I am glad someone has highlighted, non linear thinking. Linear thinking seems to part of our daily communication. The deeper thinkers can upset the black or white thinkers very easily. I got attacked very heavily by a youtube bigot because I introduced, confident, non straight line thinking as room for further discussion. They get angry.
I personally believe, that atheist are try to include everything under the umbrella of atheism, Verificationism, skepticism, Verificationism and so on.
Your "headsist/tailsist" example is faulty, I think, because the proposition isn't "god/no god" but instead, "god(x)/not god(x)".
A more apt example would be car buyers. There are people who buy a car, and there are people who do not have a car. They may not have a car because they want to be "green", or they may not have a car because they haven't heard a convincing sales pitch yet.
The people with cars are theists, and the people without cars are atheists - not saying WHY they are without.
Agnosticism is too sophisticated for new atheists to understand. It takes what it means to know something seriously enough to think about it instead of just making believe, like atheists do.
Atheists are defining themselves as a fundamentalist religion. It's time for us to treat them like that is what they are.
4. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc. -As per Websters Dictionary, as of 2012.
I identify as an atheist since I don't accept the authoritarian god concept & have never been a member of any religion, other than Buddhism which doesn't really seem to count much, or maybe it does. I self-identify as an agnostic since I don't hear any clear definition of god concerning which I would have sufficient knowledge to decide much about, while I remain open to other dimensions to reality & shit. Yet, I would rarely call myself agnostic due to the weenie factor aspect. Gd vid, BTW.
I like your videos noelplum99, you actually talk about religion/god from points that make sense and questions that need to be asked, instead of just attacking people and saying gods not real and you guys suck.
For true agnostic person, that is a person that is not atheist in fear, it is not such.
It is rather that they see the world as box. We can explore this box with sciencentific methods and make predictions with math. But instead of getting rid of this box with our tools of observation, it grows. If you dig deep enough you start to see this.
While no longer being able to trust in coinsidence, you start to think who you are instead of how and why as that leads no where.
True agnostic will say he is agnostic about what is outside of this box. That does not mean fear of any god as it is ambiguous what the real truth is.
I will argue with theist any day, at any time, with same passion as atheist do. But when I argue, I do it on their own term.
I have had good results in arguing with theist as they can not use the ambiguous card on me. I simply show them if god exist, then he would find reson to write our morals within us instead of any book. Simple.
As an agnostic atheist, I don't reject the concept of an intelligent power behind this universe. It is a possibility. You could say that I don't deny God, just the man-made versions of it.
Just on that point Noel, I'd lean towards there being a "God", but not in a religous sense, just in a sense that their is a higher power to be acknowledged i.e. no man on earth is above me, if ya catch me drift. There is no God in religion, just control.
@Kazumaster read your last post and got a certain quote in my head.(Not sure how accurate it is to the original) Time is a great teacher, unfortunately it kills all it's pupils. :-)
For me as an agnostic, it is critical to understand that agnostic 'without knowledge' is Socratic 'I know that I know nothing' philosophy. The only way to learn is to recognize our own ignorance. We all have beliefs, but we should do the self examination required to identify which beliefs rest on a solid foundation of knowledge and which do not. Also, agnosticism is not only god specific. For example, a political agnostic would be someone who is not owned by a specific political party.
@noelplum99 I wouldn't even consider a God that sends people to hell by judge of character, or even one that differentiates sins from 'mortal sins'. If God is all knowing, he knows everything in this universe in a more mechanical way than the scale quarks are on. From what it says in The Bible, God only requires belief in him to be saved from hell, and everything I learn about the universe tells me this is the ideal sandbox for what God would want for people to make that choice.
@chrismrulz Seeing as Noel is already addressing Pascal's Wager, I've only this to add:
Are you seriously implying that belief is a choice? That you can make yourself believe, really believe something just like that?
It's a shame I have to repeat myself yet again, but here goes: "I don't know whether a god exists or not, so I'm not saying anything for certain" is the position of an *agnostic atheist*. I don't believe, which is why I am one. It is the most logical position.
Belief is not a choice. I don't choose not to believe in God. I don't believe in God because of the absence of evidence, it requires no active belief one way or the other. I lack faith.
I would definte "lack of faith" as atheism, and say that agnosticism is not by itself a position at all. You either have active faith or you don't, there is no third option. Agnosticism is merely another specification to the label of 'atheism' or 'theism' or what have you, the opposite if you will of gnosticism.
So let me ask you a question I have asked many times here: what about the myriad people who really do not know their own mind? In some ways they feel a certainty that a god exists and in other ways they find the idea ludicrous? Does it make sense to insist they bundle themselves in with one camp or the other when they, like Huxley who originally coined the term, felt neither would represent their position?
@noelplum99 I have never in my life met such a person, not really. I'm being completely serious too. Everyone I know who calls or has called themselves 'agnostic' was either an atheist fearing the label, or an atheist ignorant of the terminology. You know, the people who go "atheists are just as ignorant as theists because they believe god doesn't exist", not knowing the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism. To me, anyone who isn't sure is an atheist by default without active faith.
@Kazumaster I am one who doesn't decide either way. The idea of God will always be a scientific unknown, so it seems ridiculous to me to decide either way, and especially ridiculous to default to atheism considering pascal's wager.
I take the skeptical approach to the regress argument, and believe that empirical evidence in this world is fallacious and unjustified at some point, but I use fuzzy logic and probability theory to get by, and choose a side that is most relatively true.
"and especially ridiculous to default to atheism considering pascal's wager"
To jump in here. The standard response to this is to ask you then how you are going to choose which of the hundreds of gods you are going to plump for, whilst risking the wrath of all the others?
However, it is not an argument I like because it hides the real reason pascal's wager convinces hardly anyone. I did an vid on this ages ago and my argument runs like this:
...invisible hole outside your front door. Would you, along the lines of pascals wager, always side step around your doormat forever more? No you would not. BUT, not for the 'wrong god' reason that you may be sidestepping into another invisible hole alongside the first! No, the reason you don't bother is because, frankly, you'd think i was full of shit. So whilst i may accept some possibility of deism, the notion that we even have an immortal component.....
...invisible hole outside your front door. Would you, along the lines of pascals wager, always side step around your doormat forever more? No you would not. BUT, not for the 'wrong god' reason that you may be sidestepping into another invisible hole alongside the first! No, the reason you don't bother is because, frankly, you'd think i was full of shit. So whilst i may accept some possibility of deism, the notion that we even have an immortal component.....
...invisible hole outside your front door. Would you, along the lines of pascals wager, always side step around your doormat forever more? No you would not. BUT, not for the 'wrong god' reason that you may be sidestepping into another invisible hole alongside the first! No, the reason you don't bother is because, frankly, you'd think i was full of shit. So whilst i may accept some possibility of deism, the notion that we even have an immortal component.....
... that carries on after our death, let alone the ludicrous claim that this deity fucks about doleing out torture sentences to people who fiddle with their genitals is so off the scale of believability that i don't consider there is any risk to be had.
@noelplum99 I heard a similar thing from thunderf00t about riding your bike if you knew someone was riding their's at light speed, so hitting them would cause you eternal pain.
The only problem is that belief in God requires no sacrifice unless you choose a bat shit insane denomination like Catholicism, in which God uses physical actions with your body to remove your sins.
I don't consider the premises of non-Judeo Christian Gods to compete with that of no God, so that doesn't worry me too much.
@noelplum99 Ahura Mazda isn't omnipotent and has way too many human traits. If a God is omnipotent, omniscient, transcends time and space and so on, and doesn't require anything but belief in 'him' (not 'him' as anything that represents a character or idol), as far as I'm concerned it's referencing the same God, so I'm happy to go for it.
I'd have no problem considering the possibility of the FSM if it was immaterial instead of being spag bol, and had equal traits of Yahweh.
Yahweh requires more than belief in him, I'm afraid I have got to tell you. It goes like this: you were born inherently sinful and pretty much everything you do will be unworth in His eyes. the only means of salvation is through grace via his son, Jesus Christ (who is also Him, apparently, which must make birthdays really difficult) so you need to start asking for forgiveness or your pascal-based plans won't count for shit!
@noelplum99 Jesus, I'm sorry for anything I have done and will do. I'm assuming since you're omniscient you're familiar with relativity, so time is an irrelevant variable to this rule and there is no chronology of my sins, and you're omnipotent so you can read YouTube comments that this is all good.
Repenting your sins with a keyboard: 12 seconds.
Guaranteeing your potential slot in heaven for eternal happiness: Priceless.
@noelplum99 I think a more accurate metaphor to pascal's wager would be if Stephen Hawking said to you "I'm going to show you that I can divide by zero. Do you believe I can do it? If you do, I will give you my 1 billion dollars. If you don't, I'm going to slowly kill you."
My position is saying "Sure, I genuinely believe atleast it's a possibility since you know fuck-tons more than I do."
Id consider it pointless to say "Fuck you Hawking, you sadistic bastard. That's mathematically impossible."
@noelplum99 I think a more accurate metaphor to pascal's wager would be if Stephen Hawking said to you "I'm going to show you that I can divide by zero. Do you believe I can do it? If you do, I will give you my 1 billion dollars. If you don't, I'm going to slowly kill you."
My position is saying "Sure, I genuinely believe atleast it's a possibility since you know fuck-tons more than I do."
Id consider it pointless to say "Fuck you Hawking, you sadistic bastard. That's mathematically impossible."
@noelplum99 AFAIK Jesus/God knows sinning is inherit human nature, so you're supposed to feel sorry for your sins, not pro-actively repent after each one before you die which could happen at any random time.
Even if I was an atheist I would feel bad about anything sinful and want to change that, so no loss there.
Just caught your last reply to chris and I absolutely agree with your point on choice. however, i realised i never responded to you yesterday. i think a whole category of people you are missing includes those who were devout believers and are in the process of losing their faith, yet are still far from convinced to let go of their god concept and still, in part, believe that there has to be something 'god-shaped'. In a way they still have active faith .....
...but it is jarring heavily against a reasoned disbelief. Is this not a prime example of cognitive dissonance and are we denying the faith and religion can lead to dissonant feelings?
