Frustrated With Agnosticism

[Ouroboros]

That's about 45% more than others here get me.

You're welcome.

 

Btw, in one of my earlier posts I said "Member Dave is a hardcore atheist" and I compared to Webmaster Dave as an Ex-Christian, I should have been a little bit more explicit, Webmaster Dave is also a hardcore atheist, and Member Dave has been an atheist his whole life. I think my statement was a little confusing, hope this clears it up a bit.

 

...

 

Or maybe not...

[Ouroboros]

However, a causeless cause (God) is absurd, since it's likely an abstraction of humanity's lack of imagination. Problem with that statement is 'likely'. It's not 100% sure. I hold the opinion that Gods are absurd. I don't 'believe' that gods are absurd... if presented with sufficient proof for me to change my opinion, I would. Beliefs rely on illogic, to the point of ignoring evidence. Least by the definitions I use.

And I still don't think belief is absurd. Belief in something that is extremely poorly supported and even have counter evidence against it is absurd, but to believe in something that is probable isn't. To believe loop quantum gravity as a strong candidate for explaning quantum gravity is not absurd, but is reasonable. To believe in invisible friends that helps when you ask them, but experience show that they do and one has to find excuses to why they don't, that is absurd.

[Gary Thompson]

Okay, bear with me here.

 

Dave VanAllen is the webmaster who is an ex-christian atheist and signs in as "webmaster".

 

Memeber Dave is a non-ex-christian atheist with a whirly humanist emblem who is not at all related to the webmaster.

 

Is that right? I'm confused. But then which Dave was Woodsmoke talking about? I assume the webmaster, since he mentioned "Dave's house". But I'm not sure. All this Daveness is confusing.

[Grandpa Harley]

GH if you wish to remain uninformed re your source you shall remain so.

 

Oh, I love gossip as much as the next man... the more salacious the better.

[Grandpa Harley]

Okay, bear with me here.

 

Dave VanAllen is the webmaster who is an ex-christian atheist and signs in as "webmaster".

 

Memeber Dave is a non-ex-christian atheist with a whirly humanist emblem who is not at all related to the webmaster.

 

Is that right? I'm confused. But then which Dave was Woodsmoke talking about? I assume the webmaster, since he mentioned "Dave's house". But I'm not sure. All this Daveness is confusing.

 

Ah, just soak up the Dave-ness...

[Grandpa Harley]

However, a causeless cause (God) is absurd, since it's likely an abstraction of humanity's lack of imagination. Problem with that statement is 'likely'. It's not 100% sure. I hold the opinion that Gods are absurd. I don't 'believe' that gods are absurd... if presented with sufficient proof for me to change my opinion, I would. Beliefs rely on illogic, to the point of ignoring evidence. Least by the definitions I use.

And I still don't think belief is absurd. Belief in something that is extremely poorly supported and even have counter evidence against it is absurd, but to believe in something that is probable isn't. To believe loop quantum gravity as a strong candidate for explaning quantum gravity is not absurd, but is reasonable. To believe in invisible friends that helps when you ask them, but experience show that they do and one has to find excuses to why they don't, that is absurd.

 

The red bit is my definition of belief. Opinion supported by emotion and identity. To change a belief takes an investment of energy, and emotion. If belief wasn't different from opinion then we wouldn't need a support group for ex-Christians...

 

The green bit is within my definition of an opinion. You don't have faith in loop quantum gravity, but you think it may be correct. A single piece of evidence again, and *poof*, you don't hold the opinion any more and you don't really care.

[Jubilant]

Oops, I see the belief problem has been taken care of. LOL,

[R. S. Martin]

Okay, bear with me here.

 

Dave VanAllen is the webmaster who is an ex-christian atheist and signs in as "webmaster".

 

Right.

 

Memeber Dave is a non-ex-christian atheist with a whirly humanist emblem who is not at all related to the webmaster

.

 

Right.

 

Is that right? I'm confused. But then which Dave was Woodsmoke talking about? I assume the webmaster, since he mentioned "Dave's house".

