His take on things seems a bit too influenced by his own advocacy that he hopes something exits. There's nothing wrong with hoping something exists, but it seems to completely drift off from the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
His take on things seems a bit too influenced by his own advocacy that he hopes something exits. There's nothing wrong with hoping something exists, but it seems to completely drift off from the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Theists believe in the existence of a supernatural power (God). Agnostics are less vocal than atheists and don't really care whether there is a God or not. Atheists believe there is no God and enjoy posting videos of silly Evangelicals which kinda makes them anti-Theists.
Don't you find it problematic to ascribe the term belief to something that is antithetical to belief ?
Agnostics may care greatly but feel the existence or not of a deity is unknowable.
One cannot prove the nonexistence of a god. Therefore a confidence that there isn't one is based upon belief.
Not sure how else to describe it. If the fact remains that the atheist cannot know for certain if there is a God or not, he has to actively believe, or be convinced of, that God does not exist. Otherwise you're left with the Dawkin's bus-slogan "there is probably no God..." which is almost leaning to an agnostic position, imo.
Belief tends to infer a degree of faith, which is completely antithetical to atheism (which if anything, is the absence of belief). In your mind, why does it have to be belief ? Why can't it simply be more aptly characterized as an unprovable proposition ?
Belief does not necessarily have to infer faith . When I say 'I believe' I'm simply positioning myself in regards to what I perceive to be true and/or false. I believe some things to be true and other things not to be true. If your kid tells you he loves you, you believe he's not lying but making a true statement. So in that sense an atheist believes that there is no God. A theist, on the other hand, can believe that there is a God but does not have to have faith in him. A theist does not necessarily have to trust or have a personal relationship with God but can still believe that God is the creator of everything, etc.
The reason the meaning of belief has to be contested in this type of discussion is because theists often characterize it as a construct that infers a degree of faith in something, which of course suggests something similar to belief. I've even heard a few cynical theists suggest Atheists approach their ideas like a religion because they "believe" there is no god. In my case, I consider myself an Atheist because I consider religious concepts like God to be man made concepts that don't warrant much thought. I don't believe God doesn't exist because I don't consider it a legitimate concept that rates much thought in the first place. In short, the absence of belief or faith has to be a legitmate concept in this sort of discussion in order for it have meaningful contrast between what theists believe.
No, it isn't. It's based on a complete lack of evidence for there being a god.
Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief. You are either theist or atheist, there is no in between. Either you accept the claim 'there is a God', or you reject it. David Mitchell has this idea that 'agnosticism' is like the middle of a Venn diagram and that you can have a foot in both camps, which he why he thinks it's the most rational position. We haven't dealt with the claim 'there is no God', only that there is.
This video has the 'agnosticism' is the default position in more detail.
I'd definitely class myself as an anti-theist, as I consider the existence of a God, by whatever definition, is entirely separate from the plausibility of religious dogma, or whether a guy mentioned in an Iron Age text is a particular deity's offspring.
If we're going to get semantic about it, surely the refusal to accept the possibility of deities would be adeism or anti-deism?
If we're going to get semantic about it, surely the refusal to accept the possibility of deities would be adeism or anti-deism?
I thought anti-theist meant considering the belief in god/religion as positively harmful. That was Hitchens' definition of the word anyway.
Personally I don't think any of these words (atheist, antitheist, agnostic) are particularly necessary or useful, as I consider "god" to be in the same category as other mythical figures and creatures, and we don't have words to describe ourselves in opposition to them. If anything I think it's counter-productive to identify as any of the above, as they make it a lot easier for religious apologists to attack us as a group with certain characteristics (inadequate as these arguments are (atheists are Stalinists etc.), I think they do succeed in convincing a lot of people).
Personally I don't think any of these words (atheist, antitheist, agnostic) are particularly necessary or useful, as I consider "god" to be in the same category as other mythical figures and creatures, and we don't have words to describe ourselves in opposition to them. If anything I think it's counter-productive to identify as any of the above, as they make it a lot easier for religious apologists to attack us as a group with certain characteristics (inadequate as these arguments are (atheists are Stalinists etc.), I think they do succeed in convincing a lot of people).
I suppose you could be a non deist, without touching on further theistic claims like miracles and that their text is word of their deity. If you ask someone how they know their God exists and then they start using scripture as evidence, at that point you cross into non theism I think.