...but it is jarring heavily against a reasoned disbelief. Is this not a prime example of cognitive dissonance and are we denying the faith and religion can lead to dissonant feelings?
@noelplum99 If they still believe on some level, they're theists. But maybe I just have difficulty imagining a process like that. I never viewed any belief system as my own (the first time I even learned about christianity as a concept was at the age of 12), I've never had this kind of active faith in any religion. My parents are christian though. My point is, I don't think atheism is necessarily a reasoned disbelief, but rather as I said the lack of a belief in the supernatural. (contd.)
@Kazumaster In that sense, it is neither a positive or a negative position and as a word describes specifically the absolute lack of active faith. I rejected christianity outright at 12 not because I was making a philosophical point or because I believed in the lack of a god, I merely had never considered such an option and such a way of thinking felt foreign and unnecessary to me. It was irrelevant. In this sense, I would still call myself and atheist and not an agnostic. Does this make sense?
@Kazumaster But of course, this is just a semantic issue and I'm happy to agree to disagree. I don't really care that much what people call themselves, it only concern me what associations people make with what I call myself.
Of course that makes sense. Like I (think i) said in the video, I affirm the position that in the absence of any knowledge of the god-concept you are an atheist - I just feel that once you DO have such knowledge the position changes somewhat and any decision you arrive at is an active choice. Ever since you turned 12 your lack of a Christian faith changed from an ignorance that is existed to a reasoned disbelief - your atheism changed but remained.
@noelplum99 Really all we're wrestling about here is whether one makes an active decision in this situation, and while I understand your point I just can't fully agree with it. There's not much more to add here, as I'm sure you'll agree. So I'll just thank you for your time now, and conclude that since life is a learning experience, perhaps one day by the time we're both demented old men we'll have reached the same conclusion on this issue, whatever that may be :-)
@noelplum99 But, I'm just going to add that it was an interesting video as always, and good luck in your future endeavours. I don't think I'll be continuing this discussion as I have talked about it frankly enough times recently, I'm bound to get a headache soon.
I do usually agree with you, but I figured I'd add my two cents this time :-)
For argument's sake let's just talk about one god, say the Christian one. There are two possible states of being: 1. You believe he exists. 2. You do not believe he exists. If, when asked if you believe, your reply is "I don't know" then you fall into category 2. This is really how simple it is and I don't see any need for endless discussions on which words to use when it really doesn't matter. Just ask people what they believe and why and go from there.
2. What percentage do I feel a God may exist? I really don't care, the existence of God is purely hypothetical. If He does exist He doesn't care and if He doesn't exist nothing changes.
At times in my life, I could identify as a Theist and then as an Atheist. Now I think the whole question is a waste of time. Deal with the world you find yourself in and stop chasing mental boogeymen.
Tails = tailsists = strong a-headists (sure that it *won't* be heads)
Don't know = weak a-headist (won't rule out heads, nor tails)
From the perspective of "heads" there's two possibilities: Those that think it will definitely be heads (for whatever reason) and those that don't think that.
Very few atheists deny that tecnically, it is just as wrong to affirm with certainty there are no gods as it is to affirm that there are.
"From the perspective of "heads" there's two possibilities"
Yet you have just stated three. The only difference between two of your and two of mine is the terminology. The problem is, if we follow your categories through and look at weak atheists then you are talking about a very different camp to the person who believes there is a statistically high chance of of a god existing - not to mention, you are also using terminology that 99% of people haven't a clue about.
Whilst i agree with what you are saying on a literal level, are you telling me there is no qualitative difference between individuals who specifically plump for tails and individuals who state they can not know the outcome? It seems to me there is a huge difference and if there is a reason for labelling people it is to highlight just these kinds of differences of perspective, otherwise why bother?
@vollmuell And then there are those who will simply say the first thing that pops into their minds to get rid of the nutter asking them stupid questions and wasting their time...
To be fair, having separate categories isn't helpful if atheists and agnostics usually - in practice, in my experience - believe the same thing: that some sort of god could conceivably exist, but probably or likely doesn't.
Too inclusive a definition for agnostic also leaves us with only 2 categories. If "not saying it's impossible, just don't believe it" is categorized as agnostic, the only thing left for atheists is the "I can prove a negative" position generally only held by straw men.
@raj1037 well being atheist does not mean you can prove the non existence , but rather you believe the non existence of a deity , so it is a clear difference between agnostic and atheist, i am called agnostic because i believe there is something, but i am not sure what it is, where as an atheist does not believe in a higher power at all
@GulliLille when it boils down what we are talking about is belief, plain and simple, even the belief that there is NO god/s is just a belief,so to say you believe in A(specific,defined, named) makes you part of said religion, the belief that there is something (non specific, non named, non defined) makes you agnostic, the belief that there is no higher power makes you an atheist , but i do not expect you to understand, no more than i expect atheists and theists to agree on the existence of god
Wikipedia has a decent entry on agnosticism, which brings up multiple issues.
There is probability, verifiability, meaning, belief, knowledge, confidence, commitment, applicability, etc. These are all different concepts, and the goal should be clarity of communication about them.
Unfortunately, many people think they can win arguments through language usage, making the fundamental mistake of thinking we have to value according to our categories, while a rational person categorizes according to their values.
That's what's going on with agnosticism and burden of proof between atheism and theism. The burden doesn't change because we change the meaning of our terms, but it's easier to argue about that than to think about knowledge and the burden of proof.
I like your video and agree with the categorizations you presented. I'd really like to see that experiment carried out somehow a few times. I would even allow the person being surveyed to carry the percentage of deity belief or not to the nearest hundreth of a percent. If a person believes in a 50.01% chance that a deity exists a theist? Is a person that believes that only .01 % of chance that a deity exist, like Dawkins (I think you said a number similar), a theist. Or agnostic???
@charlesfloyb "If a person believes in a 50.01% chance that a deity exists a theist? "
I've posed that question to many Atheists (online and in person) and the general answer is "anything less than 100% active belief that one or more God(s) exist, is Atheism." Which pretty much implies everyone except completely delusional people, are Atheists.
I think your coin analogy fails, because with the coin flip there's a true 50-50 chance, so it's sensible to sit on the fence. With the god question however, I doubt there are many (if any) people who are truly sitting on the fence, saying that it's a 50-50 chance and could be either way. But as soon as you're not exactly in the middle, you do believe in one thing more than the other, automatically putting you in either the theist or atheist camp.
I'm 99.9% atheist to the God of any religion that I know of but I'm agnostic to Deism. It also depends on what is the criterion of god. Does it have to be a supernatural creator with a purpose and personality or can i define god as nature then im a believer.
Like you, I've given the matter a lot of thought, and have concluded that there really should be a word for those who are agnostic about whether they believe in a God or not; that elusive third category. There is a definite hole in our lexicon there! I've been trying to come up with a word for that! Any ideas?
You can't say "I don't know" if you're asked if you believe in a god if you live in a society where you've heard a god concept. Which is pretty much everyone. You either do or you don't.
The only way the "I don't know" definition could work is if you hadn't -ever- heard the concept before.
The question of a "percentage" of belief has very little relevance if a person is genuinely being honest with himself if he claims he cannot possibly know the answer. I don't call myself an "agnostic" because I'm any sort of embarrassed American about atheism. I call myself agnostic because I find that people who are absolutely SURE that there is no God or gods tend to be as obnoxious as people who are absolutely SURE that there is one. Being SURE of either position is a matter of faith...
@PhaedrusNYC any atheist who claims otherwise is as arrogant in his own sense of "rightness" as the religious freaks out there are who want to impinge on my right not to care. So far, there's no conclusive proof of a creator nor a coherent understanding of true nothingness and how something can arise from it. It is unknowable. So I just stay out of it and try to be a good person, and moreover try not to irritate people by loudly proclaiming that they're stupid in their beliefs.
@PhaedrusNYC I like your point. Although I think there is a difference between having complete faith and a complete lack of faith. (which is how I define myself) I cannot commit myself to something that doesn't confirm its existence. It's not certainty that I predicate my disbelief, but that any other option makes no sense. If there is no interfering, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god, than what deems it the title of god?
@TheLummer66 You are now getting into the definition of "God," and I submit that there are/were so many belief systems that judging one's belief a "god" based on a Judeo-Christiansort of deity is reductionist. It is possible to conceive of, for example, a Deist God, who created but doesn't actually get involved, without needing proof of interference; an Old Testament God without needing proof of benevolence; or a Greco-Roman god without needing proof or omnipotency or omniscience.
@PhaedrusNYC Yeah I kind of discounted others "deities" without explaining why. The pantheonic gods seem to be petty super humans which might seem like us compared to a fly, but it does not endow us with godhood despite our superiority to the fly, or a representation of a natural force. We now know that thunder is caused by clouds bumping around and not Thor bowling in asgard. The Newtonian clockwinder theory is more troublesome. My best way to justify my exclusion of it is con't
@PhaedrusNYC that for me to consider something a god rather than a super natural force requires sentience. The idea of an inert hands off being, just creating and observing, strikes me as filling in a lack of knowledge of the universe with the creation of god. The fact is most religions (in fact I fail to know of any that don't) subscribe to an interfering deity/deities with an agenda. The interference seems to be gone so either their dead, asleep or just non existent.
An interesting exchange. of course you could be the sentient creator of a universe, even an interfering one, and be far from omniscient and omnipotent, as far as we know, so it seems to me that these are two seperate sets of issues.
@noelplum99 Well that's something I haven't given much consideration to. I presume creator of universe implies omnipotence, but that's not neccessarily the case. Much like god sending a snowball down the mountain and causing an avalanche. You've left me with a great big hmmm... Maybe Einstein was wrong and God does really throw dice.
@TheLummer66 Thanks, Noel- that was the point I was getting at. if you consider the definition of "God" to be the creater of the universe, without all the other stuff religions throw in, then that changes the criteria significantly from saying, "I do/don't believe in Jahweh/Allah/etc." A hands-off being who creates and observes doesn't necessarily lack sentience any more than a psychiatrist who builds a rat maze and sets the rats in it to see what they do lacks sentience.
