police that you trust your intuition and are certain. Of course it can make for a bad detective also. If we shift to tying shoelaces, I am certain each time that I will manage. Of course, over my lifetime I may fumble it and mess up, once in a great while. But I lose nothing thinking I will do it right every time, unless my ego leads me deny I didn't manage and I walk outside and trip.

Justifiable action is predicated on certainty. — Possibility

I'd just say that's false. That which is stated with justification etc.

Some of us just hold ourselves (and/or others) to a more rational standard. — Possibility

The irony is that believing any of your actions are based on a justification schema of certainty is completely irrational.

God obviously doesn't exist. Are agnostics also agnostic about Santa or the Tooth Fairy or Zuzu at the bottom of the sea? Seems weak to me. God 100% does not exist and it's about time for theists to enter into psychological maturity.

I think if you interviewed the best detectives, scientists, whatever, that they would be people that while trusting their intuitions, are also humble and skeptical of their abilities, which would be one of the reasons they have gotten so good. I don't know, btw, if we are going too far off from the thread theme. We can PM or start a thread if you want, unless you think this ties into the main theme?

The counter is that for practical purposes agnosticism and atheism have the same outcome. — Banno

Not true. Atheists won't shut the fuck up. At least agnostics have a respectable silence.

Big whup. You can barely hear us cursing the darkness over the cacophonous preaching of "thoughts and prayers" or prophetic glossolalia of religious hucksters (and their mind-sheered flocks) who would self-righteously plunge the world back, if they could, into the Dark Ages unopposed. Agnostics are mute because they're too intellectually lazy to push back against dogmatic religious "beliefs" or "practices", deluding themselves that they inhabit some "neutral ground" between demonstrably true claims & demonstrably untrue claims.

Might there be a difference between a theist, an atheist, an anti-theist, and an anti-atheist?

Agnostic are mute because they're too intelkectually lazy to push back on dogmatic religious "beliefs" or "practices", deluding themselves that they inhabit some "neutral ground" between demonstrably true claims & demonstrably untrue claims. — 180 Proof

How can you speak for every agnostic? That is simply not true. You can be an agnostic about the existence of God while also believing that, if God exists, it isn't Yahweh or Allah.

I think if you interviewed the best detectives, scientists, whatever, that they would be people that while trusting their intuitions, are also humble and skeptical of their abilities, which would be one of the reasons they have gotten so good. — Yohan

I think it depends on what facets of the work we are talking about. Clearly the better scientists are not going to assume they don't need to do the research. And the better detectives will of cource be looking ofr evidence to support their intuitions and yes, both will have an eye out for false assumptions. But I think they will also have great confidence in their intuitive skills, especially those that focus on them. And there are portions of the process of both groups that rely more on intuition than rational analysis. Any skilled detective or scientist will be good at both types of processes. And while many of them will be officially humble, at least in many contexts, my guess is that most in private or in themselves have a great deal of confidence in their intuitive abilities. And that this is helpful not harmful for them. That's my intuition and yes, I see you have a different intuition.

I'm not speaking "for agnostics", I'm only describing their cognitive behavior or stance.

darthbarracuda Big whup. You can barely hear us cursing the darkness over the cacophonous preaching of "thoughts and prayers" or prophetic glossolalia of religious huckers (and their mind-sheered flocks) would plunge the world back into if they could reimpose the Dark Ages unopposed. — 180 Proof

Amen brother. Don't you guys even have money with 'In God We Trust' emblazoned on it? WTF? I guess it might be a cute way to deal with Matthew's injunction to not serve both God and mammon.

I've always thought of "In God We Trust" as the "Founding" deists' way of flipping the Masonic bird at America's untaxed Christian Churches. :smirk:

:cool:

Yes, and I would also challenge anyone who vocally expressed such affected beliefs. But I do think some people still believe something must be ‘wrong’ with homosexuality, for instance, without such harmful attitudes toward homosexuals, and I think you can gradually influence such a belief by increasing positively-affected awareness, connection and collaboration.

Beliefs and doubt are highly susceptible to affect. An affected belief or doubt can lead to ignoring or excluding contradictory information, and can block opportunities to increase awareness. But I think it’s an affected or blind commitment to belief in literalist readings of holy books, etc - the kind that motivates people to declare these statements of belief without entertaining any doubt, and then actively ignore, isolate or exclude information which disputes them - that can be more damaging than just belief alone.

I do recognise that most of us don’t feel the need to make this distinction, and define a belief as one stated or evident. I have a number of beliefs I’m not committed to due to insufficient reason, but nor am I prepared to exclude phenomena that supports them. For the most part, these beliefs are impotent in the light of reason, but I’m aware that they can show up in thoughtless or affected words and behaviour. I often mention these beliefs in discussions here to entertain doubts and contradictory information, and I’m not committed when I say ‘I believe’ or ‘I think’. This is how we continue to challenge our own thoughts and beliefs - by introspecting the role of affect.

