if however, you are holding to your definition to be the acceptable one
i like that!
Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?
by Joey Jo-Jo 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
cyberjesus
-
Joey Jo-Jo
Furthermore LouBelle here are some of the definitions available online.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic
1 a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or thenonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. As you can see there are some variences, my variance is one of the definitions, the fact that people can generalise agnostics is wrong, and also that one word can mean similar but different things is also wrong. This is what Carl Sagan said and what I consider agnosticism: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed". Source - Wakin, Edward (May 1981). [www.uscatholic.org "God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them?"]. U.S. Catholic : 19-24 . Retrieved 7 April 2012 . "I'm agnostic." Source - Head, Tom. "Conversations with Carl". Skeptic 13 (1): 32–38. Excerpted in Head, Tom, ed. (2006). University of Mississippi Press. ISBN 1-57806-736-7.. -
ZeusRocks
If someone asks you if you believe in god or a god, and your answer is no, then you are atheist. You cannot answer this question with "I don't know". You weren't asked whether you know a god exists or not, the question is whether you believe a god exists.
I guess in a nutshell
Category 1: Theist or Atheist....someone cannot be both
Category 2: Gnostic or Agnostic......someone cannot be both
You can mix and match between Category 1 & 2 if you really feel the need, but if someone asks you if you believe in god, you cannot state that you are agnostic as that has nothing to do with the question being asked.
Unless you believe in a god, you're atheist.
-
bohm
Jo-Jo: Perhaps there is a language issue but i do not think i am guilty of the strawman fallacy, the fallacy of abusive analogy/ analogical fallacy,begging the question and secundrum quid and dicto simpliciter which i do not even know what is.
My point is very simple: It does not make sence to have a discussion if X exist or not without having a common understanding of what X is. If i told you: "Jo-jo, do you think Animal live naturally in africa?" clearly your oppinion on the subject would be very different depending on what animal was implied.
If I told you that you could define Animal any way you felt natural, from spaghetti monsters to lions, clearly that would not help you very much in giving a usefull answer to the question. That is my entire point: If we define God some ways i am a believer, if we define God in other ways i am an atheist. I think that goes for all of us.
This is also the reason why any book about God i have ever read start out by making it clear to the reader what the term "God" covers, for instance: "intentional creator of universe, sentinent being, God of the bible, etc.".
I tried to make the point clear by pointing out that we are both equally atheistic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster. Going back to your opening post you wrote:
From here I will refer deity as anything ranging Jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we don’t know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.
then:
they [atheists] don't see the logical fallacy that disbelieving is as well and that atheists commit by saying this [the deity does not exist] (...) Wouldn't it be more logical to say I don't know.
The way i read your argument you say two things: God include Jehovah, spaghetti monster, etc. and it is a logical fallacy to say God does not exist. I think its perfectly fair to form the question: Is it a logical fallacy to be disbelieving in the spaghetti monster? In that case, are you agnostic with respect to the spaghetti monster (and its related claims, for instance the beer vulcano) or not? In fact i think it follows from pure logic from what you wrote, but again there may be a language issue (I am not a native english speaker).
BTW. if you destinguish between the real spaghetti monster and the flying spaghetti monster i misunderstood you.
Now on to null hypothesis, it's the first time that I have heard that a null hypothesis could also imply something which can be falsified. I don't follow, I know that null hypothesis is not only used in statistics I know that wiki at times are incorrect, but if you could quote me an academic book that says otherwise
It seem to me you are just trying to split hairs but anyway, let me quote Fisher:
R. A. Fisher, The Design of Experiments ii. 19, "We may speak of this hypothesis as the 'null hypothesis', and it should be noted that the null hypothesis is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation."
A null hypothesis which cannot be falsified is not very interesting, how would the framework of hypothesis testing apply?. Anyway, my point was simply that I dont think it is a very good idea to call: " we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists" a null hypothesis because it has very little to do with how null hypothesis are usually phrased or used. Furthermore i am not at all certain it should be our default position but again, it depend (entirely!) on how we define God.