@TheLummer66 We haven't even gotten into what I, for lack of a better term, call a "Parental" god- ie, one that gave life and has some ability to act upon things (not necessarily omnipotence), perhaps has affection, but chooses to let his progeny live their lives. The example I most often hear to disavow the existence of God is that bad things happen to good people, but that doesn't disallow for a God who isn't all Jewish-mothery about things and lets the kids make their own mistakes. ;)
@PhaedrusNYC If I understand your position correctly if someone gets a disease, e.g. cancer or pneumonia, it's because they're just naughty being. And the deaths innocent "kids" through starvation and preventable diseases are all caused by them being allowed to "make their own mistakes. ;)" because, hey, who the heck wants a "Jewish-mothery" deity looking after them?
@colourmegone No, you don't understand my position, and I have no idea where you got that from. If someone gets a disease, they get it because of genetics, or viruses, or environmental factors. You're ascribing a moral element to what I wrote that wasn't there, and arguing with straw men. I was saying that a creator/god/deity/whatever that doesn't cure someone's cancer because the rules of the universe are in place and it's not his job to respond to prayers is not impossible.
@PhaedrusNYC The moral dimension is certainly there in what you wrote. It's the same apologist position taken by those of all faiths when confronted by the problem of bad things happening to good people, i.e. free will, unless you're a fundamentalist Christian or Jew in which case you don't believe that there ARE any good people. To paraphrase "If there is a god but he cannot act, why bother to acknowledge the possibility of his existence?"
@colourmegone With all due respect, you are airing your own issues rather than reading what I wrote, so there's no argument worthwhile to make with you. You sound like someone who is hurt that there ISN'T something intervening. Paraphrase all you want, but in assuming that there is only one sort of god to acknowledge, you are acknowledging your own intellectual rigidity.
A difficult question for me is 'do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe' because I'd have to say that I do, but would also have to admit that there is absolutely no evidence for that position, other than that life exists on Earth. So in effect I'm holding a faith position, while still being agnostic (because I don't know for certain). I think with that question I can almost grasp the 'middle ground' position, and it does make me quite uncomfortable!
I like the example nick and I mentioned a similar example way down in the comments (though i went with our galaxy to remove aty least one unknown!). The problem for me is that I usually think of my position in terms of some kind of percentage (a kind if internal mental auditing process perhaps?) and when someone then forces me to choose 'believe or disbelieve' neither adequately convey my position unless it is an issue i feel some certainty over.... A similar example to the...
..one you mention here for me is the concept of deism in the broadest sense (including our universe being engineered or simulated by beings perhaps no more physiologically advanced than ourselves in a pre-existant universe). I kind of waver between 5 to 30% chance if pushed on this but potentially, if you asked me straight after reading a book championing these ideas that could conceivably rise to 50% or more (i think). So what should I answer if asked if i believe in this ....
...broad-brush deism (especially if i was at the 50% mark or beyond)? Personally i'd am disinclined to answer either way but many people here assert that my answer is that i do not believe in it. Yet the same would then have to apply if you asked me the reverse question - so i would end up claiming i disbelieved in all the logical possibilities, which suits me as someone who would happily claim i was agnostic to the idea but if you deny the middle ground option, what then?
@noelplum99 I see what you're saying. Perhaps we should just all accept that the labels people give to themselves are not absolute definitions of their positions on any subject. After all, even finding people who identifies themselves as, say, Christian doesn't let you know exactly what 'Christian' means to them. 'Agnostic' or 'atheist' are just starting point - you need to have a conversation with the individual, and then as I've said it's the issues raised by religion which will come out.
@noelplum99 I think you have to base the percentages on something, and for me 'do you believe there is life elsewhere...yes' is based on the evidence of life existing *somewhere* (here), whereas 'do you believe in god...no' is my position because I've seen zero evidence so couldn't answer otherwise. Do I believe there MIGHT be a god? Now with that question the percentage needle might flicker because infinite universe = infinite possibilities, but 'might exist' and 'does exist'... different!
That is an understandable piece of reasoning for arriving at your conclusions there. What i would set against it, and to account for my 20%, would be the kind of reasoning Nick Bostrom uses whereby, if we accept his premises, the number of simulated universes with sentient life would exceed the number of real universes with sentient life capable of running such simulations. Whilst I find it an uneasy proposition i find it hard to entirely ignore the conclusions.
@noelplum99 I'm not actually convinced that an 'infinite' anything exists, though perhaps that's because my mind can't make sense of such a concept - to me there always has to be 'one more' or 'no more' but an infinite number seems to be neither of those. I'm happy to live in ignorance of other universes, given that this one is big enough and spectacular enough to keep me occupied. So the 'other' middle ground which I hold in some cases is indifference: 'don't know, don't care'! :o)
Just a thought. When you say Agnostic at around 13 minutes. Is it agnostic to their own position on belief, not agnostic on the position of gods existence?
A good question. From my owbn perspective on related issues it depends what answers i am 'allowed' to have. If I am being forced to either believe or disbelieve then trhe agnosticism extends to my own position; if i am allowed to say I 30% believe A, 70% believe B then the agnosticism is in the proposition not in my own position.
I'm not sure I really understand your explanation there? I think it's along the lines of. If the question is do you believe in X or not, agnosticism is removed (except agnosticism about your own belief), because it's all about belief, but if it's what do you believe about, or some such less precisely worded question, then Agnosticism becomes a valid point because it's not a binary question.
"I think the analogy fails because the position on gods existence is very different to a 50/50 heads or tails question."
Whilst that may be true, for me the key is that in some peoples minds the evidence, by their reckoning, stacks 50:50 and what we are discussing here is their beliefs, not some notional objective telling of the evidence.
i guess i should not jump into the middle of this argument , however , to answer the question posed to the agnostics , my standpoint on religion is that i tend towards the idea that we can not know beyond a shadow of a doubt (at this current time) if a deity does or does not exist very much like the example of the coin toss, i would not hazard a guess as to the likely hood or chance that a deity exists, but i see that many people NEED this information to go on with there lives,so i say 50/50 ?
There is stigma to being an Atheist or Agnostic especially in America but, imho, it's all the more reason to claim to BE those things. There should be no antagonism between atheists n agnostics.
Fione by me and I have no problem with the title' atheist agnostic. however, what about if your personal interpretation brings you to the conclusion that there is maybe, in your judgement, a 50% chance that a deity exists? For me, the terms belief and disbelief here seem woefully polarised.
@JohnHenryAlex "is a wild guess that is labeled a belief, an actual belief?" wild guess to best guess...what's the tangible difference? It's still a guess and not fact.
It seems to me, guesses and faith are not much different when it comes to forming beliefs. If people guess or declare faith, the longer they hold that decision, the more they'll likely convince themselves they actually believe via cognitive dissonance.
People convince themselves of "facts" on guesses/faith all the time.
@JediVerse "How can you not know what you believe"
Belief is a propositional attitude. If one is vaguely familiar with the proposition, an attitude (believing, desiring, or hoping, implying intentionality) may be adopted to reflect the position to the proposition. The more familiar one gets with a proposition & the proposition is found to have either evidence or lack there of, then the attitude towards that proposition may change according to the knowledge one gains.
I often spend a considerable amount of time trying to work out what I believe and at the end of it can't always come up with a definitive position. Though I suppose it does depend what i am being expected to know, If you allow me shades of grey in my belief then i can give you a firmer outline but if you insist on black and white then I cannot. It is only when people insist 'you either believe or you don't that the confusion kicks in because if i feel like a ......
@JohnHenryAlex Your analogy seems inaccurate when applied to actual human minds. Ask a kid (without an inferiority or superiority complex...just an honest kid), who's barely passing math, if they past a test they just took.
The kid will likely answer : I dunno, I'm not sure, maybe, etc. If pressed "but do you BELIEVE you passed or not? The kid is going to either take a guess and call it a belief - OR stick with their original uncertainty - they just don't know either way.
@JohnHenryAlex Unfortunately this subject has nothing to do with truth, it's all about not admitting their an atheist as well. They don't care what the definition is or the fact that they can't admit that they believe in any god. Oddly enough, theists aren't usually this retarded with the word agnostic. The ones who use it know what it means.
I've got some "agnostics" to admit that there isn't any god they believe in, but they still wouldn't call themselves an athiest as well. Some of them are just as bad as creationists, they don't want to know or admit the truth. I used to be the other way around, I didn't consider myself to be an agnostic. But then I saw videos and looked up the definition and now I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.
Your coin-flipping analogy nearly convinced me. But if you ask people after three consecutive tails if they thought the next flip would be heads, it would be better to divide them between headsists and non-headsists. The tailsists would be strong non-headsists and the ones who are non-commital would be weak non-headsists. I think this analogy is a better fit to the debate.
I am happy with that. The problem is that by common usage the term agnostic also exists as more than just an adjective to tack onto atheist or theist so I cannot understand the refusal to accept a usage that forms part of normal english (and is actually at least closer to huxley's position of differentiating himself from both atheists and theists when he coined the term)
I feel I'm put in the unnecessary position of justifying my disbelief in a proposition for which the only tenable argument for its truth is the proposition itself.
Great video. You have given me a somewhat depressing thought though. I will stop telling people what I am in one or two words. I will just verbalize a paragraph or two to describe my position since people cant agree on beliefs much less the meanings of words.
Love the video, but I wanted to comment upon your experiment idea, Noelplum99.
The problem with the second question specifically is that you will get some people, like myself, who will respond, "What concept of God are we talking about?" For instance, I think the probability that the god of the Bible existing is close to nil. Thor being real? Even less. However, I would put the probability of deism as being true at close to 50%.
Absolutely so, the wording of the question would require some serious thought and would also have to tie in with the other question to make sure they were specifying the same thing.
ah sorry made my last comment before video was over,think you clarified but still left me feeling kinda confused.Your coin analogy really got the issue confused i think,if instead you said that a headsist is one who believes in Dr madeupname's assertion that heads will always come up,and a tailsist doesn't accept that guys assertion would that not be more analogous to the actual issue at hand.As i understand agnostic is referring to knowledge while atheist is referring to belief.no?
Sounds like you're defining agnostic as someone who doesn't know whether they believe in a god or not. Also the coin example is flawed as no one really believes they will get heads OR tails they are all "aheadsist". (assuming heads is god exists and tails is god doesn't exist).
@noelplum99 "I believe the group of people who self-identify as agnostics certianly include many people in that position." Yea I didn't mean to make it sound like there's anything wrong with that. I like for people to use language however they like. I admit it is a bit inconvenient though since to me it still sounds like not knowing whether a god exists. But I'm used to the word "atheist" being used in various ways too.
I very much like your examples, but may I add a bit? The, Babies are Atheist thing (an absurd question to begin with) however you say that "babies are the ultimate Agnostics..." From an Agnostic POV, your statement is true, but it's also true that as that child grows we (Agnostics) will continue to acknowledge in general the human inability based on that same lack of intellectual ability.
The 45 year old man is little better suited than the 3 month old baby for such a question.
maybe or maybe not. the point is that the 45 year old man at least has knowledge of the proposition itself whereas the babies lack of knowledge extends a whole level further, that was my point.
I realised that, i just hoped you would concede that it is at least substantially different even if you maintain a position that it is not substantially better.
The coin example is wholly inappropriate. 45% say heads, 45% say tails, but the rest say 'I don't know' does not demonstrate some 'middle ground' - you've not asked any of them what they *believe* will happen, you've just asked for a guess. As such, 100% of them do not *know* what the outcome will be, nor do any of them (if they're honest) firmly *believe* the result will match their prediction. They are all 'agnostic tossers' :o)
@noelplum99 But you still wouldn't *know* which one was going to win. I disagree with the idea that agnosticism is in any way a middle ground between theism and atheism. I can see that someone might say 'I don't know if a god exists', but that's not relevant to theism ('I believe in a god') or atheism ('I don't believe in a god'). Knowing and believing - not the same. To me, agnostic is a useless term - nobody can *know* with certainty, we're ALL agnostic, AND we all either *believe* or do not.
Imo you are conflating the rather subjective claims people make with regard to 'knowing' and a rather more objective reading of the level of knowledge we have (and thereby concluding we are all agnostics). With the football axample, whilst i doubt anyone would claim absolute knowledge I think you'd agree that many would claim to 'believe that team x will win' and genuinely feel that way. Surely there is a clear distinction between those that will side with team x, those that.....
...side with team y and then those that believe the attributes of the two teams are too close to side with either position?
"In the end, what people choose to call themselves is of relatively little importance because what really matters are the issues in their lives"
I am certainly with you on that, we can argue about these labels all day long but i think we agree it doesn't alter what matters, what they actually think, one jot.
@noelplum99 In the end, what people choose to call themselves is of relatively little importance because what really matters are the issues in their lives which they find important, and the actions they take (or not) to support their principles, or oppose those with which they disagree. Calling yourself a theist or an atheist actually says very little - you need to ask 'what kind of theist or atheist (or indeed agnostic) are you?' and 'where do you stand on x,y,z?'
@Noelplum99, I think when you proposed the coin flip analogy, you displayed your misunderstanding. I think that a "million-dollar check hidden in my pocket" analogy would have been much more accurate. Here the gnostic claims to know whether or not you have a check, while an agnostic claims to not know. The theist is the one who believes you, while the atheist does not. Someone may not believe that you have that check in your pocket, and also not claim to know for sure (the agnostic atheist).
@100PercentGreen I agree and was about to say as much before I read your comment. I usually agree with Noel, but on this one I can't get around the terminology confusion. The assumption here is that if you are atheist, you don't have doubt in the existence of any god where in actuality atheism is the lack of belief in specific gods. In a practical sense, the term agnostic is being used for people who don't understand the terms, therefore I don't agree with redefining the terms due to ignorance.
Ok, so taking your check analogy then. let us say that i know and trust you but find the idea that you could have access to such an amount of money unlikely. i therefore have grounds both to believe and disbelieve you and may find myself in a state of mental flux and dissonance over the issue. i think we would both agree that agbnostic would fit here but how could you decide whether I should be categorised as believing you or disbelieving you? neither seems to be accurate imo.
@noelplum99 Well, if you didn't believe me, then it wouldn't necessarily mean that you believed that I was lying. That's because disbelief of a claim isn't always an active belief in the falsity of that claim. Now, if I was Bill Gates, then you still couldn't "claim to know" if I had the check, but my claim would be much more "believable". In this case you would still be an agnostic, but given my identity, you would probably be a believer.
@100PercentGreen ....if the evidence for or against the claim remains hidden, then only agnosticism is justified. You would then have to analyze the claimant and the claim. If the claim is reasonable by your standards, then you would be inclined to believe it. But if the claim is extraordinary, then you may be less inclined to believe it. Agnostic/Gnostic should be the answer to "Do you know?", while Atheist/Theist should be the response to "Are you convinced?".
Hm mr plum,I am confused a bit by your reasons why"adult"atheism isn't the default position.Deciding not to believe something isn't really the opposite of deciding to believe something.Especially for things that aren't obvious, things that don't have any supporting evidence because in that case I wouldn't be making a choice not to believe in something,my choice is only that I require a good reason beforehand,I would simply not have been a good reason to believe.Am i mistaken here,any thoughts?
It isn't adulthood that changes things it is being presented with the proposition and some evidence on which to base the decision. From that point on, whilst the concept of a default position remains, a positive decision is made whetehr that be to believe or to disbelieve. If that disbelief is based on lack of evidence then, sure, you are an atheist (agnostic atheist seems an ideal title for such people) but if you end up...
...unsure whether you believe or disbelieve that is clearly a somewhat different state of affairs to disbelief based on lack of evidence. Many people really don't seem to be sure what they believe and their position varies daily from some level of conviction if a faith to some degree of certainty that it's all a load of shit.
I am glad someone has highlighted, non linear thinking. Linear thinking seems to part of our daily communication. The deeper thinkers can upset the black or white thinkers very easily. I got attacked very heavily by a youtube bigot because I introduced, confident, non straight line thinking as room for further discussion. They get angry.
stevepalmerssolid 2 weeks ago
I personally believe, that atheist are try to include everything under the umbrella of atheism, Verificationism, skepticism, Verificationism and so on.
VyckRo 3 weeks ago
Your "headsist/tailsist" example is faulty, I think, because the proposition isn't "god/no god" but instead, "god(x)/not god(x)".
A more apt example would be car buyers. There are people who buy a car, and there are people who do not have a car. They may not have a car because they want to be "green", or they may not have a car because they haven't heard a convincing sales pitch yet.
The people with cars are theists, and the people without cars are atheists - not saying WHY they are without.
OccamKant 3 weeks ago
Agnosticism is too sophisticated for new atheists to understand. It takes what it means to know something seriously enough to think about it instead of just making believe, like atheists do.
Atheists are defining themselves as a fundamentalist religion. It's time for us to treat them like that is what they are.
destituteneedsjob 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Definition of Agnostic(1 of 13 Definitions):
Noun:
4. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc. -As per Websters Dictionary, as of 2012.
MrEvillution 1 month ago
The more I debate with atheist on why I call myself agnostic it is getting rather clear it is because theist>atheist in usa.
Where I come from it is theist<atheist.
Maybe I should back of a little but there are those who remain agnostic not because of fear, but because they can not see themslef as atheist.
I am a former atheist but I turned to agnostic basicly because I got caught in this paradox of always being able to ask why and how.
I am rather strong in my agnostic belief if I may.
steverock85 2 months ago
I identify as an atheist since I don't accept the authoritarian god concept & have never been a member of any religion, other than Buddhism which doesn't really seem to count much, or maybe it does. I self-identify as an agnostic since I don't hear any clear definition of god concerning which I would have sufficient knowledge to decide much about, while I remain open to other dimensions to reality & shit. Yet, I would rarely call myself agnostic due to the weenie factor aspect. Gd vid, BTW.
gedgetips 2 months ago
@Gorilla199
xxViolentGamerxx 2 months ago
I like your videos noelplum99, you actually talk about religion/god from points that make sense and questions that need to be asked, instead of just attacking people and saying gods not real and you guys suck.
vampirehunter33 3 months ago
Agnosticism (n.): the belief that lots of evidence for A and absolutely no evidence for B makes them both equally likely.
kts68 3 months ago 5
@kts68
For true agnostic person, that is a person that is not atheist in fear, it is not such.
It is rather that they see the world as box. We can explore this box with sciencentific methods and make predictions with math. But instead of getting rid of this box with our tools of observation, it grows. If you dig deep enough you start to see this.
While no longer being able to trust in coinsidence, you start to think who you are instead of how and why as that leads no where.
steverock85 2 months ago
@kts68
True agnostic will say he is agnostic about what is outside of this box. That does not mean fear of any god as it is ambiguous what the real truth is.
I will argue with theist any day, at any time, with same passion as atheist do. But when I argue, I do it on their own term.
I have had good results in arguing with theist as they can not use the ambiguous card on me. I simply show them if god exist, then he would find reson to write our morals within us instead of any book. Simple.
steverock85 2 months ago
As an agnostic atheist, I don't reject the concept of an intelligent power behind this universe. It is a possibility. You could say that I don't deny God, just the man-made versions of it.
deadshot1995 3 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@deadshot1995 "You could say that I don't deny God, just the man-made versions of it."
An atheist rejects any version of God. An invisible Intelligence implies at least an anthropomorphic being.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
Just on that point Noel, I'd lean towards there being a "God", but not in a religous sense, just in a sense that their is a higher power to be acknowledged i.e. no man on earth is above me, if ya catch me drift. There is no God in religion, just control.
debuitleirable 3 months ago
@Kazumaster read your last post and got a certain quote in my head.(Not sure how accurate it is to the original) Time is a great teacher, unfortunately it kills all it's pupils. :-)
Bornofbadger 4 months ago
Comment removed
RichieJohnSauls 4 months ago
For me as an agnostic, it is critical to understand that agnostic 'without knowledge' is Socratic 'I know that I know nothing' philosophy. The only way to learn is to recognize our own ignorance. We all have beliefs, but we should do the self examination required to identify which beliefs rest on a solid foundation of knowledge and which do not. Also, agnosticism is not only god specific. For example, a political agnostic would be someone who is not owned by a specific political party.
jameskirkwall 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I wouldn't even consider a God that sends people to hell by judge of character, or even one that differentiates sins from 'mortal sins'. If God is all knowing, he knows everything in this universe in a more mechanical way than the scale quarks are on. From what it says in The Bible, God only requires belief in him to be saved from hell, and everything I learn about the universe tells me this is the ideal sandbox for what God would want for people to make that choice.
