Bad faith of the agnostic

[Kamala Trump]

A man and woman sit in a cafe and the man reaches over and places his hand on the woman's hand. She neither embraces his hand nor pulls away. Sartre calls this bad faith because she refuses to make a decision.

The agnostic has bad faith in same sense by refusing to decide if god is there or not.

but there's more going on here.

these fools here claim to be agnostic, but keep lying about christianity and making it seem "uniquely bad" in some way they can only poorly defend. and they also choose favorites within Christianity too.

that's what satanic devil worshipping masons do.

masons seek to keep religion totalitarian and crazy (catholic) so that real discussions of actual morality can be avoided.

 

[Kamala Trump]

so lets define what morality is.

what is it to be good?

all religions have this to some degree.

thinking people focus on this instead of divisive gotcha games.


morality is a set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

does anybody else want to discuss actual morality?

see, warmongering, population reducing, totalitarian globalist human hater don't want this discussion.

You people are all brainwashed by nazi thought.

peace and love are bad for the war machine psychotics.

you all should be ashamed.

 

[Kafka]

On the question, "Are there no gods...or is there at least one god?"...my take is:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

If either of you thinks there is something illogical in that take...or who feels he/she has a take that is superior for some reason...put it out here. We can discuss.

That agnostic position is fine philosophically. But, IMHO, a bit inconsistent in application.

If someone came up to you and told you there was a tiny, invisible demon that lived in your freezer and was responsible for catching all the molecules of air moving too fast and slowing them down so the freezer got cold you now have that idea in front of you.

Remember: the demon is tiny and invisible. Are you now agnostic about the existence of said being? Probably not. Instead you would ask the person who made the claim to provide actual evidence of the claim. You would likely start off by simply not believing it. Certainly it COULD be that it is real but, again, I doubt anyone would be "agnostic" about such a claim.

Religious thought is a bit trickier since we are trained by since infancy to believe in the claim and then assume that it simply "is", so when one finds oneself (as I did) unable to find evidence for the claim suddenly the balances are somewhat different. Now you have an idea in your head which you've been taught since infancy which is just as likely as not.

I think that is why "agnosticism" is an attractive position for many people.

I am an atheist. But I do NOT make the positive claim "God does not exist". I simply "Fail to believe in God" since I have seen no evidence for the claim. Until such evidence rises to the level where I don't think I'll be in error rejecting the "null" I will remain failing to believe in God.

It's a fine line and truly very subtle.

 

[QP!]

But the religious seem to think they have "reason to believe" which means there "is" actually data for the proposition. As an atheist when I look at the "data" it is unconvincing for me so I revert to my failure to reject the null hypothesis of "no God".

THAT is also scientific.


...

In my view that is not "scientific". It is hubris and assumption.

Early man at the advent of Sailing and world travel had no data as to whether other countries/continent existed and often sailed in to the great unknown on explorations of discovery.

For anyone to take your view that an 'absence of data' was sufficient for them to conclude 'no countries/continents' because the data they had seen was "unconvincing" is just hubris.

it is an assumption that 'if data and facts existed i would know them already and since i do not i can forward a conclusion that it does not exist'.

I do not know if valuable minerals we rely upon here will be found on Mars (any single planet named) as the data currently is "unconvincing" that such minerals exist there. But that would not lead me to conclude they do not exist and to tell others they do not exist there. That again is hubris. An agnostic position is the only logical one. One that says i reserve my decision until we have more data.

 

[Kamala Trump]

That agnostic position is fine philosophically. But, IMHO, a bit inconsistent in application.

If someone came up to you and told you there was a tiny, invisible demon that lived in your freezer and was responsible for catching all the molecules of air moving too fast and slowing them down so the freezer got cold you now have that idea in front of you.

Remember: the demon is tiny and invisible. Are you now agnostic about the existence of said being? Probably not. Instead you would ask the person who made the claim to provide actual evidence of the claim. You would likely start off by simply not believing it. Certainly it COULD be that it is real but, again, I doubt anyone would be "agnostic" about such a claim.

Religious thought is a bit trickier since we are trained by since infancy to believe in the claim and then assume that it simply "is", so when one finds oneself (as I did) unable to find evidence for the claim suddenly the balances are somewhat different. Now you have an idea in your head which you've been taught since infancy which is just as likely as not.

I think that is why "agnosticism" is an attractive position for many people.

I am an atheist. But I do NOT make the positive claim "God does not exist". I simply "Fail to believe in God" since I have seen no evidence for the claim. Until such evidence rises to the level where I don't think I'll be in error rejecting the "null" I will remain failing to believe in God.

It's a fine line and truly very subtle.

You need to reconceptialize religion to be about moral/immoral behaviors.

Most people that aren't psychotic understand the value of a high trust society.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That agnostic position is fine philosophically. But, IMHO, a bit inconsistent in application.

If someone came up to you and told you there was a tiny, invisible demon that lived in your freezer and was responsible for catching all the molecules of air moving too fast and slowing them down so the freezer got cold you now have that idea in front of you.

Remember: the demon is tiny and invisible. Are you now agnostic about the existence of said being? Probably not. Instead you would ask the person who made the claim to provide actual evidence of the claim. You would likely start off by simply not believing it. Certainly it COULD be that it is real but, again, I doubt anyone would be "agnostic" about such a claim.

I simply would not "believe" it. But, I do not "believe" any gods exist either. It would be my guess that no such invisible demon lived in my freezer...but essentially, I would be agnostic. Just as I am agnostic on the question of whether gods exist or not.

