Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 95 (630796)
08-27-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Blue Jay
08-27-2011 10:21 PM


If there were werewolves in Las Vegas, don't you think a few things would have been noticed by now? For instance, heightened death tolls and animal-like maulings during full moons, a few eyewitness accounts, people who regularly and inexplicably black out every full moon, etc.
The definition of a werewolf is simply someone who can turn into a wolf. Do they have to conform to your stereotypes of them?
Maybe they stay home with a dish of dogfood rather than going around drawing attention to themselves by mauling people. And why should they black out? Maybe they are fully conscious of being werewolves and are understandably discreet about it.
Not so for gods: god concepts vary so much that there is no consistent set of evidence like this that would cover the whole spectrum of god concepts.
Well, obviously when I talk about gods I'm talking about my god concept. Suppose someone decides to worship my left leg as a god. I believe in the existence of my left leg, but that wouldn't make me a theist, because I wouldn't classify my leg as a deity.
It is certainly possibly for there to be a lack of credible evidence for anything that I would consider to be a god if it existed. Indeed, this is the case. But even if it was not, my argument was directed at someone who was agnostic merely because one can't prove a negative; that there is no evidence for gods is taken as a premise for the sake of argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2011 10:21 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 95 (630797)
08-27-2011 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by IamJoseph
08-27-2011 10:59 PM


Suit yorself. Your not shit scared, right?
No, that is not in fact the reason why you refuse to tell me what your argument is.
As I cannot read your mind, I shall abstain from speculating as to why you won't; I shall merely note that this is actually your choice rather than mine.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 10:59 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 95 (630812)
08-28-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2011 6:55 PM


Re: Ben Franklin test
Hi again Dr Adequate,
Well, there's an absence of evidence of werewolves.
Which doesn't mean they don't exist, as you eloquently state:
Message 91: The definition of a werewolf is simply someone who can turn into a wolf. Do they have to conform to your stereotypes of them?
Maybe they stay home with a dish of dogfood rather than going around drawing attention to themselves by mauling people. And why should they black out? Maybe they are fully conscious of being werewolves and are understandably discreet about it.
In which case why should anyone be concerned about their existence? Why would anyone need to carry silver for protection from such a non-threat?
Until there is evidence that one needs protection, one can be agnostic about, and one can have an opinion that they exist or one can have an opinion that they don't exist.
I don't normally feel I need to protect myself from mass murderers or terrorist types, even though there is evidence that these types of people do exist: my opinion is that I will not be harmed by them.
Because it doesn't go so far as saying that they probably don't.
And again, how do you calculate that probability in any way for it to make sense: if it is just your gut feeling about the relative likelihood, then it is just your opinion (in which case you are really a 5 not a 6 on this issue and are telling yourself falsehoods about what you know or don't know).
And again, people act based on their opinions all the time: opinion is sufficient to affect behavior.
How would he know that if he had no way to detect electricity?
Well, if he had no evidence at all for the very existence of electricity, then he should certainly have doubted that it was present in lightning just as he should have doubted the presence of groosnarp and fleem.
The point being that the absence of evidence would be due to the absence of a means to detect electricity, not to the absence of electricity.
If you don't have a means to detect presence then you cannot test for when it is absent.
Do you have a means to test for the presence of lycanthropy in in your scenario of careful people "who can turn into a wolf"?
Message 91: Suppose someone decides to worship my left leg as a god. I believe in the existence of my left leg, but that wouldn't make me a theist, because I wouldn't classify my leg as a deity.
Nor does it make your leg supernatural. A point that the Straggles and bluegenes seem to miss consistently when they make up caricatures of supernatural beings and claim that they should be considered to be supernatural.
You would need to show that there is some supernatural essence involved before one could say something is supernatural.
Do you have a means to test for the presence of supernatural essences?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2011 10:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 94 of 95 (630831)
08-28-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
08-28-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Ben Franklin test
RAZD writes:
If you don't have a means to detect presence then you cannot test for when it is absent.
If the thing in question is empirically detectable then there is no reason in principle why it's presence cannot be tested for is there?
If the thing is question is not empirically detectable then any conception of it must be derived from the internal workings of the human mind. How could it possibly be otherwise?
RAZD writes:
Do you have a means to test for the presence of supernatural essences?
If they are empirically detectable - Yes.
Otherwise - No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2011 9:09 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 95 (630835)
08-28-2011 12:22 PM


cooling down
as we are wandering off topic, im cooling this one down for 24 hours...
When we come back, keep in mind the original focus:
quote:
My question is, isn't agnosticism a more intellectually honest position than atheism? I ask this because it seems that atheists make a bold declaration that they can prove a negative (that no higher intelligent power has had a hand in either the universe or the unfolding of life on this planet). Agnosticism at least takes no position either way, seeming to depend on evidence to sway its position one way or the other.
Edited by AdminPhat, : resuming operations.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024