 

I don't think I saw woodsmoke's post (or I forget what he said) but when people talk about this forum as "Dave's house" they are referring to webmaster. Webmaster's real name is Dave VanAllen. He owns the forum. Does that clarify things for you, Gary?

[Grandpa Harley]

Okay, bear with me here.

 

Dave VanAllen is the webmaster who is an ex-christian atheist and signs in as "webmaster".

 

Right.

 

Memeber Dave is a non-ex-christian atheist with a whirly humanist emblem who is not at all related to the webmaster

.

 

Right.

 

Is that right? I'm confused. But then which Dave was Woodsmoke talking about? I assume the webmaster, since he mentioned "Dave's house".

 

I don't think I saw woodsmoke's post (or I forget what he said) but when people talk about this forum as "Dave's house" they are referring to webmaster. Webmaster's real name is Dave VanAllen. He owns the forum. Does that clarify things for you, Gary?

[Homer]Who's Gary?[/Homer]

[R. S. Martin]

Okay, bear with me here.

 

Dave VanAllen is the webmaster who is an ex-christian atheist and signs in as "webmaster".

 

Right.

 

Memeber Dave is a non-ex-christian atheist with a whirly humanist emblem who is not at all related to the webmaster

.

 

Right.

 

Is that right? I'm confused. But then which Dave was Woodsmoke talking about? I assume the webmaster, since he mentioned "Dave's house".

 

I don't think I saw woodsmoke's post (or I forget what he said) but when people talk about this forum as "Dave's house" they are referring to webmaster. Webmaster's real name is Dave VanAllen. He owns the forum. Does that clarify things for you, Gary?

[Homer]Who's Gary?[/Homer]

 

The guy to whom I was responding. Look at the top of the quote.

[Grandpa Harley]

Okay, bear with me here.

 

Dave VanAllen is the webmaster who is an ex-christian atheist and signs in as "webmaster".

 

Right.

 

Memeber Dave is a non-ex-christian atheist with a whirly humanist emblem who is not at all related to the webmaster

.

 

Right.

 

Is that right? I'm confused. But then which Dave was Woodsmoke talking about? I assume the webmaster, since he mentioned "Dave's house".

 

I don't think I saw woodsmoke's post (or I forget what he said) but when people talk about this forum as "Dave's house" they are referring to webmaster. Webmaster's real name is Dave VanAllen. He owns the forum. Does that clarify things for you, Gary?

[Homer]Who's Gary?[/Homer]

 

The guy to whom I was responding. Look at the top of the quote.

No? Really?

[Ouroboros]

The red bit is my definition of belief. Opinion supported by emotion and identity. To change a belief takes an investment of energy, and emotion. If belief wasn't different from opinion then we wouldn't need a support group for ex-Christians...

 

The green bit is within my definition of an opinion. You don't have faith in loop quantum gravity, but you think it may be correct. A single piece of evidence again, and *poof*, you don't hold the opinion any more and you don't really care.

I see. You basically say that I can't and shouldn't ever use the word "belief" in the situation where "my opinion" can be used. For the purpose of not causing confusion? Or because you don't like the common use of the word? Personally I think that opinion is a belief. Besides, I didn't say "having faith in LQG", but "To believe loop quantum gravity as a strong candidate for explaning quantum gravity is not absurd, but is reasonable". To say that I meant "Faith in" is a strawman. Easy to break down the argument if you make my statement to mean "A strong religioius belief and faith in an all powerful God and Loop Quantum Gravity"... And that's not what I said.

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, you say that scientists that study LQG really don't care if it is true or not? What drives them then? Why do they do it then? You describe apathy. The study of science requires passion. Passion leads to emotional investments in ideas. I have at least two books that deal with how science put emotional investments and personal beliefs into scientific ideas and sometimes they're absolutely right and sometimes they're absolutely wrong.

 

Back to what I said in an earlier post, have you ever told anyone that you "believed" hiim or her when they told you a story? I guess you never have believed any of your friends when they told you a story.

 

That is not opinion, but basic trust. You trust the source, therefore you believe what the source say. If you get more support and additional sources to the same information, you will get stronger in that belief and eventually you might even claim that you know what is said to be true.

