This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do people take agnosticism to be a middle ground between atheism and theism?

#11hunter_gohanPosted 9/16/2013 4:42:39 PM
ForsakenHermit posted...
If someone tells me that they are 50/50 on existence of a god and self-identify as agnostic I leave it at that. I think its dishonest to try to pigeonhole someone who claims they don't believe or disbelieve.


Dishonest? You are aware, of course, that disbelieve simply means "not believe"?

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve

So I'll ask again where's the middle ground?

How can you not believe and not not believe? The latter is a double negative which simply means believe and contradicts the former.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#12FingerpuppetPosted 9/16/2013 4:43:53 PM
Nitro378 posted...
Fingerpuppet posted...
Nitro378 posted...
Fingerpuppet posted...
After all, how can you talk to somebody who claims to know nothing or claims to be uncertain of everything?

Well, since that's the logical position...
(agnostic atheists for top tier)


Can you elaborate?

It's irrational to believe in god but it's also irrational to say you know absolutely there is no god. There's very little in life you should take 100% for certain. Agnostic atheism (no evidence or reason to believe in god so I don't, though I can't tell you for sure there is no god) is the thinking wo/man's position.


Whoops, I misread your first post. Sorry about that.
---
http://i.imgur.com/kubEx.jpg
^^If you do not have an open mind, then I have nothing to discuss with you.
#13AynRandySavagePosted 9/16/2013 6:45:02 PM
This is gonna be fun
#14AynRandySavagePosted 9/16/2013 6:53:42 PM
Fingerpuppet posted...
If someone merely claims to be agnostic, then I can't have a discussion with them whatsoever. After all, how can you talk to somebody who claims to know nothing or claims to be uncertain of everything?


agnosticism isn't just generalized uncertainty about uncertainty, it's specifically about whether we're justified in taking a position on metaphysical questions.
#15IamvegitoPosted 9/16/2013 6:55:04 PM
No, since it is a different scale entirely.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#16AynRandySavagePosted 9/16/2013 6:57:45 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
ForsakenHermit posted...
If someone tells me that they are 50/50 on existence of a god and self-identify as agnostic I leave it at that. I think its dishonest to try to pigeonhole someone who claims they don't believe or disbelieve.


Dishonest? You are aware, of course, that disbelieve simply means "not believe"?

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve

So I'll ask again where's the middle ground?

How can you not believe and not not believe? The latter is a double negative which simply means believe and contradicts the former.


Stop trying to pass this off, would you? I'm going to quote Quine here every time you do it.
#17AynRandySavagePosted 9/16/2013 6:59:11 PM
KainReaver109 posted...
Do you think most people take agnosticism to be a middle ground between atheism and theism? How many people understand the distinction between addressing knowledge, and addressing belief? But moreover, do those who care to use the words even really care to make the distinctions?


The idea that "a/gnosticism" and a/theism" exist on parallel axes has never been a majority view in language or in philosophy. You've spent too much time on /r/atheism.
#18JonWood007Posted 9/16/2013 7:24:41 PM
ARS: Yes, your definitions may be correct in some contexts, but honestly, based on previous debate with you, I find them to be grossly outdated and and a bit too ivory tower. They're textbook answers, but those don't necessarily reflect current ideas on the subject held by a lot of people. I think that the two terms are not as mutually exclusive as the stale "old school" definitions state...rather, I think there's a lot of overlap and those charts on r/atheism you seem to despise are a more reasonable system to use in the 21st century than the old definitions. The only reason to still accept the old definitions is because they were always defined that way, which seems to be an argument from authority and tradition wrapped up in one.

Based on your definitions, I actually am an agnostic, not an atheist, but honestly, I identify as both, since I use a different system.

And let's leave it at that, let's not get in another 500 topic about which definition of agnoticism is correct. Seeing how language itself is merely social convention, getting into detailed linguistic/semantic debates is a waste of time. It's just much better to ask people their views, since words do have multiple definitions and people do use them differently.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#19AynRandySavagePosted 9/16/2013 8:17:20 PM
JonWood007 posted...

And let's leave it at that, let's not get in another 500 topic about which definition of agnoticism is correct. Seeing how language itself is merely social convention, getting into detailed linguistic/semantic debates is a waste of time. It's just much better to ask people their views, since words do have multiple definitions and people do use them differently.


I agree 110 percent. If you want me to call you an agnostic atheist, I don't have a problem with that.
#20hunter_gohanPosted 9/18/2013 12:04:40 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
Stop trying to pass this off, would you? I'm going to quote Quine here every time you do it.


Good because I can write a paragraph where everytime I type chocolate it means computer, but that doesn't actually allow me to insert the computer definition of "chocolate" into others peoples words/works when they're talking about chocolate so that you can make their given definitions fit what you want instead of what they said; especially, after they make it clear that no they don't mean computer at all when saying chocolate. This is a basic thing you do not seem to understand.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.