Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Atheist Debates - Discussing Philosophy


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Hi all

 

I listened to this discssuiion between three atheists: Matt Dillahunty, and two philosophers Ozymandius Rameses II and Alex Malpass.

 

I found the discussion interesting, and challenged some of my thoughts. Not necessarily saying I agree with all that was said, but some very interesting points were raised. 

 

There is discussion on the term atheism and whether atheism is truly just a lack of belief, or it is a belief. This was interesting to me as my profile pic has "Atheism is a belief life off is a TV channel" Ozymandius challenges this usage of atheist starting at 3:38.

They also talk about beliefs, knowledge and how we can know something is true which reminded me of BAA and Dude's conversation in the Science forum.

 

Let me know what you think of the points they raise. The entire video is 2 hours long, but I found it interesting so it went like a flash.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ozy has a point. It's true that we're lack theist because we're atheist. But what he's avoiding is the fact that atheist is constructed of a (not) and theist (god believer). His big conclusion is that atheists ought to go as non-theist. Well duh, we do go as non-theist necessarily because atheist means "Not Theist," or simply "Non Theist." His whole reasoning is pretty unwarranted. I've quoted all of the major atheist organizations and the consensus that suggests that the dictionaries are mis-characterizing atheism as a positive belief that gods do not exist. In the general sense it's lack of positive belief. 

 

What they're really talking about is the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism

 

Not knowing if any gods exist and lacking belief because you don't know. That's agnostic atheism. The other way would be to suggest that you know that gods don't exist and you lack belief because of this knowledge of non-existence. 

 

Now moving forward, it doesn't matter one bit whether or not a baby or animals are also agnostic atheist by that definition. The animals and new born babies lack positive belief in gods, period. Now it may make someone uneasy to label babies and animals as non-theistic or atheist, but it's the fact of the matter, a fact of existence and a fact of our reality. Theism is learned, just as racism or anything else is learned. Should we have a problem saying that babies are not born racist? They're not born theist either. And so that's no reason to shy away from defining atheism in a straight forward and intellectually honest way. 

 

I think that he's shying away because he's uneasy with the 'implications' of atheism literally meaning "not god belief", or "lack of god belief." But the implications are what they are. We shouldn't change our definitions because some people may feel uneasy about the implications. Who's uneasy about claiming that babies are not born racist? We shouldn't be any more uneasy about saying they're agnostic atheist any more than saying that they're not racist. They lack in positives, period. 

 

His burden of proof argument seems a little dim witted to me too. Of course the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. And burdens of proof depend on whether someone is taking gnostic or agnostic position. The agnostic atheist has no burden of proof for lack of belief. The gnostic atheist has the same burden of proof that the gnostic theist does, because it's a claim of knowledge and it's positive in nature. And we could make gnostic arguments about the non-existence of YHWH, for instance, but not for a generic god of some type that we may not know about and don't have a clear evolution of human thought to use for the argument that it's imaginary and there's no reason to believe in it's existence. In specific cases, gnostic atheism. In a not so specific case, agnostic atheism. And one could be gnostic to a certain point and then agnostic. Babies, are agnostic. 

 

The other thing is the whole issue of considering 'a degree of uncertainty' involved in theistic belief in no way warrants the possibility that we could label theists as atheists just because of a degree of uncertainty in their positive belief. The whole argument is very dim witted. The point is that there are agnostic atheists and there are gnostic atheists. That solves the whole issue. And how do educated philosophers NOT understand this? There are also gnostic theists and agnostic theists, it all works out just fine as long as we're using correct terminology. 

 

What he was asserting is that the "lack theism" way makes for a situation where an agnostic theist could be labeled an atheist by the online atheist community and the consensus reasoning, but he's wrong. Correct terminology prevents that circumstance. The online atheist community is quite sound with it's reasoning...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
33 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

delete

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Ozy has a point. It's true that we're lack theist because we're atheist. But what he's avoiding is the fact that atheist is constructed of a (not) and theist (god believer). His big conclusion is that atheists ought to go as non-theist. Well duh, we do go as non-theist necessarily because atheist means "Not Theist," or simply "Non Theist." His whole reasoning is pretty unwarranted. I've quoted all of the major atheist organizations and the consensus that suggests that the dictionaries are mis-characterizing atheism as a positive belief that gods do not exist. In the general sense it's lack of positive belief. 

 

What they're really talking about is the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism

 

Not knowing if any gods exist and lacking belief because you don't know. That's agnostic atheism. The other way would be to suggest that you know that gods don't exist and you lack belief because of this knowledge of non-existence. 

 

Now moving forward, it doesn't matter one bit whether or not a baby or animals are also agnostic atheist by that definition. The animals and new born babies lack positive belief in gods, period. Now it may make someone uneasy to label babies and animals as non-theistic or atheist, but it's the fact of the matter, a fact of existence and a fact of our reality. Theism is learned, just as racism or anything else is learned. Should we have a problem saying that babies are not born racist? They're not born theist either. And so that's no reason to shy away from defining atheism in a straight forward and intellectually honest way. 

 

I think that he's shying away because he's uneasy with the 'implications' of atheism literally meaning "not god belief", or "lack of god belief." But the implications are what they are. We shouldn't change our definitions because some people may feel uneasy about the implications. Who's uneasy about claiming that babies are not born racist? We shouldn't be any more uneasy about saying they're agnostic atheist any more than saying that they're not racist. They lack in positives, period. 