-
Joey Jo-Jo
But bohm, we don't know what X is, I thought I made it very clear even if I didn't make it before (which I believe I did) - I will know refer this deity or deities as the one/s assuming that created this darkness we call space, and that created the cosmos and set them in motion, I will call my god/s that derived from an assumption as ? (Question mark).
X has never revelead itself, we don't even know if X exists, the only methods of identify X is through science and maths and yet there is a lot to uncover, remember that you are talking to an agnostic and not a theist, it is your claim that God does not exist, and I am not talking about the bible all I am showing is that your claim (atheists) can also be irrational.
Assuming we dont know X therefore X does not exist is circular reasoning, another fallacy
A null hypothesis is simple that, null, zero, nada, yes it can be disproven but then it's no longer null.
-
bohm
Jo-Jo:
But bohm, we don't know what X is, I thought I made it very clear even if I didn't make it before (which I believe I did) - I will know refer this deity or deities as the one/s assuming that created this darkness we call space, and that created the cosmos and set them in motion, I will call my god/s that derived from an assumption as ? (Question mark).
X has never revelead itself, we don't even know if X exists, the only methods of identify X is through science and maths and yet there is a lot to uncover, remember that you are talking to an agnostic and not a theist, it is your claim that God does not exist, and I am not talking about the bible all I am showing is that your claim (atheists) can also be irrational.
I dont think you have shown such a thing. You have defined God in an incredible vague fashion and being an agnostic, theist or atheist with respect to God the way you define it above is a very different type of statement than being agnostic, atheistic or theistic with respect to the God of the bible or the Quran; the later is (incidently) the type of Gods people tend to actually believe in and where i think it makes the most sence to define these words.
Very well, lets define God from your minimal set of properties. I still do not believe such a God exist because i see no evidence the hypothesis is true and it is quite a formidable hypothesis. I call that being an "atheist" with respect to your X-God. In drawing that conclusion I dont think i am being irrational as you claim. Scientists has proposed a number of different (contradictory) possible explanations for the origin of the universe and all we know is that they are very unlikely to be true; your hypothesis of an creator is just another hypothesis without any evidence, and I think i am perfectly in line with what is common in science as such when i am highly sceptical.
Assuming we dont know X therefore X does not exist is circular reasoning, another fallacy
Is this the 6th fallacy you accuse me of in the span of a few hours? Ofcourse i do no such thing, stop putting words in my mouth.
A null hypothesis is simple that, null, zero, nada, yes it can be disproven but then it's no longer null.
well i suppose that settles it.
-
d0rkyd00d
It is not a contradiction to say you are an agnostic atheist. I think most people view it as a sliding scale, where there's certainty of existence on one end, certainty of non-existence on the other, and agnosticism somewhere in between. What I'm suggesting is that atheism and agnosticism exist on two different scales. One can be certain in their belief that God doesn't exist, yet still admit they don't "know" in the same sense that I "know" other things empirically.
-
ziddina
"I guess in a nutshell
Category 1: Theist or Atheist....someone cannot be both
Category 2: Gnostic or Agnostic......someone cannot be both
You can mix and match between Category 1 & 2 if you really feel the need, but if someone asks you if you believe in god, you cannot state that you are agnostic as that has nothing to do with the question being asked.
Unless you believe in a god, you're atheist...." ZeusRocks, above...
Zeus, your post ROCKS!!!
-
Joey Jo-Jo
hi bohn, i much prefer these topics done publicly than on forums as there could be misunderstandings.
but i will try my best.
my definition of a possible deity is vague because i dont know, this to you is evidence that deities do not exist, am i correct?
you wrote on your last post how scientists failed hypothesis to prove that the universe was created by a god, would it be rational to conclude that these tests were done with what we humans currently know and understand? do you think these understanding could change in future changing our view on certain topics? do you see science as a set of laws or a form of free acquisition?
-
cyberjesus
zeus you rock