Atheists vs. Agnostics: Ready... FIGHT!

[Sonart]

.

Yep. Hence their illogic. But of course, this thread isn't necessarily about theism vs. atheism, this is an epic Mortal Kombat-style battle between Atheists and Agnostics

Which, unfortunately, there can't actually be, since, having been presented the "absolute proof" debate before, no serious atheist will suggest that we can prove gods do not exist, any more than we can prove we are all not living in the Matrix.

Therefore we are all, by definition, agnostic. That leaves simply matters of degree. Some agnostics are more willing to accept the possibility of gods, while we who call ourselves atheists will concede that possibility only on the grounds of pure logic, not as a viable reality. God does not exist. That's what I believe.

Certainly string theory doesn't meet this standard.

String theory is about as far out on the cutting edge of theoretical physics as you're going to get, and far, far, far from being resolved or proven. Same with Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Higgs Bosons... things that have all be 'Hypothesized' as theoretical explanations.

So no, you're absolutely right... string theory doesn't meet that standard. Nor should we expect it to.

The Big Bang Theory is probably a better example. It was completely mocked and disregarded as religious mumbo-jumbo. Almost all the major theories that are in place now were rejected and ridiculed when first proposed, from evolution to relativity. Scientists had to study it in spite of the views of their peers. That is more akin to the history of science, not your rosy picture of a council of the wise determining whether some new idea is worthy or not.

Except that you're wrong... in the end, it is, in fact, peer review of research that allows - over time - new theories to become settled science. And yes, it's entirely possible that - with newer information - peer review will revise that settled science.

.

[Angry Citizen]

Therefore we are all, by definition, agnostic.

Only if you define atheism as an absolute statement that gods simply do not exist. The devil's in the details. The simple line 'based on the evidence' absolves atheism of absoluteness. Like I said, epistemological nothings are for the philosophers. We are not philosophers.

[Sonart]

.

Only if you define atheism as an absolute statement that gods simply do not exist. The devil's in the details. The simple line 'based on the evidence' absolves atheism of absoluteness. Like I said, epistemological nothings are for the philosophers. We are not philosophers.

Well then, having been absolved of the need for absolute proof, I believe not only that there is no evidence that gods exist, or that the evidence we have suggests that gods do not exist, I believe that the very concept of gods makes no logical sense to my mind.

Gods serve only as convenient, stop-gap solutions for things we don't know but think we need to.

.

[Ender]

Angry Citizen

It's a new theory, one that has yet to be proven. See what I mean

Except there are also large segments who believe string theory is almost certainly true based on the evidence we already have. One side of very respectable, sensible scientistis is absolutely wrong and yet is convinced that science supports them. You maintain that the scientific community must reach a consensus before something is accepted as fact, yet this is not the way the scientific community functions in the real world.

This is hilarious. How can you reconcile this statement with your pronouncement that science is agnostic? One moment, you're stating that science has no opinion on something until there is evidence. The next moment, you're saying that every new theory that is currently accepted was once mocked as the delusional ramblings of an idiot! One wonders just how many wholly inadequate theories have been thrown into the ditch by this same derision, this same need to overcome the opinion of skeptics; and I wonder how many legitimate theories become legitimate because every scientific claimant dots their i's and crosses their t's when it comes to their methodology, lest they suffer the wrath of their peers. Thank you, Ender, for evidencing that science is atheistic.

You misunderstand my point, I'm afraid. My whole argument has been that true empirically based thinking is impossible for a human being to practice. There's a difference between what science is based on and what actual scientists practice. The scientific method demands we have no belief until something is proven. However, actual scientists in the real world are fallible creatures that cannot react to any revolutionary idea with anything but distrust.

In any case, your conflicting with your own argument. You claim that when evidence is presented, scientists "morph" their thinking into an agnostic point of view. Yet based on the examples I presented and the ones you presented, they clearly do not do this. They maintain their "atheistic" point of view until they can no longer deny the evidence, or in some cases until they die out and a new guard takes over, as happened with Einstein's theories and now is happening with string theory. How exactly does that match your ideas about an atheistic field that can morph into an agnostic field?

The claimant, quite naturally. If he thinks he's onto something, then he can investigate it on his own. When he presents suitable evidence showing the scientific community that there might be something to his theories, he gains adherents for further investigation -- much like string theory. Science, of course, does not wholly embrace his hypothesis until overwhelming evidence is presented.

The first time I asked this question, you said this:

The collective scientific community. As you said, you can find a scientist who will argue just about anything, including God's existence, space aliens, and that climate change is BS. But you won't even get a single reputable scientific organization to say any of these things, let alone the whole scientific community. Evidence is evidence.

