"Am I Agnostic or Atheist" main page
Offline I wrote this email to the webmaster of this site... But I also feel like it should be discussed openly:
I believe you have a very serious problem in your article "Am I Agnostic or Atheist?"
You punch home the fact that you must choose to either believe or not believe. I feel like this is totally incorrect.
As a Theological Noncognitivist and all-around ignostic, i believe that the question of wether I have belief in God is totally and completely meaningless.
It would not be to correct for me to say.. "I do not believe in God." Because I personally have no understanding of what a God, or any God would be.
I can't say I am an a-theist, because I don't know what the tenants of theism are.
By acknowledging that you must either be an atheist or a theist, is almost self-defeating to the atheists movement. You are condoning that the term God has a meaning, you understand that meaning, and therefore give credence to it.
As an ignostic, I am saying the term God has NO meaning, I can't understand any already existing explanation, and I therefor dismiss the entire subject of theism.
For example: I am a Vampire Strong Atheist. I believe that Vampires, DO NOT EXIST and COULD NEVER EXIST. However, I know what a vampire is... It is a humanoid creature, that feeds on the blood of living people with fangs. It is like this because of a viral infection that has mutated the body.
If however, I am a Strong Atheist in regards to a Christian God, or any type of God... I don't know what he is... Any argument to the nature of God is usually via negativa, which is a logical fallacy.
I feel that the "Am I agnostic or atheist" article should be amended to include Theological Noncognitivism, and any atheist that claims strong atheism and not logical noncognitivism is ignorant.
- Login to post comments
Yeah, because "without belief in god" clearly does not cover "The idea of god is bogus". </sarcasm>
You are 100% right, even though your point is sarcastic.
You are without belief in Vampires right? Are you without belief in Yukiblarkusi also?
Yes. It's real easy to admit to it as well, as I'm not brainwashed into thinking something is wrong with disbelieving in it.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I have noncognitivism of what a boogeyman would be but I do not believe in such things. Does that = ignorance? Nope. I just don't believe in fairy tales.
"I can resist anything, except temptation..."
~Wilde
Sapient,
You wrote: "Yes. It's real easy to admit to it as well, as I'm not brainwashed into thinking something is wrong with disbelieving in it. "
Yukiblarkusi is my cats name and I assure you she exists.
But you didnt know that, so there was no possible way you can make a ascertation of truth based on that claim.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Regardless of that, when you first asked the question, I did not hold a belief in Yukiblarkusi.
At this time, I still don't hold a positive belief, since it's certainly possible you may be lying about owning a cat, or that the cat's name is actually Yukiblarkusi.
So, I'm still without such a belief.
Supplying evidence of your cat and its name would help me to establish such a belief.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Simply put, no definition for "god" makes the slightest sense, and are in fact internally contradictory and thus impossible. This is also true for "Vampires" as you described in your OP. They can not exist, because their definition describes something impossible.
I have no idea what a "Yukiblarkusi" is (or is not, as the case maybe).
Ignosticism holds a certain absurdity for me. It seems rational at first blush, sure, but it requires a bizzare attitude. There are an infinite number of things that have not been defined well enough to be tested. Yet none of these things do we bother to be "ignostic" about. We just don't bother with them at all.
The only reason there's any point in using the word "atheist" is that there are gobs and gobs of people who insist on beliving in "god" despite the utter impossibility of it. To that end, all the word "atheist" manages to do functionally is say "this person does not have a belief otherwise commonly held". To make that lack of belief "strong" only requires that one recognizes that the concept of "god" can not be evidenced at all.
In short, because of your ignostic stance, you are in reality a strong atheist by nature of your recognition that there is no defensible definition for "god".
When you say, "I am an Atheist" you are saying, "I do not believe in God."
My question to you is, "What is God?"
And that now knowing the definition for "Yukiblarkusi", and that definition being internally consistent, I can now be agnostic about it where previously I simply had no belief? Or for that matter, any reason to care.
Do you believe in Yabin Blinderpuchen? No, you don't. Because you've no idea what they are. You can't say if they are real or not yet, but at the same time you hold no beliefs about them either.
A Yabin Blinderpuch is an invisible brown mammalian lizard.
Now you can disbelieve. Because the given definition is impossible. Why bother with being "ignostic" about a Yabin Blinderpuch? The definition already excludes it from being real.
Same with god.
This is getting rather semantic in its nature.
You do realize that there is a significant difference between a "belief" and an "assertion of truth", yes?
:: yes
And that now knowing the definition for "Yukiblarkusi", and that definition being internally consistent, I can now be agnostic about it where previously I simply had no belief? Or for that matter, any reason to care.
:: not sure of your point here
Do you believe in Yabin Blinderpuchen? No, you don't. Because you've no idea what they are. You can't say if they are real or not yet, but at the same time you hold no beliefs about them either.
