Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

So, de facto agnostic, until we get into the specifics? I can agree with that.But equally, I could agree with simply not holding to a position at all; IOW, not giving any relevance to the question until we get into the specifics (which you semi-agreed with, saying: "Alright then"). Agreed.However, this is exactly what happens when this ambiguous force is called a "god" or supernatural, or any other concept for which no evidence exists, because, this would be "getting into the specifics of it".In which case, I am agnostic to an unknown ambiguous force existing in and of itself, but I'm an atheist when that force is called a "god".But a (6 Atheist) on the Dawkins scale, which is: "6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there'."If we can agree with this, then Jager shots are in order! - Oni

CS until there is a concept to consider I have literally no opinion on the matter. I am not atheistic or agnostic.If you think that by with-holding whatever concept of god it is that you believe in you can insist that people are agnostic towards it then that is your deep and profound intellectual error. If you think refusing to define your god makes agnosticism the rational position with regard to that internal concept of yours then you are mad.I seriously doubt that I am agnostic towards the concept of god that you (and RAZD) know but are refusing to define. Any declaration of "I don't know" that you get from anyone regarding this undefined concept is as meaningless as your proclamation of cheese agnosticism was. Meaningless, misleading conceptually erroneaous and fucked up in terms of what people actually believe as was you being agnostic to cheese.Do you not understand that? No. Agnosticism is a considered opinion. "What the fuck are you talking about" is simply a statement of ignorance.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ever heard of being Ignostic?:

quote:

---

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

​

2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

---

Ignosticism - WikipediaSounds right up your alley. If we cared to, this would be where I asked you for the facts that you have that lead you to believe that god very improbable.But I'd rather do Jager shots

So you keep saying. But I maintain that if you lack the knowledge of whether or not something exists, then you are agnostic. I guess we just define the word differently. I take it to mean "without knowledge".I guess you're better described as Ignostic though. From the wiki page on agnostic (I already linked to the page on Ignosticism):

quote:

---

Ignosticism
the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.

---

Look, its very simple. The way I'm using the word, if you lack the knowledge then you're agnostic. It doesn't matter how or why you lack the knowledge. Call it what you will, but you still don't know if it exists or not. It seems to me that you'll do whatever it takes to not have to say that you aren't atheistic.

Nope..... I agree.This is what I've been sayin' the whole time: {The} definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed.Following with: Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.Thanks for that link. I now view myself as an Ignostic in regards to the ambiguous force that many refer to as "god". To quote your favorite dude, "the model works, why add anything else to it?" For god(s) to be probable (IMO) there would have to be something lacking in my model of reality, something that I couldn't see being explained any other way.Currently, I see no area of research where this is the case. And its by this standard that I judge the probability of things being real or not; there needs to be a place for it to be relevant in, it needs to have a function. If not, then why even postulate it? Many postulate it as the first cause (or something like that), I don't. A first cause is not needed in the reality I experience, and I see no evidence that suggests otherwise.But fuck all this, lets drink! - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Catholic Scientist, Well, we see that Rrhain is uncomfortable with the use of the term cognitive dissonance to describe the apparent inability of people to deal with certain arguments, especially when they are uncomfortable with apparent indecision or failure to take a stand on a position other than "I don't know, the available evidence is inconclusive" ... and we see that Straggler is uncomfortable with the concept of not having sufficient objective empirical evidence to make a logical conclusion.We take Straggler's example of concept X -- without describing what he means by X you have no evidence on which to base a decision, and thus the natural default position is "I don't know, the available evidence is inconclusive" ... you could then add a piece of information: X is yellow, and we would still have insufficient evidence on which to base a decision. He could be talking about cheese or he could be talking about the yellow brick road in the Wizard of Oz.The only point at which a decision is logically possible is when there is sufficient objective and empirical evidence presented for us to conclude, however poorly, whether X is something that exists or not. Until then, the agnostic position is the natural default.Enjoy.

---

Oni
Is cheese an ambiguous concept?I get what you are saying about "ambiguous forces" but you are jumping the gun here. The concept of god in question may well be so vague and ambiguous that your point is entirely relevant. But at this point we haven't even got that far.At this point CS is still claiming that any concept (vague and ambiguous like "god" or exceptionally well defined like "cheese") necessarily demands your agnosticism as long as he doesn't tell you what it is.I have a concept in mind. This concept is very well defined. It is not ambiguous in the slightest. But I am not going to tell you what it is. Are you agnostic regarding the existence of the concept I am thinking of?According to CS your answer must be yes. But surely you can see that this is a road to insanity. Insanity such as cheese agnosticism.CS is conflating the ambiguity of the concept he has in mind with the ambiguity achieved by not telling anyone what his concept is. They are not the same thing. Don't be dragged into his lunacy.