 

His burden of proof argument seems a little dim witted to me too. Of course the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. And burdens of proof depend on whether someone is taking gnostic or agnostic position. The agnostic atheist has no burden of proof for lack of belief. The gnostic atheist has the same burden of proof that the gnostic theist does, because it's a claim of knowledge and it's positive in nature. And we could make gnostic arguments about the non-existence of YHWH, for instance, but not for a generic god of some type that we may not know about and don't have a clear evolution of human thought to use for the argument that it's imaginary and there's no reason to believe in it's existence. In specific cases, gnostic atheism. In a not so specific case, agnostic atheism. And one could be gnostic to a certain point and then agnostic. Babies, are agnostic. 

 

The other thing is the whole issue of considering 'a degree of uncertainty' involved in theistic belief in no way warrants the possibility that we could label theists as atheists just because of a degree of uncertainty in their positive belief. The whole argument is very dim witted. The point is that there are agnostic atheists and there are gnostic atheists. That solves the whole issue. And how do educated philosophers NOT understand this? There are also gnostic theists and agnostic theists, it all works out just fine as long as we're using correct terminology. 

 

What he was asserting is that the "lack theism" way makes for a situation where an agnostic theist could be labeled an atheist by the online atheist community and the consensus reasoning, but he's wrong. Correct terminology prevents that circumstance. The online atheist community is quite sound with it's reasoning...

 

 

 

I've always felt more comfortable with the four-part categorization of (i) gnostic theist, (ii) agnostic theist, (iii) agnostic atheist and (iv) gnostic atheist than the two-part one of theist and atheist.  I also like RIchard Dawkins' seven-part categorization with three theist leaning designations, three atheist leaning deignations and one pure neutral one.  IIRC, that is set out in his book The God Delusion.

 

Certainly, the words "atheist" and "theist" alone have much baggage these days which can make for difficult conversations.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I agree with the above and that's why I usually like to use the term agnostic atheism or even intellectual agnostic atheism. Dawkins is an intellectual agnostic atheist. I like how he readily admits to the agnostic aspect of atheism when interviewed. The intellectual part can distinguish that this is based on a large body of knowledge, as opposed to just gut instinct, intuition or whatever. 

 

But if we take Ozy's way and put ourselves on the burden of proof chopping block how far can we take it? 

 

Let's use YHWH. Can we satisfy the burden of proof evidence for claiming that YHWH never existed and doesn't exist? This is a case specific argument. I for instance have all of the intellectual knowledge that places YHWH as most likely having roots in pagan mythology. Then we must ask if it's possible that a god from pagan mythology is real and exists? If so, how is YHWH different than any other pagan god? At this level it's extremely unflattering to the entire purpose of the christian arguing for YHWH's existence. But I don't see a home run where we can say that absolutely YHWH doesn't exist just because he was a pantheon deity eventually elevated in status to supreme deity. There's always some possibility that the god could exist but humans perception of the god has evolved over time. I've never heard a theist argue that way, but it seems possible to take that direct in desperation. 

 

I'm just exploring this deeply because I want to make an example of the limitations of gnostic atheism. 

 

On the contrary, agnostic atheism isn't so limited. We don't need to have solid evidence that gods don't exist to satisfy non-belief. Agnostic atheism seems two fold, (1) inherent because we're born lacking in god belief and (2) because it's the logical outcome of pursuing gnostic atheism. At the end of the day we're facing not knowing regardless of how much we do know. And the combined result is agnostic atheism. 

 

And of course anyone making positive claims and wanting others to believe those positive claims has the entire burden of proof. Whether Ozy likes it or not, the believers in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy or gods carry the burden of proof and it's not up to anyone to disprove their existences...

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I consider myself a strong apatheist.  I strongly don't give a shit if a god exists or not.

 

These labels have all been so overly defined as to have lost all meaning.  Arguing over the subtle nuances of meaningless terms seems... meaningless.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I consider myself a strong apatheist.  I strongly don't give a shit if a god exists or not.

 

These labels have all been so overly defined as to have lost all meaning.  Arguing over the subtle nuances of meaningless terms seems... meaningless.

 

That's funny. I remember arguing on here a few years ago that apatheist's are atheists if they lack positive belief. If in not giving a shit one lacks belief, then there you have it. It all boils down to belief or not belief. In the end it's literally theism verses atheism despite the nuances. 

 

As to meaningless, I'm not sure I follow. 

 

Agnostic has a meaning. It means not knowing. Atheist has a meaning, it means not god belief. Theist has a meaning, it means god belief.

 

If we stick to the meanings of the words then there is no problem of meaninglessness. It's when people ignore the meanings of the words being used that meaningless enters the arena. And in the end there's meaning at the core of the perceived meaninglessness. That's the point of these discussions as we try and hash out the meaning. 

 

So arguing over the subtle nuances of meaningless terms only seems meaningless because of the error of thinking that the terms themselves are in fact meaningless, when they clearly aren't. 

 

How's that for in house atheist debating? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Not giving a shit requires neither belief nor not belief.  It is freedom from such encumbrances.  I don't believe or not believe; I don't know or not know.  I simply don't care.

 

I agree that people ignore the meanings of the labels.  That is what has caused each of them to end up meaning so many things to so many people that they ultimately mean nothing to anybody.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not giving a shit requires neither belief nor not belief.  It is freedom from such encumbrances.  I don't believe or not believe; I don't know or not know.  I simply don't care.

