Robert Farquharson joins us

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by simonecuttlefish

Neil, I don't let other people define my response on this one. When the door-knocker-god-botherers come to the house, my response to any question about my faith position is delivered like this: 'Given that I have no belief in either the existence or non existence of gods or the supernatural, I'm an agnostic atheist, and a deeply considered one.'

I've even gotten so far as to explain the term gnostic and agnostic to some jo-hos; the poor things went all dazed and confused initially as they think that agnostic means wibbly and flippy-floppy, and not a claim about a knowledge position.

Just as a matter of interest, I would be very interested on how you would define the term 'atheist'. I've looked up the word atheist in heaps of dictionaries, and given that the definitions range from absolute assertion of the NON existence of god/s, to a flippy-floppy confusion like state as to the existence of god/s, then I think it's very important to make sure people understand my position accurately, as you will NOT get a consistent definition from dictionaries.

Plus you can add we eat Theology PhDs for breakfast!

[Neil Richardson]

I think the Greek word atheos, from which atheist was derived, says it all. A - not (without) theos - god(s).

My Macquarie has a definition which speaks of the doctrine of disbelief, but to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, atheism is about nothing, for which there can be no doctrine. Other definitions I've seen confuse disbelief with the more pro-active concept of believing there is no god.

Because you can't be both atheistic and agnostic, you are clearly agnostic, simone.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Neil Richardson

Because you can't be both atheistic and agnostic, you are clearly agnostic, simone.

Agnostic is a word referring to the possibility of knowledge. It's entirely possible to be agnostic atheist. This is not controversial.

[Mjt]

Originally Posted by Neil Richardson

Because you can't be both atheistic and agnostic, you are clearly agnostic, simone.

I reckon Mr Cuttlefish probably knows what he is.
I for one am missing my Robbie.
Where is my cheeky little munchkin?

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Neil Richardson

Because you can't be both atheistic and agnostic, you are clearly agnostic, simone.

Even wiki disagrees with that assertion:

Originally Posted by Agnostic atheism wiki

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

They are two complementary spheres, not mutually exclusive.

[Seymour Buts]

Originally Posted by Loki

To contend that "god does not exist" is to accept that the concept itself is coherent and meaningful and invite the burden off proof. I have yet to see a "strong atheist" hold up that burden though I am sympathetic to the position that absolute knowledge is not needed if something is implausible enough (and gods certainly are). That many aren't prepared to make such a declaration is really only a matter of degree and I suggest a divide carefully cultivated by theists, there's nothing as good as dividing those you are antithetical to.

Interesting. Thinking off the top of my head if you said that god does not exist as a factual statement and then you were to 'invite' the burden of proof wouldn't that mean that you were being asked to prove something that you said did not exist. I mean, for lack of an eloquent way of putting it, how can you prove something does not exist? Isn’t that an example of trying to prove a negative or have I just misunderstood what you have said?
If you go beyond simply not believing in god, and contend that he definately doesn't exist, without evidence for it then doesn't that make it belief. I could be wrong here but wouldn't the definition of belief be holding something to be true without evidence? Nothing wrong with that I am tempted myself to say that I believe god doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Neil Richardson

Because you can't be both atheistic and agnostic, you are clearly agnostic, simone.

Don't want to sink the boot in (as others have responded) but doesn't even Richard Dawkins contend that he is an atheist who cannot prove there is no god, and therefore he is in a scientific sense 'open' to the possibility of god existing. In this sense he is to some degree an agnostic BUT the point is a moot one as there is no evidence for the existence of god with the added bonus that many of their (religious) claims have been rubbished by science (and increasingly so as science advances) as to render the possibility so unlikely that he is therefore "as certain as one can be" that god does not exist.
Remember there is also no evidence either way for a large human toe with pink nail polish orbiting the moon, so in that sense we are agnostic about it. But the likelihood of it is so small and absurd it’s not worth debating that infinitesimally small gap. At least not until any evidence comes along.
The other thing is (and perhaps this is what Loki was talking about?) we are debating about A god. But what/who is or how do you define god? If it is something that is so broad as to be a higher power then does that mean the Government is god, because they are a higher power than me? Remember that the god/s for which have been claimed to be true by various religions are fairly specific in their attributes. The ‘secular’ idea of god as defined as some kind of higher power if somewhat meaningless. And I don’t like the idea of the Government being a god!

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Plus you can add we eat Theology PhDs for breakfast!