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@chrismrulz Seeing as Noel is already addressing Pascal's Wager, I've only this to add:
Are you seriously implying that belief is a choice? That you can make yourself believe, really believe something just like that?
It's a shame I have to repeat myself yet again, but here goes: "I don't know whether a god exists or not, so I'm not saying anything for certain" is the position of an *agnostic atheist*. I don't believe, which is why I am one. It is the most logical position.
Kazumaster 5 months ago
Belief is not a choice. I don't choose not to believe in God. I don't believe in God because of the absence of evidence, it requires no active belief one way or the other. I lack faith.
I would definte "lack of faith" as atheism, and say that agnosticism is not by itself a position at all. You either have active faith or you don't, there is no third option. Agnosticism is merely another specification to the label of 'atheism' or 'theism' or what have you, the opposite if you will of gnosticism.
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@Kazumaster
So let me ask you a question I have asked many times here: what about the myriad people who really do not know their own mind? In some ways they feel a certainty that a god exists and in other ways they find the idea ludicrous? Does it make sense to insist they bundle themselves in with one camp or the other when they, like Huxley who originally coined the term, felt neither would represent their position?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I have never in my life met such a person, not really. I'm being completely serious too. Everyone I know who calls or has called themselves 'agnostic' was either an atheist fearing the label, or an atheist ignorant of the terminology. You know, the people who go "atheists are just as ignorant as theists because they believe god doesn't exist", not knowing the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism. To me, anyone who isn't sure is an atheist by default without active faith.
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@Kazumaster I am one who doesn't decide either way. The idea of God will always be a scientific unknown, so it seems ridiculous to me to decide either way, and especially ridiculous to default to atheism considering pascal's wager.
I take the skeptical approach to the regress argument, and believe that empirical evidence in this world is fallacious and unjustified at some point, but I use fuzzy logic and probability theory to get by, and choose a side that is most relatively true.
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@chrismrulz
"and especially ridiculous to default to atheism considering pascal's wager"
To jump in here. The standard response to this is to ask you then how you are going to choose which of the hundreds of gods you are going to plump for, whilst risking the wrath of all the others?
However, it is not an argument I like because it hides the real reason pascal's wager convinces hardly anyone. I did an vid on this ages ago and my argument runs like this:
Imagine I tell you that there is an ...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...invisible hole outside your front door. Would you, along the lines of pascals wager, always side step around your doormat forever more? No you would not. BUT, not for the 'wrong god' reason that you may be sidestepping into another invisible hole alongside the first! No, the reason you don't bother is because, frankly, you'd think i was full of shit. So whilst i may accept some possibility of deism, the notion that we even have an immortal component.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...invisible hole outside your front door. Would you, along the lines of pascals wager, always side step around your doormat forever more? No you would not. BUT, not for the 'wrong god' reason that you may be sidestepping into another invisible hole alongside the first! No, the reason you don't bother is because, frankly, you'd think i was full of shit. So whilst i may accept some possibility of deism, the notion that we even have an immortal component.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...invisible hole outside your front door. Would you, along the lines of pascals wager, always side step around your doormat forever more? No you would not. BUT, not for the 'wrong god' reason that you may be sidestepping into another invisible hole alongside the first! No, the reason you don't bother is because, frankly, you'd think i was full of shit. So whilst i may accept some possibility of deism, the notion that we even have an immortal component.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
... that carries on after our death, let alone the ludicrous claim that this deity fucks about doleing out torture sentences to people who fiddle with their genitals is so off the scale of believability that i don't consider there is any risk to be had.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I heard a similar thing from thunderf00t about riding your bike if you knew someone was riding their's at light speed, so hitting them would cause you eternal pain.
The only problem is that belief in God requires no sacrifice unless you choose a bat shit insane denomination like Catholicism, in which God uses physical actions with your body to remove your sins.
I don't consider the premises of non-Judeo Christian Gods to compete with that of no God, so that doesn't worry me too much.
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@chrismrulz
"I don't consider the premises of non-Judeo Christian Gods to compete with that of no God, so that doesn't worry me too much."
Why is that? Has the combined marketing effort of Paul of Tarsus and the Emperor Constantine done that good a job, lol?
Seriously though, the same reason you don't give a crap about pissing off Ahura Mazda is the same reason i don't give a crap about pissing off Yahweh
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Ahura Mazda isn't omnipotent and has way too many human traits. If a God is omnipotent, omniscient, transcends time and space and so on, and doesn't require anything but belief in 'him' (not 'him' as anything that represents a character or idol), as far as I'm concerned it's referencing the same God, so I'm happy to go for it.
I'd have no problem considering the possibility of the FSM if it was immaterial instead of being spag bol, and had equal traits of Yahweh.
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@chrismrulz
Yahweh requires more than belief in him, I'm afraid I have got to tell you. It goes like this: you were born inherently sinful and pretty much everything you do will be unworth in His eyes. the only means of salvation is through grace via his son, Jesus Christ (who is also Him, apparently, which must make birthdays really difficult) so you need to start asking for forgiveness or your pascal-based plans won't count for shit!
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Jesus, I'm sorry for anything I have done and will do. I'm assuming since you're omniscient you're familiar with relativity, so time is an irrelevant variable to this rule and there is no chronology of my sins, and you're omnipotent so you can read YouTube comments that this is all good.
Repenting your sins with a keyboard: 12 seconds.
Guaranteeing your potential slot in heaven for eternal happiness: Priceless.
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@chrismrulz
"Repenting your sins with a keyboard: 12 seconds.
Guaranteeing your potential slot in heaven for eternal happiness: Priceless."
Haha, well I appreciate the humour but i just hope god doesn't think you're taking the piss!
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I think a more accurate metaphor to pascal's wager would be if Stephen Hawking said to you "I'm going to show you that I can divide by zero. Do you believe I can do it? If you do, I will give you my 1 billion dollars. If you don't, I'm going to slowly kill you."
My position is saying "Sure, I genuinely believe atleast it's a possibility since you know fuck-tons more than I do."
Id consider it pointless to say "Fuck you Hawking, you sadistic bastard. That's mathematically impossible."
chrismrulz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noelplum99 I think a more accurate metaphor to pascal's wager would be if Stephen Hawking said to you "I'm going to show you that I can divide by zero. Do you believe I can do it? If you do, I will give you my 1 billion dollars. If you don't, I'm going to slowly kill you."
My position is saying "Sure, I genuinely believe atleast it's a possibility since you know fuck-tons more than I do."
Id consider it pointless to say "Fuck you Hawking, you sadistic bastard. That's mathematically impossible."
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@noelplum99 AFAIK Jesus/God knows sinning is inherit human nature, so you're supposed to feel sorry for your sins, not pro-actively repent after each one before you die which could happen at any random time.
Even if I was an atheist I would feel bad about anything sinful and want to change that, so no loss there.
chrismrulz 5 months ago
Comment removed
chrismrulz 5 months ago
@Kazumaster
Just caught your last reply to chris and I absolutely agree with your point on choice. however, i realised i never responded to you yesterday. i think a whole category of people you are missing includes those who were devout believers and are in the process of losing their faith, yet are still far from convinced to let go of their god concept and still, in part, believe that there has to be something 'god-shaped'. In a way they still have active faith .....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...but it is jarring heavily against a reasoned disbelief. Is this not a prime example of cognitive dissonance and are we denying the faith and religion can lead to dissonant feelings?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...but it is jarring heavily against a reasoned disbelief. Is this not a prime example of cognitive dissonance and are we denying the faith and religion can lead to dissonant feelings?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 If they still believe on some level, they're theists. But maybe I just have difficulty imagining a process like that. I never viewed any belief system as my own (the first time I even learned about christianity as a concept was at the age of 12), I've never had this kind of active faith in any religion. My parents are christian though. My point is, I don't think atheism is necessarily a reasoned disbelief, but rather as I said the lack of a belief in the supernatural. (contd.)
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@Kazumaster In that sense, it is neither a positive or a negative position and as a word describes specifically the absolute lack of active faith. I rejected christianity outright at 12 not because I was making a philosophical point or because I believed in the lack of a god, I merely had never considered such an option and such a way of thinking felt foreign and unnecessary to me. It was irrelevant. In this sense, I would still call myself and atheist and not an agnostic. Does this make sense?
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@Kazumaster But of course, this is just a semantic issue and I'm happy to agree to disagree. I don't really care that much what people call themselves, it only concern me what associations people make with what I call myself.
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@Kazumaster
"Does this make sense?"
Of course that makes sense. Like I (think i) said in the video, I affirm the position that in the absence of any knowledge of the god-concept you are an atheist - I just feel that once you DO have such knowledge the position changes somewhat and any decision you arrive at is an active choice. Ever since you turned 12 your lack of a Christian faith changed from an ignorance that is existed to a reasoned disbelief - your atheism changed but remained.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Really all we're wrestling about here is whether one makes an active decision in this situation, and while I understand your point I just can't fully agree with it. There's not much more to add here, as I'm sure you'll agree. So I'll just thank you for your time now, and conclude that since life is a learning experience, perhaps one day by the time we're both demented old men we'll have reached the same conclusion on this issue, whatever that may be :-)
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@noelplum99 But, I'm just going to add that it was an interesting video as always, and good luck in your future endeavours. I don't think I'll be continuing this discussion as I have talked about it frankly enough times recently, I'm bound to get a headache soon.
I do usually agree with you, but I figured I'd add my two cents this time :-)
Kazumaster 5 months ago
@Kazumaster
"I don't think I'll be continuing this discussion as I have talked about it frankly enough times recently"
...fair enough, not to mention that it is not the most important of issues, being more an issue of labelling than material facts.
noelplum99 5 months ago
A great treatise, as usual.
But I don't think belief is a choice. If so, one could choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy!
