The Glade 4.0

I agree Khross. That's what I believe too, however there seems to be some resistance, and with as complex a subject as one's beliefs ... especially since I don't share them ... it seems better to tread lightly rather than to tell someone what they think.

It's been my observation that telling someone what they think rarely goes well.

That said, I have no problem sharing what I think, and I agree with your definition.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

That's the thing. I don't think anybody here is telling him what he thinks. We're telling him that if what he thinks doesn't fit X, then what he thinks isn't called what he thinks it's called.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Generally, when a negative is proven, it's by proving some positive that's mutually exclusive with whatever the negative is a negative of. If, for example, I prove that Khross is in Georgia at the time of this post I have also proven that he is not also in Ohio (a negative).

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, since I see no need in engaging in that silly philosophical masturbation that we've all had fun with at times, by spiraling into the whole "well we can't really be certain of anything, everything might actually exist in some alternate universe" claptrap, I guess I'll go ahead and say that

I actively disbelieve in the existence of Santa Claus
I actively disbelieve in the existence of the Norse pantheon of gods
I actively disbelieve in the existence of reincarnation
and I also actively disbelieve in the existence of the Judeo-Christian or any of the other currently popular human-defined gods

If it makes one feel better to call that a "religion", then I guess I'm religiously anti-believing-in-Zeus, but of course we all know how silly that sounds because the word religion doesn't fit with atheism. I have no rituals, I travel to no buildings, I say no prayers, I read no supporting books, and I do not proselytize.

Since a negative can't be proven, and no one can prove any of the above listed entities or processes as assertions, I see no need to say "well, you can't be sure, one or all of those things could exist", otherwise I'd just be playing that silly philosophical black hole game mentioned above.

Although technically, if the term "god" is broadly encompassing some possible unfathomable, creative clockwork force that's utterly indifferent and might not even be described as sentient as we know it, then I guess I'm an agnostic.

Slythe:

That's all well and good, but since you actively deny the existence of those things, under what evidence do you do so?

_________________

None of course. Again, there's obviously no proof that Odin does exist just as there's no proof that he doesn't exist, so rather than being philosophically silly in my opinion and doing as I posted above, saying "well I can't be certain of anything, which implies it's possible that every random unprovable assertion might actually exist somehow and somewhere", I think it's clearer and more honest to - lacking proof of a random assertion that doesn't need to be made in the first place - just simply say no I don't believe that there's an Odin. Positive assertions about the existence of something should be proven, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist when you're already dealing with an entity or process that's conveniently perpetually invisible at large, or on some other plane of reality, or just physically untestable by any known human method.

I have no idea how you reconcile this statement with:



this one. "Believe quite likely" and "don't believe one exists" are very different. Additionally, rejecting evidence which asserts a positive (supernatural presence) does not establish anything regarding the negative (supernatural presence does not exist).



Yes it does. This statement is absolutely false. It is the definition of Atheism. What you describe is agnosticism. Observing there is no substantial proof of a supernatural presence is not the same thing as asserting there is no supernatural presence. You cannot assert the latter on the former only. Doing so requires belief without evidence which is faith and is the definition of Atheism.

We have not found evidence xenomorphs are anything more than fictional creatures. Some people might believe they exist, but they have no proof to assert such a claim, which is where the label of belief would come from. You might state there is no evidence Xenomorphs exist. This would be true. However, that there is no evidence of xenomoprhs is not evidence xenomorphs do not exist. Therefore, one cannot factually state "Xenomorphs do not exist". In order to make the statement, it would have to be predicated on faith, because you cannot produce evidence that there are no xenomorphs.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Nobody said that somebody's faith in something "invisible at large, or on some other plane of reality, or just physically untestable by any known method" was supposed to be convenient to reason, Slythe. That's why it's faith.

Nobody's criticizing your vehement skepticism of such things. We're just pointing out that it's no more (or less!) rational than somebody's faith in a diety.

A purely rational being would, as Khross points out, be forced to adopt an agnostic view towards any religion I can think of. It's the nature of the beast. The claims defy logic, yet the nature of the claims is, indeed, such that logic is not enough to rule them out. (I suspect that there's less conspiracy here than one might suspect; it's simply religious Darwinism, as it were -- the logically disprovable religions of history die off pretty quick, or evolve to be undisprovable)

Again, that's not criticism. I'm not a purely rational being; I have faith in the existence of a diety.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It should be pointed out that while no religion's beliefs can be proven (and even if they could be, it wouldn't matter much because it's all too easy to claim "you haven't proven it!" even on far more concrete subjects... ahem) it is certainly not true that no religion has any evidence for it at all, and all are equally plausible.

At a minimum, historic figures of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Bhuddism all existed. I'm sure there are others too. Which one, or none, one chooses to believe in depends on which one seems most plausible based on what is known, or whether none ar sufficiently plausible for the individual. Either way, faith is involved - either to make up for inadequate evidence, or to disregard what evidence there is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE is correct. Replace my use of the word "evidence" with "proof".

