|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Are you an axemurdererinmyhouse-ist or an a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist?
Are you a leprechaunundermyfloorboards-ist or an a-leprechaunundermyfloorboards-ist? Are you a unicornundermybedist or an a-unicornundermybed-ist? Please provide the reasons for your stated belief or non-belief for each of the above.
Jon writes: If you dislike the style of the forum, you are free to leave without consequence. If you don't consider it fruitful to justify your belief or non-belief in the above and find the request to do so moderately irritating you are free to leave this discussion without consequence.
Jon writes: There's no fallacy Special pleading.
Jon writes: It's a word to describe a thing that people often discuss Sure. And social prevalence is the basis of the special pleading in question.
Jon writes: That's not a case of being required If someone in serious contention for the position of US president were to be 'outed' as an atheist do you think it would be 'requested' or 'required' (or indeed demanded) that they justify their position? Or would people just shrug and say "logically it's no different from being an a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist". Edited by Straggler, : Typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Whine and bitch all you want, Straggler.
You're still full of crap.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Reminds me of The Little Engine That Could: "I think I am, I think I am." I think im the last one... Descartes thought he was a gnostic about thinking but he was really agnostic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
So I guess straggler wins.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: Now swap in the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' into the appropriate places and voila, all should become clear to those still struggling here. Interesting analogy. But apples and oranges. Theist believe that god exist.Atheist do not. Agnostics are atheist that have not come out of the closet. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Feel free to guess whatever you want.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
1.6 writes: Agnostics are atheist that have not come out of the closet. That's pretty much the case I think. Huxley's parachute gave a lot of people an socially acceptable excuse to be a non-believer.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Nothing like socially accepted rationalization to keep our hint of lavender at bay.
Look at all them homosexual republicans refusing to promote gay marriage but want to have a bit of hows ya father in the public bathrooms. Being a self professed atheist would be equally disastrous politically. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I see your example as "the special pleading dancing that said (ex-fundie) person does when they can't be honest to themselves, that they've just slipped into being an atheist". And here you are forcing the conclusion you want to see, dancing around the fact that they just don't know. You don't see it because you don't want to see it. What you are doing is tiptoeing around the muddy ground until you can point and say "there, right there they became an atheist" ... which is fine as long as you also look at the beginning of the muddy ground and say "there, right there they became an agnostic" ... the solid ground before the muddy section is when the knew they were a theist, the solid ground after the muddy section is when they know they are an atheist. Ignoring that beginning of the muddy ground does not make it go away.
Message 252: My variation:
Moose variation writes: A person has been a devout, committed, fundamental YEC believer, but they have a crisis of faith as the find that they can no longer believe in a God creating the universe et all in a way that contradicts massive physical evidence. Ding - they've gone atheist.
Moose variation continues writes: They are in agony as they wonder whether they still believe in the remaining tenets, or whether they have lost all of their faith ... they do ... not ... know. Still atheist.
Moose adds to the scenario writes: They decide that YEC is not important, and become a theistic evolutionist. Ding - back to being theist. Let me correct that for you:
Moose corrected variation:
Moose variation corrected: A person has been a devout, committed, fundamental YEC believer, but they have a crisis of faith as the find that they can no longer believe in a fundamental YEC God creating the universe et all in a way that contradicts massive physical evidence. Still theist, but conflicted (cognitive dissonance arises). Moose variation corrected continues: They are in agony as they wonder whether they still believe in the remaining tenets, or whether they have lost all of their faith ... they do ... not ... know. Ding - they've gone agnostic and are looking for evidence or information that will resolve the dissonance. Moose adds to the scenario: They decide that YEC is not important, and become a theistic evolutionist. Ding - back to being theist. Yep -- because agnostic is the muddy middle "I don't know" ground, it can go towards either theist or atheist with equal aplomb. This person was looking for more evidence\information to reduce cognitive dissonance between believing and not believing, neither a(n evolutionary) theist nor an atheist would need to, their worldviews would not involve dissonance, so dissonance from the original YEC position resolved.
Agnostic ("there is no way of knowing god") ... This might be part of your problem. That is not what I understand agnostic means -- as I use it agnostic means that the evidence available is not sufficient to form a logical and rational decision based on evidence. A popular definition can be found at wiki:
quote: What you are describing is more Deism -- the belief that gods exist but you cannot determine this from the evidence. Deism would logically also be agnostic, almost by definition.
Agnostic ... is the only available scientific position. Agreed, because science bases decisions and conclusions on evidence, decisions and conclusions cannot be reached scientifically without evidence, so until that evidence is available the position cannot be belief nor non-belief, but agnosticism ... or as I like to call it, open-minded skepticism:
Note that all four premises are necessary for a fully rigorous and scientific evaluation.
quote: And neither do atheists. The more rigorous, more scientific approach is to be equally skeptical and equally open-minded about the question until there is sufficient evidence to form a decision or conclusion.
