Flake Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 But they were wrong that it was a god. It's because it is what it is and not what people think it is, that is my point. If they were mistaken, then they were wrong. Let's say they thought that my magic trick was real magic. Once I reveal that it's just an illusion, we don't change the definition of "magic" to include illusions. It was in fact not magic. You're accepting a position called Essentialism when you say "But they were wrong that it was a god." There is something intuitive about things having a "essence" some thing that makes them part of a category. In this case you think that a god must have all those awesome powers to be a god. Just because it is intuitive doesn't make it true. I once believed what you believed as well until I dug more into philosophy. While digging you will see that Essentialism has some serious problems. Problems that were pointed out by Karl Popper, among others, more recently Saul Kripke, and illustrated by the Theseus paradox. A simple question is enough to demonstrate it. Every cell in your body is replaced every few years, your beliefs change over time, etc., so what is your "essence"? What is that thing that makes you, you? Good luck answering that question well. If you can't pin down what makes you you then how can you pin down what makes a god, a god? You can give your opinion of what makes a god, a god, but you won't be able to provide a sound reason why that is how it must be. Believe me, many people have tried, all have failed. Edit: Powder makes a excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I can call myself an agnostic because I only accept my own definition, that being: "I don't know and I don't care". Don't know and don't care about what? I asked you before, but you never responded. Don't care and don't know about Hercules? Don't know and don't care about Shiva? Or do you not care and don't know about something eternal, involved in the creation of the universe with some incorporeal consciousness (some variation of the square circle)? No agnostic that I have ever met was agnostic with regard to anything except that last one. You can talk about Ra and Quetzalcoatl, but it's only for the purposes of creating exceptions to a rule you (in all likelihood) accept as much as I do. I can guarantee you that if we were talking about norse gods you would not be challenging atheists to say how they couldn't exist. It's a particular kind of god, the one you refuse to define, what started this whole conversation and is the subject of the book you are asking people about. I'm going to tell you what you are talking about, since you wont. You are talking about the kind of god that modern people believe in. The sort of god that people are going to attack you for criticizing, the kind of god that people only still believe because it's put into the place that people cannot measure: another universe, non existence, before the universe etc. So you are an agnostic? Agnostic about what god in particular? And be honest, santa claus is checking his list! You don't want a lump of coal for christmas do you? You can give your opinion of what makes a god, a god, but you won't be able to provide a sound reason why that is how it must be. Believe me, many people have tried, all have failed. This is an argument from ignorance. It's another logical error you've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted October 21, 2013 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 Don't know and don't care about what? I asked you before, but you never responded. Don't care and don't know about Hercules? Don't know and don't care about Shiva? Or do you not care and don't know about something eternal, involved in the creation of the universe with some incorporeal consciousness (some variation of the square circle)? No agnostic that I have ever met was agnostic with regard to anything except that last one. All of the above, I do not feel qualified to make a judgement on Shiva or Hercules or something eternal that created the universe. I don't know, I don't care. Does that make me an agnostic, I am not sure about that anymore. You can talk about Ra and Quetzalcoatl, but it's only for the purposes of creating exceptions to a rule you (in all likelihood) accept as much as I do. No, I do not accept the rule. I don't know that Ra is any different or lesser or whatever than Yahweh. I can guarantee you that if we were talking about norse gods you would not be challenging atheists to say how they couldn't exist. It's a particular kind of god, the one you refuse to define, what started this whole conversation and is the subject of the book you are asking people about. I'm going to tell you what you are talking about, since you wont. You are talking about the kind of god that modern people believe in. The sort of god that people are going to attack you for criticizing, the kind of god that people only still believe because it's put into the place that people cannot measure: another universe, non existence, before the universe etc. No, I am not. I have already given a definition of god that I am more comfortable with. lets talk about Quetzalcoatl if you like. So you are an agnostic? Agnostic about what god in particular? And be honest, santa claus is checking his list! You don't want a lump of coal for christmas do you? Agnostic (or indifferent perhaps) about all questions related to god or gods of any kind I would have to say. This is an argument from ignorance. It's another logical error you've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flake Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 This is an argument from ignorance. It's another logical error you've made. You need to learn the difference between informal conversation and formal argumentation. If you can't answer the questions I posed, only offering a cheap shot instead, then I don't see the point of continuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOrange Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Agnostic_atheism This is from the hosts of the atheist experience which you can find plenty of on YouTube. Very good show. Simply put, agnosticism is not even on the same spectrum as atheism because one deals with knowledge (agnosticism/gnosticism) while the other deals with belief (atheism/theism). So based on stef's views on the matter, he is what you would call a gnostic atheist which is to say that he doesn't believe in god because he knows no god exists. I don't even think its necessary to go that far...I'd consider myself an agnostic atheist. Someone who says they are an agnostic is only answering the question about their knowledge of god's existence. They aren't saying anything about their belief or disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowe D Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 For as long as there have been people believing in gods, they have always put it just beyond our understanding. This is just another god of the gaps. Please stop enabling delusional thinking. Gods do not exist, nor santa, nor ghosts, nor gelflings. Say it ain't so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Say it ain't so! Unfortunately, Aughra is totally real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Sorry, been away a while... you're essentially saying to us that the signifier you used carries no meaning. This is the problem - as far as I'm concerned it's your (or at least the other guys) definition of God that carries no meaning. My definition of god is, as you've pointed out, not explicit. Its use will imply different things to different people, and so I have no interest in pinning it down to something too specific, because that would make it not useful with respect to general claims about atheism. So as your definition is entirely pointless (just like a square circle is, other than when used to describe a contradiction) I see absolutely no value in using it as a de facto standard when defining God - and my own personal experience shows me that that is definitely not how many people would define God. So the result of taking that into consideration is that IF someone claims to believe in a square circle kind of God, then fine. But without that explicit definition then it makes little sense to use the self-contradiction argument as a general argument for atheism, when the improbability alone is perfectly sufficient to claim that God does not exist - just like the very high (but not absolute) probability that a naked human will die when falling into a volcano allows us to claim it as a truth. So I know that our disagreement is regarding our particular choices when it comes to the semantics of divinity, so we shouldn't argue about that anymore. I'm just saying that your argument for atheism is not a particularly useful one (in my opinion) given a very general claim of atheism and a very general, if any, choice of deity. To put it short - one should get the theist to confirm that his definition of God is self-contradictory before that argument is used. Otherwise i can perfectly understand how some theists might claim that atheism is almost religious in itself - in the same way that you say that we should be clear in our definitions, we should be clear as to whether our counter argument is actually applicable in this particular case before we get all 'religious' about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted October 24, 2013 Author Share Posted October 24, 2013 ... So I know that our disagreement is regarding our particular choices when it comes to the semantics of divinity, so we shouldn't argue about that anymore. I'm just saying that your argument for atheism is not a particularly useful one (in my opinion) given a very general claim of atheism and a very general, if any, choice of deity. To put it short - one should get the theist to confirm that his definition of God is self-contradictory before that argument is used. Otherwise i can perfectly understand how some theists might claim that atheism is almost religious in itself - in the same way that you say that we should be clear in our definitions, we should be clear as to whether our counter argument is actually applicable in this particular case before we get all 'religious' about it. Thanks Hannibal, that sums up my position nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts