[karajorma]

So I didn't get what was the use of the vertical axis in your graph, since you even state that there is no middle ground between those states.

But if that's true, then why couldn't it be rendered as a one dimensional axis where both sides would be joined in the most agnostic parts? It would be pretty much akin to the Dawkin's own graph.

I envision something more like a grid, not a graph, consisting of four squares. Something really really similar to your graph:

                       AGNOSTIC            GNOSTIC
                     -------------------------------
ATHEIST        agnostic atheist   gnostic atheist

THEIST          agnostic theist    gnostic theist

The first one (aa) is someone who does not believe in the religions nor in any portrayed gods. An atheist out and out, maybe even an anti-theist, always ranting about the stupidity of it, etc. However, he won't ever say there are no Gods, absolutely. No, just against any mammal referencing, representing such a creature;
The second one (ga) is someone that not only does not believe, but actively believes this to not be the case. He will affirm that he knows this to be absolutely true, due to several pieces of argumentation (for instance, logical or mathematical, even metaphysical, etc);
The third one (at) is someone who does not know if God exists, and may well agree that the question is unanswerable philosophically, but he holds faith that he does and believes;
The fourth (gt) is someone who knows that God exists. Perhaps by mathematical proof. Perhaps by sheer conviction, he just knows it.



Most religious people are of the (at) kind, but I do know very smart (gt) types of people. I have yet to meet gnostic atheists myself.

The reason I chose a graph not a grid are

1) You do occasionally get people who are having a crisis of faith and slide between the theist and atheist sides before picking one. There is a middle ground, it's just that people don't spend much time there.
2) There are several positions along the horizontal axis. From people who assert there is no god to people like yourself who are mid-way between that and the middle (i.e state that the evidence points to the non-existence of a higher power) to weak atheists in the middle. A grid doesn't really show all those differences.


I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.

[Luis Dias]

I am ignoring your claim on the basis it is unfalsifiable" is different from "I am denying your claim on the basis it is unfalsifiable".

You are correct in the sense that the latter engages actively, but the battle is not "meaningless". If anything, it has been the atheist who has been pounding and pounding criticisms to the belief and point its problems, while the non-atheist and non-theist agnostic refuses to engage in anything really, so worried is he with being so Quantum Mechanical about it.

Perhaps we have different definitions of "ignoring" and "denying". When I say deny, take this example:

- ... And then Jesus walked on water!
- That's rubbish. How the hell you know that.

Notice how that's not ignoring the issue. That's engaging. But it's also "agnostic", for it places the question in the correct sense: how do you know that to be true? If the answer to that one is unsatisfactory, I won't engage in philosophical shenanigans, I'll say it's rubbish. It *might* be true, it *could* be true, but then again everything is possible.

The real reasoning that goes through my head is: What is more likely? That someone walked over water or that someone wrote a myth?

One of them does not engage; the other one engages directly in a meaningless battle because it acknowledges, in itself, that there is no win condition.

To engage is to concede? No. Denying unfalsifiable propositions might not be the most rigorous deductive action, but it is, I argue, the best course of action within a larger algorithm of searching for the truth.

The distinction is important because it leads directly to behavior like yours here, where you've engaged in a discussion that is by your own admission probably one of non-opposing viewpoints seeking some kind of victory that can't be won. You want to waste your time and energy in this fight making claims that we should deny things when you have openly admitted you can't prove those claims and provoking people who might otherwise be your allies, because you want to deny rather than ignore.

Provoke a discussion yes, "might otherwise be your allies" I don't get it. Will they turn into Al Quaeda because I am challenging their views?

That's why MP-Ryan has made the claim his position is superior: it does not lead to this kind of nearly-fratricidal bloodshed and the assertion we should do things for which evidence cannot be provided. The more you choose to argue this point, the more he's proving correct.

I fail at seeing what is this thing we "should" do for which evidence "cannot be provided". I also fail to see any "nearly-fraticidal" behavior other than the uncivil behavior happening between other posters in the other thread and your arrival with the guns blazing telling me I'm being more than dishonest.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.

Faith is a rather broad term and covers a multitude of things that are themselves arguably not theistic, but are religious or treated as religion. (Cult followers who believe fervently their leader can perform miracles for example; faith without the need for gods. Depending on who you ask, Confucian thought is an entire non-theistic religion and has been treated as an object of faith.)

[NGTM-1R]

You are correct in the sense that the latter engages actively, but the battle is not "meaningless". If anything, it has been the atheist who has been pounding and pounding criticisms to the belief and point its problems, while the non-atheist and non-theist agnostic refuses to engage in anything really, so worried is he with being so Quantum Mechanical about it.

