[MP-Ryan]

In that path lies madness.

At least for a certain Portugese HLP member, it seems.  Your responses are making me chuckle more and more - this doesn't have to exasperate you, Luis

That's also why it is widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.

That's OK, the probability that atheists are scientifically incorrect in their beliefs is much higher than the probability that agnostics are incorrect. 

You atheists need to quit pressuring agnostics to take sides.  We're comfortable on the fence.  The view is lovely, and people aren't generally as angry.  We may or may not have cake and drinks up here too.  Certainly, the local cats are alive (but also dead).  We don't even know how far the fall is, because every time we measure it it seems to change on us.  No matter.  Or maybe matter.  Possibly antimatter.  Might be dark too?  Can't be sure.  Ask us if the scientific evidence starts to lean one way or the other.  Presumably our fence is eventually going to fall in one direction or another, but probably not in my lifetime.

Before someone thinks I'm trolling, please read that last paragraph very carefully.

[Luis Dias]

That's OK, the probability that atheists are scientifically incorrect in their beliefs is much higher than the probability that agnostics are incorrect. 

Agnostics are never incorrect. They are never correct either.

Problem is that if you don't go to mass, repent and kneel to Jesus, you are a de facto atheist to Yaweh.

You atheists need to quit pressuring agnostics to take sides.  We're comfortable on the fence.  The view is lovely, and people aren't generally as angry.  We may or may not have cake and drinks up here too.  Certainly, the local cats are alive (but also dead).  We don't even know how far the fall is, because every time we measure it it seems to change on us.  No matter.  Or maybe matter.  Possibly antimatter.  Might be dark too?  Can't be sure.  Ask us if the scientific evidence starts to lean one way or the other.  Presumably our fence is eventually going to fall in one direction or another, but probably not in my lifetime.

Before someone thinks I'm trolling, please read that last paragraph very carefully.

Not at all. Reminds me of the ruler of the universe in the Hitchhiker's Guide. It's just hilariously ridiculous.

[MP-Ryan]

It's just hilariously ridiculous.

Now now, are you really calling philosophers and scientists who advanced this philosophical bent (and its is philosophy), including the likes of Schroedinger and Heisenberg, ridiculous?

The line of reasoning is fundamentally the same - there are a lot of things we don't know, and can't know, and therefore (while we can make educated guesses), there's nothing wrong with saying we don't and can't know.  It's honest, not ridiculous.  This is where I notice a number of very rational, very good scientists (Dawkins included) regularly overstep themselves.  In a rush to counter the bat**** lunacy that stems from the religious crowd, they bend some of their own principles.  That irks me.  If you don't and can't know, admit that.  It's not a fault in your reasoning; in point of fact it's the ultimate acknowledgment of the power of science.

[Lorric]

widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.

Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.

[Luis Dias]

I don't think it's honest, no. I think that if someone asks me "Do you believe in God", I think it's preposterous to start indulging in philosophical shenanigans when the only thing he wants to know is if I believe in the Christian God (or muslim or whatever) or not. To start saying "Well I don't know really, I mean I have no clue either way...", is either a lie or blatant admission of sheer ignorance of all the evidence put forth for both pro and contra the idea.

There is always a moment when you must decide you know enough to make a conscious decision on what to believe or disbelieve. You do this all the time regarding everything else. You also decided that this issue is "different" somehow. And that's the bull****. There is no qualitative difference at all. If you then say "But I can't ever say there is no God", well then how do you solve the Golden Teapot between the orbit of Venus and Mercury question? Do you partake in the ridiculous fence-sitting of "Well technically...." oh come on. That's just hubris to the highest degree.

At least I'm being honest and down to earth regarding what I believe. You just pretend you can be some kind of super-objective hyper-relativist mega-fair and Schrodingerizing everything and everyone, when whenever I read your other comments it's clear you never behave, think or write like that. You just have your own beliefs backed up by your experience and evidence or whatever and are just assertive about them. Then you make an exception to this one question out of... nothing really.

Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.

Who said anything about "threat"?

[redsniper]

widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.

Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.

Well, as you can see in this thread there are many shades of atheist out there. Those that believe the philosophy necessitates being a dick would probably have a beef with agnostics... and everyone else too.

[Lorric]

widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.

Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.

Well, as you can see in this thread there are many shades of atheist out there. Those that believe the philosophy necessitates being a dick would probably have a beef with agnostics... and everyone else too.

Oh, okay. I've never met an atheist that falls into that category. It's always been the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" kind of thing. I guess the "dick atheists" are much like the religious types who want to jam their beliefs down everyone else's throat, whether they like it or not.

[Luis Dias]

Not exactly like that. It's more like, I think atheism is a dick ideology of a sort, but by definition, by its nature. Because basically it's saying to all the religions out there, "You know, that's just all bull****". And sometimes that's necessary. I didn't say that I wanted to be a dick, nor that I am one. I said that the atheist in me is dickish in that sense. I don't go out preaching atheism for some years now, and I never did that "whether they like it or not".

[Lorric]

You could say that about any religion though, couldn't you? That no matter what you believe, it means you believe most of the World is wrong.

And I don't think there's anything "dickish" in that.

Although if you actually say straight out to someone "You know, that's just all bull****" then it is.

[Luis Dias]

Of course there isn't anything dickish about the Cruzades, the Fatwas, the suicide bombers... yeah those religious people are all behaving nicely with each other ain't them?

Also, mandatory youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJqw-idOwUc

[MP-Ryan]

You just pretend you can be some kind of super-objective hyper-relativist mega-fair and Schrodingerizing everything and everyone, when whenever I read your other comments it's clear you never behave, think or write like that. You just have your own beliefs backed up by your experience and evidence or whatever and are just assertive about them. Then you make an exception to this one question out of... nothing really.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about the way I think about the world.