 

I agree that people ignore the meanings of the labels.  That is what has caused each of them to end up meaning so many things to so many people that they ultimately mean nothing to anybody.

But TRP, wouldn't it be fair to say, despite your post above, that you do have a belief or lack of belief on subject X, even if you don't give a shit about it?

 

I think there is a conflating of caring about what one believes/doesn't believe and the belief itself? (For example on the subject of God I care about what others believe and that what I believe is true as possible)

 

So you can have a belief and still not give a shit about the consequences of that belief.

 

For example I don't give a shit about whether the FSM exists or not. It's irrelevant, but I don't believe it does exist. So I have both not caring and lack of belief.

 

So you don't give a shit about God existing, but do you believe God exists? (My definition of God in this post is the Judeo/Christian God)

 

PS, you might be ignostic, apatheist and atheist all at the same time? :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So you don't give a shit about God existing, but do you believe God exists? (My definition of God in this post is the Judeo/Christian God)

The question is irrelevant, on account of I don't give a shit.  I'm not required to believe or not believe in something in order not to give a shit about it.  I'm not required to know or not know in order to not give a shit.  Example:  I don't know for a fact that I exist; but I also don't give a shit whether I do or not either.  In truth, I neither believe god exists nor disbelieve god exists.  Perhaps the judeo-christian god is real; but has simply been mis-characterized by the holy books written in his name.  Who knows; more importantly, who cares?  It is unlikely that a god exists based upon the data we currently have on hand; but that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility.  Again, though, who cares.

 

I live in Newnan, Georgia and commute to Marietta every day for work.  On Tuesdays and Thursdays I take Redneck Jr. down to the dojo for karate.  I buy my groceries at a local Kroger and prefer locally grown meats and produce.  I usually wake up around 0430 every morning, including weekends.  My favorite website (besides this one) is izap4u.com.  This is my life.  Nothing in it would change just because somebody came up with indisputable evidence for the existence of a god.  I'd still spend two hours a day fucking Atlanta traffic.  I'd still be a fat old whitebelt who can't do a proper roundhouse kick.  I'd still pay twice as much for the same shit I could buy at Wal-Mart, just because it had a green label and the nebulous term "organic" on it.  I'd still hate mornings (and afternoons, and evenings, and people).  I'd still glue myself to my computer screen like a sheep staring at a new gate.  This would still be my life, with or without god.  So, again, who cares?

 

Now, concerning whether or not beliefs are "true", that's a different beast altogether.  Yes, I need to know that homosexuality really is an real abomination to a real god whose existence has been definitively proven, before I'm okay with legislation being passed against gay marriage.  I need to see the empirical data supporting intelligent design before I accept it being taught to children in science class.  I need to hear from allah himself that infidels should die before I fly an airplane into the side of buildings  The existence of religion cannot be denied.  It is a proven reality that religion exists and that great harm can come from it.  That is something I cannot be apathetic about.  Of course, it's not just about religious beliefs either.  No one has ever found any scientific evidence of a rape chromosome; but there are those who believe in it like it were god's truth.  Fair enough, until somebody starts demanding the castration of all males at birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
29 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The question is irrelevant, on account of I don't give a shit.  I'm not required to believe or not believe in something in order not to give a shit about it.  I'm not required to know or not know in order to not give a shit.  Example:  I don't know for a fact that I exist; but I also don't give a shit whether I do or not either.  In truth, I neither believe god exists nor disbelieve god exists.  Perhaps the judeo-christian god is real; but has simply been mis-characterized by the holy books written in his name.  Who knows; more importantly, who cares?  It is unlikely that a god exists based upon the data we currently have on hand; but that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility.  Again, though, who cares.

 

I think I understand what you are saying here, I'm just having trouble (Perhaps because of my strong disbelief) of figuring out, even if one doesn't give a shit, how its possible for there to be no belief either way.

 

This is a problem I have with agnostics who say they have no belief. I understand they don't KNOW, but what do they believe? "Oh I don't believe anything regarding subject X"

 

*Initiate much head scratching*

 

29 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Now, concerning whether or not beliefs are "true", that's a different beast altogether.  Yes, I need to know that homosexuality really is an real abomination to a real god whose existence has been definitively proven, before I'm okay with legislation being passed against gay marriage.  I need to see the empirical data supporting intelligent design before I accept it being taught to children in science class.  I need to hear from allah himself that infidels should die before I fly an airplane into the side of buildings  The existence of religion cannot be denied.  It is a proven reality that religion exists and that great harm can come from it.  That is something I cannot be apathetic about.  Of course, it's not just about religious beliefs either.  No one has ever found any scientific evidence of a rape chromosome; but there are those who believe in it like it were god's truth.  Fair enough, until somebody starts demanding the castration of all males at birth.

 

You are right on the button here. I'm completely with you in understanding this. So you are saying whether or not you believe any God is irrelevant, but whether you believe that religions exist and can do harm/good is relevant due to the real effects on others that can be observed.

 

But going back to the first paragraph - if you don't know for a fact you exist, then you don't know for a fact religion exists. Why then do we care? Is it because we assume the fact we are thinking about our existence that we can assume we exist, and thus we can also assume religion exists and it affects us?

