Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Be as ambiguous as you like.But when you ask "Do you believe god exists?" unless you have literally no idea what it is you yourself mean by "god" (and have stated belief in) then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is as stupid and misleading as was your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese.If I don't know what concept it is you are asking me about I am not agnostic. I just don't know what the fuck we are talking about.They are (blatantly) not the same position.

No. If I don't know what we are talking about then as far as I am concerned there is no concept upon which to state any opinion.Which part of this is so difficult for you to understand?

Unless you define the concept in your head in some way no position is possible. Not even "I don't know"I cannot possibly even say "I don't know" regarding a non-existent concept. Then until you share it no comment on my (or anyone elses) part has any meaning,. You could be talking about ethereal moon monkeys for all I know. In which case claiming agnosticism on my part is just insane. And thus I refuse to do it. Honest and true? You think claiming that you are agnostic about the existence of cheese is an "honest and true" reflection of your beliefs?Are you mad? It is deceptive and dishonest to take any proclamation of "I don't know" as being equivalent to agnosticism towards the concept of god you have in your head but will not reveal.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

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.

When you get the answer "I don't know" because you have flatly refused to define what you mean by "god" is that the same as a genuine statement of agnosticism towards your concept of god?No?Then what is it a statement of agnosticism towards? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Maybe. But I think there is a principle here too. CS seems to think if he can get people to say "I don't know" because he refuses to define his concept of god that this is identical to them being genuinely agnostic about his concept of god. Semantics or otherwise this thinking is just wrong.I actually think you were really onto something with regard to the whole ignostic thing.ignostic (plural ignostics)1. one who holds to ignosticism.
2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.ignostic - WiktionarySee my next post to RAZD for more detail on that.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then why over the years in so many threads on similar topics have you been so reluctant to tell us what you mean by "god"? In fact you never have and still haven't.I can say with all honesty that I am not agnostic to any concept of god that has ever been defined to me as an aspect of external reality. This includes the supernatural gods that CS and RAZD have hinted at previously as being responsible for widespread subjective visions, morality, the origin of the universe or just existing "outside the known universe" whilst "off doing other things" (To quote RAZD from elsewhere). With regard to such supernatural concepts there is a wealth of empirical evidence to justify significant scepticism.With regard to this non-concept "god" that we are currently being confronted with - Well I am not agnostic towards that either. I consider the question "Do you believe god exists?" to be utterly meaningless if there is no concept to even consider. With regard to such a "god" I am very much ignostic. And by ignostic I mean the following:ignostic (plural ignostics)1. one who holds to ignosticism.
2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.ignostic - WiktionaryBasically I don't see how anyone can claim to believe in something if they have no idea what it is they believe in. If however they do know what it is they believe in and they want an honest appraisal from others as to whether they also believe in the concept or not then they need to define it. Simply refusing to define a concept and then taking the bewildered proclamations of "I don't know" from others as a sign of genuine agnosticism to this secret concept is both misleading and deceitful. In some cases admittedly self decieving rather than willful deceit of others. I am playing word games? Wow. Tell us what you mean by "god" and we'll get into the details. Until then the entirety of human history will just have to suffice as evidence against the most generic definition of a supernatural god I can muster. Message 416The entirety of human history. Is that enough evidence for you to contemplate for now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually I think you are tricking yourself into believing that when people say "I don't know" regarding an undefined concept of god that this is a statement of genuine agnosticism towards an actual concept of god.It isn't.Try answering the question in Message 451 if that isn't clear. Well you should see me after a few Jagermeisters then.