Underlings 5 months ago
Here is my view on this whole thing:
For argument's sake let's just talk about one god, say the Christian one. There are two possible states of being: 1. You believe he exists. 2. You do not believe he exists. If, when asked if you believe, your reply is "I don't know" then you fall into category 2. This is really how simple it is and I don't see any need for endless discussions on which words to use when it really doesn't matter. Just ask people what they believe and why and go from there.
kasroa 5 months ago
5:46, ”...or perhaps loosing...” LOL! :-)
NomosCharis 5 months ago
As an Agnostic, I'll answer your two questions.
1. How do I self identify? I'm a human being.
2. What percentage do I feel a God may exist? I really don't care, the existence of God is purely hypothetical. If He does exist He doesn't care and if He doesn't exist nothing changes.
At times in my life, I could identify as a Theist and then as an Atheist. Now I think the whole question is a waste of time. Deal with the world you find yourself in and stop chasing mental boogeymen.
CitySolitare 5 months ago
Heads = headists
Tails = tailsists = strong a-headists (sure that it *won't* be heads)
Don't know = weak a-headist (won't rule out heads, nor tails)
From the perspective of "heads" there's two possibilities: Those that think it will definitely be heads (for whatever reason) and those that don't think that.
Very few atheists deny that tecnically, it is just as wrong to affirm with certainty there are no gods as it is to affirm that there are.
vollmuell 5 months ago
@vollmuell
"From the perspective of "heads" there's two possibilities"
Yet you have just stated three. The only difference between two of your and two of mine is the terminology. The problem is, if we follow your categories through and look at weak atheists then you are talking about a very different camp to the person who believes there is a statistically high chance of of a god existing - not to mention, you are also using terminology that 99% of people haven't a clue about.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Let me correct my grammar first: there are two possibilities. Sorry about that!
You can add just about any attribute to those "not convinced that it *definitly will be* heads" to create as many subgroups as you like.
It doesn't change the fact that they all wouldn't say it *will* turn out "heads", while a "headist" claims that it *will* be heads.
Everyone else doesn't have that certainty. They are everyone else. A-headists, if you will.
Looking forward to the results of your survey!
vollmuell 5 months ago
@vollmuell
Whilst i agree with what you are saying on a literal level, are you telling me there is no qualitative difference between individuals who specifically plump for tails and individuals who state they can not know the outcome? It seems to me there is a huge difference and if there is a reason for labelling people it is to highlight just these kinds of differences of perspective, otherwise why bother?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@vollmuell And then there are those who will simply say the first thing that pops into their minds to get rid of the nutter asking them stupid questions and wasting their time...
colourmegone 5 months ago
Comment removed
deah99 5 months ago
To be fair, having separate categories isn't helpful if atheists and agnostics usually - in practice, in my experience - believe the same thing: that some sort of god could conceivably exist, but probably or likely doesn't.
Too inclusive a definition for agnostic also leaves us with only 2 categories. If "not saying it's impossible, just don't believe it" is categorized as agnostic, the only thing left for atheists is the "I can prove a negative" position generally only held by straw men.
raj1037 5 months ago 2
@raj1037 well being atheist does not mean you can prove the non existence , but rather you believe the non existence of a deity , so it is a clear difference between agnostic and atheist, i am called agnostic because i believe there is something, but i am not sure what it is, where as an atheist does not believe in a higher power at all
wrahvin 5 months ago
@wrahvin
Believing in "something" would categorize you as a deist/theist by all definitions I have ever come across.
There is no requirement for a positive identification of the deity, to join the deist/theist club. You simply have to believe.
GulliLille 5 months ago
@GulliLille when it boils down what we are talking about is belief, plain and simple, even the belief that there is NO god/s is just a belief,so to say you believe in A(specific,defined, named) makes you part of said religion, the belief that there is something (non specific, non named, non defined) makes you agnostic, the belief that there is no higher power makes you an atheist , but i do not expect you to understand, no more than i expect atheists and theists to agree on the existence of god
wrahvin 5 months ago
Wikipedia has a decent entry on agnosticism, which brings up multiple issues.
There is probability, verifiability, meaning, belief, knowledge, confidence, commitment, applicability, etc. These are all different concepts, and the goal should be clarity of communication about them.
buybuydandavis 5 months ago
@buybuydandavis
Unfortunately, many people think they can win arguments through language usage, making the fundamental mistake of thinking we have to value according to our categories, while a rational person categorizes according to their values.
That's what's going on with agnosticism and burden of proof between atheism and theism. The burden doesn't change because we change the meaning of our terms, but it's easier to argue about that than to think about knowledge and the burden of proof.
buybuydandavis 5 months ago
I like your video and agree with the categorizations you presented. I'd really like to see that experiment carried out somehow a few times. I would even allow the person being surveyed to carry the percentage of deity belief or not to the nearest hundreth of a percent. If a person believes in a 50.01% chance that a deity exists a theist? Is a person that believes that only .01 % of chance that a deity exist, like Dawkins (I think you said a number similar), a theist. Or agnostic???
charlesfloyb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@charlesfloyb "If a person believes in a 50.01% chance that a deity exists a theist? "
I've posed that question to many Atheists (online and in person) and the general answer is "anything less than 100% active belief that one or more God(s) exist, is Atheism." Which pretty much implies everyone except completely delusional people, are Atheists.
TheHigherVoltage 5 months ago
I think your coin analogy fails, because with the coin flip there's a true 50-50 chance, so it's sensible to sit on the fence. With the god question however, I doubt there are many (if any) people who are truly sitting on the fence, saying that it's a 50-50 chance and could be either way. But as soon as you're not exactly in the middle, you do believe in one thing more than the other, automatically putting you in either the theist or atheist camp.
thalamay 5 months ago
I'm 99.9% atheist to the God of any religion that I know of but I'm agnostic to Deism. It also depends on what is the criterion of god. Does it have to be a supernatural creator with a purpose and personality or can i define god as nature then im a believer.
NecipPerver 5 months ago
Great vid!
Like you, I've given the matter a lot of thought, and have concluded that there really should be a word for those who are agnostic about whether they believe in a God or not; that elusive third category. There is a definite hole in our lexicon there! I've been trying to come up with a word for that! Any ideas?
Oh, check out my channel if you get a chance! :)
Doubter5 5 months ago
You can't say "I don't know" if you're asked if you believe in a god if you live in a society where you've heard a god concept. Which is pretty much everyone. You either do or you don't.
The only way the "I don't know" definition could work is if you hadn't -ever- heard the concept before.
BusinessIDBAI 5 months ago
Here's an entertaining video by Klingschor - who really takes the definition thing to extremes! : /user/Klingschor#p/u/20/aNnkNOtpygU
marcmeup1 5 months ago
The question of a "percentage" of belief has very little relevance if a person is genuinely being honest with himself if he claims he cannot possibly know the answer. I don't call myself an "agnostic" because I'm any sort of embarrassed American about atheism. I call myself agnostic because I find that people who are absolutely SURE that there is no God or gods tend to be as obnoxious as people who are absolutely SURE that there is one. Being SURE of either position is a matter of faith...
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
@PhaedrusNYC any atheist who claims otherwise is as arrogant in his own sense of "rightness" as the religious freaks out there are who want to impinge on my right not to care. So far, there's no conclusive proof of a creator nor a coherent understanding of true nothingness and how something can arise from it. It is unknowable. So I just stay out of it and try to be a good person, and moreover try not to irritate people by loudly proclaiming that they're stupid in their beliefs.
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
@PhaedrusNYC I like your point. Although I think there is a difference between having complete faith and a complete lack of faith. (which is how I define myself) I cannot commit myself to something that doesn't confirm its existence. It's not certainty that I predicate my disbelief, but that any other option makes no sense. If there is no interfering, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god, than what deems it the title of god?
TheLummer66 5 months ago
@TheLummer66 You are now getting into the definition of "God," and I submit that there are/were so many belief systems that judging one's belief a "god" based on a Judeo-Christiansort of deity is reductionist. It is possible to conceive of, for example, a Deist God, who created but doesn't actually get involved, without needing proof of interference; an Old Testament God without needing proof of benevolence; or a Greco-Roman god without needing proof or omnipotency or omniscience.
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
@PhaedrusNYC Yeah I kind of discounted others "deities" without explaining why. The pantheonic gods seem to be petty super humans which might seem like us compared to a fly, but it does not endow us with godhood despite our superiority to the fly, or a representation of a natural force. We now know that thunder is caused by clouds bumping around and not Thor bowling in asgard. The Newtonian clockwinder theory is more troublesome. My best way to justify my exclusion of it is con't
TheLummer66 5 months ago
@PhaedrusNYC that for me to consider something a god rather than a super natural force requires sentience. The idea of an inert hands off being, just creating and observing, strikes me as filling in a lack of knowledge of the universe with the creation of god. The fact is most religions (in fact I fail to know of any that don't) subscribe to an interfering deity/deities with an agenda. The interference seems to be gone so either their dead, asleep or just non existent.
TheLummer66 5 months ago
@TheLummer66
An interesting exchange. of course you could be the sentient creator of a universe, even an interfering one, and be far from omniscient and omnipotent, as far as we know, so it seems to me that these are two seperate sets of issues.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Well that's something I haven't given much consideration to. I presume creator of universe implies omnipotence, but that's not neccessarily the case. Much like god sending a snowball down the mountain and causing an avalanche. You've left me with a great big hmmm... Maybe Einstein was wrong and God does really throw dice.
TheLummer66 5 months ago
@TheLummer66 Thanks, Noel- that was the point I was getting at. if you consider the definition of "God" to be the creater of the universe, without all the other stuff religions throw in, then that changes the criteria significantly from saying, "I do/don't believe in Jahweh/Allah/etc." A hands-off being who creates and observes doesn't necessarily lack sentience any more than a psychiatrist who builds a rat maze and sets the rats in it to see what they do lacks sentience.