Don't eat a theology PhD for breakfast, no nutritional content! There may be some in the paper, but the words would be poison!

[Loki]

Originally Posted by Seymour Buts

Interesting. Thinking off the top of my head if you said that god does not exist as a factual statement and then you were to 'invite' the burden of proof wouldn't that mean that you were being asked to prove something that you said did not exist. I mean, for lack of an eloquent way of putting it, how can you prove something does not exist? Isn’t that an example of trying to prove a negative or have I just misunderstood what you have said?
If you go beyond simply not believing in god, and contend that he definately doesn't exist, without evidence for it then doesn't that make it belief. I could be wrong here but wouldn't the definition of belief be holding something to be true without evidence? Nothing wrong with that I am tempted myself to say that I believe god doesn't exist.

If one asserts that the concept of gods is valid then yes. If one suggests the very concept of gods is poorly described by theists and therefore meaningless, then not necessarily. If a meaningful definition of the entity is not available then any attempt to prove or disprove said entity is meaningless.

It gets somewhat complicated around this point. I am happy to declare that the xian god, if defined as an omni-max entity, is impossible and therefore non-existent. Note I am not proving a negative here, simply dismissing an impossible construct as impossible. Mind you, while such a definition is coherent and meaningful, getting two different xians to agree it reflects their deity is problematic.

For definitions of gods which exist entirely outside of reality and have no interaction with reality (as per some conceptions of deism) then I cannot make such a declaration. Mind you, as such an entity could have no impact on my or anyone else's life I don't loose any sleep pondering such an entity.

Of course in between are a million shades of grey. In none of those shades of grey have I yet seen a definition of the supernatural which is coherent which is supported by observation.

So, no, one can't prove a negative. The question I have is whether that is even necessary to dismiss at least the vast majority of supernaturalist claims?

[Seymour Buts]

Originally Posted by Loki

If one asserts that the concept of gods is valid then yes.If one suggests the very concept of gods is poorly described by theists and therefore meaningless, then not necessarily.

Sorry but I'm not sure to which question you answered yes to, the first one? The one which I erronously forgot to put a question mark on... Also don't your second sentence. (Still trying to figure out how to do quotes within quotes replies)

Originally Posted by Loki

If a meaningful definition of the entity is not available then any attempt to prove or disprove said entity is meaningless.

Yes I absolutely agree. How can you prove or disprove something when no one can agree on what it is you are trying to prove or disprove. It probably doesn't matter anyway as what ever definition you agreed upon would always be defined as such that you could never find any evidence for it. Or the other way around in that the definition of god was so vague or watered down as to actually mean something less than almightly as per my Goverment example in the previous post.

Originally Posted by Loki

It gets somewhat complicated around this point. I am happy to declare that the xian god, if defined as an omni-max entity, is impossible and therefore non-existent. Note I am not proving a negative here, simply dismissing an impossible construct as impossible. Mind you, while such a definition is coherent and meaningful, getting two different xians to agree it reflects their deity is problematic.

For definitions of gods which exist entirely outside of reality and have no interaction with reality (as per some conceptions of deism) then I cannot make such a declaration. Mind you, as such an entity could have no impact on my or anyone else's life I don't loose any sleep pondering such an entity.

I think I understand what you mean here. You mean whereby xtians define there god something to the effect of "god exists outside of time and space and is everywhere at once"? Because yeh if thats what you mean then that deffinately makes god impossible. In this universe at least.

Originally Posted by Loki

Of course in between are a million shades of grey. In none of those shades of grey have I yet seen a definition of the supernatural which is coherent which is supported by observation.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Loki

The question I have is whether that is even necessary to dismiss at least the vast majority of supernaturalist claims?

I need to think about that one a little bit more, I am confused by it.

[Loki]

I don't claim that my thoughts are watertight or without rebuttal (I welcome such), or even that they aren't subject to change.

That's why I post them, as an invitation to others to tear down the bits that don't work and rebuild them with better material.

They are merely where I'm at at the moment. It makes sense to me though, that woolly concepts don't require detailed debunking. If a concept isn't clear and meaningful then there's a good chance it is without basis.

On the other hand, theists have only had 10 000 odd years to formulate their definitions, so it's understandable if they aren't well formed yet, I'm prepared to cut them a little slack.

[The man who created God]

Regarding Seymour Buts' statement that "how can you prove something does not exist?" what is even more difficult is proving that something that does not exist, does not exist. That of course is impossible.