Atheism vs Agnosticism: Philosophical Garbage

[LuciusMartius]

Okay, I really do get you point. But In my case agnosticism is directed another way. Unlike Atheism it leaves some room for hope and believe in something WE WANT TO believe in. An agnostic though is not replacing reason with dogma in the process, like theists or some new age people do. Your "no gods in the gaps" argument fails if you think about the first video you showed us. If one believes in another "metaverse" seperate from ours, agnosticism is perfectly reasonable, without filling any gaps.

[AMilitantAgnostic]

I know he will not see it, but what we have here is the Atheist VenomFangX - Perhaps in time.

This kind of philosophical elitism is one of the reasons Huxley created the word Agnosticism.

This is a house of cards, the young man is trying to determine probabilities when he has not establish attributes.

[duubamg]

I think you're trapped in what is called "kinds of definition". (lexical definition, stipulative definition, etymological definition etc.). So I think that in the end your explanation holds no water. Atheists and agnostics are different classes.

[neomp5]

first, the sun doesn't rise at all

second "tomorrow" is a relative term

third, there is an extremely slim possibility that the sun will have something happen to it within 24 hours that will prevent it from being in the same location relative to the earth

fourth, there's an even slimmer possibility that the sun was never there at all and the universe as we know it has been illusory

[neomp5]

i'd say a gnosis on these issues is only a practical gnosis, in the sense that you could say that, in a practical sense, the sound of a clap a metre in front of you reaches you instantly, but in reality, that's not true

[kkksskkk]

@FamineIsAwesome Well, if someone does answer, no, he, as a member of this society, does have a problem. Let's say you asked me if sun would rise tomorrow, and I answered, "hah, are you kidding me? no way" Of course you gonna think I have a problem or know something you don't know or is lying to myself (this would fall into "have problems category" as well, though).

[kkksskkk]

You are obviously an agnostic atheist, but many people, believe it or not, are just atheists. Oh, and occams razor doesn't hold here, because we are talking about the tiny possibility that there may be god. I am not picking the suspect, I am talking about the possibility of a less likely suspect, and there is nothing wrong with it. Occam's razor thing is just a guideline anyway. It doesn't hold when we are already talking about tiny possibilities.

[kkksskkk]

You'd be surprised how many people are not "agnostic." That is why we have agnosticism as a separate category, as far as I think. A lot of atheists are not agnostic, and call theists and agnostics idiots who believe in things that have no evidence. And a lot of theists try to prove existence of god by mentioning the warm fuzzy feeling you get from watching kittens and sunrises. So as long as there are these types of people, agnosticism will be a category.

[Nerfi]

Your arrogance is only overshadowed by your ignorance.

There's a reason there are two different categories those who don't believe devoutly in a higher power. One group, atheists, believe devoutly that there is nothing. Theists would have you believe that there is a conscious presence in the sky taking interest in the duldrum days of every individual.

So you're saying there is no in-between? That we can't be spiritual beings without needing oversight or threat of torture to act morally?

[1DarkMasK1]

Ok this is retarded.

Atheists = Agnostics

Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Atheism means I dont believe in a god because there is not sufficiant evidence to prove it.

Agnostic say I dont know if god exists or not.

ILike Matt Dillahaunty said if you believe god exists you are theist anything else including I dont know you are an atheist.

[leirbagpeter]

I call BS on this free thinking Hater.

[wormusicisticsound]

agnostic is NOT KNOWING. No one knows. Everybody is agnostic!

[gulbirk]

oh for crying out loud. Why cant people just pick up a dictionary. Agnostic deals with knowledg. Agnostic means = dont know. Gnostic means = do know.

Gnostecism is a positive claim to knowledge. Everyone is agnostic towards god, because nobody KNOWS weather or not it exists.

[jessemy]

Of course the Sun will rise tomorrow...the real question is, do you believe it, ...And if YOU Do believe it will.....thats called...faith...I think there's very little gap between ahteism and the aganostic. I'll take my faith...and my chances..

[TheAustincraig18]

do you always read your word documents into a camera?