I get that atheists prefer to simply exclude any beliefs that cannot be supported by sufficient reason. My issue is with atheists who attack agnostics for a lack of blind (or blinkered) commitment either to rationalised doubt or to unsupported beliefs. It suggests a niggling awareness of potential/value in phenomena or aesthetics they ignore or exclude on rational grounds - not that they might be ‘wrong’, just missing something. An agnostic position does not prevent speaking of or acting on either belief or doubt - but is also aware that phenomena and affect play their part in this. An atheist’s commitment to rationalised doubt is not as damaging as a theist’s commitment to affected beliefs, but they both increase ignorance, isolation and exclusion in their own way.

You can be an agnostic about the existence of God while also believing that, if God exists, it isn't Yahweh or Allah. — darthbarracuda

:up:

Nice bit of writing, Poss.

The irony is that believing any of your actions are based on a justification schema of certainty is completely irrational. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed.

Agnostic are mute because they're too intellectually lazy to push back against dogmatic religious "beliefs" or "practices", deluding themselves that they inhabit some "neutral ground" between demonstrably true claims & demonstrably untrue claims. — 180 Proof

Oh, we push. The thing is that when you see us push, you imagine us as fellow atheists. And when we argue against your commitment to rationalised doubt, you imagine us as theists.

So, mind-reading?

Agnostics ARE atheists. An agnostic doesnt believe there is a god, thats what defines atheism. The two terms are not even positions on the same thing. Agnosticism isnt a position in whether god exists or not, it is a position on what can be known about god.
Thus one can be an atheists agnostic.
Being against religion or the idea of god is not atheism, it is anti-theism. Many atheists are anti-theists and because of that people think of atheism as anti-theism but its not.

One of the favorite barnstorming freethinkers on agnosticism:

The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.

― Robert G. Ingersoll

Agnostics ARE atheists. An agnostic doesnt believe there is a god, thats what defines atheism. The two terms are not even positions on the same thing. Agnosticism isnt a position in whether god exists or not, it is a position on what can be known about god.
Thus one can be an atheists agnostic.
Being against religion or the idea of god is not atheism, it is anti-theism. Many atheists are anti-theists and because of that people think of atheism as anti-theism but its not. — DingoJones

I agree that the two terms are not positions on the same thing, and that some agnostics are atheists, but not all. I also understand that many atheists are not anti-theists, and don’t wished to be tarred with the same brush. If I have made this assumption, then it was not my intention. I think I have referred to ‘atheists who...’ to make this distinction, only because all anti-theists seem to identify simply as ‘atheist’, not as ‘anti-theist’.

As an agnostic, I do believe that ‘God’ is a suitable placeholder for a relational aspect of existence beyond knowledge. I believe this because I want to, because it makes sense in my affected experience. Can I then call myself an atheist?

I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness. But my understanding of this aspect doesn’t fit with the theist position, because I disagree that ‘God’ is a necessary being. Can I then call myself a theist?

I agree that the two terms are not positions on the same thing, and that some agnostics are atheists, but not all. I also understand that many atheists are not anti-theists, and don’t wished to be tarred with the same brush. If I have made this assumption, then it was not my intention. I think I have referred to ‘atheists who...’ to make this distinction, only becau — Possibility

Understood, I wasnt taking offence, just illustrating some distinctions I find useful. I actually am an anti-theist atheist but Im open minded to change either of those positions. I’m not attached much to the positions I hold. Most of them anyway.

As an agnostic, I do believe that ‘God’ is a suitable placeholder for a relational aspect of existence beyond knowledge. I believe this because I want to, because it makes sense in my affected experience. Can I then call myself an atheist? — Possibility

Don’t you find that using “god” as a placeholder carries a lot of baggage with it? It just seems easier to call it “existence beyond knowledge”, or “wonder” or “mystery” etc.
Anyway, I would probably call that atheism. You don’t believe in god but call existence beyond knowledge god, a theistic term for something non-theistic.

I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness. But my understanding of this aspect doesn’t fit with the theist position, because I disagree that ‘God’ is a necessary being. Can I then call myself a theist? — Possibility

Hmmm, harder to parse. What exactly do you mean by that first sentence?

Understood, I wasnt taking offence, just illustrating some distinctions I find useful. I actually am an anti-theist atheist but Im open minded to change either of those positions. I’m not attached much to the positions I hold. Most of them anyway. — DingoJones

Fair enough. Good to have you join the discussion, and I appreciate the probing questions.

Don’t you find that using “god” as a placeholder carries a lot of baggage with it? It just seems easier to call it “existence beyond knowledge”, or “wonder” or “mystery” etc.
Anyway, I would probably call that atheism. You don’t believe in god but call existence beyond knowledge god, a theistic term for something non-theistic. — DingoJones

When I strip that ‘baggage’ of association with any particular religion, it isn’t all that cumbersome. The placeholder is a way of connecting phenomenal experience through language. I suppose my use of ‘God’ fits more clearly with the discussions here. I find your suggested terms are more specific than simply using ‘God’ in inverted commas. When I talk about ‘God’, I don’t just mean ‘wonder’ or ‘mystery’ - these are different ways we can relate. And I don’t think that ‘existence beyond knowledge’ is non-theistic - I think most theists would relate to this as an aspect of their god.