CS/RAZD: Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well it depends what you mean by god.
CS/RAZD: No. That doesn't matter. Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well um... I don't know.
CS/RAZD: Aha! Good answer. Very rational. Well done. You are agnostic.
Unsuspecting Person: Am I?
CS/RAZD: Yes.
Unsuspecting Person: Agnostic towards what?
CS/RAZD: We cannot tell you.
Unsuspecting Person: Why?
CS/RAZD: Because if we tell you then you probably won't be agnostic towards it.
Unsuspecting Person: But how do you know if I am agnostic. Don't you want to know my actual opinion on your concept of god?
CS/RAZD: Noooooooo. That would kind of ruin our argument.
Unsuspecting Person: Oh. That seems kind of misleading.
CS/RAZD: Not at all. You have said "I don't know". Thus you are agnostic. That is the answer we wanted. Now move along. Next.I am thinking of a concept RAZ. I know what it is. It is not ambiguous in the slightest. But I am not going to tell you what it is. Do you believe this concept exists?Answer the question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But you aren't are you. You are not and never were agnostic towards cheese. I simply tricked you into saying you were. How is what you are doing by refusing to give even a hint as to what you mean by god even remotely different? It isn't.If no-one knows what the concept is then I don't see how the concept even exists. There is no concept. In which case any position at all (belief, non-belief or agnosticism) is utterly impossible.If those asking the question know what concept they have in mind but refuse to share this (no matter how ambiguous) with those being asked then the answers they receive are pointless and misleading. They are not, and cannot be, a true reflection of a persons belief or otherwise in the concept. This is just a deceptive exercise in word play. We are back in the ridiculous scenario of being agnostic about the existence of cheese. You are conflating the ambiguity of the concept you have in mind with the ambiguity achieved by not telling anyone what his concept is. They are not the same thing.CS/RAZD: Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well it depends what you mean by god.
CS/RAZD: No. That doesn't matter. Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well um... I don't know.
CS/RAZD: Aha! Good answer. Very rational. Well done. You are agnostic.
Unsuspecting Person: Am I?
CS/RAZD: Yes.
Unsuspecting Person: Agnostic towards what?What are they agnostic towards CS? If they are not agnostic towards anything at all then you have removed any meaning from the word "agnostic". It seems to me that you are tricking people into being "agnostic" about undefined notions of god in the same way that I tricked you into claiming that you were agnostic about cheese. By conflating the ambiguity of your concept with the ambiguity achieved by not telling anyone what the concept is.But they are not the same and what you and RAZD are doing here is intellectually unjustifiable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Curiously, most people have no problem understanding what the concept god means Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't?

quote:

---

In several recent Gallup Polls, adult Americans have been asked about God using this more complex format involving five alternative beliefs:

​

Which comes closest to describing you -- [ROTATED: you are convinced that God exists, you think God probably exists, but you have a little doubt, you think God probably exists, but you have a lot of doubt, you think God probably does not exist, but you are not sure, (or) you are convinced that God does not exist]?

• Convinced God exists
• Probably exists, have a little doubt
• Probably exists, have a lot of doubt
• Probably does not exist, but not sure
• Convinced God does not exist
• No opinion

​

The latest responses to this question, obtained in a May Gallup Poll, lead to several conclusions:

​

* Seventy-three percent of Americans are classic true believers, convinced that God exists beyond a doubt.
* Eighty-seven percent of Americans are basic believers in the existence of God, saying either that they are convinced that God exists or that God probably exists and they have only a little doubt that this is the case.
* A slightly larger group of 92% of Americans can be classified in a group that tilts toward the existence of God, stating that at the least they think God probably exists, even though some have a lot of doubt about it.
* Only 3% of Americans can be considered to be hard-core atheists, convinced that God does not exist.
* Another 4% are agnostics of a sort, leaning toward a belief that God does not exist, but not sure that this is the case beyond a doubt.

​

Of interest is the distribution of these beliefs across subgroups in the U.S. population. Just who is it that is most likely to believe in God, and who is least likely to believe in God?

---

So what we see is that you are avoiding the issue of providing evidence that you say exists by playing word games.Enjoy

---

Yea, but he also agreed that you could hold no position at all, that's why I see a concession because now its just semanitics.Look at Message 423

quote:

---

Oni writes:

​

You seem to want to label that god, don't know why, but I can say for sure that I'm not an atheist toward that concept. I hold no position at all.

​

CS writes:

​

Then you're not a psuedoskeptic...

​

and that sure sounds like agnosticism to me (at least in the way I use the word).