[hardhell4me]

I can deduce that there is no god. (by the conventional definition of religious god i.e omnipotent, benevolent etc ).

so following the conventional definition of god, my deductions lead me more towards gnostic atheism than agnostic atheism.

But i would express agnosticism if your definition of god (gods) is novel and makes it impossible to deduce. (mental gymnastics)

[henryisconfused]

Ps, agnostisism is a personal choise, you can't hope for something like that to die out.

[henryisconfused]

I'm agnostic asshole, can you say to my face I'm wrong because I have no answer? Fuck off, oh, and your also wrong about Penn and teller.

[pagne1236]

Watched your video. Still an agnostic atheist. Just because the probability of something is extremely small doesn't mean I will claim ultimate knowledge. My agnosticism still applies.

[handy777]

Do you believe in life on other planets? It seems to me that it would be silly to say “no way, we are alone in the universe.” So how about Gods? A higher being may or may not give a shit about life on Earth, but that doesn’t mean higher beings don’t exist. I guess what I’m saying is this: There is no reason to be Atheist or Theist…it is just fine to say “I don’t know.”

[BattletoadCanada]

Read what Hume thinks of emperical knowledge.

[Pope2501]

I think that the important distinction is that someone who answers the question,"Do you believe there is a god?" With,"I don't know if there is a god," is a cowardly toad or someone with not enough knowledge or evidence to have been asked the question.

Conversely, someone who answers,"Is there a god?" with,"I don't believe there is a god," obviously wants either to soften the blow or does not understand the implications of knowledge and evidence.

Agnostics are atheists by virtue of lacking.

[blue4meridian]

Science is flawed by default because it makes the same arrogant perceptive error that was made in antiquity, which basically is... "man is the measure of all things".

[Laugh0823]

That "Absolute truth" does not exist is, itself, an absolute truth. Therefore, absolute truth must exists. Can we know truth absolutely? No, but we can know all that is detectable.

[TheConcolor]

This all depends on what kind of knowledge you use to define the term "gnostic". If you use "absolute knowledge" then most/all atheists are agnostic. If you use "practical knowledge" then many atheists are gnostic, at least to most of the described Gods.

[Zombifaction]

Absolute truth: I like the color green! I don't like you. Those are 2 complete perfect absolute truth.

The sun might rise but not necessarily on you. Death is swift. let's hope it finds one of us.

[Wavanova]

I love your videos, but you should speak up a bit :D

[Tartersauce101]

whats sad is that everyone always ignores Deists or other non-RELIGIOUS peoples who still have SPIRITUAL beliefs.

always left out :/

[ASexyChef]

Ever think about this, every year new things become known. RIght now we are learning amazing new things at an exponential rate. So all we think is truth in 10 20 50 100. Mostlikly will be wrong.. So who cares, lol...

[Zorniod]

This is why I consider myself a multi-model neurological agnostic (though I am interested in the Gnosticism of the Sufis/Gurdjieff/Bennet/Fripp - this is an altogether different thing). I don't believe in anyTHING, so I can let everything be. This is not nihilism, nor is it atheism. Atheism simply does not believe in Gods or the Supernatural, though they may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater where Jung is concerned.

[Zorniod]

Then there is the idea that we all live inescapably in a subjective universe. Objectivity can only ever be approximated probablistically (thank you Heisenberg!) because we utilise our nervous systems to percieve the world, regardless of the world that's "out there" outside of ourselves. Having your buddy give you objective verification is still not great beavause he's in the same circumstances. Same with using instrumentalia - some has to read them. 6 Billion universe models running around...

[Zorniod]

Perhaps we should look at Catma - relative meta-beliefs - instead of poor Dogma. "Facts are the idlest of superstitions" - Richard Burton. A Beilief to me is a kind of concrete that has set, whereas an idea is in a more fluid state. People become so attached to beliefs that they will die rather than have their world-view upset. Knowledge is simply data thrown about to support either state. Ontology studies how far our data-hypotheses adhere to new data. Then it's new model day.