 

Hmm maybe this metaphysical stuff is beside the point. Listen too much to Alex Malpass.

 

PS I found his blog - some interesting reads. https://useofreason.wordpress.com/  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
29 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

But going back to the first paragraph - if you don't know for a fact you exist, then you don't know for a fact religion exists. Why then do we care? Is it because we assume the fact we are thinking about our existence that we can assume we exist, and thus we can also assume religion exists and it affects us?

Something like that.  I know my consciousness exists.  I know because I am aware; and I am aware of my awareness.  The problem is, the only way I can be aware of my is through a network of senses which are known to be faulty.  Therefore, my perceptions may or may not be as faulty as the senses perceiving them.  I can only be sure that my awareness is something.  What, I have no real idea.  "I" could be a collection of random ganglions in a specimen jar and my "reality" merely the consequence of electric or chemical stimulation.  Or, "I" could be the average guy with the average height, weight, and body type that I perceive of myself.  "You" could merely be a figment of "my" imagination, which is itself the reaction of the ganglions in the jar to the electrical shock.  Likewise, I, yours.  Who knows?

 

So, I have no way of knowing anything about my existence beyond the fact that I am aware that something is aware of "me".  As a result, does it really matter if "I" exist or not?  Even in the grand scheme of things, few would be affected if "I" ceased to exist; and only their flawed perceptions would effect their cognitive awareness of my lack of existence.  Accordingly, I don't give a shit whether "I" exist or not.  I am aware of my own awareness and that is enough for me; it has to be, because it is all I can be relatively certain of.

 

Now, I suppose you're wondering whether or not I believe I exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not giving a shit requires neither belief nor not belief.  It is freedom from such encumbrances.  I don't believe or not believe; I don't know or not know.  I simply don't care.

 

I agree that people ignore the meanings of the labels.  That is what has caused each of them to end up meaning so many things to so many people that they ultimately mean nothing to anybody.

 

Hang with me, I'm just not understanding the position. 

 

How do you neither believe nor not believe? I'm not sure how anyone would be free from such encumbrances. Everything aside from believing, is not believing. As in not caring is not believing. Just like not knowing is not believing. It's all of the not's or lacks. You're lack of care placing you with the not's. 

 

Not belief

Not knowledge

Not care

 

Basically all of these strike me as sub categories of atheism - not theism.

 

And by being descriptive a person gives a better impression of what they mean. If someone says that they're an agnostic atheist, or an apatheistic atheist, it tells me that they don't know and they lack positive belief or they don't care and they lack in positive belief. Not knowing and not caring seem to run together as descriptive categories of not-theism. Some atheists don't know, some don't care. Some don't know and don't care. What's common here is that neither believes. 

 

I for one don't care if any gods exist. It wouldn't change anything, I'm with you on that. So I may describe myself as agnostic atheist with an apatheistic leaning:

 

I don't know if gods exist, I don't believe in them, and I don't really give a shit even if they do. 

 

The same goes down the line for Nessy, Big Foot, Santa, etc. 

 

It may be unorthodox for me to combine all these terms, but it seems to make sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

@Joshpantera

 

I am aware of my own awareness.  I am sentient, cognizant, and currently awake.  As such, I don't disbelieve my own existence.  On the other hand, my perceptions are as faulty as the senses through which they are filtered, which means there is a good chance that "I" don't exist, but am not aware of it.  So, I don't believe my own existence.

 

In the same way, "god" could exist without me being aware of it.  he, she, or it could exist in some other dimension that we know about, but cannot currently perceive.  Or he could exist somewhere in the 99.99% of the universe that we have yet to explore; or in some other universe, to which we have no access.  So, I don't disbelieve in the existence of a god, gods, or some sort of higher/other being.

 

However, the existence of god has made little impact on the world as we know it.  Religion has done a lot, both good and bad; and god certainly "exists" in the minds of believers.  But god seems useless when it comes down to the daily minutae of our lives.  A useless god, or one that is inaccessible, may as well not exist.  Certainly the best evidence we can perceive, interpreted by the highest minds we have produced, supports the non-existence of god.  Therefore, I don't believe a god exists.

 

As a result, I both believe and disbelieve in the existence of god (and myself).  And because one cancels out the other, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god (or myself).

 

Think about this: I know that the earth revolves around the sun; but I also don't know if the earth or the sun even exist.  Make sense?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Joshpantera

 

I am aware of my own awareness.  I am sentient, cognizant, and currently awake.  As such, I don't disbelieve my own existence.  On the other hand, my perceptions are as faulty as the senses through which they are filtered, which means there is a good chance that "I" don't exist, but am not aware of it.  So, I don't believe my own existence.

 

How could you be aware of your own existence, and yet not exist? "I think, therefore I am" said Descartes as a response to this dilemma. The fact you doubt your own senses is evidence that you exist, and are aware that you exist. Same goes for any of us. Not only if you didn't exist you wouldn't be questioning your existence, but you would also not be discussing this with others. You are also aware of my existence - electronic as that existence may be.

 

PS an earthquake just hit, its a sign that this is getting into some deep shit!

 

 

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

In the same way, "god" could exist without me being aware of it.  he, she, or it could exist in some other dimension that we know about, but cannot currently perceive.  Or he could exist somewhere in the 99.99% of the universe that we have yet to explore; or in some other universe, to which we have no access.  So, I don't disbelieve in the existence of a god, gods, or some sort of higher/other being.

 

I get that we may not be aware of the existence of God, regardless of our beliefs and because of current limitations, but is this really the same way in which you might not be aware of your own existence? I'm kind of stuck on this one and can't get clear thinking about it.

 

 

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

However, the existence of god has made little impact on the world as we know it.  Religion has done a lot, both good and bad; and god certainly "exists" in the minds of believers.  But god seems useless when it comes down to the daily minutae of our lives.  A useless god, or one that is inaccessible, may as well not exist.  Certainly the best evidence we can perceive, interpreted by the highest minds we have produced, supports the non-existence of god.  Therefore, I don't believe a god exists.

Agreed.

 

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

As a result, I both believe and disbelieve in the existence of god (and myself).  And because one cancels out the other, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god (or myself).

 

Think about this: I know that the earth revolves around the sun; but I also don't know if the earth or the sun even exist.  Make sense?

 

Yes and no. Are you talking in an absolute sense of knowledge? If the sun and earth didn't exist, then your knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun is just a fabrication in your mind... that also may not exist, in which case from whence comes the knowledge in the first place?

 

This reminds me of the Christian who says, "I believe Lord, help my unbelief" :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

@Joshpantera

 

I am aware of my own awareness.  I am sentient, cognizant, and currently awake.  As such, I don't disbelieve my own existence.  On the other hand, my perceptions are as faulty as the senses through which they are filtered, which means there is a good chance that "I" don't exist, but am not aware of it.  So, I don't believe my own existence.

 

 

We've touched on this in the spirituality section on the Awareness Broken Down thread. LF is correct, "I think therefore I am" is applied to awareness and we find that we can doubt the existence of just about everything except that we are experiencing awareness. At the bottom, we are awareness period. The one thing that you can believe in is the existence of the awareness you're experiencing. Everything else is questionable, like the material world and so on. So there's not a good chance that you don't exist but are not aware of it - you're only awareness itself at the very bottom. You exist as awareness. That thread and it's videos are helpful in sorting this type of thing out. 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In the same way, "god" could exist without me being aware of it.  he, she, or it could exist in some other dimension that we know about, but cannot currently perceive.  Or he could exist somewhere in the 99.99% of the universe that we have yet to explore; or in some other universe, to which we have no access.  So, I don't disbelieve in the existence of a god, gods, or some sort of higher/other being.

 

The above is an example of why you should take an agnostic position like I have in my examples, because we can never prove that gods don't exist somewhere. That's also why people like Richard Dawkins readily explain that they're agnostic and atheist. It's an intelligent combination. 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

However, the existence of god has made little impact on the world as we know it.  Religion has done a lot, both good and bad; and god certainly "exists" in the minds of believers.  But god seems useless when it comes down to the daily minutae of our lives.  A useless god, or one that is inaccessible, may as well not exist.  Certainly the best evidence we can perceive, interpreted by the highest minds we have produced, supports the non-existence of god.  Therefore, I don't believe a god exists.

 

The above is a description of ignostic position taking. So you're showing us the variety of sub categories of atheism that you are in agreement with. And on the last line you say you don't believe a god exists due to the best evidence supporting the notion of non-existence when it comes to god. That further explains your over arching position of "not-god belief." 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As a result, I both believe and disbelieve in the existence of god (and myself).  And because one cancels out the other, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god (or myself).

 

This is where your logic seems to completely unravel, however. You don't both believe and disbelieve in the existence of god just because of your agnostic assertion, ignostic assertion and follow up atheist statement of non-belief. You seem to be confused about how these statements work together. And I'm not surprised because everytime over the years I've discussed ignosticism or apatheism with someone it always boils down the person thinking that they work in ways which they actually do not when analyzed and considered. And this has brought more confusion to the table. They are not actually an independent category apart from atheism, none of them.

 

One doesn't cancel out the other as you propose. And the same is true of the existence of yourself too, which doesn't work out any better. The only aspects of yourself that can be doubted are the material aspects. Your awareness is the one thing you can not doubt and faulty sensory perception only accounts for the doubting of things perceived like the matter of your body. The awareness remains untouched by sensory problems - touch, taste, sound, vision.

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Think about this: I know that the earth revolves around the sun; but I also don't know if the earth or the sun even exist.  Make sense?

 

Yes, and this is because of the problem of human perception through the senses. But according to the philosophy of doubt, something exists regardless of our perception of that something. The problem of perception only means that whatever is really there, we're not perceiving in a direct way. We're perceiving in indirect ways through the filters of our senses which can be errant. None of this discredits awareness or existence, though. Something exists and that something we see as the sun and earth. If this doesn't make sense right away then I invite you to watch the videos in the Awareness Broken Down thread to get a better handle on how this all plays out.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

The fact that I am aware proves only that my awareness exists.  It says nothing of whether the "I" associated with said awareness exists or not.  DesCartes may have made the intuitive leap between awareness and existence; but that doesn't imply that the existence we perceive is reality, which is what stands in the gap over which DesCartes made his leap.

 

Of course, you're both free to disagree, label yourselves (and me) as you see fit, and believe or don't however you like.  The great thing about not giving a shit is that I don't give a shit.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@TheRedneckProfessor Just quickly (I gota go, but thought I'd clarify) I'm not trying to label anything or anyone, simply enjoying a discussion that I don't get to have real life. I appreciate that you are willing to respond. My of my post is not disagreeing with you as such, but thinking in type of the subject.

