Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[Padreko]

 

 

Padro, the problem is not that what your saying doesn't make any sense it all, it's that it's mathematically false.

 

If you study logic, you will learn some basic fallacies, which are automatically false mathematically. One notorious one is the appeal to numbers, for example:

 

X exists in/is practiced by Y quantity of people, therefore X is correct.

 

Now, if you can't plug anything in to this equation, then it is a false statement. Let's try.

 

Rape is practiced by Thousands of people, therefore Rape is correct.

 

Now lets pretend we figured out the truth of the universe, and call it X, making the statement negative.

 

The Truth is practiced by Zero people, therefore the Truth is incorrect.

 

The fact that everyone ignores the truth (which is perhaps the Tooth fairy) says nothing about its veracity.

 

In other words, the problem is that quantity doesn't bear on truth. Truth is + or -, it doesn't move on a scale in proportion to any quantity.

 

So you see, the idea that there is a relationship between truth and the number of people overtly involved in it is wrong to begin with. While your argument makes sense, it is not logical, and therefore not useful for making a conclusion. It is not your statement itself that is objectionable, but the fact that it is mathematically useless for our discussion.

 

What did I say specifically that was mathematically false?

[Asimov]

So this whole time are you saying that agnosticism is fine, just the response to the question "do you believe in god" cannot be I'm agnostic - but rather, "this question doesn't apply to me"

If this is the case, I am going to fuck you up!!!

 

just kidding...

 

Essentially....yes.

 

Asking someone if they believe in God, and then saying "I don't know if I believe in God or not" is not someone saying they are agnostic, it is just someone who hasn't thought about whether or not they do.

 

Just like if I were to ask you if you believed in klipnarcks, I would expect that you hadn't thought about it until I mentioned it.

 

Someone who says they are agnostic obviously has thought about it, because they have designated themselves some kind of label...albeit a wrong one.

 

 

Please, what does "God" mean?

 

Any being with the qualities "omniscient, omnipotent, eternal/atemporal, and creator of the known universe." I know that philosophy posits that there are necessary qualities a God must have in order to be classified as a God.

[Amethyst]

Talking about programming, I just see agnosticism as the NULL value of a boolean in SQL.

 

Which means the column can take three values:

BelieveInGod = 0 -- Atheist

BelieveInGod = 1 -- Theist, etc

BelieveInGod = NULL -- pure agnosticist

 

So, even databases supports the idea of the not-known "value" (it's not a true value, since it is the unknown value.)

 

The tri-state checkboxes supports this too, checked, un-checked or unknown (usually gray. And interestingly it's unchecked-gray, and not checked-gray! Does this allude to that agnostics are in de facto atheists?)

 

You know, I like your logic so much I that ammended my profile.

[Ouroboros]

You know, I like your logic so much I that ammended my profile.

[webmdave]

I animately do not believe there is any such thing as Sasquatch.

 

I am absolutely atheistic in regards to Sasquatch. In fact, I will boldly declare that there is no such things as a Big Foot roaming the Rocky Mountains, or any other mountains. Until someone can show me some evidence of such a creature, some solid evidence, like a corpse or captured animal, I maintain there is no such thing.

 

Just a thought...

[Amethyst]

LOL. Well, okay, I'm pretty sure that if there is a sasquatch, it's probably just a big grizzly bear or some guy who's been going around with fake feet playing a joke on everyone. Maybe the joke's been passed down through the same family for generations, who knows?

[jjacksonRIAB]

Talking about programming, I just see agnosticism as the NULL value of a boolean in SQL.

 

Which means the column can take three values:

BelieveInGod = 0 -- Atheist

BelieveInGod = 1 -- Theist, etc

BelieveInGod = NULL -- pure agnosticist

 

So, even databases supports the idea of the not-known "value" (it's not a true value, since it is the unknown value.)

 

The tri-state checkboxes supports this too, checked, un-checked or unknown (usually gray. And interestingly it's unchecked-gray, and not checked-gray! Does this allude to that agnostics are in de facto atheists?)

 

You know, I like your logic so much I that ammended my profile.

 

Hey, an informal introduction to multivalent logic, with true and false at either end, varying degrees of truthness and falsity between and paradox right in the middle.

[Padreko]

Talking about programming, I just see agnosticism as the NULL value of a boolean in SQL.

 

Which means the column can take three values:

BelieveInGod = 0 -- Atheist

BelieveInGod = 1 -- Theist, etc

BelieveInGod = NULL -- pure agnosticist

 

So, even databases supports the idea of the not-known "value" (it's not a true value, since it is the unknown value.)

 

The tri-state checkboxes supports this too, checked, un-checked or unknown (usually gray. And interestingly it's unchecked-gray, and not checked-gray! Does this allude to that agnostics are in de facto atheists?)

 

You know, I like your logic so much I that ammended my profile.