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
@TheLummer66 We haven't even gotten into what I, for lack of a better term, call a "Parental" god- ie, one that gave life and has some ability to act upon things (not necessarily omnipotence), perhaps has affection, but chooses to let his progeny live their lives. The example I most often hear to disavow the existence of God is that bad things happen to good people, but that doesn't disallow for a God who isn't all Jewish-mothery about things and lets the kids make their own mistakes. ;)
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
@PhaedrusNYC If I understand your position correctly if someone gets a disease, e.g. cancer or pneumonia, it's because they're just naughty being. And the deaths innocent "kids" through starvation and preventable diseases are all caused by them being allowed to "make their own mistakes. ;)" because, hey, who the heck wants a "Jewish-mothery" deity looking after them?
colourmegone 5 months ago
@colourmegone No, you don't understand my position, and I have no idea where you got that from. If someone gets a disease, they get it because of genetics, or viruses, or environmental factors. You're ascribing a moral element to what I wrote that wasn't there, and arguing with straw men. I was saying that a creator/god/deity/whatever that doesn't cure someone's cancer because the rules of the universe are in place and it's not his job to respond to prayers is not impossible.
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
@PhaedrusNYC The moral dimension is certainly there in what you wrote. It's the same apologist position taken by those of all faiths when confronted by the problem of bad things happening to good people, i.e. free will, unless you're a fundamentalist Christian or Jew in which case you don't believe that there ARE any good people. To paraphrase "If there is a god but he cannot act, why bother to acknowledge the possibility of his existence?"
colourmegone 5 months ago
@colourmegone With all due respect, you are airing your own issues rather than reading what I wrote, so there's no argument worthwhile to make with you. You sound like someone who is hurt that there ISN'T something intervening. Paraphrase all you want, but in assuming that there is only one sort of god to acknowledge, you are acknowledging your own intellectual rigidity.
PhaedrusNYC 5 months ago
A difficult question for me is 'do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe' because I'd have to say that I do, but would also have to admit that there is absolutely no evidence for that position, other than that life exists on Earth. So in effect I'm holding a faith position, while still being agnostic (because I don't know for certain). I think with that question I can almost grasp the 'middle ground' position, and it does make me quite uncomfortable!
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
@Gisburne2000
I like the example nick and I mentioned a similar example way down in the comments (though i went with our galaxy to remove aty least one unknown!). The problem for me is that I usually think of my position in terms of some kind of percentage (a kind if internal mental auditing process perhaps?) and when someone then forces me to choose 'believe or disbelieve' neither adequately convey my position unless it is an issue i feel some certainty over.... A similar example to the...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
..one you mention here for me is the concept of deism in the broadest sense (including our universe being engineered or simulated by beings perhaps no more physiologically advanced than ourselves in a pre-existant universe). I kind of waver between 5 to 30% chance if pushed on this but potentially, if you asked me straight after reading a book championing these ideas that could conceivably rise to 50% or more (i think). So what should I answer if asked if i believe in this ....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...broad-brush deism (especially if i was at the 50% mark or beyond)? Personally i'd am disinclined to answer either way but many people here assert that my answer is that i do not believe in it. Yet the same would then have to apply if you asked me the reverse question - so i would end up claiming i disbelieved in all the logical possibilities, which suits me as someone who would happily claim i was agnostic to the idea but if you deny the middle ground option, what then?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I see what you're saying. Perhaps we should just all accept that the labels people give to themselves are not absolute definitions of their positions on any subject. After all, even finding people who identifies themselves as, say, Christian doesn't let you know exactly what 'Christian' means to them. 'Agnostic' or 'atheist' are just starting point - you need to have a conversation with the individual, and then as I've said it's the issues raised by religion which will come out.
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I think you have to base the percentages on something, and for me 'do you believe there is life elsewhere...yes' is based on the evidence of life existing *somewhere* (here), whereas 'do you believe in god...no' is my position because I've seen zero evidence so couldn't answer otherwise. Do I believe there MIGHT be a god? Now with that question the percentage needle might flicker because infinite universe = infinite possibilities, but 'might exist' and 'does exist'... different!
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
@Gisburne2000
That is an understandable piece of reasoning for arriving at your conclusions there. What i would set against it, and to account for my 20%, would be the kind of reasoning Nick Bostrom uses whereby, if we accept his premises, the number of simulated universes with sentient life would exceed the number of real universes with sentient life capable of running such simulations. Whilst I find it an uneasy proposition i find it hard to entirely ignore the conclusions.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I'm not actually convinced that an 'infinite' anything exists, though perhaps that's because my mind can't make sense of such a concept - to me there always has to be 'one more' or 'no more' but an infinite number seems to be neither of those. I'm happy to live in ignorance of other universes, given that this one is big enough and spectacular enough to keep me occupied. So the 'other' middle ground which I hold in some cases is indifference: 'don't know, don't care'! :o)
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
@ 1:08
scary.
johnnyphoenix74 5 months ago
Just a thought. When you say Agnostic at around 13 minutes. Is it agnostic to their own position on belief, not agnostic on the position of gods existence?
TheBoyFromNorfolk 5 months ago
@TheBoyFromNorfolk
A good question. From my owbn perspective on related issues it depends what answers i am 'allowed' to have. If I am being forced to either believe or disbelieve then trhe agnosticism extends to my own position; if i am allowed to say I 30% believe A, 70% believe B then the agnosticism is in the proposition not in my own position.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
I'm not sure I really understand your explanation there? I think it's along the lines of. If the question is do you believe in X or not, agnosticism is removed (except agnosticism about your own belief), because it's all about belief, but if it's what do you believe about, or some such less precisely worded question, then Agnosticism becomes a valid point because it's not a binary question.
Or did I get a crossed line somewhere?
TheBoyFromNorfolk 5 months ago
But the question is, Do you think it will come down Heads, not, which side do you think it will come down on.
I think it will come down tails, and I don't know if it will come down heads or tails are both Aheadist.
And now, You've just remarked on this, ah well.
I think the analogy fails because the position on gods existence is very different to a 50/50 heads or tails question.
I use Agnostic as a collary to the Atheist theist position eg: Agnostic Atheist vs Gnostic Atheist
TheBoyFromNorfolk 5 months ago
@TheBoyFromNorfolk
"I think the analogy fails because the position on gods existence is very different to a 50/50 heads or tails question."
Whilst that may be true, for me the key is that in some peoples minds the evidence, by their reckoning, stacks 50:50 and what we are discussing here is their beliefs, not some notional objective telling of the evidence.
noelplum99 5 months ago
i guess i should not jump into the middle of this argument , however , to answer the question posed to the agnostics , my standpoint on religion is that i tend towards the idea that we can not know beyond a shadow of a doubt (at this current time) if a deity does or does not exist very much like the example of the coin toss, i would not hazard a guess as to the likely hood or chance that a deity exists, but i see that many people NEED this information to go on with there lives,so i say 50/50 ?
wrahvin 5 months ago
YOUR HAIR IS FINE, STOP TOUCHING IT!!!
wrahvin 5 months ago
@wrahvin
I'm trying to encourage it to grow ;)
noelplum99 5 months ago
There is stigma to being an Atheist or Agnostic especially in America but, imho, it's all the more reason to claim to BE those things. There should be no antagonism between atheists n agnostics.
julzabro 5 months ago
But Heads and Tails are verifyable claims. God isn't.
PerpetualTiredness 5 months ago
(A)gnosticism - whether or not you think it CAN be known
(A)theism - personal interpretation of evidence; belief of
Those are my definitions. I'm an agnostic atheist by them.
bighugejake 5 months ago
@bighugejake
Fione by me and I have no problem with the title' atheist agnostic. however, what about if your personal interpretation brings you to the conclusion that there is maybe, in your judgement, a 50% chance that a deity exists? For me, the terms belief and disbelief here seem woefully polarised.
noelplum99 5 months ago
great vid Jim. the coin toss example made the point well.
gothatfunk 5 months ago
I'm definitely conflicted. But I'm sure enjoying your videos. :)
solovief 5 months ago
@JohnHenryAlex "is a wild guess that is labeled a belief, an actual belief?" wild guess to best guess...what's the tangible difference? It's still a guess and not fact.
It seems to me, guesses and faith are not much different when it comes to forming beliefs. If people guess or declare faith, the longer they hold that decision, the more they'll likely convince themselves they actually believe via cognitive dissonance.
People convince themselves of "facts" on guesses/faith all the time.
TheHigherVoltage 5 months ago
How can you not know what you believe?
JediVerse 5 months ago
@JediVerse "How can you not know what you believe"
Belief is a propositional attitude. If one is vaguely familiar with the proposition, an attitude (believing, desiring, or hoping, implying intentionality) may be adopted to reflect the position to the proposition. The more familiar one gets with a proposition & the proposition is found to have either evidence or lack there of, then the attitude towards that proposition may change according to the knowledge one gains.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@JediVerse
I often spend a considerable amount of time trying to work out what I believe and at the end of it can't always come up with a definitive position. Though I suppose it does depend what i am being expected to know, If you allow me shades of grey in my belief then i can give you a firmer outline but if you insist on black and white then I cannot. It is only when people insist 'you either believe or you don't that the confusion kicks in because if i feel like a ......
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...proposition has, let us say, a 30% chance of being true then how do I put that into a belief/disbelief statement?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@JohnHenryAlex Your analogy seems inaccurate when applied to actual human minds. Ask a kid (without an inferiority or superiority complex...just an honest kid), who's barely passing math, if they past a test they just took.
The kid will likely answer : I dunno, I'm not sure, maybe, etc. If pressed "but do you BELIEVE you passed or not? The kid is going to either take a guess and call it a belief - OR stick with their original uncertainty - they just don't know either way.
TheHigherVoltage 5 months ago
@JohnHenryAlex Unfortunately this subject has nothing to do with truth, it's all about not admitting their an atheist as well. They don't care what the definition is or the fact that they can't admit that they believe in any god. Oddly enough, theists aren't usually this retarded with the word agnostic. The ones who use it know what it means.
urantivirus 5 months ago
@urantivirus
"it's all about not admitting their an atheist as well"
Just to say I fully accept this is often the case but not all self proclaimed agnostics are hiding behind the label.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 oops, meant to send that last message to uranti. my bad.
TheHigherVoltage 5 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
No problem.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@urantivirus "Unfortunately this subject has nothing to do with truth, it's all about not admitting their an atheist as well."
If this is your interpretation of Agnosticism, you really should investigate it more.
