I believe you are telling me l cannot prove God exists. — SnoringKitten

I'm telling you that the "exists or doesn't exist" paradigm at the heart of the God debate has a serious conflict with observations of the vast majority of reality, space, which can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist.

Like almost all God debate commentators you're basing everything on the unexamined assumption that a God must either exist, or not exist, one or the other. An observation of reality reveals this assumption is likely to be excessively simplistic.

I'm sorry but l don't feel you are countering my reasoning. You are not tackling my points. Sorry, goodbye :) Peace

Please can you tackle my arguments. — SnoringKitten

I prefer to pull the rug out from under the entire structure your arguments are built upon. If that doesn't interest you, ok, no problem, so continue as you wish.

Ok let me state again: What can else can there be: God actually exists, God actually does not exist.

What other stable option is there?

You are not tackling my points. — SnoringKitten

I've tackled and crushed your points, but you're not ready to have them crushed. This is very very normal. You aren't really interested in the God topic, but in the experience of debate. Thus, like almost everyone else, you will decline any theory which takes away all the clever debate arguments which you have carefully assembled.

That's cool, I don't mind. Feel free to continue with the God debate process which thousands of years of evidence has decisively shown to lead to nothing but more of the same. That's what pretty much everyone does, so you should feel to do so as well.

I believe it's contradictory because in my scheme:
Agnosticism = either way, l cannot decide, though l've tried to
Atheism = I've considered the options, and l bear witness that there is no God

Thus there is a contradiction in bringing the two together — SnoringKitten

You've set up a vicious circle. You're trying to justify your redefinition of "agnosticism" as a means to solve the contradiction in calling oneself an "agnostic atheist" but the term "agnostic atheist" is only a contradiction because you're using your redefinition of "agnosticism".

The simplest solution is to just accept the ordinary definition of "agnosticism" where "agnostic atheist" isn't a contradiction. Then what reason is there to adopt your redefinition?

What can else can there be: God exists, God does not exist. What other stable option is there? — SnoringKitten

Again, the vast overwhelming majority of reality in the form of space suggests another option. Something which appears to fit neither our definition of existence or non-existence.

Hi there,

I believe my redefinitions are anything but vicious, l have explained their merits, i.e.:

- They encourage profession of belief after reasonable debate, because such is the re-definition
- They leave the debate ongoing
- They acknowledge that the debate is ongoing
- They acknowledge the unfalsifiability of Theism/Atheism


The existing defintions do no such thing.

Sorry, i've really tried to understand you, but l cannot due to either something being left out of your sentences and/or the sentence structure. Goodbye. Peace :)

Sorry, i've really tried to understand you, but l cannot due to either something being left out of your sentences and/or the sentence structure. — SnoringKitten

Does space exist, or not, yes or no? Once you are willing to admit that none of us can firmly answer that question, you'll get that we are not required to apply the "exist or not" assumption to the issue of God either.

You like the "exist or not" rule because you're comfortable within those limits, which is completely normal. But reality is not required to limit itself to what is understandable and comfortable to human beings. Reality is not required to follow the rules of reason, which are after all a human invention.

Hi there,

I believe my redefinitions are anything but vicious, l have explained their merits, i.e.:

- They encourage profession of belief after reasonable debate, because such is the re-definition
- They leave the debate ongoing
- They acknowledge that the debate is ongoing
- They acknowledge the unfalsifiability of Theism/Atheism


The existing defintions do no such thing. — SnoringKitten

Changing the definition of a term doesn't change anything about the debate. It just means that instead of being able to call myself an agnostic theist I have to say that I believe in God but that this can only be as a matter of faith because there are no arguments or empirical evidence that can show God to exist (or not exist).

It's a pointless redefinition.

Please can you tackle my arguments. — SnoringKitten

The entire structure of your arguments is built upon the very common assumption that our simplistic yes/no, either/or definition of existence is binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods which may contained within. An observation of reality suggests this assumption may be false.

You want to skip over this inconvenient possibility and dive right in to the usual God debate arguments and definitions, because those arguments are familiar and comfortable to you. This is completely normal. But not very interesting.

Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"

Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"

Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science. — SnoringKitten

Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable. In addition, it diverges from common usage. A "theist" believes there is a god (or gods). A-theist (or atheist) is taken as the converse, so there's a clear dichotomy: everyone fits into one or the other buckets.