 

Hey, an informal introduction to multivalent logic, with true and false at either end, varying degrees of truthness and falsity between and paradox right in the middle.

 

Crazy ass logic majors.

[Vigile]

In response to B. People are justified in believing god(or not believing in god), not because many people believe do it, but because they have some good reason to believe in it. Where as you don't have any good reason to believe in the tooth fairy, unless your 3 and don't know any better.

 

What would be an example of a "good" reason to believe in god?

[Amethyst]

Crazy ass logic majors.

 

Actually, I do have a 2 yr. degree in computer programming. I had gotten my 4 year in something completely different.

[Padreko]

In response to B. People are justified in believing god(or not believing in god), not because many people believe do it, but because they have some good reason to believe in it. Where as you don't have any good reason to believe in the tooth fairy, unless your 3 and don't know any better.

 

What would be an example of a "good" reason to believe in god?

 

 

OK - now this is obviously relative. A good reason for one person may not be a good reason for you. But you must step into their perspective and understand th at its a good reason. A good reason for someone to believe in god can be something just as simple as "the life appears to be way to complex to arise from nothing (so to speak)." That doesn't work for us as agnostics(hehe) and athiests, because we believe in evolution and think that it is impossible to measure the metaphysical world is impossible. Hence we have good reason to doubt or not believe in the existence of god.

 

Remember, this is a question of "JUSTIFICATION" which is defined as:

something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary.

 

fact: I was brainwashed to believe in jesus

action: I believe in jesus

 

Does that make sense?

 

Crazy ass logic majors.

 

Actually, I do have a 2 yr. degree in computer programming. I had gotten my 4 year in something completely different.

 

What the hell is the 4 year degree in, "secretology"? lol...

[Amethyst]

What the hell is the 4 year degree in, "secretology"? lol...

 

Actually, marketing. I didn't think it was relevant.

[Padreko]

What the hell is the 4 year degree in, "secretology"? lol...

 

Actually, marketing. I didn't think it was relevant.

 

 

Yeah well "something completely different" just begs the question. Marketing - thats cool..

[Amethyst]

Yeah well "something completely different" just begs the question. Marketing - thats cool..

 

I was much better in my computer programming classes. My marketing GPA was 2.8. My programming GPA was 3.94, IIRC.

[Padreko]

Yeah well "something completely different" just begs the question. Marketing - thats cool..

 

I was much better in my computer programming classes. My marketing GPA was 2.8. My programming GPA was 3.94, IIRC.

 

 

Nice.. I'm holding around a 3.4 right now.. But 2.8 isn't really bad. I mean its college after all, though getting into graduate school with that gpa would prove problematic - however, i know of people doing it (in the sciences).

[jjacksonRIAB]

Crazy ass logic majors.

 

Actually, I do have a 2 yr. degree in computer programming. I had gotten my 4 year in something completely different.

 

I have no degree and about 3 years of OTJ experience, but I've been programming for fun since '92. I'm middle-of-the-road as far as far as creativity/intellect is concerned. Now I spend as much time writing music as I do programming.

 

I took some college but I moved out into the wild four years ago and just got back - to be honest I was getting bored with it anyhow, and my degree was broken up just one semester away. Everything I would have learned in college I picked up on my own anyhow. Now I just write parsers and compilers all day at work.

 

I'm probably the crazy one though ;-)

[Amethyst]

Yeah well "something completely different" just begs the question. Marketing - thats cool..

 

I was much better in my computer programming classes. My marketing GPA was 2.8. My programming GPA was 3.94, IIRC.

 

 

Nice.. I'm holding around a 3.4 right now.. But 2.8 isn't really bad. I mean its college after all, though getting into graduate school with that gpa would prove problematic - however, i know of people doing it (in the sciences).

 

Well, it was the accounting classes that brought my GPA down so much with marketing. With the computers, I turned out to be very good at all the classes I had to take. Everything else transferred because I already had the 4 yr. degree.

[Saviourmachine]

I'm probably the crazy one though ;-)

I wrote an Earley parser with the private Initializer, Predictor, Scanner, Completer and even the Dot as classes in Java. I like object-oriented programming. It's in my veins. Events are objects in my humble world, that space-time constructs in Minkowski space. If you don't know his name; more than 3 million hits on Google. However, I'm currently fucking sick tired of programming. But that's off-topic, perhaps.

 

IMHO the discomfort with the atheist label comes from the fact that an error can have many reasons (there are lots of flavours to agnosticism). Is there a null pointer exception, because the concept is not initialized yet, or because the concept is on purpose set to null, or is it actually an empty set, or can it be true in another thread (world), or was it a windows hickup (set by the environment)?