 

May I ask, do you think that scientists never use the word "belief"? If a reporter asks a scientist "is LQG a viable theory" and the scientist answer "I believe so", do you claim that the scientist now is absurd?

 

---

 

To clarify, here's a random quote from a scientists, from April 4th, 2007:

"It makes us believe we understand our cosmology, so that's good."

(sarcasm)

Shame on him!!! He must be Christian using such foul language. Now we know any research in 'sterile neutrinos' must be based on intelligent design.

(/sarcasm)

If scientists can use the word "belief" in the place of "opinion", why can't I?

 

---

 

Another addition:

 

Dictionary.com isn't always perfect, but darn close, to define words, and look how it defines "opinion":

o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyÉ™n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

â€â€œnoun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Notice: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

 

Is it defined that way because the webmaster of Dictionary.com is a religious fundamentalist, or because that is a proper definition of the word?

 

 

 

My opinion and belief is that sciencie is the best method to reach an approximation to truth in the world.

 

And my opinion and belief is that God does not exist.

 

Can anyone argue against that?

[Grandpa Harley]

The red bit is my definition of belief. Opinion supported by emotion and identity. To change a belief takes an investment of energy, and emotion. If belief wasn't different from opinion then we wouldn't need a support group for ex-Christians...

 

The green bit is within my definition of an opinion. You don't have faith in loop quantum gravity, but you think it may be correct. A single piece of evidence again, and *poof*, you don't hold the opinion any more and you don't really care.

I see. You basically say that I can't and shouldn't ever use the word "belief" in the situation where "my opinion" can be used. For the purpose of not causing confusion? Or because you don't like the common use of the word? Personally I think that opinion is a belief. Besides, I didn't say "having faith in LQG", but "To believe loop quantum gravity as a strong candidate for explaning quantum gravity is not absurd, but is reasonable". To say that I meant "Faith in" is a strawman. Easy to break down the argument if you make my statement to mean "A strong religioius belief and faith in an all powerful God and Loop Quantum Gravity"... And that's not what I said.

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, you say that scientists that study LQG really don't care if it is true or not? What drives them then? Why do they do it then? You describe apathy. The study of science requires passion. Passion leads to emotional investments in ideas. I have at least two books that deal with how science put emotional investments and personal beliefs into scientific ideas and sometimes they're absolutely right and sometimes they're absolutely wrong.

 

Back to what I said in an earlier post, have you ever told anyone that you "believed" hiim or her when they told you a story? I guess you never have believed any of your friends when they told you a story.

 

That is not opinion, but basic trust. You trust the source, therefore you believe what the source say. If you get more support and additional sources to the same information, you will get stronger in that belief and eventually you might even claim that you know what is said to be true.

 

May I ask, do you think that scientists never use the word "belief"? If a reporter asks a scientist "is LQG a viable theory" and the scientist answer "I believe so", do you claim that the scientist now is absurd?

 

---

 

To clarify, here's a random quote from a scientists, from April 4th, 2007:

"It makes us believe we understand our cosmology, so that's good."

(sarcasm)

Shame on him!!! He must be Christian using such foul language. Now we know any research in 'sterile neutrinos' must be based on intelligent design.

(/sarcasm)

If scientists can use the word "belief" in the place of "opinion", why can't I?

I'm saying that belief has an investment of identity... a scientist has a career and a reputation to be built, thus investment. Belief has more invested in it than opinion. Look at scientists' treatment of people like Tesla to see people clinging to outdated ideas, in spite of good experimental evidence. Articles of faith and bones of saints crop up inthe strangest places.

[Grandpa Harley]

Can you leave the post stationary long enough for someone to reply! Dammit!

[Ouroboros]

I'm saying that belief has an investment of identity... a scientist has a career and a reputation to be built, thus investment. Belief has more invested in it than opinion. Look at scientists' treatment of people like Tesla to see people clinging to outdated ideas, in spite of good experimental evidence. Articles of faith and bones of saints crop up inthe strangest places.

Yes. Belief is an investment of identity, and it is emotionally based, but it is not necessarily absurd. That was my point.

