Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 11:29am

I cannot help someone that disagrees with the basic rules of logic and reason.

Ironically, I was thinking the same thing!

When a premise is stated for the purpose of making furhter inferences, if it is lacking the specificity to make correct inferences it is "false" for the purposes and needs to be restated or withdrawn.

Now you're equivocating, backing away from what you were initially saying. Before you said:

Look, "absolute certainty is impssible" was used as an unqualifed premise from which to continue reasoning.  And as such, it is false.

But now you're saying:

When a premise is stated for the purpose of making furhter inferences, if it is lacking the specificity to make correct inferences it is "false" for the purposes and needs to be restated or withdrawn.

In the first instance you wanted us to accept that it was false, and that's it. I said that it wasn't necessarily false, that it simply lacked specificity and that we needed more information before determining if it was false, that we should ask the OP to clarify so that we might then attack the premise if an attack was warranted. Now you're agreeing with me when you say that it is "false", in quotations; and false for the purposes and needs to be restated or withdrawn, something that can hardly mean much more or mean something much different than when I said that the premise simply lacked specificity and needed to be clarified through, for instance, restatement.

Returning all the way to the OP, it could be stated as: "absolute certainty is impossible" therefore "atheists should be agnostic" and he is asking why that is not universally true.

It could be. But it could also be stated as "Absolute certainty when it comes to gods is impossible, therefore, why are you an atheist rather than an agnostic atheist?" We simply don't know what the OP intended. The statement lacks specificity. Both are plausible ways of taking the statement. So we should ask him to clarify before determining whether what he said is false.

The premise "absolute certainty is impossible" is not universally true, therefore the conclusion does not follow.

And yet if he wasn't saying what you've assumed he was then what you've done is strawmanned him and are now replying to a question he wasn't asking.

A correct statement of premise would be "we cannot be absolutely certain what is true."  As atheism is a statement about what is NOT true, you cannot logically get to go "therefore atheists should be agnostic"

Again, only if that was the claim he was making. He may have been saying that absolute certainty when it comes to gods is impossible. And if he was then you're arguing against a position he wasn't taking.

As atheism is a statement about what is NOT true, you cannot logically get to go "therefore atheists should be agnostic"

Atheism is a position on belief in god. Theism is a position on belief in god too. Atheism is the negative answer, theism, the positive answer. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge of (the existence of) god. Gnosticism is too. They're not mutually exclusive. A person can quite reasonably answer in the negative to the question "Do you believe in god?" ("No, I'm an atheist.") while also answering to say "I'm an agnostic" when asked "Are you absolutely certain that gods do not exist?" Hence a person may be an agnostic atheist. Once you have an understanding of the terms it's quite easy to see why the OP was asking this question. Because IF (and if this is what he meant) absolutely certainty isn't possible with regard to god, then why shouldn't a person self identify as an atheist agnostic as opposed to just an atheist?

Going futher to "We can often be absolutely certain about what is not true" (which I provided examples illustrating how that is so)

Assuming that that's what the OP was talking about is where you continue to stumble and, possibly, to strawman him. And a person could certainly challenge your assertion that we can be absolutely certain about what is not true.

it become very clear why atheism with regards to the God of Abraham (or any other popular well-defined god) can be other than agnostic.

You'll have to clarify what you mean here as I'm not sure just what you're saying.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on February 18, 2012 at 9:54am

If you don’t believe in gods, then you’re an atheist, plain and simple. Some may feel the need to further define their own atheism with a unique label, but I think doing so only confuses the matter. No matter what we choose to label our beliefs, we’re going to have to explain them anyway, so I personally choose atheist because it’s clear, straightforward and still accurate.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 10:02am

Except. It's not clear, straightforward, and still accurate. That's why you add the modifier of "agnostic" to "atheist", for more clarity, straightforward-ness and accuracy. If someone says "I'm an atheist" naturally we might wonder whether they hold to absolute certainty that gods don't exist. The agnostic atheist answers with more clarity, straightforward-ness, and accuracy with "I'm an agnostic atheist", that, no, they don't hold that gods absolutely certainly don't exist, but that she lives her life as if they don't, seeing no reason to think they do.

If you don't believe in gods you are an atheist, yes, plain and simple. But that says nothing about what you believe about whether ultimate knowledge of a god is possible– agnosticism. The label agnostic atheist is more clear, straightforward, and accurate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on February 18, 2012 at 10:30am

I am an Atheist because I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe that any gods exist. That is my subjective opinion (or belief). I am also an agnostic because I cannot claim with absolute certainty that this opinion I hold is objectively true because I lack any evidence to back it up. That is I do not have the Knowledge to say a specific god does not exist. However it is this complete lack of evidence that leads me to the opinion that there are no gods.

When people tell me they believe a specific god exists they are unable (as in never once in 40 years of asking) to offer a comprehendible definition of the god they claim to believe actually exists. Neither are they able to offer any evidence to back up their claims.

If absolute certainty is impossible then believers should only claim to be agnostic theists.
However they still claim what they say is the Truth because they claim it is revealed knowledge and only accessible by having Faith. I just do not believe them. I am absolutely certain of that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on February 18, 2012 at 10:59am

Your making an assumption that not being impossible changes the probability in such a dramatic fashion that it renders a conclusion meaningless.

if the probability of something is a ridiculously low number  is it worth even considering the absurdity of it?

The god of the statistic anomaly is a comfort to the wishy washy i imagine but no thank you. Ill roll my dice and say nay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 11:34am

I don't see that he is. I may be wrong– and I hope the OP clarifies– but I take him to be saying that since something (a god exists) is not impossible, there is a non-zero probability of its being true. It doesn't render the conclusion "I'm as certain as I am about any proposition that isn't impossible (has a non-zero probability) but isn't at all likely" but it does render the conclusion "I'm absolutely certain that the proposition is false (despite it not being impossible and have a non-zero probability)" meaningless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on February 18, 2012 at 11:44am

So in that case there are very few if any certainties in the universe as we know it so why ever use a proof positive statement of any kind.

At some point you have to work on the assumption that the anomaly does not matter. So even if there is a minuscule chance of a deity it doesn't matter enough to change the statement of god doesn't exist in any practical application.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 11:50am

But I'm not saying that a tiny but still non-zero probability matters to change the statement god doesn't exist in any practical application. I say "Gods don't exist" all the time. But when I say it I say it the same way I say "The Sun will rise tomorrow". I'm as certain as a person can be about something like that but I recognize that there is a non-zero probability that the opposite statement is true.

To be clearer, I don't walk around day to day worrying about that tiny probability that I'm wrong. But when speaking about what our philosophical position is on existence, knowledge, epistemology, ontology, and how we know what is and is not true... Those questions deserve a little more nuance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on February 18, 2012 at 12:00pm

But the question is why atheist and not agnostic atheist as an identifier.

So the answer im saying is the probability is so ridiculous that its not worth the distinction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 12:14pm

It depends on the context though doesn't it? Of course it does.

Again, if someone asks me "Hey, you should check out our church sometime" I'd respond "I appreciate the offer but I'm an atheist." There's no need to be so specific in that case. But if I'm having a discussion with someone about belief in god and religion I'll be specific if only so that we can discuss the topic from a common understanding. Why would I want the person to go on and on about how I can't have ultimate certainty that god doesn't exist when that's not my position? So I say that at the outset.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on February 18, 2012 at 12:23pm

Yea agreed. Its far to unspecific a question to be honest. It needs context.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 12:27pm

Right. It does. While I often respond to questions on the subject with a simple "I'm an atheist" I actually am an agnostic atheist and I respond with that when it's important in the context to do so.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page