Where do you see there to be an inconsistency?

Please do not just drop this, O. It is worthy of discussion.

Religious thought is a bit trickier since we are trained by since infancy to believe in the claim and then assume that it simply "is", so when one finds oneself (as I did) unable to find evidence for the claim suddenly the balances are somewhat different. Now you have an idea in your head which you've been taught since infancy which is just as likely as not.

I was not. I was not brought up in a religious family or environment.

I actually did have a period of being religious during early adulthood...to the point where I considered a religious vocation. But at some point realized I was kidding myself and adopted an agnostic attitude.

I think that is why "agnosticism" is an attractive position for many people.

For me, agnosticism is an attractive position because, among the three most favored positions, it is by far the most honest position.

I am an atheist.

Okay. The descriptor "atheist" means so many things to different people, I wish you would describe your position sorta like I di rather than just assigning a descriptor. That way I can be more sure of what we are discussing.

But I do NOT make the positive claim "God does not exist". I simply "Fail to believe in God" since I have seen no evidence for the claim. Until such evidence rises to the level where I don't think I'll be in error rejecting the "null" I will remain failing to believe in God.

We can discuss that much more. For now, let me say that I SUSPECT that the reason you use the descriptor "atheist" is more complicated than you explain here.

It's a fine line and truly very subtle.

Not subtle at all for me. I've been debating people for decades now who insist on it. I just have my doubts. But as I said, we can discuss this in greater depth if you want.

 

[QP!]

...

I am an atheist. But I do NOT make the positive claim "God does not exist". I simply "Fail to believe in God" since I have seen no evidence for the claim. Until such evidence rises to the level where I don't think I'll be in error rejecting the "null" I will remain failing to believe in God.

It's a fine line and truly very subtle.

I believe it also a false line and you are not using the words correctly and you are simply calling your agnostic position atheism.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.

As atheism is broadly accepted it is the opposite of theism. Theism accepts a god exists and atheism denies a god exists.

A DENIAL is a positive claim even if you avoid stating it.

Does God exist?

Theist - yes
Atheist - no
Agnostic - i do not have sufficient data to conclude either way

You say this " I simply "Fail to believe in God" since I have seen no evidence for the claim. " which is the definition of being agnostic.

 

[Hume]

With yet another dishonest comment from you, i am done with you.

But i will give you my reply AGAIN that DOES NOT restrict it to one outcome.

"...I cannot give you a complete list but that should give you the jist."

I really have no idea why you keep getting angry. And trying to have a discussion over several days is not going to work.

 

[Hume]

I am not fond of horse shit either. But some people try to foist it on me...and...

You must never have debated anyone.

 

[Hume]

So...you are inferring that the only things that exist are things that YOU have experienced.

You are inferring that. I implied no such thing.

 

[Hume]

So...you are inferring that the only things that exist are things that YOU have experienced.

Interesting.

Ego much?


You do like to blindly guess about things, don't you?

I wonder what percent of your blind guesses are correct?

Not a blind guess. You need to learn how to debate.

 

[QP!]

I really have no idea why you keep getting angry. And trying to have a discussion over several days is not going to work.

it is not 'anger' that leads me to point out your dishonest tactics.

If i say 'one of the reasons for Y is X' and you reply 'so you believe only 'x' applies' you are simply not trying to engage honestly and while i enjoy philosophical debates they must be done honestly so i will speak with people who are not you.

 

[Hume]

it is not 'anger' that leads me to point out your dishonest tactics.

If i say 'one of the reasons for Y is X' and you reply 'so you believe only 'x' applies' you are simply not trying to engage honestly and while i enjoy philosophical debates they must be done honestly so i will speak with people who are not you.

Dude, asking for you to clarify something I do not understand is not being dishonest. Seriously,folk need to learn how to debate.

 

[Hume]

it is not 'anger' that leads me to point out your dishonest tactics.

If i say 'one of the reasons for Y is X' and you reply 'so you believe only 'x' applies' you are simply not trying to engage honestly and while i enjoy philosophical debates they must be done honestly so i will speak with people who are not you.

Philosophical debate is not accusing others of dishonesty before even engaging in debate. It is the way we clarify our terms.

 

[Hume]

Nothing angers agnostics like being asked to clarify their position.

 

[Hume]

The agnostic decides what the standards of knowledge are, then that god cannot meet those standards.
Like the skeptic, they define the possibility of knowledge as unattainable.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You must never have debated anyone.

I probably have debated more people than anyone else in this forum. I have been discussing, debating, and arguing these issues since the mid-1900's.

 

[Hume]

I probably have debated more people than anyone else in this forum. I have been discussing, debating, and arguing these issues since the mid-1900's.

Okay.

 

[QP!]

Dude, asking for you to clarify something I do not understand is not being dishonest. Seriously,folk need to learn how to debate.

AGAIN.

Twice i said the equivalent of 'X is one of many factors that may impact Y' and you replied to my post with 'so you believe X is the sole reason'.

That is not a REQUEST for a clarification. it is a dishonest restatement. I gave you a pass the first time. The second time i did not and will not.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You are inferring that. I implied no such thing.

You most assuredly did.

An example: In response to my question, "Are you saying there are no gods involved in the REALITY of existence...or is there at least one?

You responded: "I have no experience of any god."

Unless you were trying to avoid the question...that is both inferring and implying such a thing.