 

Bohr, Einstein, Darwin and many, many more scientists did what they did because they believed in what the found evidence for. They lost faith in religion, but gained faith in science and study of natural order, and without that passion for the new "faith" we would not have the kind of science we have today. Sometimes this passionat belief mislead scientists (unfortunately I'm not sure where I have that book right now, but I have a book of some odd number of scientific theories that gained extremely strong support in the whole world because the "believed" it to be true).

 

We do believe things. Take some time and think about it, and research yourself throughout a day, and when you watch news or read a magazine or listen to a friend or co-worker, ask yourself if you take their word for it (belief) or if you are truly skeptical and demand proof of every little thing you hear or read.

 

Don't confuse religious belief with colloqial or common belief. Religious belief is always based on the poor evidence and that you take things for granted without proof, while the common belief is usually based on some evidence. Yet, we do not have 100% support for everything we have opinions about. I have opinions about global warming, but honestly I do not have all evidence that's needed for me to know this or that about it. I see correlations but very little contingency, so I believe certain things, but I do not know for sure.

 

Why are you so afraid of using the word "belief"? We shouldn't let religion steal our language and twist it and force us to abandond words that are useful and meaningful, as long as we know how to use them. Should we let religion win but taking over the use of language? Then in the end, we will lose the ability to communicate with them and each other. Use words, but understand how they can be used.

[Ouroboros]

Can you leave the post stationary long enough for someone to reply! Dammit!

NO! NEVER!!!

 

Okay, you'll get your chance. I'll be taking my daughter to school right now.

[Gary Thompson]

[Homer]Who's Gary?[/Homer]

 

My my. Why do I feel you guys aren't going to let me forget this.

 

Thanks Ruby for the clarification.

[Antlerman]

I once read an interesting discussion of agnosticism versus atheism on another site. It was interesting to me, because I wrestled with that question myself...what am I? Am I an atheist, or am I an agnostic? The point made was that the two positions are based on different premises. The classical position of agnosticism, as postulated by Huxley, is that the human mind is incapable of a certain knowledge of anything supernatural. The atheist takes the position of simply having no belief in the supernatural, based on the perception that there is no basis for it. Thus one is a statement of knowledge ("a=without, gnosis=knowing"),

the other is a statement of one's lack of belief. One can therefore be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. These are simply words we use to express our personal identity. As ex-christians we are free to go in whatever direction we're comfortable with.

Hmm.. interesting. I've always stressed the a-theist breakdown of the word, but never really looked at it with the gnosis side. It puts a different spin on the word agnostic for me, as I've generally always taken it at its cultural meaning, like being "undecided". I'm wondering if a better way to state it would be "I am unaware of any gods existing".

 

I call myself atheist as I don't accept the claims that gods exist, but it is really much the same as saying "I have no knowledge of any gods actually existing". I don't, and have no question marks in my mind about them "maybe" existing. But if I was to say "I have no knowledge of them", it bypasses any further discussion. It's simply stressing there is no reason to believe. It's not a positive statement that I disbelieve in claims of a god. No knowledge means no knowledge and says nothing about belief, either against or undecided. Belief becomes a moot point.

 

Interesting thought. Thanks Piprus.

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman,

 

Exactly.

 

 

I think there is three (3) positions of an Atheist:

1) I don't know and I don't believe there is a god

2) I don't know but I believe there is no god

3) I know there is no god

 

I think the most common position amongst atheists is the first one, and some take the second position, but I don't think there can be many that take the third position.

 

Position 1 and 2 are agnostic, because they both claim to "not know" (A-Gnosis).

 

But when it comes to the strong philosophical idea of Agnosticism (a la Huxley) it is the 0-th position, "I don't know and I believe you can not know", and basically it is a standpoint to not take a standpoint. It's an opinion to not have an opinion, based on that you can not know. Yet I think you can take a position - even if you don't know - and that's where Spooky places his criticism, towards this strong version of Agnosticism that doesn't even take a standpoint.