[Zorniod]

Probability is not saying that "I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow", but "I can't say for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, but since it has for as long as I know, it's a pretty safe bet". Until we can sample every part of the universe we simply have to admit our ignorance, or risk missing important data because of our arrogance. Existence is inherently absurd, and only we give it meaning. This is all a part of Agnosticism. As Penn says.

[Zorniod]

I have to question this, (although I love your Directed Chaos video). Do you have to believe in something to know it? Or vica versa? I have always looked at knowledge as a collection of data. This data may be put together in different ways and used to create theories about processes. To explain specific hypothesis. But in themselves these data points are rather meaningless. Explain the colour Red to someone born blind.

[richardhutnik]

I don't know is the starting point in the quest to know. At best, one can say their standing on the level of sufficient evidence being found for something. Of course, one can honestly say it is impossible to know what the evidence for God is, and hold that firmly. And, on that note, I will ask: what is a way to validate whether there is a God or not?

[colourfulwithaU]

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that "God", or any god for that matter, exists. I also find it extraordinarily unlikely that the earth revolves around the sun. But there is a very small chance that I could be wrong on these matters. Regardless, I whole-heartedly rejected the geocentric theory as well as all religion - I still call myself an atheist.

[KronantheBarbarian]

Very good. Hahaha. However one of my favorite phrases "we all die alone" and "the human condition is 100% fatal" ask someone dying tommorow if the sun will rise tommorow...sure it will...but will they really care that much at that point. Your a very smart individual and even though I love and respect Penn and thought since you disagree with what he says you'd piss me off, you haven't. Your difference of opinion and your comparisons which back up your claim are smart and well thought out.

[KronantheBarbarian]

@KronantheBarbarian my answer was never "I don't know" it's recently been changed to "I don't care" if god or atheism was proven it wouldn't change my quality of life. Well perhaps if god came down it might, but I still live my life as best I feel as a compassionate individual. So perhaps god will let me do that. But currently neither debate has truely changed my quality of life or the way I live. So "I don't care" I'd much rather laugh with freinds, eat good food, travel, and meet fun people.

[cachimadrid]

What is in question here, is not a God, is the idea of a God...Does the idea of God exists or doesn´t? If you doubt about the existence of a God, you are already assuming there is one without first analyzing the feasibility of the idea. First you have to prove the possibility of the idea of a God, and then discuss, based on what you got, if there is the possibility of the existence or not of a God. I think agnosticism doesn´t fit anymore when speaking of Gods.

[ZapAnimator]

Let me make this clear you arogant, quote bombing baboon. With what you have shown so far I must say that I am unimpressed. First problem is your definitions of agnosticism and atheism. While you understand the duh factor of atheis as anti-theism, or no god, you fail to grasp the word agnostic. For you I will post a link to the definition in another post. I think the dictionary definition breaks the first argument, and most of the second argument.

[ZapAnimator]

Next, to continue my tyraid at this bolox, you take the VenomfangX , a huge catholic monger, and outright compare the narrow minded view of a conservative catholic with an agnost by which defenition implies that they have no standing ground on a god. I know that because I know people who are agnostic, they think that way because they want no real religiouse stance. In fact, your narrow minded behaviour makes me think of venomfangX. Outright selfcentered.

[ZapAnimator]

Thirdly, your last argument is the destinction between faith and fact to disprove agnosticism. However, you can't ursurp atheism onto every spec of fact. You make the assumption that a god can't exist, when I myself can't find evidence to chalenge any god at all, meaning I can't test for a god. So absence of evidence shows more a perspective of choice. So I don't want to hear you blather about science changing when you yourself flat out don't want to try to test for a god.

[ZapAnimator]

Finaly, the argument of "I don't know" being an unacceptable answer is in the best sense crap. When I, or any other intelectual says "I don't know," then that is a perfect opportunity to figure out what it is we don't know. Your philosiphy is linear to the point where I don't think you would say "I don't know." If any one sees this video, please don't replace the "is there a god," question. The atheist response is, "I'd think no." The agnostic response is "I don't know." Those are legit.

[ZapAnimator]

Also, a word of advice to directedchaos. Fact check you material and source your facts. You make about as much sense as a paper on homeopathy. Just think before you speak.