Although I don't think I'm buying his claim of being a gnostic atheist. Why not? It's based on beliefs, is it any different from theists being self-convinced that they know something without evidence (see definition of faith)?
A person of science can be a theist, but the science itself must be agnostic. And since considerations of (a supernatural) god is outside the realm of science, that would also make science not theistic (in the other word, atheistic). Which is NOT to say that science is also no-god-istic. Not theistic and "there is no god" is not the same thing. Amusing. You are correct that it must be agnostic, the rest is funny dancing around trying to turn agnostic into atheist. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ..subtby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
RAZD writes: Moose writes: I see your example as "the special pleading dancing that said (ex-fundie) person does when they can't be honest to themselves, that they've just slipped into being an atheist". And here you are forcing the conclusion you want to see, dancing around the fact that they just don't know. You don't see it because you don't want to see it. What you are doing is tiptoeing around the muddy ground until you can point and say "there, right there they became an atheist" ... which is fine as long as you also look at the beginning of the muddy ground and say "there, right there they became an agnostic" ... the solid ground before the muddy section is when the knew they were a theist, the solid ground after the muddy section is when they know they are an atheist. Ignoring that beginning of the muddy ground does not make it go away. At about the same time you were composing your message, I added a footnote to what I said above. It became:
Moose writes: I see your example as "the special pleading dancing that said (ex-fundie) person does when they can't be honest to themselves, that they've just slipped into being an atheist".* End of added by edit.
*Your "agnostic" is not so much a rational alternative position, as it is a slipping into (extra?) irrationality. Hopefully such doesn't last long, or the person will have gone from "theist" to "insane". What I say in the footnote seems to be confirmed by what you next posted (excerpt quoted below):
RAZD writes: Still theist, but conflicted (cognitive dissonance arises). Agnosticism, not a rational position but a situation of irrational cognitive dissonance. A irrational position. I agree.
RAZD writes: Moose writes: Agnostic ("there is no way of knowing god") ... This might be part of your problem. That is not what I understand agnostic means -- as I use it agnostic means that the evidence available is not sufficient to form a logical and rational decision based on evidence. A popular definition can be found at wiki:
quote: Perhaps I was inadequately clear, but my intent was the same as what you said and quoted above. As in the agreed upon "science is agnostic". As in the quaternary(sp?) gnostic theist/agnostic theist/gnostic atheist/agnostic atheist diagram. Which is actually just two binary diagrams put together. I have repeatedly said that this topic has had two different "agnostic" uses. (1) is (I think) as used in the above quaternary diagram. The science agnostic. But you've been operating mostly, including most recently, in the 2nd theist/atheist/agnostic consideration. That it is possible to not know if one is a theist or atheist. Unable to come to a personal determination of what faith and belief position one holds. Then suddenly you switch over to the Huxley and wickipedia "agnostic" definition. To requote you:
RAZD writes: as I use it agnostic means that the evidence available is not sufficient to form a logical and rational decision based on evidence. I agree with that definition of agnostic. But that isn't the same as your (ex)fundie being in a state of cognitive dissonance, unable to decide if he has religious faith in god or not. That cognitive dissonance agnosticism is an irrational position, not a rational position. That person needs to calm down and return to sanity, and decide "believer in god, or not believe in god". Or they could remain in a less-than-sane state of "agnosticism". Added by edit:
RAZD writes: Moose writes: A person of science can be a theist, but the science itself must be agnostic. And since considerations of (a supernatural) god is outside the realm of science, that would also make science not theistic (in the other word, atheistic). Which is NOT to say that science is also no-god-istic. Not theistic and "there is no god" is not the same thing. Amusing. You are correct that it must be agnostic, the rest is funny dancing around trying to turn agnostic into atheist. Can science be theistic? If it is "not theistic", what does that make it? End added by edit. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Clarify quote attributions (and one very minor verbal glitch fixed). Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit at message end. Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix a typo ("you" to "your"). Also change a "." to a "?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Amusing
Agnosticism, not a rational position but a situation of irrational cognitive dissonance. A irrational position. I agree. Now it's irrational to question your beliefs? Or is it rational to question your beliefs, to review them bit by bit to see what you still believe and what you no longer believe. Cognitive dissonance is what causes the door to open. At the moment of that opening the person was still a theist, then he asks, "If I no longer believe in the YEC fundamentalist god, what do I believe? Do I still believe in god at all? What do I believe?
Perhaps I was inadequately clear, but my intent was the same as what you said and quoted above. As in the agreed upon "science is agnostic". As in the quaternary(sp?) gnostic theist/agnostic theist/gnostic atheist/agnostic atheist diagram. Which is actually just two binary diagrams put together. And no, I don't buy the diagram as a definition, and it begs the question of it being binary, when there are degrees of knowledge and degrees of belief. You can have some knowledge of an issue but not sufficient to form a decision or a conclusion -- you don't know enough to know with confidence, so a decision or conclusion would be a guess, from WAG to educated but still a guess.