A battle without a win condition is always meaningless. There is no objective you can accomplish here. You've admitted that.

Also, if you've ever seen MP-Ryan in a religious discussion on these boards (or myself), you'd know you're utterly wrong and that your last sentence is being merely insulting to your opponents rather than having any basis in fact. We have no problem attacking the idea you can prove that god(s)(ess)(es) exist, or with attacking the tenants of a particular belief system. (c.f. this argument right now).

To engage is to concede? No. Denying unfalsifiable propositions might not be the most rigorous deductive action, but it is, I argue, the best course of action within a larger algorithm of searching for the truth.

Although apparently concession is a possible outcome given that a battle with no win condition continues until one side gives up and walks away making the other winner by default, you are once again missing the point.

To engage is to waste.

Provoke a discussion yes, "might otherwise be your allies" I don't get it. Will they turn into Al Quaeda because I am challenging their views?

The Kazan Lesson. You probably don't remember him (Karaj would), but wherein if you are annoying enough/eager enough to pick a fight with a viewpoint not actually in opposition to your own people will not support you, or pick fights with you, solely because they don't want to be on the same side of an argument with you.

Yes, this has happened before enough on this forum we can even name it after a former user.

[AtomicClucker]

I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.

Faith is a rather broad term and covers a multitude of things that are themselves arguably not theistic, but are religious or treated as religion. (Cult followers who believe fervently their leader can perform miracles for example; faith without the need for gods. Depending on who you ask, Confucian thought is an entire non-theistic religion and has been treated as an object of faith.)

My coffee drinking and consumption would fall into such. Deny my brew in the morning, and I'll strike down the false believers with an agitated fist of the wrathful zealot!

That and I have faith for coffee beans in my pantry every morning, until it's gone, then I know the coffee god has cursed me for partaking too much of the forbidden bean XD.

[karajorma]

Faith is a rather broad term and covers a multitude of things that are themselves arguably not theistic, but are religious or treated as religion. (Cult followers who believe fervently their leader can perform miracles for example; faith without the need for gods. Depending on who you ask, Confucian thought is an entire non-theistic religion and has been treated as an object of faith.)

Which is why I specifically said faith in a higher power.

It's still a better word than belief anyway.

The Kazan Lesson. You probably don't remember him (Karaj would), but wherein if you are annoying enough/eager enough to pick a fight with a viewpoint not actually in opposition to your own people will not support you, or pick fights with you, solely because they don't want to be on the same side of an argument with you.

Yes, this has happened before enough on this forum we can even name it after a former user.

The argument could also be made that both you and MP-Ryan have been doing exactly that though. It's not like I haven't posted a definition of what atheism is only to have you refute it and use a different one. Mp-Ryan used a narrow definition for atheism on his first post in this thread even after I flat out stated that the issue the atheists had was that he wasn't using the most inclusive one.

[NGTM-1R]

Which is why I specifically said faith in a higher power.

Still leaves the cult loophole, though it may eliminate the one for Confucians.

[Luis Dias]

I've said in the other thread that MP (for example) is an atheist out and out behavioristically, so that comment is to the "general" agnostic, not to him. Engaging is a waste? According to what metric? Yours? Not to mine.

And now I got NG telling me I should be more mild-mannered or otherwise I'll be left without friends. Reality is sometimes surreal.

[MP-Ryan]

The position between theist and atheist are basically transitional. It's not possible to remain there. You only end up there during a crisis of faith.

I was following you until this line.  You haven't given any indication as to why this state cannot be permanent.

Especially when you've continually misrepresented what atheism actually is.

Whoa, hoss.  I used the definition you provided.

That's why I spent a lot of time explaining above what atheism is. Cause you kept taking a fairly warped definition of strong atheism and insisting that was the correct one. It's not. And that's why you've got all the atheists upset at you. Your view sounds pretty much the same as mine but expressed differently. But even if I'm wrong about that, I take great exception to you claiming your view is more scientific than mine. I'm an agnostic atheist and as far as I'm concerned, you don't get more scientific than that.

I'm not picking on you. I see a discussion with Luis where I'm on the same side as you winging it's way towards me.

I will grant that you and I seem to be philosophically closer than perhaps Luis and I, but I still see you skipping over the crux of the point - that agnostics really haven't made a decision and that atheists have - all the definitions you've provided of atheists to this post have a lack of belief in deities, but not the converse caveat of equal lack of belief that there aren't deities (terrible double negative, I know).  In some of your posts, you seem to have made a decision, whereas in others you're with those of us who haven't peeked in the box and checked on the cat.  That has me somewhat confused.