I believe that the phenomenal experience I refer to as ‘God’ and what most people are talking about when they talk about a theistic god all refer to the same relation, they’re just describing a limited perspective of it. That’s not to say my own perspective is not also limited, but I won’t pretend I can accurately describe what I’m relating to. ‘The Tao that we speak of is not the eternal Tao’. It’s like an event horizon.

As to your question about my statement: “I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness.” By levels of awareness, I’m referring to dimensional awareness: our relation to ‘God’ is qualitatively different when we understand ourselves as physical matter (to the act of an eternal Creator), as a living creature (to the concept of an all-powerful Being), as a socio-cultural being (to the ideal of a caring, all-knowing Father) or as a reasoning mind (to the pure relation of goodness, or Love itself). I’ve found that in reading the bible, for instance, it’s possible to follow this progressively developing awareness of ‘self’ in relation to ‘God’, regardless whether or not we believe anything that’s written (it’s all opinion and here-say, after all). It seems obvious to me, then, that the developing Old Testament concept of an all-powerful Being would appear petty and uncaring to a reasoning mind.

If we wish to substantively address ignorance, actions and attitudes, we need to challenge belief in literalist readings of holy books or the notion that God's will is known. — Tom Storm

But this way, we're attacking the theists' constitutionally given freedom of religion.
How do you propose to get around that?

No idea.

Sure, but are they not fighting against unwarranted truth claims from both sides, a practice I have already acknowledged and agreed with? — Janus

But are those truth claims really unwarranted? How can we possibly know?

Obviously theists haven't proven their God. Theism.

Goldilocks: Too hot!

Should I now become an atheist? No if you don't want to commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (argument from ignorance). Atheism

Goldilocks: Too cold!

This logic (above) applies in full if the situation were reversed and we had begun with attempted proofs by atheists.

We simply don't know whether God exists/not. Agnosticism is purrfect!

Goldilocks: Just right!

:up:

Atheism is potentially better due to The God Hypothesis idea. Which suggests that the Existence of God, should be treated as a scientific hypothesis, and thus can be proven or disproven by science (regardless of whether this is possible to do with the technologies of humans), thus the burden of proof lies on the theist to provide the evidence for the existence of Gods. Meaning that is is safe to assume a position of atheism until such proof is brought forward. Science does not suggest the existence of any higher being at this point, and thus the status quo should be that 'Gods do not Exist,' until proven otherwise. While it could be argued that this is agnosticism, I believe it is not, as it is the belief in there not being a God. Some people (myself included) argue that the sheer lack of scientific evidence when relating to the existence of a God, is strong evidence for a lack of Gods in the natural world.

When I strip that ‘baggage’ of association with any particular religion, it isn’t all that cumbersome. The placeholder is a way of connecting phenomenal experience through language. I suppose my use of ‘God’ fits more clearly with the discussions here. I find your suggested terms are more specific than simply using ‘God’ in inverted commas. When I talk about ‘God’, I don’t just mean ‘wonder’ or ‘mystery’ - these are different ways we can relate. And I don’t think that ‘existence beyond knowledge’ is non-theistic - I think most theists would relate to this as an aspect of their god. — Possibility

They might relate to that aspect of god but they would have more definitive qualities, more qualifiers, than that for god. “Existence beyond knowledge” is generic and unspecific enough to apply to more than just a god concept and so if you are using only that as your criterion for “god” then you aren’t qualifying a theistic definition of god, you aren’t reaching minimum requirements for a theistic god despite having this generic trait “existence beyond knowledge” in common.

I believe that the phenomenal experience I refer to as ‘God’ and what most people are talking about when they talk about a theistic god all refer to the same relation, they’re just describing a limited perspective of it. That’s not to say my own perspective is not also limited, but I won’t pretend I can accurately describe what I’m relating to. ‘The Tao that we speak of is not the eternal Tao’. It’s like an event horizon.

As to your question about my statement: “I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness.” By levels of awareness, I’m referring to dimensional awareness: our relation to ‘God’ is qualitatively different when we understand ourselves as physical matter (to the act of an eternal Creator), as a living creature (to the concept of an all-powerful Being), as a socio-cultural being (to the ideal of a caring, all-knowing Father) or as a reasoning mind (to the pure relation of goodness, or Love itself). I’ve found that in reading the bible, for instance, it’s possible to follow this progressively developing awareness of ‘self’ in relation to ‘God’, regardless whether or not we believe anything that’s written (it’s all opinion and here-say, after all). It seems obvious to me, then, that the developing Old Testament concept of an all-powerful Being would appear petty and uncaring to a reasoning mind. — Possibility

Lot to digest there, thanks for the explanation.