[orcodrilo]

I understand your point but there is another piece to the puzzle." Is there a god?" is a loaded question. It assumes the agreement on a definition of god. The best answer actually would be to demand a definition of god beforehand. "which god are we speaking of?"

I think the god Allah, Yahweh, do not exist, I think the god "natural universe" exists. (Espinoza's, Einstein god) the latter is undoubtedly truth by definition.

[aeneal]

speak quieter next time, you might wake up your mother.

[Sammaelhain]

You misunderstand why an atheist like Dawkins eschews ideas like 'proof' because of his training as a biologist.

Using your example of the sun, stars don't exist forever. It is reasonable to say the sun will rise tomorrow, it is not reasonable to say the sun will always rise.

This is why the term theory is used by scientists to describe phenomenon as apparent as gravity. It's not a philosophical stance, but a recognition that theories can and do change for a wide variety of reasons.

[skugglerthrash]

i bet when you go to partys the ladies just crowd around you

[Malthus0]

Atheists would have to be stupid not to be agnostic. Being agnostic simply means the belief that we can not know whether god exists or not. We can not indeed make the statement 'god does not exist' and verify or falsify that statement. It is unprovable. But as Dawkins points out there is no way of telling whether (other)completely fictional characters exist or not. We have to be content with the statement the 'god PROBABLY does not exist'.In a technical sense all sensible atheists are agnostic.

[directedchaos]

'god PROBABLY does not exist'

And you PROBABLY do exist. Are you agnostic about your own existence?

When someone asks you what time it is, do you preface it with "well, the time might be red whales banging in a vacuum, but it's probably 4:20"?

No. It's absurd. Yes, anything *might* be possible, but that's my point: KNOWLEDGE IS INHERENTLY PROBABILISTIC.

[808Productionz]

This is where your logic fails. Can you give me evidence that god does exist? Can you give me evidence that god does not exist? Reasonable doubt means nothing in this case. I don't know if god exists I don't have evidence either way, therefore firmly I can not put faith in either side. Using a broken way of convicting people (court of law) does not help you in this sense. Innocent people are sent to jail, guilty people are set free, your method of judging is broken find something new.

[alejorro70]

@directedchaos I believe gravity exists and I believe this is truth, I can point at what I believe is evidence for this. On the other hand I believe god doesn't exist but I don't believe this is undoubtedly truth because I don't believe I have evidence to prove this, neither to prove that god does exists so I say "I don't know". For example, I like this girl and "I believe she likes me too", but "I don't really know".

[alejorro70]

@directedchaos or, another example, say I observed the results of throwing a dice and most ot the times the number that came out was 4. If I were asked "What number will come out the next time I throw the dice?" I would say "I don't know", because I have no certainty, but I think there's nothing wrong with me saying "I believe it will be a 4".

When would it be right to say "I don't know" acording to you? Never?

[alejorro70]

@directedchaos PS: my english sucks because it's not my native language, so you'll have to excuse me for that

[AndyDrewww]

@directedchaos but would you not say that atheists fall under the category of individuals whom believe that truth is absolute certainty. Those whom claim atheism from my experience claim beyond refutation and possible doubt that there is no god. So an agnostic would be one whom holds there ideas of theism within the realm of what knowlege really is which is the reasonable conclusion that something is or could be a force of the universe?

[LordQuixote]

@directedchaos

Er...ok.

There PROBABLY is a black hole in the center of our galaxy.

There PROBABLY is an alien civilizaiton somewhere in the universe.

The universe is PROBABLY a closed universe (i.e. Big Crunch)...or it PROBABLY is an open universe (i.e. Heat Death).

There PROBABLY is a god, or gods....or there PROBABLY is no god whatsoever.

"PROBABLY" is a valid stance if you don't have all the facts, and it's not absurd at all.

[huruey]

@Malthus0 It IS possible and reasonable to be a gnostic atheist with respect to SPECIFIC gods that are not defined to transcend human logic. If the definition of the god is logically unsound and does not define the god to transcend logic, then you CAN know that this definition cannot be an accurate description of any existent god. As soon as the god is defined to transcend human logic, however, we are forced to be agnostic. However, we can know that we have no sound definition to believe in.