 

There is even a stronger version of Agnosticism: Ignosticism, which doesn't take a standpoint, and it's based on the idea that language is a barrier to understand what we're even talking about. We don't know what we're really saying, or what other people are really saying. So by using the word "God", we don't even know if we're talking about the same thing, so even the question "does God exist" is moot and invalid. I'm not an Ignostic, because if I were, I wouldn't even debate these issues. My debate would be more like "what the heck do you mean when you say..."

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm saying that belief has an investment of identity... a scientist has a career and a reputation to be built, thus investment. Belief has more invested in it than opinion. Look at scientists' treatment of people like Tesla to see people clinging to outdated ideas, in spite of good experimental evidence. Articles of faith and bones of saints crop up inthe strangest places.

Yes. Belief is an investment of identity, and it is emotionally based, but it is not necessarily absurd. That was my point.

 

Bohr, Einstein, Darwin and many, many more scientists did what they did because they believed in what the found evidence for. They lost faith in religion, but gained faith in science and study of natural order, and without that passion for the new "faith" we would not have the kind of science we have today. Sometimes this passionat belief mislead scientists (unfortunately I'm not sure where I have that book right now, but I have a book of some odd number of scientific theories that gained extremely strong support in the whole world because the "believed" it to be true).

 

We do believe things. Take some time and think about it, and research yourself throughout a day, and when you watch news or read a magazine or listen to a friend or co-worker, ask yourself if you take their word for it (belief) or if you are truly skeptical and demand proof of every little thing you hear or read.

 

Don't confuse religious belief with colloqial or common belief. Religious belief is always based on the poor evidence and that you take things for granted without proof, while the common belief is usually based on some evidence. Yet, we do not have 100% support for everything we have opinions about. I have opinions about global warming, but honestly I do not have all evidence that's needed for me to know this or that about it. I see correlations but very little contingency, so I believe certain things, but I do not know for sure.

 

Why are you so afraid of using the word "belief"? We shouldn't let religion steal our language and twist it and force us to abandond words that are useful and meaningful, as long as we know how to use them. Should we let religion win but taking over the use of language? Then in the end, we will lose the ability to communicate with them and each other. Use words, but understand how they can be used.

When in a war, words are important. Fuzzy words like 'belief' and 'faith' give succour to those looking for chinks in armour. I know how to use the words, and will use them in speech. However, when dealing with religion one has to be precise...

[Grandpa Harley]

[Homer]Who's Gary?[/Homer]

 

My my. Why do I feel you guys aren't going to let me forget this.

 

Thanks Ruby for the clarification.

 

Sorry... I'm a creature of evil and darkness...

[Gary Thompson]

[Homer]Who's Gary?[/Homer]

 

My my. Why do I feel you guys aren't going to let me forget this.

 

Thanks Ruby for the clarification.

 

Sorry... I'm a creature of evil and darkness...

 

*sigh* No need to apologize, I probably deserve it for making fun of other people's ignorance.

[Ouroboros]

When in a war, words are important. Fuzzy words like 'belief' and 'faith' give succour to those looking for chinks in armour. I know how to use the words, and will use them in speech. However, when dealing with religion one has to be precise...

 

So you think that I was too unclear or used the word in a wrong way in the following post?

...

Yes. We are all believers of some kind, but we are all un-"knowers" because there isn't much we on a personally level can prove or know for 100%. For instance, I strongly believe in what scientists say, but heck, don't ask me to prove that black holes exists! Yet I'm of a strong conviction they do exist, but that's because most of what science says (not everything all the time, but mostly) does makes sense or does fit into my new world view...

Did I misuse the word in some way here? How should I have said it?

 

--edit--

 

Plato said: knowledge is justified true belief.

 

I could be wrong, but I think I agree with Plato.

 

(at least that's what I read somewhere that he said. The source could be wrong, and maybe he didn't say it, and I just believe that he said it because I loosely trust the source...)

[Grandpa Harley]

Is it belief... something you've invested yourself in, or just a firm opinion...

 

THe usage means that some fundy can say 'You have faith in men...' and quote the babble at you... the word opinion leaves them nowhere to go on faith...

 

However, you don't like the idea, fine... don't use it.

[Dave]

Yeah. You have no idea how much confusion it has caused!

confusion seems to follow me.