I am a 6.9999R with regard to Santa Claus. Not gods. As you know because I have told you at least a dozen times now. Your ongoing need to misrepresent others does nothing but highlight the paucity of your own arguments. No. I am a 6 with regard to any gods so far even remotely defined. As stated numerous times elsewhere. Which brings us full circle and to the crux of the issue. Back to the question that effectively started this whole rash of related threads all those months ago as far as I am concerned. Question: With regard to the concept of god in which you believe what would you say is the rational response for others to take?A) Ignostic - There is no concept. Reasoned opinion is impossible. RAZD does not know what he believes in and his deism is thus incoherent and non-cognitive.B) Atheistic - RAZD does have a supernatural concept in mind (even if he won't tell us what it is for some unspecified reason). But the objective evidence available suggests that any concept of the supernatural is more likely to be a product of human invention than an aspect of external reality.C) Agnostic - There is no evidence. There is a complete vacuum of all objective evidence pertaining to the existence of your god (including any historical, cultural or psychological objective evidence that might be relevant to assessing the likelihood of human invention) and the only rational response is therefore pure agnosticicm.D) Theistic - Belief in your particular god is objectively evidenced and rational and I too should believe in it.E) Something else.What position should I (and others) in your view rationally take towards your god and why?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well the existence of a magical and undetectable Santa Claus is possible. It by definition cannot be disproven. By your above definition it is 50-50 as to whether Santa actually exists or not. But I would say that all of the objective evidence suggests human invention. So I would say the existence of Santa is really and deeply improbable.If you were to finally accept that objective evidence actually exists with regard to gods there are many comparable doors to discussion that would open.We could talk about the origins and the evolution of god as a concept. We could talk about the commonalities of religion. Commonalities such as the universal belief in an afterlife and the need to explain the unknown. We could consider the commonality of making ones deities as unable to be disproved as possible. We could consider the psychological reasons underpinning such commonalities.We could talk about the fact that the earliest known gods, and indeed the gods of those hunter gatherer societies that still exist today, are used to explain aspects of otherwise inexplicable nature. We could talk about the fact that such gods broadly form a pantheon that reflects the society from which they are derived. A dispirate collection of related concepts responsible for natural phenomenon woven together through mythology in the case of the most primitive societies. A highly organised hierachy of gods with very specific roles and duties in more structured cultures. Hierachies headed by a chief god of some sort. But still a pantheon whose primary purpose is to explain those aspects of nature of which man has no understanding or control.We could talk about cultural and theological integration of various pantheons throughout history and of the rationalisation of gods achieved by absorbing a number of roles into aspects of a single deity. A sort of grand unified theory of the supernatural. In doing so we could discuss the possible reasons for the rise of monotheism where "one true god" exists but is still surrounded by a plethora of supernatural allies and enemies in the form of angels, demons and spirits. Concepts that themselves would in many cultures warrant the term "god" but which cannot be classed as such because of the monotheists need to equivocate.We could talk about the fact that deistic notions of god arose largely out of the enlightenment and as a direct result of scientific progress and the rational removal of god from many aspects of nature. We could talk about the deistic god of the enlightenment as chiefly concerned with the question of morality. We could talk about the continuation of scientific progress (e.g. man as a product of biological evolution) and the further retreat of deistic notions of god from any physical or even moral role in the universe. We could conclude that the deistic god of the vague sort you seem to be proposing is merely the logical endpoint of this historically evidenced process of origin and retreat.We could talk at great length about how the entirety of human history strongly suggests that gods were originally invented as explanations for aspects of nature and that as nature has become less mysterious those explanations have made a steady and evidenced retreat into what we now know as deism. Essentially fertility gods, harvest gods, Apollo, Thor and all those other long abandoned desitic concepts taken to their logical and scientifically compatible conclusion. The ultimate god of the ultimate gap. We could discuss all of that.But whatever evidenced or speculative discussions might ensue the bottom line here is that history tells us that the supernatural explanatory model has failed. And nothing you say is going to change that.

I have no idea how you define "subjective evidence" such that it incorporates textbooks, professional journals etc. etc. but RAZD has previously defined what he means by "subjective evidence" as a singular and isolated experience experienced by an aware and conscious individual that, as best they can determine, is through their senses. This all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Specifically it seems designed to conflate genuine empirical experience with hallucinations and so-forth. But fortunately this definition has been further clarified by Catholic Scientist as pertaining to visions and voice of god type experiences. This seems very very different to what you mean by the term "subjective evidence".My concerns with the nature and reliability of such experiences are summed up here Immaterial "Evidence". But all of this talk of subjective evidence (of the RAZD variety) is completely moot anyway because.......Message 402Thus surely subjective evidence is necessarily off-topic in a thread that is indisputably about deities. No? Yep. Subjective evidence has "NOTHING" to do with this thread. RAZD said so.

By your definition of "subjective evidence" every conclusion is subjective. Whilst this has some philosophical merit it is rather a moot point in any practical sense. The likelihood of gods being human inventions as opposed to actual entities does not operate in a vacuum of all objective evidence. It operates in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. All of which strongly suggest that gods are human inventions. See Message 499 for more detail on that. Given that science (or indeed any evidence based conclusion) is always tentative to some degree probabilities are innately and inheretly scientific. Absolute certainty of any sort is not. If RAZD is asserting otherwise then he has abandoned one of the founding principles of making rational evidence based conclusions. Amen to that.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.