TheHigherVoltage 5 months ago
I've got some "agnostics" to admit that there isn't any god they believe in, but they still wouldn't call themselves an athiest as well. Some of them are just as bad as creationists, they don't want to know or admit the truth. I used to be the other way around, I didn't consider myself to be an agnostic. But then I saw videos and looked up the definition and now I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.
urantivirus 5 months ago
Your coin-flipping analogy nearly convinced me. But if you ask people after three consecutive tails if they thought the next flip would be heads, it would be better to divide them between headsists and non-headsists. The tailsists would be strong non-headsists and the ones who are non-commital would be weak non-headsists. I think this analogy is a better fit to the debate.
8WholeThing 5 months ago
@thebattle4everything
"It is possible to have an agnostic atheist."
I am happy with that. The problem is that by common usage the term agnostic also exists as more than just an adjective to tack onto atheist or theist so I cannot understand the refusal to accept a usage that forms part of normal english (and is actually at least closer to huxley's position of differentiating himself from both atheists and theists when he coined the term)
noelplum99 5 months ago
Agnostic? "You can't be a little bit pregnant."
MrSchpankme 5 months ago
regarding this video: see also "Scottish verdict"
odenskrigare 5 months ago
"epistemic Rubicon"
beautiful
odenskrigare 5 months ago
I feel I'm put in the unnecessary position of justifying my disbelief in a proposition for which the only tenable argument for its truth is the proposition itself.
LoquaciousApe 5 months ago
Great video. You have given me a somewhat depressing thought though. I will stop telling people what I am in one or two words. I will just verbalize a paragraph or two to describe my position since people cant agree on beliefs much less the meanings of words.
Keep the vids coming! They're great
TheCtg33k 5 months ago
I just love listening to you....I think its because we think alot alike and I fucking love listening to me lol.
Powerlifter83 5 months ago
Love the video, but I wanted to comment upon your experiment idea, Noelplum99.
The problem with the second question specifically is that you will get some people, like myself, who will respond, "What concept of God are we talking about?" For instance, I think the probability that the god of the Bible existing is close to nil. Thor being real? Even less. However, I would put the probability of deism as being true at close to 50%.
balanceseeker 5 months ago
@balanceseeker
""What concept of God are we talking about?""
Absolutely so, the wording of the question would require some serious thought and would also have to tie in with the other question to make sure they were specifying the same thing.
noelplum99 5 months ago
ah sorry made my last comment before video was over,think you clarified but still left me feeling kinda confused.Your coin analogy really got the issue confused i think,if instead you said that a headsist is one who believes in Dr madeupname's assertion that heads will always come up,and a tailsist doesn't accept that guys assertion would that not be more analogous to the actual issue at hand.As i understand agnostic is referring to knowledge while atheist is referring to belief.no?
sluggdiddyyddidgguls 5 months ago
At 07:01, don't you mean agnostics rather than atheists?
FalleJr 5 months ago
@FalleJr
i have included an annotation in the last half hour rectifying that.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Identification: Atheist
Chance that "God" exists: about 1/X where X approaches infinity.
ionz75 5 months ago
Sounds like you're defining agnostic as someone who doesn't know whether they believe in a god or not. Also the coin example is flawed as no one really believes they will get heads OR tails they are all "aheadsist". (assuming heads is god exists and tails is god doesn't exist).
Scraxs 5 months ago
@Scraxs
"Sounds like you're defining agnostic as someone who doesn't know whether they believe in a god or not."
I believe the group of people who self-identify as agnostics certianly include many people in that position.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 "I believe the group of people who self-identify as agnostics certianly include many people in that position." Yea I didn't mean to make it sound like there's anything wrong with that. I like for people to use language however they like. I admit it is a bit inconvenient though since to me it still sounds like not knowing whether a god exists. But I'm used to the word "atheist" being used in various ways too.
Scraxs 5 months ago
I very much like your examples, but may I add a bit? The, Babies are Atheist thing (an absurd question to begin with) however you say that "babies are the ultimate Agnostics..." From an Agnostic POV, your statement is true, but it's also true that as that child grows we (Agnostics) will continue to acknowledge in general the human inability based on that same lack of intellectual ability.
The 45 year old man is little better suited than the 3 month old baby for such a question.
AMilitantAgnostic 5 months ago
@AMilitantAgnostic
maybe or maybe not. the point is that the 45 year old man at least has knowledge of the proposition itself whereas the babies lack of knowledge extends a whole level further, that was my point.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 And my point is that a grown human's ability to answer this question is NOT substantially better than a babies.
AMilitantAgnostic 5 months ago
@AMilitantAgnostic
I realised that, i just hoped you would concede that it is at least substantially different even if you maintain a position that it is not substantially better.
noelplum99 5 months ago
The coin example is wholly inappropriate. 45% say heads, 45% say tails, but the rest say 'I don't know' does not demonstrate some 'middle ground' - you've not asked any of them what they *believe* will happen, you've just asked for a guess. As such, 100% of them do not *know* what the outcome will be, nor do any of them (if they're honest) firmly *believe* the result will match their prediction. They are all 'agnostic tossers' :o)
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
@Gisburne2000
Just for you, since i have a soft spot for grumpy northerners, we can swapsy out the coin toss then for two evenly matched football teams.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 But you still wouldn't *know* which one was going to win. I disagree with the idea that agnosticism is in any way a middle ground between theism and atheism. I can see that someone might say 'I don't know if a god exists', but that's not relevant to theism ('I believe in a god') or atheism ('I don't believe in a god'). Knowing and believing - not the same. To me, agnostic is a useless term - nobody can *know* with certainty, we're ALL agnostic, AND we all either *believe* or do not.
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
@Gisburne2000
Imo you are conflating the rather subjective claims people make with regard to 'knowing' and a rather more objective reading of the level of knowledge we have (and thereby concluding we are all agnostics). With the football axample, whilst i doubt anyone would claim absolute knowledge I think you'd agree that many would claim to 'believe that team x will win' and genuinely feel that way. Surely there is a clear distinction between those that will side with team x, those that.....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...side with team y and then those that believe the attributes of the two teams are too close to side with either position?
"In the end, what people choose to call themselves is of relatively little importance because what really matters are the issues in their lives"
I am certainly with you on that, we can argue about these labels all day long but i think we agree it doesn't alter what matters, what they actually think, one jot.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 In the end, what people choose to call themselves is of relatively little importance because what really matters are the issues in their lives which they find important, and the actions they take (or not) to support their principles, or oppose those with which they disagree. Calling yourself a theist or an atheist actually says very little - you need to ask 'what kind of theist or atheist (or indeed agnostic) are you?' and 'where do you stand on x,y,z?'
Gisburne2000 5 months ago
There is a 4th and 5th and 6th option on the coin toss metaphor:
1) the coin will be heads
2) the coin will be tails
3) no way to know
4) I think you are lying and will never flip the coin
5) I don't know what a coin is
6) I don't know what flip means
zarkoff45 5 months ago
@zarkoff45
7) I push you in front of the next bus for fucking up my study.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@Noelplum99, I think when you proposed the coin flip analogy, you displayed your misunderstanding. I think that a "million-dollar check hidden in my pocket" analogy would have been much more accurate. Here the gnostic claims to know whether or not you have a check, while an agnostic claims to not know. The theist is the one who believes you, while the atheist does not. Someone may not believe that you have that check in your pocket, and also not claim to know for sure (the agnostic atheist).
100PercentGreen 5 months ago
@100PercentGreen I agree and was about to say as much before I read your comment. I usually agree with Noel, but on this one I can't get around the terminology confusion. The assumption here is that if you are atheist, you don't have doubt in the existence of any god where in actuality atheism is the lack of belief in specific gods. In a practical sense, the term agnostic is being used for people who don't understand the terms, therefore I don't agree with redefining the terms due to ignorance.
ophile 5 months ago
@100PercentGreen
Ok, so taking your check analogy then. let us say that i know and trust you but find the idea that you could have access to such an amount of money unlikely. i therefore have grounds both to believe and disbelieve you and may find myself in a state of mental flux and dissonance over the issue. i think we would both agree that agbnostic would fit here but how could you decide whether I should be categorised as believing you or disbelieving you? neither seems to be accurate imo.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 Well, if you didn't believe me, then it wouldn't necessarily mean that you believed that I was lying. That's because disbelief of a claim isn't always an active belief in the falsity of that claim. Now, if I was Bill Gates, then you still couldn't "claim to know" if I had the check, but my claim would be much more "believable". In this case you would still be an agnostic, but given my identity, you would probably be a believer.
100PercentGreen 5 months ago
@100PercentGreen ....if the evidence for or against the claim remains hidden, then only agnosticism is justified. You would then have to analyze the claimant and the claim. If the claim is reasonable by your standards, then you would be inclined to believe it. But if the claim is extraordinary, then you may be less inclined to believe it. Agnostic/Gnostic should be the answer to "Do you know?", while Atheist/Theist should be the response to "Are you convinced?".
100PercentGreen 5 months ago
Hm mr plum,I am confused a bit by your reasons why"adult"atheism isn't the default position.Deciding not to believe something isn't really the opposite of deciding to believe something.Especially for things that aren't obvious, things that don't have any supporting evidence because in that case I wouldn't be making a choice not to believe in something,my choice is only that I require a good reason beforehand,I would simply not have been a good reason to believe.Am i mistaken here,any thoughts?
sluggdiddyyddidgguls 5 months ago
@sluggdiddyyddidgguls
"why"adult"atheism isn't the default position"
It isn't adulthood that changes things it is being presented with the proposition and some evidence on which to base the decision. From that point on, whilst the concept of a default position remains, a positive decision is made whetehr that be to believe or to disbelieve. If that disbelief is based on lack of evidence then, sure, you are an atheist (agnostic atheist seems an ideal title for such people) but if you end up...
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
...unsure whether you believe or disbelieve that is clearly a somewhat different state of affairs to disbelief based on lack of evidence. Many people really don't seem to be sure what they believe and their position varies daily from some level of conviction if a faith to some degree of certainty that it's all a load of shit.
noelplum99 5 months ago
Absolutely well done, SIr - I tip my hat to you :-)
BrianJ1962 5 months ago