In order to believe that something must be true, I accept there must be evidence that it is true.  Conversely, for me to believe something is false - or better put, the opposite to be true, I require evidence of that.  If I have no evidence, then I typically don't render firm judgement either way.  In this context, I'll argue just as vehemently against someone who asserts there is no God as someone who asserts there is.  I don't have a problem with atheists who claim there is no enough evidence to substantiate the existence of God because that is half of my belief set.

If a person believes something to be true, or the opposite of that thing to be true, then either they have evidence for it or they're full of crap.  This does not mean I have a problem with believing something should be treated as false because of a lack of evidence that it is true (this is the scientific method); it's just an overstep to then assert that the opposite is true (the opposite may be true or false).

Experimental hypothesis:  "The Christian God exists."
Null hypothesis:  The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.

Experimental hypothesis:  "The Christian God does not exist."
Null hypothesis:  The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.

Note that neither case actually says if the opposite is true when the experimental hypothesis fails.  This is an important distinction, because science is never about just two options; we merely frame hypothesis testing that way for the purpose of the scientific method.  There technically exists a conceptual space where both experimental hypotheses fail and both nulls are adopted.  Is this paradoxical?  Absolutely - if we can't find evidence that something exists, then we should immediately be able to prove it does not exist according to conventional thought, but that is not the way science works.  Take the Higgs-Boson:  its existence and function was predicted for years, yet could never be proven, yet could never be disproven (Hi Schroedinger, you're appearing a lot around here lately).  Finally we found evidence that indeed supports its existence.  Paradox resolved.  Possible with God?  Unlikely.  From a rationalist philosophical perspective, God and Schroedinger's Cat are one and the same.

[redsniper]

Of course there isn't anything dickish about the Cruzades, the Fatwas, the suicide bombers... yeah those religious people are all behaving nicely with each other ain't them?

He didn't say that.

In fact I'd say all that is an extension of

... if you actually say straight out to someone "You know, that's just all bull****" then it is [being a dick]

[Mongoose]

If I can swing this back to the original topic for a moment, I have to chuckle at the fact that this group has just constructed a monument that, by its very definition, is dedicated to nothing.  Like, if they had decided to make a big sculpture of a brain, with the quote "Humans are awesome!", that would actually be saying something, and would be pretty cool to boot.  As it stands, the bench isn't doing anything so much as antagonizing the previously-existing monument.

(There's also the little fact that half the people they quoted on it were at the very least Deists, but we'll let that slide.)

[Lorric]

Of course there isn't anything dickish about the Cruzades, the Fatwas, the suicide bombers... yeah those religious people are all behaving nicely with each other ain't them?

I don't know why you're saying that.

Anyway, I just wanted to know about the agnostic thing.

[Lorric]

Like, if they had decided to make a big sculpture of a brain, with the quote "Humans are awesome!", that would actually be saying something, and would be pretty cool to boot.

You've got me thinking what could have been put there instead now. How about a wheel, the most important human invention? And going clockwise around the wheel key moments in the advancement of the human race over the centuries from ancient times to today?

[Luis Dias]

MP, your "null hypothesis" scheme makes my point, you are basically conceding that what you have to say about the Christian God is that "it's all bull****". That's atheism. That's not "Strong Atheism". All "prominent atheists" or "militant atheists" don't give a damn about that latter question. If you search for their thoughts on the latter, you will always find they are amazingly imaginative to what may or may not be after death. Paraphrasing the late Christopher Hitchens quoting Star Wars, "Luke tells Solo he will get a prize beyond his wild imagination, to which he responds back, I can imagine quite a lot", and that's the obvious problem in all religious beliefs. The atheist is not someone parading his higher epistemological ethics stating the obvious fact that this unknown may never be solved, the atheist is someone who tells the priests they can't possibly know any of what they are saying, aka, it's all bull****.

--

Sorry Mongoose, for the slight devation of topic. As I said before, my preference would have been to place the black monolith from 2001. That would have been awesome.

[MP-Ryan]

MP, your "null hypothesis" scheme makes my point, you are basically conceding that what you have to say about the Christian God is that "it's all bull****".

That is not at all what my previous post said.

[Luis Dias]

Experimental hypothesis:  "The Christian God does not exist."
Null hypothesis:  The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.

Ah I see. So it's a problem of ignorance of the evidence hanging around us. That has an easy solution: stop parading your fence sitting and educate yourself. There.

[MP-Ryan]

Experimental hypothesis:  "The Christian God does not exist."
Null hypothesis:  The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.

Ah I see. So it's a problem of ignorance of the evidence hanging around us. That has an easy solution: stop parading your fence sitting and educate yourself. There.

You're proving your own point from pages 2 and 3, Luis.  As for "ignorance of the evidence," I politely suggest that taking this thread theological is a spectacularly bad idea, and I don't see responding to this leading in any other direction.  Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself - that breaks another rule of the scientific method.

[Luis Dias]

No, positive evidence is, for instance, evidence that any depiction of the Christian God is man made without divine inspiration. If you research how the bible was constructed over the hundreds of years then it becomes more than obvious to you that this God isn't "real", or if it is, it's by sheer arbitrary luck.

There are plenty of "positive evidences" like this, in the sense not that "Christian God does not exist" but that a concept of God was created for a political purpose in a very specific time and space, or that the concept of God itself is a psychological social construct, etc., etc.

It's not as if the lack of evidence is enough, it's that we have better - in the scientific sense - explanations on how these gods came to be.