The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

[wiploc]

Could a strong agnostic then qualify as an atheist?

Sure. Anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. Any strong agnostic who doesn't believe in god is an atheist.

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. That made her an agnostic theist.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 21 by wiploc]

"Strong agnostic" is an oxymoron because "strong" in this context means certain.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 13 by Cephus]

Okay. I can respect that point of view.

I don't agree, that's all. What if one says, "There MIGHT be such things as gods, but it doesn't make any difference to me"? That doesn't strike me as "atheism" -- but if that's included in your definition of it, I'm OK with that.

I can't say for certain whether or not God exists, and I certainly can't claim to know what he is or even what he is like if he does, in whatever sense; but I still identify myself as a practicing Jew. If you want to call that "atheism," I don't mind. I don't, that's all.

I've been described as an "agnostic theist." That works for me. If it doesn't for you -- well, different strokes and all that.

Personally, I don't care to tell other people how they have to think. We might disagree on that, too -- and that's also OK with me.

I'll say there might be gods out there, I just haven't been convinced that there actually are, hence I don't believe in them. I'm an atheist. The defining line is active belief. If you actually believe that a god exists, you are a theist. If you don't, and just thinking it might be possible is not active belief, you are an atheist. It's really not that difficult, words have meanings for a reason.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 17 by ThePainefulTruth]

Strong (also called "hard", "closed" or "strict") agnosticism is the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can anyone else."

Could a strong agnostic then qualify as an atheist?

Which still results in someone who doesn't believe in a deity, hence atheist. Atheism/theism addresses belief. Agnosticism/gnosticism addresses knowledge. They are two entirely different questions. Everyone, without exception, is both an atheist/theist *AND* an agnostic/gnostic. It's absurd to answer "agnostic" to a question about belief, just like it's absurd to answer "tall" to a question about your weight.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 23 by Cephus]

Thanks again; I still disagree. The lines, in actual practice among actual people, just aren't that rigidly clear-cut, in my own understanding. If that's not the way you see it, fine, but I don't think you are qualified -- again -- to make pronouncements on how others should be required to think. Be well.

[Ooberman]

I disagree. "Yes," "No," and "I don't know," are all perfectly rational positions on God. How can you demand that people claim to know things that they simply don't? Doesn't sound reasonable to me...

Consider:

"I don't know" seems as if one might be entertaining the idea...

I would think it more likely that "I don't know" just means "I don't know."

...but why? Based on what rational?

What is it that they don't know?

Speaking for myself -- oh, a very great many things. Why some insist on limiting debate to stereotypical, oversimplified and calculatedly childish concepts as if there were no others available, for one example; or insist that others must use the same strictly, concretely objective and materialistic standards as they for ALL matters of thought and understanding, for another.

That a poorly formed concept of a disembodied Mind that lives "out there" might exist?

Again; that is only one concept among many. Some "theists" don't even consider the matters of "belief" or "the nature of God" to hold much importance.

Seems irrational to say "I don't know" - as if anytime someone offers an opinion, one must consider it.

Again: I would think it more likely that "I don't know" just means "I don't know" -- and sometimes it even holds the subtext of "...and I don't much care, either."

"Is there undetectable pink unicorn the size of the Sun in my bedroom?"

Wouldn't the proper answer be: "don't be silly"?

Of course; but that is a rather more detailed and definite proposition.

Of course, my position is that the God concept is this silly and it's irrational we keep hanging on to it as a credible option for how the universe operates.

Question: Does a God exist?
Answer: Don't be silly.

Doesn't that depend on what "god-concept" you are proposing? If you mean the stereotypical "old-man-in-the-sky-with-a-beard-and-super-powers" god -- well, you're quite right. Don't be silly.

But that's not the only "god-concept" around, and as I say, some don't even consider the matter worth one's time. Why should I beat myself up trying to define the indefinable or prove the unprovable? If "belief in God" were all there were to "religion," I wouldn't waste my time on it, either.

But, I'm sure someone will point out that you can't prove a negative and thus the "God Concept" stays alive....

Well, you can't -- but that's hardly relevant when one hasn't even stated a positive. Me, I wouldn't know what "positive" to state, and I don't think it particularly matters.

Honestly, we've discussed this before, and my thoughts haven't changed. I see your arguments as basically a false dichotomy; one MUST be either a simpleminded supernaturalist/fundamentalist/literalist, or a hard atheist. ALL other positions boil down to ONLY those two, is the way I read your posts.

Sorry, I don't find that point of view to be rational -- in that it is not objectively accurate as a matter of FACT, given the actual spectrum of the real approaches of real people in these matters. My own thoughts, and those of most of the Jews I know, simply don't fit into that narrow, artificial little "either/or" conundrum that you and others have concocted.

The ways that a human can think, and are free to think, simply aren't that limited.

You assume "God" is a coherent concept, though. I don't.

After all, couldn't one of the childish versions of God exist? Isn't it possible that a bearded man in the sky exists? Why not? Because it isn't properly refined and serious?

This is the failing of the God concept, IMO. It can actually include all the ridiculous versions as long as they aren't logically contradictory.

So, while you may mock people who don't have a sophisticated view of God, you may want to consider why your unverified version of God is better than some other unverified version of God?


That is, if there is something in a bag that we can't see, why is a more sophisticated argument and description better than an off-the-cuff "It's a ring"?

If you have no way of verifying what is in the bag, isn't "ring" as good an answer as any?

So, why is "disembodied mind that lives in the ether" worse than "Ground of Being" or "bearded man in sky"?

I don't see the difference if we can't improve on our knowledge of either of them.

"I don't know" is a simplistic answer that belies the absurdity of the God question.

I don't know what? Well, we don't know ANYTHING about God. Not even if a God actually exists and it's a Clown with duck feet and likes Late night TV movies. Scoff at it as you wish, but it's as valid as any "sophisticated" description.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 23 by Cephus]

Thanks again; I still disagree. The lines, in actual practice among actual people, just aren't that rigidly clear-cut, in my own understanding. If that's not the way you see it, fine, but I don't think you are qualified -- again -- to make pronouncements on how others should be required to think. Be well.

Yet this is conceptual, where the lines are clear cut. A positive belief either exists or it doesn't. Someone cannot say "I almost believe" or "I sort of believe". They either believe or they do not believe. There is no middle ground. If you believe, you are a theist. If you do not believe, and that includes every other stance except a positive belief, you are an atheist. You can run from the terminology if you like, but I don't think you can find a single case that falls outside of the categories I've described.

[McCulloch]

To say something is unknowable means to say that it can never be known.--which would be a hard agnostic position and thus a contradiction of terms. I suppose you could qualify it and say it's unknowable at this time, but....

"Strong agnostic" is an oxymoron because "strong" in this context means certain.

I disagree. As evidenced by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, a person can be certain that something about a particular field of interest cannot be known. A strong agnostic is sure that we cannot know about God's existence. This is not an oxymoron nor is it a contradiction in terms.

[cnorman18]

[ThePainefulTruth]

To say something is unknowable means to say that it can never be known.--which would be a hard agnostic position and thus a contradiction of terms. I suppose you could qualify it and say it's unknowable at this time, but....

"Strong agnostic" is an oxymoron because "strong" in this context means certain.

I disagree. As evidenced by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, a person can be certain that something about a particular field of interest cannot be known.

How? Isn't this the same thing as the atheists hypocritically turning their own "can't prove a negative" argument on its head?

A strong agnostic is sure that we cannot know about God's existence.

If an agnostic was strong (i.e sure), he wouldn't be an agnostic.

This is not an oxymoron nor is it a contradiction in terms.

Re: the definition of agnostic which I posted above.