:: Just like you said I have no beliefs positive or negative. A name is simply not enough information to make any kind of rational decision.
A Yabin Blinderpuch is an invisible brown mammalian lizard.
Now you can disbelieve. Because the given definition is impossible. Why bother with being "ignostic" about a Yabin Blinderpuch? The definition already excludes it from being real.
:: I agree that now I can say that that doesn't exist.
Same with god.
:: Explain how, by definition, God is impossible.
I'd say something but Natural and Fingergun took all the words.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
My answer is: "A figment of imagination that does not exist by virtue of all definitions being impossible, or easily tested and found false, or having better names like 'the universe'."
:: So you are ATHEIST about a figment of imagination?
That doesn't make any sense.
What doesn't make sense is how hard you've fought this point and likely will continue to. I'm much more interested in what conditions have led to your inability to admit to simple facts than to indulge your desire to oppose them.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
"Omni-" attributes are self contradictory.
"Metaphysical" attributes force god to be unknowable.
Non-parsimonious arguments.
Aren't you a-fairy-ist? The definition for fairies is as internally inconsistent as the ones for god. Can't you reasonably say "There are no fairies" because of that?
Another complaint I have about "ignosticism" is it says, essentially, "We will not say one way or another on this god thing until we get a definition that works". Well, screw around with definitions enough and you can make "black" mean "white". Do be careful at that next zebra crossing. </D. N. Adams>
"I'm much more interested in what conditions have led to your inability to admit to simple facts than to indulge your desire to oppose them."
What simply facts have I choose not to admit to?
I choose to oppose things that I see as irrational or illogical.
I think that to make the truth claim, "I believe in X," when you have no idea what X is, is a logically fallacy.
Those silly theists prove that all the time.
Fingergun,
"My point being that only agnosticism makes sense when and if the definition is logically sound but one has no evidence one way or the other."
:: I agree, I am arguing that definitions of God are meaningless, and therefore do not refer to something. They refer to nothing.
"There are quite a few problems, depending on the definition offered. A few examples:
"Omni-" attributes are self contradictory.
"Metaphysical" attributes force god to be unknowable.
Non-parsimonious arguments."
:: If the definition is internally inconsistent, I would say that such an entity cannot exist. However, if the definition is semantically sound and logically consistent, yet lacks primary characteristics, I would say it is meaningless.
It doesn't matter. I examine my beliefs, find no such 'god' belief, whatever 'god' might be, and so I don't hold such a belief.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
There you go! You got it! You have no belief, positive or negative. That's what atheism is. No belief. Some atheists may hold a additional negative belief, but this is not a requirement. Theists hold a positive belief. Atheists don't. Simple.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Strong Atheists, certainly have a negative belief.
I will happily say that something with a meaningless definition does not exist. As you said, they refer to nothing.
Right. But not all atheists are strong atheists. Some simply don't believe, positive or negative. It is the lack of positive belief that defines atheism. Theists believe, atheists don't. Very simple.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
If G is 'god' and B() is belief, then:
Theism: B(G)
Atheism: ~B(G)
Strong Atheism: ~B(G) & B(~G)
Fingergun,
"Ok, a fine point but a sound one.
I will happily say that something with a meaningless definition does not exist. As you said, they refer to nothing."
I'm sorry... I said nothing, but it's not nessecary precisely what I ment.
If they have a meaningless definition, you cannot possible say wether or not they exist, because you don't know what the person making the argument is referring to.
If G is 'god' and B() is belief, then:
Theism: B(G)
Atheism: ~B(G)
Strong Atheism: ~B(G) & B(~G)
--
My problem is that G is undefined.
That's a different question. I may not be able to say whether a meaningless X exists, but I can definitely say "I don't have a belief in X". It's the existence of the belief that is important, not the existence of X.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
" I wrote this email to the webmaster of this site... But I also feel like it should be discussed openly:"
You probably just saved him the trouble of posting it himself.
"You punch home the fact that you must choose to either believe or not believe. I feel like this is totally incorrect."
I disagree. Either you believe the sky is blue or you don't. It is a dichotomy. Sure, you can play with the question and suggest green, red, or black, but you still believe it is either blue or it isn't.
"It would not be to correct for me to say.. "I do not believe in God." Because I personally have no understanding of what a God, or any God would be."
Then you don't believe in god. This is not to say that you believe in no god, just that you have no belief.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It's not a meaningless X, the description of X is meaningless, you therefore cant think about the question rationally and answer wether or not you believe in it.
