Bad faith of the agnostic

[Ross Dolan]

It is not. Follow the link to see all results.

You are correct...I was wrong. I was just using the words I saw in your post.

In any case, the story is, at best, BS.

The question that should be asked is: Do you know if any gods exist or not?

My guess is that the vast majority would say, "I do not know." My further guess is that any who do not answer, "I do not know"...are theists who are convinced they do KNOW...have what they call "a personal relationship with a god."

So...the vast majority, if my guess is correct, would be saying, "I lean toward atheism" solely because of that mistaken definition of atheism...which, I acknowledge many accept.

But in defining their positions, I think most would, if being honest, leave it at "I do not know."

Once again, nothing wrong with making a guess. It might even be correct. But ultimately...it is a guess.

 

[Cypress]

I answered. I said I am reporting a CURRENT STUDY OF PHILOSOPHERS.

I said I have no knowledge of any study of all intellectuals in the history of civilization and only gave my JUDGMENT.

Your truth claim was that most intellectals in history were atheist:

Hume said:
Most intellectuals throughout history were atheists.

I don't see any way to corroborate that claim.

A poll of living philosophers at American universities:
1) Ignored 99 percent of recorded history
2) Ignores all intellectual professions that aren't philsophy.
3) Ignores the rich intellectual history of Asia and the Far East

 

[Hume]

In any case, the story is, at best, BS.

The question that should be asked is: Do you know if any gods exist or not?

I think philosophers know how to ask questions.

 

[Hume]

Your truth claim was that most intellectals in history were atheist:

Strike it from the record then. I said I am not addressing that.

 

[Kafka]

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?

I approach it from the formalism of "inferential statistics". In science when looking at an hypothesis we start with the "null hypothesis" (eg "There is no effect from this drug") and then test AGAINST that hypothesis.

Lacking sufficient evidence to reject the null one is left only with the choice of FAILING TO REJECT THE NULL.

That's my approach to atheism. But it is also a matter of the "God Hypothesis" having no real basis other than someone CLAIMING it is true. I am under zero obligation to believe or even be undecided on a claim someone makes out of the blue.

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

For me the "weak atheist" position is the best. This is the one that does NOT say "There is no God" but rather "Fails to believe in God" if you will.

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.

Hopefully I have done so.

 

[Hume]

The question that should be asked is: Do you know if any gods exist or not?

My guess is that the vast majority would say, "I do not know." My further guess is that any who do not answer, "I do not know"...are theists who are convinced they do KNOW...have what they call "a personal relationship with a god."

So...the vast majority, if my guess is correct, would be saying, "I lean toward atheism" solely because of that mistaken definition of atheism...which, I acknowledge many accept.

But in defining their positions, I think most would, if being honest, leave it at "I do not know."

Philosophers are trained to know the difference between possible knowledge and impossible knowledge.
Since "god" is a social construct, it is possible knowledge.

 

[Kafka]

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'.

Not even remotely correct or aligned with my position. Please see a more thorough description in Post #105 about null and alternative hypotheses. It's part and parcel of inferential statistics and science work.

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.

And that's fine. But if someone made the claim "Cows live on Mars" my guess is you wouldn't necessarily be "agnostic" about it.

You may tell yourself you would but again, why would you even open the possibility given all you have experience of if someone simply SAID it?

 

[Hume]

You are correct...I was wrong. I was just using the words I saw in your post.

In any case, the story is, at best, BS.

The question that should be asked is: Do you know if any gods exist or not?

My guess is that the vast majority would say, "I do not know." My further guess is that any who do not answer, "I do not know"...are theists who are convinced they do KNOW...have what they call "a personal relationship with a god."

So...the vast majority, if my guess is correct, would be saying, "I lean toward atheism" solely because of that mistaken definition of atheism...which, I acknowledge many accept.

But in defining their positions, I think most would, if being honest, leave it at "I do not know."

Once again, nothing wrong with making a guess. It might even be correct. But ultimately...it is a guess.

For example, if someone asked me if I believed in Shiva, I would say no, because the concept means nothing to me. I only know it as a concept in Hinduism.