 

I would say that labels are both useful and  not useful depending on the usage. For example discussing us non believers with my parents I find it easier to refer to atheists, rather than the "community of non believers which includes...." blah blah. The not useful side of this is the shock horror on their faces which leads to a lengthy explanation of what I mean by atheist (No we don't eat babies mum!)

 

What is interesting is if the existence we perceive isn't reality, then what is reality? Does it even exist? hmmm :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
13 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

The fact that I am aware proves only that my awareness exists.  It says nothing of whether the "I" associated with said awareness exists or not.

 

 

You are awareness, period. There's no "I" other than the raw awareness that you exist as. That's the discourse discussed by Peter Russell in the videos I'm referring to. Whatever you're reaching for as the "I" seems to be an aside to understanding your personal existence as the existence of awareness itself, which is primary by this logic. 

 

13 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

DesCartes may have made the intuitive leap between awareness and existence; but that doesn't imply that the existence we perceive is reality, which is what stands in the gap over which DesCartes made his leap.

 

I'm not sure what leap you're referring to. Awareness IS our existence and perhaps all of existence. Awareness may be primary and inherent in the existence of everything. And that may be reality.

 

Of course this is getting deep and we're simply discussing an analogy you tried to make about the claim of both believing and not believing in god by introducing the notion of both believing and not believing in yourself. I'd rather stick with the claim of both god belief and not god belief itself than to continue pursuing awareness and existence in the human sense. We're getting hung up on the analogy you made to try and relate the claim of belief and non-belief cancelling one another out. The theistic claim is the real issue here.

 

The examples you gave don't seem to justify that type of conclusion. We can drop it or continue. If you think I'm wrong then I'm still all ears. I'd be very interested in standing corrected on the issue because the claim of both believing and lacking belief is a large claim to make. If you can justify the claim then it would be a considerable feat. Is there some other reasoning or analogies other what you've presented so far? 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

@Joshpantera

 

Maybe it would simplify things if I said that:

 

I am open to the possibility that god exists (I don't disbelieve).

 

The evidence we are currently able to perceive doesn't support god's existence (I don't believe).

 

Saying I both believe and don't believe was poor word choice on my part.  It would be more accurate to say I neither believe nor disbelieve.  Again we are back to the subtle nuances of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Joshpantera

 

Maybe it would simplify things if I said that:

 

I am open to the possibility that god exists (I don't disbelieve).

 

The evidence we are currently able to perceive doesn't support god's existence (I don't believe).

 

Saying I both believe and don't believe was poor word choice on my part.  It would be more accurate to say I neither believe nor disbelieve.  Again we are back to the subtle nuances of words.

 

Ok, thanks for trying to clarify further. 

 

Even a rigid and hard nosed atheist like Richard Dawkins is also open to the 'possibility' that gods exist. And in that sense he doesn't disbelieve either. That's where the factor of agnostic comes in to an experienced perspective. Gods may exist, but it's up to people making the positive claims to prove that. So saying, "I don't disbelieve" is nothing more than taking an agnostic position in your personal view. 

 

And because the evidence we are currently aware of doesn't support the existence of god someone like Richard Dawkins will refer to that as one reason he doesn't believe, in the same way that you don't believe. That's adding an atheist position behind your agnostic position. 

 

Hence the description (which in this case is glaring and clear) agnostic-atheist. What you're really proposing here is that agnosticism and atheism cancel one another out, which isn't the case at all. 

 

Going further you also don't care whether or not they exist, something that I'm sure I've heard Dawkins say as well because it wouldn't matter one bit if they did exist. We find the apatheism complimenting the established agnostic-atheism. The apatheism isn't really the result of agnosticism and atheism canceling one another out. They all compliment one another in actuality. 

 

A lot of people express that they don't like labels. I suspect that you're one of them. I get it. It's hard to label me as well because so I fit so many labels when it comes to certain circumstances. I think it's safe to say that we all pretty much represent a variety of different labels working in unison. We may not squeeze into any one of those labels alone. What you keep showing me is that you're agnostic-atheist like many of us here, but you prefer not to see yourself in those terms for some reason. When you said that you're a strong apatheist that may give the impression that you want to squeeze into that label alone, but you're descriptive reasoning actually doesn't allow that narrow a squeeze. I think if you had said, "I'm an agnostic-atheist like you guys, but any more I take a strong apatheist position because I really don't care about the issue of gods," then it would have very clearly described your position up front and without confusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

What you're really proposing here is that agnosticism and atheism cancel one another out, which isn't the case at all. 

You are going to have to demonstrate that I actually proposed that.  I wasn't aware that I had.  What I proposed was that believing and not believing canceled one another out.

 

On 4/7/2017 at 8:18 AM, Joshpantera said:
  On 4/7/2017 at 6:50 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As a result, I both believe and disbelieve in the existence of god (and myself).  And because one cancels out the other, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god

 

Incidentally, I find your apparent need to assign labels to be just as telling as my apparent aversion to being labeled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
21 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You are going to have to demonstrate that I actually proposed that.  I wasn't aware that I had.  What I proposed was that believing and not believing canceled one another out.

 

 

Incidentally, I find your apparent need to assign labels to be just as telling as my apparent aversion to being labeled.