The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods). One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing? The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague. Agnostic is best thought of as a different dimension.

Your definition of "theist" is fine because it's consistent with typical self-identification: everyone who considers himself a Christian, Muslim, religious Jew, Hindu, or any other mono- or poly- theistic religion fits. But again, it is equally reasonable to identify the set of people who do not fit into the "theist" category.

As you are causing repetition of my arguments directly given to you — SnoringKitten

Not my fault you repeat irrelevant points instead of expanding your arguments.

re-stating your own — SnoringKitten

Hypocrisy.

l shall therefore not answer your further posts. — SnoringKitten

If you wish to end the discussion, do so. Replying to me to have the last word is childish and rude.

I am NOT making random substitutions as you are in your example. — SnoringKitten

I have reasoned my redefenitions out. — SnoringKitten

Both false. You missed the central step of showing the redefinitions match the existing ones.

What?

Let me explain again: We cannot ourselves prove that God exists or not therefore God / Atheism are unfalsifiable beliefs. That is taken for granted in all of my arguments in the OP.

Atheists claim God does not exist. Therefore Atheism is unscientific. — SnoringKitten

See, this is the problem with changing the meaning of the words: that is agnostic atheism, so when you said that's incompatible with atheism I drew the conclusion you meant atheism must be scientific.

Again reductio ad absurdum. I have also already explained the folly in agnosticism, in a post directed to you, you have yet to counter that. You are not reading my replies. — SnoringKitten

I read your replies and countered your point, literally in the thing you quoted. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, it's a valid form of proof by contradiction. Believing arguments to be invalid is not apathy, and neither is apathy a valid basis for being ruled not agnostic.

Think of when two arguments are perfectly matched, there yet remains one's feelings on the matter. Also, as l've said, either God exists or not, there is no actual middle ground, the middle ground is only when the two camps are perfectly balanced, regarding which, l've already explained: where are a person's feelings on the matter? — SnoringKitten

Excuse me, which one of us were you just accusing of not reading the replies and repeating their points? Literally answered this as well in the point you're referring to. The feelings remain, and are not a basis for an opinion. Stating that the feelings remain is "not even wrong".

Hi again there bro' fro' ano' mo', it's cool that you disagree as you're accompanying it with reasoning.

So anyway:

You said:
Changing the definition of a term doesn't change anything about the debate. It just means that instead of being able to call myself an agnostic theist I have to say that I believe in God but that this can only be as a matter of faith because there are no arguments or empirical evidence that can show God to exist (or not exist).

It's a pointless redefinition.

I think l know your issue here: you are saying that by redefining, l am making a circular argument.

I agree: Antics with semantics have no place in debate.

Exception: when the debate is actually about semantics. So, l'm redefining a term, so l am absolved of the crime of circular reasoning, because that's what definitions are.

God / No-God is unfalsifiable yes, but you still have a vast backdrop of arguments / evidence for God existing.

Maybe you have evidence against too e.g. God allowed me to massacre a section of my gut bacteria while the other bacteria were forced to look on, how can a loving God alow this. Of course that is not evidence against God, because it is non sequitur that God has to dislike / like stuff. In fact, consider that nothing but God actually exists.

Failing evidence against God's existence, maybe you can have a vague sense of resentment toward God (as l often have).

So, sans proof either way, we have arguments, evidence, and utlimately: our royal prerogative, our fellings.


As an Agnostic Theist, you are now what you profess in your rites: e.g. Lo! We are helpers of Christ. (= you are now just "Theist")
Privately, you may have a crisis in faith? Or maybe you're have a really good day faithwise.

The good thing is, your crisis in faith is no longer ringfenced from critique, because it was part of your identity. Now, your identity is your lip profession (Theism), anterior to the debate.

Your reasoning is now separate, and thus open to debate. SO, my new system at once simplifies the labels, and encourages them to be debated (or attacked, if you will).

Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable.
I agree it seems unfair doesn't it, that i attribute the foolhardy self-assured certainty to Atheism whilst giving Theism a disclaimer that Theists don't claim to know, they merely believe.