​

Message 314:

​

Oni writes:

​

That's what I've been say'n.
If that sounds like agnosticism then whatever. To me, it sounds like nothing at all.

​

CS writes:

​

Alrighty then.

---

So he agrees that it could be judged as an agnostic position by some, but equally as no position at all by others.I think at this point we've gone as far as we could with that debate. But I'm with you in continuing to fight the good fight. - Oni

Your Gallup Poll did not show this at all.Your poll shows that people have no problem believing in things that have no defined concept. They have no problem believing in ambiguous terms and meaningless words. You have yet to define what YOU mean by god. How can we provide evidence against something that is unknown to YOU and I...? And I don't mean unknown as in "we don't know if its there" ... I mean unknown as in "you have no idea what you are asking for evidence against."Basically, you are asking for evidence to disprove and ambiguous term and a meaningless word.The only word plays are coming from you.All we have are concepts of god; if we disprove those, you just make up more concepts. Concepts like "he exists outside the universe," a place that you have no idea of its existence! You just made that place up and claimed a god could be there! So there is no end to the concepts you can make up, and there is no reason for us to attempt to disprove nonsense like that.You also say, even if we show you evidence that disproves every single god concept, it still doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist; god could exist independently of the concept.Well, isn't that just another concept too? A concept of god that places him independent of the concepts?You see, you guys just keep pulling things out of your ass and keep asking us to disprove it, which is dishonest to say the least.All god is right now, to ALL of us, is an ambiguous term and a meaningless word - which, many have faith in its existence due to a religious reason.Others, like you or other diest, have to remain agnostic. You have no choice. And why? Because you've created such a vague and ambiguous term/concept of "god" that your own logic and reasoning plays mind games on you. It places these god(s) convinently in areas where its unknowable if it exists or not, thus it creates an air of possibility. But in reality, it doesn't.All it shows is the extent to which humans will go to make stuff up just to satisfy their own complex curiosity.- Oni

Where have I acted in any way like that at all?Is that honestly what you think that I think? You think I'm trying to trick you?You are the one who has made the claim; that you cannot be agnostic to an undefined concept.I replied that if you don't know what the concept is, then you, quite literally and unavoidably, do not know if the concept exists or not. In fact, I was being inquisitive in my reply because I didn't understand how it could be any different (Message 383)You were the one who brought in the word games and have admited that you "tricked" me. And now you're saying the exact opposite has happened. Plus, you've gone back to re-stating things that I've already refuted (like that I'm agnostic to cheese or am conflating the concept with its existence).Sorry Straggler, but I don't think I have the patience to communicate with this madness.Unless you're just trolling me then: Bravo. You totally got me.

That's how I feel.How Straggler takes this honest approach as being a way to trick people into agnosticism, I have no idea.The paranoia he's dsplaying with this junk:

quote:

---

CS/RAZD: Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well it depends what you mean by god.
CS/RAZD: No. That doesn't matter. Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well um... I don't know.
CS/RAZD: Aha! Good answer. Very rational. Well done. You are agnostic.
Unsuspecting Person: Am I?
CS/RAZD: Yes.
Unsuspecting Person: Agnostic towards what?
CS/RAZD: We cannot tell you.
Unsuspecting Person: Why?
CS/RAZD: Because if we tell you then you probably won't be agnostic towards it.
Unsuspecting Person: But how do you know if I am agnostic. Don't you want to know my actual opinion on your concept of god?
CS/RAZD: Noooooooo. That would kind of ruin our argument.
Unsuspecting Person: Oh. That seems kind of misleading.
CS/RAZD: Not at all. You have said "I don't know". Thus you are agnostic. That is the answer we wanted. Now move along. Next.

---

is baffling. I don't see why he thinks that we're out to get him. Or that we're trying to trick him into saying that he's agnostic.He's starting to scare me...

---

Hey neat, its says there that you have 11111 number of posts

From the perspective of a (mostly) lurker, you guys - CS and Straggler - are just talking past one another. I doubt I'll be able to do any better, but I'll try.Here's a twist on the cheese scenario. I ask you if X exists. You say, "I don't know". Then I ask you if cheese exists. You say, "Yes". I haven't said yet if X = cheese, but it might. It isn't possible for you to know and not know the same thing at the same time, so either X can't be cheese, or the "I don't know" and the "Yes" are referring to two different things. In fact, "Yes" refers to the existance of something, and "I don't know" refers to your take on the existance of something.If I say "Do you think X exists?" there are two things you might answer "I don't know" to:
1) if X exists.
2) if you think X exists.It makes sense to answer "I don't know" to #2, but it absolutely doesn't make sense to answer "I don't know" to #1, because you don't have enough information to make that determination yet.