 

@TheRedneckProfessor Well it's because you keep proposing (1) agnosticism and (2) atheism. Look again: 

 

On 4/8/2017 at 7:39 AM, Joshpantera said:

I am open to the possibility that god exists (I don't disbelieve).

 

(1) Everything you've posted about "I don't disbelieve" are agnostic positions. Agnostics are open to the possibility that gods exist, they just don't know if gods exist. Asking me to demonstrate this again leaves me thinking that you probably don't understand that you are making an agnostic suggestion. 

 

On 4/8/2017 at 7:39 AM, Joshpantera said:

The evidence we are currently able to perceive doesn't support god's existence (I don't believe).

 

(2) Everything you've posted about "I don't believe" are atheist positions. This is atheism to the definition: (a) = not (theism) = god belief. How could you not understand that this suggestion is atheist?  

 

You've used these very positions quoted above to try and claim that, "What I proposed was that believing and not believing cancel one another out." 

 

First of all, you have yet to demonstrate that you DO BELIEVE in gods. None of the above suggests that you do. You've only suggested that you don't know if gods exist and understand that they might exist (agnostic) and that given the current evidence there's no evidence that they do (atheism). 

 

Watch close, hang with me, altogether you've based your claim that "believing and not believing cancel one another out" based on an argument that consists of presenting agnostic-atheism as your example. And this demonstrates in black and white terms what you've asked me to demonstrate. 

 

Never have you offered an example of positive belief in god in any of this, so how could 'belief' and 'non belief' cancel one another out when you've never believed to begin with?

 

You keep using agnostic philosophy as if it refers to positive belief, when it doesn't. You have quite literally proposed that agnosticism ("I don't disbelieve") cancels out atheism ("I don't believe") by way of your approach, although you don't seem to have realized that you were doing that as of this point in the discussion.  

 

Do you catch that now that I've broken it down even further? 

 

My apparent need to label you is because I've very openly taken on the position of the atheist organizations, in a thread about atheist and philosophy debates among atheists. Apparently a lot of people who are atheist don't want to own it. I'm not sure if that's the case with you, but I've been exploring that possibility. This is a small example of how many atheists are really out there in the world but which go as uncounted because they don't own up to it. So I've held your feet to fire just for the sake of seeing whether or not you'll own up to your own atheism or not? And I'm sure people reading along are wondering the same. 

 

You're an atheist though whether not you do or don't realize it. You don't express any positive belief in gods. What you do is take the same positions that any agnostic-atheists will take and then include the position of apatheism. But you seem to think that you're not simply including apatheism to your already established agnostic-atheism. You seem to think that apatheism stands alone as a third option independent of agnostic-atheism when it doesn't via the arguments you've presented so far in this exchange. I've shown you to the detail how it doesn't according to the arguments that you've presented. 

 

So now I'm wondering if the argument you've been making is one that you've devised on your own or if it's something that you've read or heard somewhere else and adopted it because you thought that it makes sense? I'm curious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

What you've done, @Joshpantera is demonstrate the very reason these labels are meaningless.  You took my initial statement "I am an apatheist", and assumed I wasn't also an agnostic and an atheist.  I am actually all three, by the way.  The key, though, is in the assumption you made based on the label by which I identified myself.  None of these labels mean anything beyond what others will assume about you by whatever label you use.  And because those assumptions may or may not be true, the labels upon which they are based have no meaning in actually describing what a person does or does not identify with.  Had you simply asked, "In addition to being an apatheist, do you also consider yourself to be agnostic and/or atheist?" I would have gladly told you, "Yes".  But you didn't do that.  You simply assumed that because I, first and foremost, don't give a shit, I must be confused about whether I believe or don't.  Maybe I haven't established my position well enough for you to accept; that's okay, I don't give a shit.  But let's not pretend this conversation started out as anything other than assumptions made on your part based on a label by which I identify more than other labels.  Which is precisely the point I made in my first response to this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What you've done, @Joshpantera is demonstrate the very reason these labels are meaningless.  You took my initial statement "I am an apatheist", and assumed I wasn't also an agnostic and an atheist.  I am actually all three, by the way.

 

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

Have I done that? I've gone back and reread the entire exchange. I didn't assume that you weren't all three, you've been arguing the entire time that belief cancels out non-belief as an example your position. This is the first time you've admitted that you're all three, after countless posts where I told you that you were all three and you never agreed or told me that you understand that you are. I've gone to lengths on the subject of all three and it's taken until right now for you to acknowledge it. This isn't some formal debate, you don't have to try and save face even at the expensive of intellectually dishonest claims. You had several opportunities to declare in clear terms that you're all three. You never took those opportunities. Instead you continued with this ill-logical argument about belief cancelling out non-belief, which you have yet to substantiate. 

 

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The key, though, is in the assumption you made based on the label by which I identified myself.  None of these labels mean anything beyond what others will assume about you by whatever label you use.  And because those assumptions may or may not be true, the labels upon which they are based have no meaning in actually describing what a person does or does not identify with.  Had you simply asked, "In addition to being an apatheist, do you also consider yourself to be agnostic and/or atheist?" I would have gladly told you, "Yes".  But you didn't do that.  You simply assumed that because I, first and foremost, don't give a shit, I must be confused about whether I believe or don't.

 

I mentioned the intellectually dishonest part because that's what you're doing here in an effort to save face.