However, consider:
- Islamic texts specifically call the religious folk "Moomins" = believers - not knowers.
- I think there is a clear precedent in calling adherents of other religions "Believers" too.
- Also, religions are commonly known as "Faiths" and the adherents are "the Faithful".

So, it's clear that the Theist stance is uncertain belief.

Atheists may claim uncertainty too. Maybe l'm letting my bad experiences speak but it seems that many Atheists act as if they know God does not exist. I'd have thought many Atheists would be pleased with being assigned that stance.

However, maybe l should be equitable and say Atheism = I've looked into the arguments / counterarguments, and l profess with my lips that there is NO God, but l don't know it, l just believe so.

Better?






The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods).
And recently: It got revised by me

Btw, as l've shown, becuase God/No-God are unfalsifiable, the literal meaning of agnostic is not fit for purpose, lo! it is the starting point of each of my definitions of Theist / Atheist / Agnostic.



One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing?
Agnosticism would be measured by feelings for both camps being perfectly stacked l suppose. That's why feelings hold sway in the agnostic position.

In any case, all the more reason to ditch the whole Agnostic label. How do you measure feelings? Maybe when they are perfectly stacked against each other there's a special case where you actually can measure feelings, just as during an eclipse the moon perfectly slides over the sun, their discs appearing the same size, perfectly matched, and suddenly you see the corona.

But when does that happen in Agnosticism? It doesn't.

You can see for yourself Agnosticism is new fangled, probably hitherto unknown in reli philo because it doesn't stand to reason, such a fine line is impossible for a rational higher being such as humans are, with their overarching sense of aesthetic - and still nothing to sway them either way between Atheism and Theism?



The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague.

No longer vague: it's what the lips profess, anterior to the raging debate that led to the professing. Simple!

By the way, please feel free continue debating, but l've decided to quit the forum, forums are too addictive and l've got a hideous and unfair workload. I'm not trying to have the last word. Peace :)

I do not have any problems with your statement about the kind of atheism you uphold.

I do not have any problems with your statement about the kind of atheism you uphold. — Bitter Crank

Then you're a sensible chap, Bitter Crank. I'm not even sure whether those who have recently purported to disagree with it have any kind of problem with it. I suspect that they might have just jumped to the conclusion that my position must be as immoderate as my style of writing can be. But, believe it or not, it is quite possible to be cocksure and blunt in speech, yet remain within the bounds of reason.

It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. — S

It goes without saying that there's no reason why you should believe what you don't know of reason to believe. No one here would criticize you for that.

...if that's all that you're saying.

But, saying that there isn't reason to believe something is different from saying that you don't know of reason to believe it.

Sometimes you said that you were only referring to the particular beliefs that I referred to as Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism. But, at other times you've said that there' s no evidence for any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all. As long as you're only saying (as you did above) that you don't know of such evidence, then you're reasonable.

But, if people here have misunderstood you, it's because you've contradicted yourself.

Aside from the matter of "evidence", there is the fact that faith, by definition, is belief without, or aside from, evidence. You can say that you don't have faith (except in Materialism and Science-Worship), and that's fine. That's your business, and no one cares.

But if you want to claim that science and logic rule on the validity of religious faith, then you're an evangelistic proselytizing Science-Worshipper, trying to assert the rightness of your own faith and dogma.

Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith? ...and that it's questionable to try to apply science and logic to the matter of Reality itself? Can you just say that you don't know of evidence or any reason for faith? ...and that you just don't know about all religious beliefs and positions? There's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't know everyone or everything.

You like science? Then study science.

Michael Ossipoff

But, at other times you've said that there' s no evidence for any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all. As long as you're only saying (as you did above) that you don't know of such evidence, then you're reasonable. — Michael Ossipoff

Actually, to be precise, that's not what I said. I said that I don't believe that God exists, and that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. In terms of evidence, I wouldn't say that there is none, but rather that it isn't strong enough to warrant belief. And of course, by that I mean the evidence of which I am aware and have considered. I can't say much about evidence of which I'm not aware or have yet to consider.

But, if people here have misunderstood you, it's because you've contradicted yourself. — Michael Ossipoff

No I haven't. Show me where you think that I've contradicted myself. And it must be something that I've actually said, as opposed to something that you've imagined I might say.