But you've been operating mostly, including most recently, in the 2nd theist/atheist/agnostic consideration. That it is possible to not know if one is a theist or atheist. Unable to come to a personal determination of what faith and belief position one holds. Then suddenly you switch over to the Huxley and wickipedia "agnostic" definition. No. The position is that on any issue you can have knowledge, or a lack of knowledge, or some knowledge but not enough to make a decision or form a conclusion. The amount of knowledge you have determines the confidence you can have in your decision or confidence. You can also have negative knowledge, information that is misleading or erroneous (such as the knowledge the YEC fundamentalist had regarding the age of the earth based on the information and evidence he had been given)
Can science be theistic? ... Why can't it be theistic? if the question/s asked are, "If god/s made the universe, how did they make it work?" you can do scientific investigation of how things work. You do know that a large number of scientists are theists, yes? What science does is look at issues without using belief pro or con, but with testing based on what you know and what you can know - what you don't know but can hypothetically find out. Science can test some beliefs, such as the age of the earth, geocentricism and "flood geology" because the involve how the universe was made.
... If it is "not theistic", what does that make it? Agnostic to theism\atheism regarding god/s and their effect on science. (or "apatheistic" -- don't know and don't care (until need to)). One of the reasons I prefer Open-Minded Skepticism as better description. Science makes the a priori assumption that objective empirical evidence provides a true indication of reality, that we can use objective empirical evidence to test concepts of reality, and refine our approximations of reality by eliminating concepts that are invalidated by objective empirical evidence. Science also makes -- and tests -- assumption that the rules of how things work remain constant, whether those rules are natural or set by god/s at the formation of the universe. This is part of the attack by some theists on science, but the tests show insignificant variation in the rules and this gives us high confidence that these rules have applied since the formation of the universe.
I agree with that definition of agnostic. But that isn't the same as your (ex)fundie being in a state of cognitive dissonance, unable to decide if he has religious faith in god or not. That cognitive dissonance agnosticism is an irrational position, not a rational position. That person needs to calm down and return to sanity, and decide "believer in god, or not believe in god". Or they could remain in a less-than-sane state of "agnosticism". I find it curious that you need to label this questioning behavior as irrational, when to my mind it is more rational than unquestioned belief pro or con. But that's the open-minded skeptic in me. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : moby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Is it possible to believe in God while not knowing that you believe in God?
I understand that we can say the words: I believe in God but I don't know if I believe in God or not. or: Yesterday I didn't know if I believed in God or not, but now I understand that I believed in God the whole time. Therefore, yesterday, I didn't know I believed in God or not while I believed in God. ...but I don't think they make any sense. Not knowing whether you believe something or not is not like not knowing if a light in a room is on or not. One is external to your mind (could be either condition and you don't know). The other is internal to your mind... therefore, you know it's condition all the time... because it's within your mind, there's no escaping it. It's not possible to "not know" a condition such as this of your own mind. Perhaps my mind is incapable of such a condition, but someone else's is? To me, it's impossible "to believe in God while not knowing if you believe in God or not."...which is what's required in order to be an agnostic while not being an atheist. But, maybe, I just don't understand how such a condition-of-the-mind is possible simply because my own mind does not work in that manner. (Perhaps it's just impossible-for-me).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Knowledge of the light in the room is external to your mind, i.e. objective; it can be confirmed by other observers. One is external to your mind (could be either condition and you don't know). The other is internal to your mind... Belief in gods is internal to you mind, i.e. subjective. How can you possibly know your own mind with perfect accuracy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Ringo writes: How can you possibly know your own mind with perfect accuracy? Do you love your wife? Do you support the Jets? Do you like cats? Do you want fries with that? Do you believe in god?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: How can you possibly know your own mind with perfect accuracy? This isn't just about knowing a single state of your mind with perfect accuracy.This is about saying you don't know the state of your mind, but you also do know the state of your mind... at the same time. This is about 2 contradictory states of mind. With a light-bulb in another room, it's external... you can not know what state the bulb is in while the bulb is indeed in a certain state at the same time. With your mind... this is impossible, it's internal. Perhaps you don't know what state your mind is in. Perhaps your mind is in a certain state. But, because it's internal, it's impossible for it to be both of those at the same time.
We're talking about being agnostic and not being an atheist at the same time. Agnostic = "I don't know if I believe in God or not."Atheist = "I do not believe in God." Substituting in definitions and we get:
We're talking about not knowing if you believe in God or not and not not-believing in God at the same time. Removing the double-negative, we get:
We're talking about not knowing if you believe in God or not and believing in God at the same time. Which doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024