As for claiming my position is more scientifically valid - the most scientifically valid position on the philosophical question of deities is one which says the following:
1.  We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities exist.
2.  We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities do not exist.
3.  The question therefore cannot be answered using the scientific method at present.
4.  Probability and uncertainty suggest that even if we attempted to empirically measure or test deities, our results would not be true results.
5.  The question itself is therefore currently unanswerable and may continue to be so.

I'd argue that my philosophical belief sets aligns perfectly with those tenets.  Does yours?

I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.

I don't see it as all that significant, to be honest.  Faith, belief - in the absence of direct testable evidence, it's all the same thing.  Philosophically, "faith" tends to be a religious term, and a stronger one that belief but they basically have the same meaning.

[Luis Dias]

decision

I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.

For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".

I think the point is very interesting.

[MP-Ryan]

Please don't take this as hostile; I'm glad - after pages of fences, coin tosses, cats, and uncertainty - that the word decision finally made my point.

I wish I'd thought to use it MUCH EARLIER! 

[AtomicClucker]

decision

I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.

For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".

I think the point is very interesting.

I just wonder what mechanisms dictated this decision?

Because while I went through my own personal faith rut, I became less obsessed over the problem of decision: it became a matter who or what was dictating it for me. But as a question, do you believe that absolutes truly hold sway on logical premises?

[karajorma]

The position between theist and atheist are basically transitional. It's not possible to remain there. You only end up there during a crisis of faith.

I was following you until this line.  You haven't given any indication as to why this state cannot be permanent.

How can you permanently have faith in something and not have faith in it? I can see how someone can start to lose their faith in god but sooner or later you have to pick a side. Even if at the end you only have a little bit of faith in god, you still have faith. So you're still not an atheist.

Whoa, hoss.  I used the definition you provided.

As I pointed out in my last post, most atheists agree with the most inclusive definition. Lack of belief/faith in god makes you an atheist. You have continually used the narrower version that states an atheist is someone who has rejected belief/faith in god.

I will grant that you and I seem to be philosophically closer than perhaps Luis and I, but I still see you skipping over the crux of the point - that agnostics really haven't made a decision and that atheists have - all the definitions you've provided of atheists to this post have a lack of belief in deities, but not the converse caveat of equal lack of belief that there aren't deities (terrible double negative, I know).

Because that belief is not connected to atheism. Atheism is the y-axis. Whether there aren't deities is the x-axis.

In some of your posts, you seem to have made a decision, whereas in others you're with those of us who haven't peeked in the box and checked on the cat.  That has me somewhat confused.

As for claiming my position is more scientifically valid - the most scientifically valid position on the philosophical question of deities is one which says the following:
1.  We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities exist.
2.  We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities do not exist.
3.  The question therefore cannot be answered using the scientific method at present.
4.  Probability and uncertainty suggest that even if we attempted to empirically measure or test deities, our results would not be true results.
5.  The question itself is therefore currently unanswerable and may continue to be so.

I'd argue that my philosophical belief sets aligns perfectly with those tenets.  Does yours?

Pretty much. Those are all x-axis tenets though. If you look at my definition above they all have to do with the evidence of the existence of a higher power, not whether the person has faith in a higher power. So given that, let me ask you the same question I did earlier in a different way. Do you have faith in a higher power? I don't, Bobboau doesn't, Luis doesn't. And that's why all three of us regard ourselves as being atheists. We may differ as to our position on the x-axis but we're all at the same place on the y.

[Luis Dias]

Ok, MP, late is better than never! However, I am a romantic. I have trouble fencing my actions and beliefs inside a purely scientific approach. I am human, and that means I live within a spatial and temporal, as well as an emotional place. There is a moment where I *do* have to decide.

Let me take this approach somewhere else, just for a moment. I do remember the saying that if, if, Christ is indeed the saviour of the Universe, if indeed he is the only path to Heaven and so on, then this is a decision we must make ourselves if we follow this or not. This decision might precede our complete conclusion on the matter (according to you, necessarily so), but it must happen if we are to be saved. I do not think this is a totally incorrect position. We are mortals and finite, we do not have the infinite time to assess endless possibilities and await forever for any empirical breakthrough, etc.

We should therefore cut all those methodologies of life and thought that are inferior and lacking. And that (to me) includes the belief of God and Christianity, whereas I do not take the teachings of the Bible seriously and take the methods of reason and science a lot more seriously. All these actions are choices, decisions, and they are not entirely separated. If we decide to think and act "as if" God does not exist, then we have also have made a decision. This decision might have preceded our complete faith (or lack thereof), but it is a decision that was clearly made and cannot be denied as such.

[karajorma]

I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.