But if you want to claim that science and logic rule on the validity of religious faith, then you're an evangelistic proselytizing Science-Worshipper, trying to assert the rightness of your own faith and dogma. — Michael Ossipoff

Validity in what sense? Science and logic can rule on the validity of religious faith on their own terms, but not outside of it. Meaning that if religious faith clashes with, say, logic, then on that basis, it can be said to be invalid. But if you are the kind of person who has abandoned logical restraint, then that probably won't mean much to you, and you might seek validity for your religious faith elsewhere.

Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith? — Michael Ossipoff

I've pressed the point elsewhere that they're categorically different, like chalk and cheese. If you have faith, then you don't need reason, and if you have reason, then you don't need faith. So, yes, of course there's a sense in which reason, logic, science, investigation, thinking things through, doesn't fit with matters of faith, where all you need is a sort of blind, unthinking, emotional acceptance.

...and that it's questionable to try to apply science and logic to the matter of Reality itself? — Michael Ossipoff

No, that's not questionable, that's understandable. Science is and has been applied to reality, as with logic. (And there's no need to capitalise the first letter of the word. Why do you do that?)

Can you just say that you don't know of evidence or any reason for faith? — Michael Ossipoff

None that I judge to be good enough. I accept that there are others with lower standards or who lack my good judgement.

Not enough indifference. Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative. Only true atheism is: 'God? What's that?' 'Never heard of it' 'Lets get on with it then'. Ruthless, uncaring abandonment of the debate as beneath the dignity of sense, let alone truth.

To treat God like we treat Quetzalcoatl: an artefact of distant bemusement.

Not enough indifference. Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative. Only true atheism is: 'God? What's that?' 'Never head of it' 'Lets get on with it then'. Ruthless, bloody uncaring. — StreetlightX

I have plenty of indifference to it in my day-to-day life, outside of this forum. It only gets my attention on occasions like this. But I see your argument in broader terms. If I should care less about God, shouldn't I also care less about, say, idealism, and other whacky ideas? Sometimes I can't help but want to understand how and why people can actually believe this shit.

Idealism is... a pattern of thought; it's much harder to be indifferent to. We're idealists everytime we're not careful about how we think. God is small fry by comparison, I think. A small reply, but it's late here and I don't want to talk about idealism :/

I discount those cases whereby God is merely used as label for something that I do believe exists, such as the world. That is just wordplay - a triviality. — S

So is the quote, just above, you know.

But thank you for the unsolicited declaration. Secretly, I've always hoped you would explain your "stance in relation to God." I was too shy to ask.

So is the quote, just above, you know. — Ciceronianus the White

A triviality? Why thank you, kind sir.

But thank you for the unsolicited declaration. — Ciceronianus the White

You're welcome, but it was solicited by Jake, who suggested that I create a discussion about my position so that he may have an opportunity to rip it to pieces.

Secretly, I've always hoped you would explain your "stance in relation to God." I was too shy to ask. — Ciceronianus the White

I know, I don't pipe up enough on that topic, do I? I'm always pussyfooting around it, treading delicately, so as not to ruffle any feathers.

Well, from now on, that's going to change!

Re: strong & weak atheism: you see this is what l'm talking about. It crushes everything and puts it all on the same plane, whereas my system separates the arguments - which are many and complex - from the current lip profession. The current lip profession of a person is what makes them Atheist or Theist or even Agnostic. Simple, elegant. — SnoringKitten

What do you mean "lip profession?

Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service — SnoringKitten

I don't know what you're trying to say with this "lip" stuff. If you mean that "this is what atheists and agnostics actually profess", then you're just wrong. Atheists overwhelmingly do not claim to have proof no god's exist, and overwhelmingly do not claim to posses the positive belief that no possible gods could exist. Many people do misuse the term agnosticism to refer to some kind of fence-sitting position, but that definition is a complete departure from how it is used in philosophical literature.

The simplest and most elegant definitions for theism and atheism are as follows:

Theist: Someone who believes in god
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god (a.k.a non-theists)

Does space exist, or not, yes or no? — Jake

Yes.

Im new to the forum, And sense im missing some previous discussion points but...
Why is this YOUR kind of atheism? As far as I can tell, your just describing atheism.
What am I missing? I noticed a few topics on the subject, is it common on this forum for people to not understand what atheism is?