Hitchens said that some atheists can't bring themselves to believe in God but say that they wish they could (almost exactly what David Mitchell says in that video). He, on the hand, was an anti-theist, because he was glad that the existence of an all powerful being was unlikely and that it would be awful if it were true.
You're right, he did say that as well.
I'd agree with you on the characterises of atheism idea too. Because of how some non - believers argue their case, the word seems to have gone beyond meaning the simple rejection of the theistic proposition, and now we get the 'militant atheism' argument from people.
So do you believe there is no god, or do you think there is no god?
I think there is no god based on the (lack of) evidence. There is a vanishing small probability IMO that such evidence will one day be forthcoming so to all intents and purposes we can forget about it.
We have the same position regarding god as we do regarding Santa Claus. I don't know why that analogy always seems to strike religious people as spurious. If you can provide evidence for Santa Claus, I'll happily start believing in him, and likewise for god. Until that happens, I'm going to live my life on the assumption that Santa Claus and god do not exist, and maintain that the belief in Santa Claus or god is an irrational one.
Presents and stuff, duh!
I could do with a bit more than "Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge". Most of what you say is telling me what agnosticism isn't, rather than telling me what it is. I don't wish to sound antagonistic. I'm just curious as to what definition you're using, as there is of course more than one.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I don't think that to feel sure of something, due merely to a lack of evidence to the contrary, is rational. The words "faith" or "belief" seem apt to describe an irrational surety, be it one of theism or atheism.
Yawn.
Don't do that. You'll have me going.
You're misunderstanding the scientific method. It is perfectly rational to assess evidence for existence of anything from god to quarks and if there is none it is entirely rational to assign a high probability to their non-existence. 'Faith' and 'belief' are terms imported from a religious not scientific sensibility - they have no place in a rational discourse.
We've been over this.
It's a lovely sounding phrase but it's nevertheless quite wrong. Whilst absence of evidence isn't proof of absence, it certainly is evidence of it.
Evidence and proof are entirely different things.
Cider and Silva,
I repeat.. Lack of evidence for existence =/= (in science) an evidence for lack of existence..
The way you keep challenging this basic scientific rule is hilarious.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. My definition of agnosticism is 'the belief that the existence of a deity is unknown".
I reject the theist claim (or deist as Mockney said) 'there is a God' due to a lack of evidence, making me an atheist.
I also think that it isn't currently possible to prove or disprove the existence of God, making me an agnostic also.
I would also reject the claim 'there is no God' because of not being able to disprove a negative. I live my life as if there is no God, even though I don't think it's possible to be sure he/she/it doesn't exist.
A high probability is quite different to a certainty.
It is and that's why I used it. I will accept it is, taken literally, bollocks. What I really meant is, as you say, absence of evidence isn't proof of absence.
I like that. Thanks.
Well you should re-read my original post then...
I think there is no god based on the (lack of) evidence. There is a vanishing small probability IMO that such evidence will one day be forthcoming so to all intents and purposes we can forget about it.
Your original post was quoting me, was it not? The post you mention there was a later response to another poster. I can't say I read it, nor would I have challenged it, had I.
Anyway when it comes to an omnipotent, Judeo-Christian god there is an argument that the definition of such a god collapses under its own internal inconsistency and is essentially meaningless. As Epicurus said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
He believes in free will. Apart from when he chooses to intervene, which he's seemingly a bit random about but given he's God he obviously knows what he's up to.
Stopping an earthquake killing hundreds or a disease killing thousands has nothing to do with freewill.
We're not back to this again are we?
There may not be evidence to disprove the existence of an undefinable deity...But there sure as hell is a lot of evidence to disprove almost every conception of one man has proposed so far. Especially the ones that tell us to do things and are unfathomably hung up on food, hair and hats.
There may not be evidence to disprove the existence of an undefinable deity...But there sure as hell is a lot of evidence to disprove almost every conception of one man has proposed so far. Especially the ones that tell us to do things and are unfathomably hung up on food, hair and hats.
Of course subjecting metaphysical claims to the scientific method is entirely rational :rollseyes:
Yep, otherwise they're just bollox.
It's interfering though. For a good while now, he seems to have taken the line it's best just to leave things be and see how we get on.
I'm not sure how finding God's supposed views unfathomable is evidence that he doesn't exist.
Begs the question why it didn't think that in the first place, given its complete infallibility and whatnot.
Because in the first place it was better to interfere, clearly.
So interfere at first, resulting in loads of people dying, then change tack...resulting in loads of people dying. Can't catch a break, ol' goddy.