But "god" in the US today, refers to the Christian god, which I am very familiar with the concept. So, it is just as easy to answer about Shiva as it is for Christian god: No. I know what you mean and I do not believe it.

 

[Kafka]

...since the mid-1900's.

Can I just say I feel REALLY old now whenever someone refers to the last century as the 1900's. LOLOL!

 

[Kafka]

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.

Morality can easily be explained as a set of rules established in a social network to ensure the stability of said network.

There is nothing "universal" about morality (eg do you call the well-fed housecat who kills a bird "iimmoral" and a "murderer"?)

Moral codes help keep our social structure safe and stable. We are biologically SOCIAL ANIMALS which means we derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from that social network.

 

[Hume]

The question is what does "god" refer to? Some say god has to refer to a physical entity or it is nothing, there is no referent.
Some say god refers to a concept or non-physical entity.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think philosophers know how to ask questions.

Philosophers were answering questions...not asking them.

A philosopher most likely would have worded things the way I suggested.

 

[Hume]

Philosophers were answering questions...not asking them.

A philosopher most likely would have worded things the way I suggested.

A philosopher worded the question.

The survey's design and results are described in the following article:

David Bourget & David J. Chalmers (2023). "Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPapers Survey". Philosophers' Imprint 23 (11).

 

[Litmus]

Morality can easily be explained as a set of rules established in a social network to ensure the stability of said network.

There is nothing "universal" about morality (eg do you call the well-fed housecat who kills a bird "iimmoral" and a "murderer"?)

Moral codes help keep our social structure safe and stable. We are biologically SOCIAL ANIMALS which means we derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from that social network.

no

wrong.

stability is not morality.


see how totalitarians do not want this discussion?

you have already failed.


hegemonic stability is not morality, deep state fool.

 

[Kafka]

...

 

[Ross Dolan]

I approach it from the formalism of "inferential statistics". In science when looking at an hypothesis we start with the "null hypothesis" (eg "There is no effect from this drug") and then test AGAINST that hypothesis.

Lacking sufficient evidence to reject the null one is left only with the choice of FAILING TO REJECT THE NULL.

That's my approach to atheism. But it is also a matter of the "God Hypothesis" having no real basis other than someone CLAIMING it is true. I am under zero obligation to believe or even be undecided on a claim someone makes out of the blue.

Okay...that does allow you to use the descriptor "atheist"...which for some reason, some people want to do.

For me the "weak atheist" position is the best. This is the one that does NOT say "There is no God" but rather "Fails to believe in God" if you will.

My experience has been that anyone using the word "atheist" as a self-descriptor is motived by "belief." They either "believe " there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. Both of those beliefs seem to me to be blind guesses...not terribly dissimilar from the blind guesses theists make.

You seem to be saying you are a departure. Are you telling me that in addition to "failing to believe in" a god...you also fail to "believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?"

Hopefully I have done so.

Not sure yet. I'll wait for your response to my last query.

 

[Litmus]

Whatever. I couldn't care less what YOU think about anything. Sorry.

bailing out banks was good for stability. but it was such glaring instance of overt elitism fascism that it basically morally invalidated the entire Keynesian banking fed system, proving it to be an endless corruption trough for elitist swine.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Philosophers are trained to know the difference between possible knowledge and impossible knowledge.
Since "god" is a social construct, it is possible knowledge.

That statement makes about as much sense to me as, "Maresy dotes and doesey dotes and liddle lambsydivy."

 

[Ross Dolan]

For example, if someone asked me if I believed in Shiva, I would say no, because the concept means nothing to me. I only know it as a concept in Hinduism.

But "god" in the US today, refers to the Christian god, which I am very familiar with the concept. So, it is just as easy to answer about Shiva as it is for Christian god: No. I know what you mean and I do not believe it.

There is absolutely no way that the word "god" in the US today refers to the Christian god...and only to the Christian god.

 

[Hume]

There is absolutely no way that the word "god" in the US today refers to the Christian god...and only to the Christian god.

What would it refer to , then?