 

First off, the assumption I made was based on (1) your own assertion of hard apatheism and (2) you're suggestion that belief and non-belief cancel each other out and (3) your lack of clarity on the issue of agnosticism and atheism. 

 

Secondly, your suggestion that "had I simply asked, 'In addition to being an apatheist, do you also consider yourself to be agnostic and/or atheist?' I would have gladly told you, Yes," is easily answered. 

 

Let's see what I've posted in post #21

On 4/8/2017 at 7:39 AM, Joshpantera said:

A lot of people express that they don't like labels. I suspect that you're one of them. I get it. It's hard to label me as well because so I fit so many labels when it comes to certain circumstances. I think it's safe to say that we all pretty much represent a variety of different labels working in unison. We may not squeeze into any one of those labels alone. What you keep showing me is that you're agnostic-atheist like many of us here, but you prefer not to see yourself in those terms for some reason. When you said that you're a strong apatheist that may give the impression that you want to squeeze into that label alone, but you're descriptive reasoning actually doesn't allow that narrow a squeeze. I think if you had said, "I'm an agnostic-atheist like you guys, but any more I take a strong apatheist position because I really don't care about the issue of gods," then it would have very clearly described your position up front and without confusion. 

 

Here it is, again, your big chance to end the confusion. Is that what you do in post #22? 

 

On 4/8/2017 at 1:03 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You are going to have to demonstrate that I actually proposed that.  I wasn't aware that I had.  What I proposed was that believing and not believing canceled one another out.

 

 

Incidentally, I find your apparent need to assign labels to be just as telling as my apparent aversion to being labeled.

 

Where's the clarity? Where's you ending the confusion and making sure that I know that you are an agnostic atheist who also takes a strong apatheist position? Am I to just assume that you understand this?

 

My assumption is that you don't understand this because instead of just saying that you're all three, you continue on this ill-paved path of suggesting that belief cancels non-belief without ever once even giving an example of positive belief. You keep giving examples of not-knowing and not-believing as if they cancel each other out, not examples of believing and not-believing cancelling each other out. You've been very confused philosophically and at no point have you taken the countless opportunities to let me know that you understand that you're all three. Not until post #23 when I funneled it down to where it would be difficult for you to continue to avoid admitting that you're all three, as I have been suggesting about you the entire time and which you failed to ever acknowledge.  

 

Finally, what's telling here is that you're derogatory about labels and labeling and you want this exchange to turn into a situation where your personal ideas about labels are justified. But I don't think you'll establish that against my discourse. I've considered this deeply and regardless of the semi-consensus of exchristians about labels and labeling, I think it's ill conceived to take up an argument against labels and labeling because it doesn't end well. Just look where it's taken you so far.

 

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You simply assumed that because I, first and foremost, don't give a shit, I must be confused about whether I believe or don't.  Maybe I haven't established my position well enough for you to accept; that's okay, I don't give a shit.  But let's not pretend this conversation started out as anything other than assumptions made on your part based on a label by which I identify more than other labels.  Which is precisely the point I made in my first response to this thread.

 

No, I didn't have to assume whether you believe or don't. You've been trying to claim that you both believe and don't believe over and over again. And framing it two different ways which doesn't really change the argument for the better.

 

On 4/7/2017 at 6:50 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As a result, I both believe and disbelieve in the existence of god (and myself).  And because one cancels out the other, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god (or myself).

 

On 4/8/2017 at 5:51 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Joshpantera

 

Maybe it would simplify things if I said that:

 

I am open to the possibility that god exists (I don't disbelieve).

 

The evidence we are currently able to perceive doesn't support god's existence (I don't believe).

 

Saying I both believe and don't believe was poor word choice on my part.  It would be more accurate to say I neither believe nor disbelieve.  Again we are back to the subtle nuances of words.

 

Does this let me know that you're agnostic atheist and also apatheist? No it doesn't. And it should have because I kept telling that you are and you kept avoiding confirming that you already know that you're all three. You had countless opportunities to clarify that you did understand that about yourself up front. But you never made that clear. I'm to think that it wasn't clear to you until very recently and now you're trying to back peddle. I couldn't even say that you're back peddling had you at any point let me know that you do understand and that you are an agnostic atheist as well as an apatheist. 

 

"But let's not pretend this conversation started out as anything other than assumptions made on your part based on a label by which I identify more than other labels.  Which is precisely the point I made in my first response to this thread."

 

That's not very intellectually honest behavior, RP. This is more back peddling in the above. You have not ended this exchange by proving some point in your first response. What you've done is suggested that labels are meaningless, when they aren't, and I established that they do have meaning if you stick to what the terms themselves are constructed of. They're very clear. It's you who have not been very clear.

 

Labels are only as meaningless as you keep trying to make them. 

 

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

None of these labels mean anything beyond what others will assume about you by whatever label you use.  And because those assumptions may or may not be true, the labels upon which they are based have no meaning in actually describing what a person does or does not identify with

 

Wrong, just plain wrong. 

 

It's up to you and me to make clear to others what those labels mean in relation to our use of them. Guess what, don't leave it up to assumptions. Clarify yourself up front and in an intellectually honest manor and see how that goes. The whole idea of the above depends on someone not making clear what they mean. And in not making clear their positions finding others making incorrect assumptions and getting confused in the wake of it. 

 

I'm holding the position that the labels are meaningful despite your assertions of meaninglessness. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.