[mrplow8]

I use the term agnostic, but I always make it clear to people that I'm just as agnostic towards gods as I am towards unicorns or fairies.

I think your sun rising analogy is flawed. You can be more certain of something existing or occuring if you've actually seen it than you can of it not existing because you haven't seen it. I'm more certain that tigers do exist, because I've seen them, than I am that bigfoot doesn't exist, but I still don't believe bigfoot exists.

[theblue92]

A fair argument; relatively strong and coherent. Disputes start with the semantics of "know vs. believe" and typically devolve like people are attempting to prove Wittgenstein's private language theory.

The other tricky thing is the definition of "god" that's so vague as to increase the probability in a meaningless, unknowable way. (God is everything, pansperimia, etc.)

Usually doubt is redefined in the realm of metaphysics; it may be an attempt to "soften" the communication of any idea.

[directedchaos]

"they should be open minded enough to realize that their own perception is limited by their humanity."

Clearly, we are not gods; but that's irrelevant. Even gods, who could see the entire universe from big bang to big crunch or big freeze or whatever, would not be certain if there were a God's god above them!

We could *always* be in the matrix.

That doesn't mean we should abandon the WORD KNOWLEDGE. I am very comfortable saying I *KNOW* the sun rose today, even though it may not have...

[noblepuker]

intelligent reply to an intelligent comment.You've provoked good debate from the tubers,well done.You guys are my people.

[mellamosean]

@directedchaos

It really is just linguistics. Agnostics and atheists generally believe (or don't believe) the same thing.

[ragstorichesforex]

I am an agnostic. I have not been able to answer the first cause question. Thus I wonder if something caused, as the Taoist would put it : The splitting of darkness into light and then into the ten thousand things. I certainly am open to hearing an answer maybe I can be convinced.

[directedchaos]

"I have not been able to answer the first cause question."

Nor can any scientist, but that doesn't matter. It's just another gap -- a tiny gap just the tiniest sliver of a second long. God might be hiding behind the first moments of the big bang, sure...

but what are the odds?

What are the odds after thousands of attempts to fill in our gaps in naturalistic knowledge with the supernatural have ended in failure for the supernatural and vindication for the natural?

I say very very low.

[ragstorichesforex]

I think that I contend with the idea of this Force or first cause as being "outside" what is natural. I need not look at a prime mover as being outside of science. If I think for example that what ever it is encompasses all things. Think of this as science which is yet undiscovered. If you were to try to explain radio waves to a primitive he might come to believe in the possibility of their existence without the experience. Do you believe that there are not still undiscovered forces?

[eastsidestory44]

sorry to butt in.. i agree with you ragtoriches.

atheist and theist or w/e... they go by what they know or what they think they know. but rarely do they look ahead and think about what we will know, but don't know now.

also i just quoted Lao Tzu in another comment lol. if i would give credit to any "religion" it would be Taoism.

the simple Truth is... we live in a world of duality and separation (Yin Yang) and there is some force (Tao) that hold it all together, be it natural or supernatural

[ragstorichesforex]

"but rarely do they look ahead and think about what we will know, but don't know now."

Well said

[jelliedsoup]

@directedchaos

You say very low based on what? You assume that humanity's ability to determine the existence of something, which may exist outside of its creation (i.e. the universe), must be able to be determined or probabilities can be assigned to specific qualities. What makes you think this to be true?

[loserloserlosers]

Question... are agnositcs really certain about anything?

[directedchaos]

A fun question for agnostics: do they know that they don't know anything?

[adafuns]

we know, do you?

[ummmerrrrummm]

@directedchaos That is a good question. Cogito ergo sum?

Knowledge is tricky to have with complete certainty as you point out. The sun will appear tommorow morning. That is something that seems most likely from experience, but how much experience of the cosmos do we have from Earth?

We don't do badly. But what's inside a black hole? How many universes are there? Can neutrino's travel faster than light?

Nothing wrong with being agnostic, it is not unreasonable.