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Agnosticism is not the belief that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a deity. It is the belief that such a thing can not be known. That's a far cry from "we don't know yet".

Atheists believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of some sort of deity, and a great deal of evidence to show that our current gods are simply fabrications.

And the key difference between an Atheist and a believer is simple. When confronted with clear, objective evidence that a god exists, the Atheist is capable of changing their mind. When confronted with evidence that a god does not exist, or even may not exist, the believer refuses to accept.

Religion is specifically defined as a belief in or the worship of a god or gods. Atheism rejects that notion entirely. That's not some sort of de-facto god in and of itself. It's the rejection of popular mythology on the basis of a lack of evidence to support such mythology.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No one described agnosticism as such. At least not exclusively as you claim it was described. What was stated is that agnosticism simply states that neither sufficient evidence exists to prove or disprove the existence of some supernatural presence.

Agnosticism does not believe that such a thing "cannot be known". It is believed that such a thing cannot be known given the current lack of proof for either case. Which is not even anything specific not already bounded by logic.



This is absolute bullshit. Evidence doesn't prove anything. I use evidence all the time at work to retroactively dismiss unanswered variables at work that show the probability of a particular consequence is acceptably small. It doesn't "prove" anything. There exists evidence that God exists all over. That evidence is not proof though. If an Atheist will change his mind in the face of evidence, he is not an atheist because evidence alone cannot prove anything.

A believer does not need to accept evidence, because evidence is not proof. Therefore, your entire point is bunk.



No it's not. It's belief in something that has yet to be disproven. Because something isn't proven does not, in fact, make it disproven.

If I say Monte is the greatest swordsman in the universe and we even develop objective criteria for qualifying what is "greater" or "lesser", no one can prove this to be true. However, it takes irrational belief to assert because such is the case, that Monte therefore cannot be the greatest swordsman in the universe.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Given Khross's repeated citation of English in this thread, and my prior citation of English to you, you'd think you'd eventually understand that this is not an English definition of Atheism. Perhaps you're translating from German?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Some atheists are really agnostic, but don't understand the difference. I know I didn't. I thought agnostics and atheist were the same thing. I never considered my self atheist however. One day when I was talking about religion with a guy I worked with who was an atheist, after explaining my position, he was all like "dude, you're agnostic." I hadn't really considered it, but it made the most sense. So here I am, waiting for a higher power to reveal themselves to me and explain how they've "got this **** under control. Don't worry." I'm now firmly on board the atheists-practice-belief-train.

Atheists always seem to have a more hostile view on religion. I understand their reasons, but people would make new bullshit to believe in even if they managed to completely disprove all popular religions and everyone was all like "oh, ok... " Scientology, pseudo-science, ancient chinese bullshit, homeopathy and all kinds of other hocus-pocus would just fill the void.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Disbelief in something is not an act of faith, anymore than any choice or understanding is an act of faith. If we're really getting down to that level of symantic masturbation, then people here are just being silly. If someone brings you a spoon and tells you it's a fish, it's not an act of faith to disbelieve what they are telling you.

Further, agnosticism and atheism are not conflicting viewpoints, it is quite possible and logical to hold both.

Only if you are using different definitions than everyone else in this thread, though there are some subsets of definitions that would allow this occur, but you aren't using any of the qualifiers that would lead me to believe you are thinking of those categories.

Hmmms ... going to try the dictionary again ...You're making a conflation that is both imprecise and inconsistent, Aizle. If you possess unbelief, that is a distinctly different philosophical position from disbelief.

_________________

Actually Monte put out a quite clear clarification of the difference between atheism and agnosticism, which should be very easy to understand.

LOL, I'm completely amused that you just owned yourself with this post. You're a smart guy, you can probably even figure it out eventually.

Except that definitions Monty is attributing to those words is incorrect in typical understanding.


I'm guessing you are referring to the link between the two definitions based upon the "unbelief". However, the use of the word "positive" modified the understanding of "unbelief" to make it a lack of knowledge to an active disbelief. Just as positive atheism is different (what most here are considering a belief system) than negative atheism (more akin to agnosticism).

Perhaps not the typical understanding in the echo chamber here, but out in the real world his definitions are quite accurate and true.

Except, I didn't. You see "disbelief" in the post semi-colon definition of "unbelief". However, that comma indicates a qualifier to disbelief, not a synonym: disbelief as in incredulity.

_________________

The dictionary says otherwise.

Apparently, using the dictionary is stretching to make an argument. But, that's ok, terms such as positive atheism, negative atheism, disbelief, unbelief, etc., and in the context of discussions about belief systems and philosophy, apparently only have some "nebulous" appeal to "popularity" in the "real world".

_________________