[Ouroboros]

Null is not necessarily an error but a valid state, like in the database. Null pointers also are valid, since it means the variable is unassigned. For instance when you fill in information on a web site for your personal profile, you don't have to fill in all information, but can leave them blank. Normally that is treated as a Null value, since that you leave phone number blank, doesn't mean that you don't have a phone, but only that you choose not to give it out, or maybe you just don't remember it. Null is just "unknown", and I think it fits the agnostic mind set pretty well. It's not a valid number or value, but it is a valid state.

 

Now I'm gonna go out on a limb, and probably will get killed over it!

 

Going back to Asimov's argument, I can agree that agnosticism is not a valid theological or faith value, but it is a valid state of opinion or decision. It's the state of not having a faith-value.

 

We do have this behavior, or unknown state in many things in life. When someone asks us "do you think blurgh is xurglh?", since neither blurgh or xurgl makes any sense, you can't say you do either xurglh the blurgh or not. And that's what the agnostic thinks, the word "God" is without meaning or comprehension, so how can anyone say they believe in this blurgh or not believe in this blurgh? An atheist can only un-believe in the God that have a specific definition. Without a clear definition how can an atheist declare non belief? The atheist have to make a definition of the God that he doesn't believe in, while the agnostic claims that there is no definition of God so there can't be any belief or non-belief.

 

Personally I'm an atheist, in the sense I don't believe there is a sentient, all-knowing, all-powerful being (with human similarities) that created the world and interacts with it through miracles or heed to prayers, but it doesn't mean there could be a life force that permeates all living and guides the universe to some kind of order and harmony.

 

And now the shooting will begin...

 

 

(Oh, and SaviourMachine, have you tried YACC and LEX yet?)

[Saviourmachine]

Off-topic:

Null is not necessarily an error but a valid state, like in the database.

Sorry, if my post seemed like I supported that assumption. You're right. Null pointers can be valid, just like zero values. It's the context that makes them an error (division by zero). The Diamond Age from Neal Stephenson is a very good book. But the zero divide that Nell put at the end of her quest in the most sophisticated "Turing Machine" ever, was therefore a bit clumsy. A Turing Machine does not have a zero divide as such, but the dangers a Turing Machine faces are infinite loops: cycles on the tape, or winding the tape without stopping.

 

Oh, and SaviourMachine, have you tried YACC and LEX yet?

I needed a parser that provided dynamic, predicting and even ambiguous parsing, like T9 on cell-phones. YACC is a bottom-up parser, LALR(1). Much too restricted.

[Padreko]

Null is not necessarily an error but a valid state, like in the database. Null pointers also are valid, since it means the variable is unassigned. For instance when you fill in information on a web site for your personal profile, you don't have to fill in all information, but can leave them blank. Normally that is treated as a Null value, since that you leave phone number blank, doesn't mean that you don't have a phone, but only that you choose not to give it out, or maybe you just don't remember it. Null is just "unknown", and I think it fits the agnostic mind set pretty well. It's not a valid number or value, but it is a valid state.

 

Now I'm gonna go out on a limb, and probably will get killed over it!

 

Going back to Asimov's argument, I can agree that agnosticism is not a valid theological or faith value, but it is a valid state of opinion or decision. It's the state of not having a faith-value.

 

We do have this behavior, or unknown state in many things in life. When someone asks us "do you think blurgh is xurglh?", since neither blurgh or xurgl makes any sense, you can't say you do either xurglh the blurgh or not. And that's what the agnostic thinks, the word "God" is without meaning or comprehension, so how can anyone say they believe in this blurgh or not believe in this blurgh? An atheist can only un-believe in the God that have a specific definition. Without a clear definition how can an atheist declare non belief? The atheist have to make a definition of the God that he doesn't believe in, while the agnostic claims that there is no definition of God so there can't be any belief or non-belief.

 

Personally I'm an atheist, in the sense I don't believe there is a sentient, all-knowing, all-powerful being (with human similarities) that created the world and interacts with it through miracles or heed to prayers, but it doesn't mean there could be a life force that permeates all living and guides the universe to some kind of order and harmony.

 

And now the shooting will begin...

 

 

(Oh, and SaviourMachine, have you tried YACC and LEX yet?)

 

 

I think this horse has been beaten to hell and back again... However,

I agree :-P

[Ouroboros]

I think this horse has been beaten to hell and back again...

Sorry! I tend to do that a lot.

[Amethyst]

I think this horse has been beaten to hell and back again... However,

I agree :-P

 

*Scans horse with Tricorder*

 

It's dead, Jim.

[Ouroboros]

Wait...

 

 

I think it just moved!

 

 

Oh... no you're right... it's pretty beaten up and not moving. My eyes are just playing tricks on me at old age.

[BigToe]

 

Asking someone if they believe in God, and then saying "I don't know if I believe in God or not" is not someone saying they are agnostic, it is just someone who hasn't thought about whether or not they do.

 

 

But that isn't true though. There are plenty of people who have thought about it a great deal and that's why they don't know! Not knowing doesn't mean you haven't contemplated the issue or even done research on it. It simply means you don't know.