You are confused, or I am, or we both are. Your argument here has been that science is atheistic until such a time as it must become agnostic. Several of your statements after making this argument have conflicted with this, claiming that science is only atheistic. I think you should restate what exactly it is you are arguing for here.

I believe you continue this charade for the sole purpose of reconciling your faith with logic. Science is atheistic, and it is subsequently dominated by atheists.

I have no desire to reconcile my faith with anything. I am a religious person, but I also admire the scientific mind, and I simply think you are misrepresenting it. I hold no illusions that my beliefs are consistent with the scientific method. But you unfortunately, do hold such illusions.

Sonart

Except that you're wrong... in the end, it is, in fact, peer review of research that allows - over time - new theories to become settled science. And yes, it's entirely possible that - with newer information - peer review will revise that settled science.

Wrong about what exactly? I'm not suggesting anything different. There's no argument here that science, in theory, does not accept anything without proof. What is debatable however is whether science actual disbelieves in things that aren't proven or as Truzzi maintains holds no opinion on unproven ideas.

[Philip Lu]

Except there are also large segments who believe string theory is almost certainly true based on the evidence we already have. One side of very respectable, sensible scientistis is absolutely wrong and yet is convinced that science supports them. You maintain that the scientific community must reach a consensus before something is accepted as fact, yet this is not the way the scientific community functions in the real world.

Are you sure they accept it to be true, or is it probable that it is true? If it is probable, then it's worth looking into something of such importance.

[Sonart]

.

Wrong about what exactly?

About this...

"That is more akin to the history of science, not your rosy picture of a council of the wise determining whether some new idea is worthy or not."


.

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

...atheism (taken to be defined as lack of belief in anything).

Here begins my dissent.

To me, atheism is assertion that god/gods/FSM/Pink Unicorn, etc do not exist. To me, neither group has put forth sufficient evidence to prove their particular assertion (nor do I believe that it is possible). I view it all as conjecture. I don't believe that is possible to know whether god, in any form, exist in this life and that there is a possibility of not knowing of god's existence in the afterlife, assuming there is one. So for now, I am without knowledge. The problem first starts on how you define and describe "god".

[Anguspure]

But I'm not sure if I beleive in atheism.
How can I start from a point of view that does not exist, has no view and indeed has no point?

[Jack]

But I'm not sure if I beleive in atheism.

You don't. I don't. No one "believes" in atheism. Atheism has no dogma or doctrine in which to believe. If you disbelieve the various contemporary and historical claims made about the existence of gods, you're an atheist. If you believe in one god but disbelieve in all others, you are a selective atheist. Everyone who holds a theological position on the existence of gods of any sort is an atheist to some degree or another (at least I've never heard of anyone who believes that all the gods ever proposed actually existed or exist).

Atheism is a state of disbelief in the existence of gods, not a matter of believing in an alternative creed or doctrine.

[Anguspure]

Atheism is a state of disbelief in the existence of gods, not a matter of believing in an alternative creed or doctrine.

Then how can atheism possibly be used as a start point for any school of thought that does not re-affirm the position?
As soon as we consider the question of God, the atheism clause would kick in to prohibit the thought.
On the other hand if we were disable this interlocking mechanism and find that God may indeed exist (as Anthony Flew did) the atheism clause would become redundant for all other avenues.
Absurd.

[Jack]

As soon as we consider the question of God, the atheism clause would kick in to prohibit the thought.

Not in my experience. Atheism is the conclusion reached after we consider the question of god, not a presupposition arrived at before consideration. Only those who never encounter the concept of a god would be justified in presuming an atheistic conclusion.

On the other hand if we were disable this interlocking mechanism and find that God may indeed exist (as Anthony Flew did) ...

From what I've read Flew accepted the existence of a deistic god, a conjecture that few atheists find much to argue with, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting the notion. I'm unclear as to what you mean by "interlocking mechanism", but if what you're suggesting is that if we avoid skepticism and doubt and simply accept that gods exist then of course the chances increase that we'll come to accept the existence of a god or gods. That's a rather absurd way to go about examining evidence of the existence of gods, though. It would qualify as blind faith.

[lsbskins1]

I take the words at their root meanings and apply them that way.

Greek ágnōst ( os ), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known.

Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

I call myself an agnostic because I accept the fact that I can not know absolutely if there is or is not a God, not in the way I can know that the heart is the center of the circulatory system and that the earth is not the center of our solar system.

In my view, this debate is a debate of semantics. I accept that there is no scienticficly verifiable evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God or any other God. That does not make me an atheist in the root sense of the word, but it may make me an atheist in terms of how AC would like to define atheism. I simply reject the term semantically because, at it's root, it implies a knowledge I do not possess.