I think this word though is determining your position on the x-axis. Not the y.

[AtomicClucker]

All these actions are choices, decisions, and they are not entirely separated. If we decide to think and act "as if" God does not exist, then we have also have made a decision. This decision might have preceded our complete faith (or lack thereof), but it is a decision that was clearly made and cannot be denied as such.

But my problem with the dictation of the choice, and not with gods and even science: what level of personal confirmation do we put on it? IE do we take all of the information we receive from science or a flying unicorn as absolute values, or do we actively filter it through a set of  assumptions?

[Luis Dias]

I just wonder what mechanisms dictated this decision?

I wonder it too! It wasn't a moment that is defined by one second or not. I could perhaps say that it spanned over years, until some drops of water were enough to make me realise I was on the other side completely.

But as a question, do you believe that absolutes truly hold sway on logical premises?

What do you mean? I'm a relativist, if that's what you are asking me. I don't like the idea of absolutes too much.

But my problem with the dictation of the choice, and not with gods and even science: what level of personal confirmation do we put on it? IE do we take all of the information we receive from science or a flying unicorn as absolute values, or do we actively filter it through a set of  assumptions?

Even science has a set of unproven assumptions that we just take for granted.... I see it like a web of linked thoughts, ideas and emotions that form a set of belief. These things may be more or less rational. The dismantling of this web is not abrupt, but there are moments of deeper revolution. How exactly it happens? It's strange, because it feels like reprogramming your own self, so it's like a boat that is building itself in the sea (while navigating) with new materials the crew can find and so on.

I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.

I think this word though is determining your position on the x-axis. Not the y.

There was a point where I couldn't call myself an atheist at all. And then there was one where I could. Perhaps in your scheme this delta would be rendered in the x-axis, but I never saw my convictions changing directions (now y axis, now x axis), it all seemed a one directional river from vague theism to deism to I'm not so sure what it was that I called agnosticism to atheism.

[Killer Whale]

"Warning - while you were reading 14 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post." lol

Kara: A two axis implies two continuous variables, but you're saying that the horizontal (atheist-theist) is discrete.

[AtomicClucker]

Well, the only sense I'll make for tonight is that I don't deal with absolutes: when we attempt to deal with stimuli that don't exist, we can either a) choose to ignore, b) obsess over it, or c) acknowledge we don't know and probably don't give a damn.

I choose option C because our set of assumptions are based on a personal filter and level of truth confirmation, that applies to both pink unicorns and test tube fairies. We operate, and take for granted, the notion of truth regarding the information we take into our heads. What's creepy is that we can't truly confirm in our head whether it's "true," and take a leap of faith on that assumption. That mechanism is self-referential, but is meta-language used for that leap of faith. And the fun part is philosophers have taken stabs it and managed show there's some evidence to its existence, but what it is remains a mystery. When we attempt to "meta" that meta language with more self-reference, we make another leap of faith. Rinse and repeat. We use artificial logic to bridge the meta-gap to confirm our set of assumptions as being true.

Data from science and ramblings of self-appointed madmen are the same: we confirm whether we hold that information to be true or not upon a giant leap of meta faith. That's one of the dirty secrets of the Liar Paradox.

So how does this apply to Agnostics?

Well, I'd argue from a philosophical point of view that we are really Agnostics to begin with, but that's a matter of debate and I'll let other forumites duke that out.

[Hellstryker]

- It appears to give both answers equal weight, when OTOH it's patently clear by the not following the rites, traditions and religious observations that agnostics are behaving exactly as if God does not exist (IOW, agnostics are mostly atheists by behavioralistic criteria);

Just because I'm an agnostic doesn't mean I'm going to live my life in constant fear of divine retribution from multiple possible religions. It merely means that I'm open to any possibility, because I cannot know whether a god/gods/reincarnation/etc exists or not, and likely never will until the day I die.

- Agnosticism seems to ignore the wealth of positive evidence we have gathered that these beliefs are local, cultural, they are about establishing morality and social norms, about psychological comforts and never taken seriously or literally by even the "true" believers (or else why would anyone cry and suffer so much at anyone's funeral? Think about that one);

Nah, I don't ignore this point at all. On the contrary I'm a firm believer of it. All moral and social expectations aside however, I simply cannot know for certain whether their core divine being/afterlife beliefs are true or not. As for people crying at funerals, that's an exceptionally cold outlook on it. Whether their loved ones are going to a better place or not, they're going to miss them until they can see them again. (provided this is the case in their religion)

- Agnosticism seems to propose a complete surrender to any unfalsifiable proposition that anyone comes up to.

Well.. yes, that's the entire point of Agnosticism, and is the wisest course of action to take.