It doesn't matter. Belief or lack of belief doesn't require strict definition. I examine my beliefs, I don't find any that correspond with the word 'god', and therefore I don't hold a belief in 'god'. How is this difficult to understand? You already said you don't hold a belief in 'wagabagajoojoo' because a name is not enough for you to establish a belief. So you don't believe it. Simple. It's the exact same with 'god'. We don't hold such a belief. Simple. Why make it so complicated?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
If I'm offered a definition that leads to nothing at all, then I don't believe in it and can say with confidence it does not exist precisely because the definition is lacking. The definition of a word is the description of the concept and if it fails to describe something coherently (or fails to describe anything at all) then that concept is false.
Now, if your niggle with this is the idea that as a gnostic atheist I've stated an absolute truth, then let me correct you: Should a proper definition be brought to me, I will evaluate it anew. That would be necessary as a new definition is a new concept.
(Though I say with much confidence that it's highly unlikely I'll ever have to do that, given the time already given this subject throughout history.)
You only know the sky is blue or not because you know it can be blue, and you know it has the property to display a color.
Therefore I can either believe that the sky is blue and be right. Or believe it is not blue, and be wrong.
Then how do you explain that you answered this earlier:
You're contradicting yourself. You say that you don't hold a belief in 'Yabin Blinderpuchen', and then later say "you therefore cant think about the question rationally and answer wether or not you believe in it".
The fact is, yes, you can. There are finite number of beliefs in my brain. I can examine them and see that there are no beliefs in 'Yabin Blinderpuchen, or 'god', or any of the other infinite number of possible made-up concepts, regardless of whether they are logically defined or not. Having noticed that I don't hold such a belief, I declare, "I don't believe in Yabin Blinderpuchen" or "I don't believe in god."
The question is about the existence of B(X), not about the existence of X. That's where your confusion is coming from, and it's the reason you're contradicting yourself.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Okay, ddolphin, this back and forth is getting tiresome. You seem incapable of admitting that it is possible to not believe in something that is incoherent.
Therefore, here's a very simple question for you: Do you hold any beliefs in concepts which are incoherent?
The question I'm asking is logically coherent, so don't try to wiggle out by saying you can't answer yes or no.
Just a simple yes or no will do.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
"You only know the sky is blue or not because you know it can be blue, and you know it has the property to display a color. Therefore I can either believe that the sky is blue and be right. Or believe it is not blue, and be wrong."
Wrong. This is about belief, not knowledge.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I think I might've figured it out. His problem seems to be that he doesn't want someone to think he's a strong atheist and he's likely heard atheism defined in a strong atheist manner too many times. This of course is just my read of the scenario, and my reads are generally correct.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I dont see where I contradicted myself.
I am saying you can't know if about the existence of B(X) if you don't know what X is.
Just answer my question please: Do you hold any beliefs in concepts which are incoherent?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
No. Oh, you were asking him. I don't think he's gonna give you a yes or no answer.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
100% wrong. In all real world arguments with Theists, I would typically refer to myself as a Strong Atheist.
However I feel that it is an incorrect evaluation of my beliefs.
I feel that the question, "Do you believe that any God exists?" (Which is what Strong Atheism attempts to answer.)
...for me can not be answered by "Yes" or "No" simply because the term God and all other God-Talk refers to something that has no meaning whatsoever.
Now if you asked me, "Do you believe a Christian God exists?"
...this question has more substantial meaning, but if they continued to explain the Christian God and it turned out the definition, (which is usually the case), was internally inconsistent, then my answer would be, "No."
--
The argument is from the general lowercase A, atheist (A universal Creator), compared to the specific capital A, Atheist (A Christian God).
A theists would begin arguing in support of a Christian God, and when proven wrong will move to an ambiguous God, and will finally move on to a definition so meaningless that it is neither a belief nor a truth claim.
It's okay if he doesn't, I've got a follow-up whichever way he goes.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Okay, how about just this one question (which you've already skipped once): Do you hold any beliefs in concepts which are incoherent?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
No i dont really i just see no evidence for or of a GOd
so to me it doesnt exist simple
Natural,
I apologize... I am not meaning to skip anyones questions. Everyone is responded and discussing a topic that I feel is important, and I appreciate everyones opinion!
--
I do not belief in concepts that are incoherent.
Oh joy. Arguing over semantic differences. How... productive.
Hi KSMB, if you are not interested in semantics and there relationship to logical arguments, I suggest you not get involved.
However, if you are interested in expanding the arguments vs. theists in every possible way, please stick around and offer any suggestions or disagreements you feel inclined to.
Excellent! So, do you now recant your claim that it is not possible to say whether or not you believe in a concept which is incoherent?
For example, if 'god' is incoherent, and I say "I don't believe in god", do you now understand that that is simple atheism?
If you don't believe in incoherent concepts, then you must therefore also not believe in 'god' if 'god' is an incoherent concept. By our definition of atheist, you are an atheist.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!