What being an atheist means in practical terms

That is purely ideal, and as I said it does not preclude someone from hoping one way or the other and does not spoil the soup as you insist since it is the final conclusion that counts as agnostic not the hope or how much they care.

I never said or implied it was a necessity, and real referenced something entirely different than your strawman.

THIS:
"however, by your non-scientific, articles (apparently) of faith, about the requirements to be met, to qualify as a "real" Agnostic"
IS NONSENSE, your characterization NOT what I said.
To qualify, never said it
requirements? never said it.
'real' said it in a different context.
last nonscientific is not relevant, it only need provide sufficient proof using scientific method to be valid, peer review would be nice but not required either.

You strawman'd what I said and moved the goal posts. The take away point that you missed is that agnostic is exclusive and to be a legitimate agnostic you cannot accept as true either the atheist or theist proposition, and the second you do to any degree you are no longer agnostic, you default to atheist or theist which ever way that coin lands. Nothing prevents you from hoping one direction or the other turns out to be true.

 

and that is stated in reference to anything falsifiable that is clearly theist or atheist.

Oh yeh and as durkhiem pointed out there is no requirement for religion to be based upon faith, it can also be based upon scientific fact according to scientific method. That to which you are bound. (which is the definition the supreme court watered down in their decision that secular humanism is a religion. You might be one of those guys that think religion only applies to dieties and the supernatural, it doesnt, it also applies to secular.

Secular religion - Wikipedia

 

I am accepting definitions, sourced with footnotes, based on the REALITY, as it exists, in the world. The thing that sounds loony to (not just) me, is that I (and everyone else, at least on this debate forum) should defer to your, personally-accepted definition.

 

well I have no interest in futilely discussing 'subjective' psychological aspects that are the creators of nonsense loonacy like agnostic-atheist, if you think that serves a rational productive purpose be my guest because I wont play in that wasteland. Hell people on this forum cant even accept the facts much less agree on something subjective. I follow the universities, feel free to follow whoever or whatever you like.

 

And, oh yeah, why didn't you quote me making the STRAWMAN Argument which you are currently presenting, as if I had been making that argument. Answer: because I did not say that religion cannot be based on scientific fact.

I related the fact that many Agnostics maintain the belief that human reason is simply incapable of ascertaining either the existence, or the non-existence, of God, regardless of scientific evidence. That is really not such an idiotic opinion,despite your feelings, to the contrary. And, as in all discussion of religion, there is no bar of "logic" which need be met by the members of any religion, to consider them validated members of a religion. Any such determination, any free thinker should immediately see, would be subjective, at any rate.

So, I followed a truly logical path in my argument, spelling out every step, for clarity's sake, that, once a person has accepted that something cannot be proven, or disproven, scientifically, that individual ceases to rely, in their beliefs, on the "scientific method," which you, erroneously, portray as the sole guiding star, as it were, for any "real Agnostics," as determined by you.


This is a severe, cognitive handicap you are currently manifesting, in reading meanings where they do not exist, while simultaneously expecting your correspondents to read your supposed meanings, where those words do not exist, on the screen, either. If a reasonable person intends to convey the idea that what one is presenting

then that is what they would be expected to write, not

Kokomojojo said: ↑
...agnostic is science based and really does not care who is right as long as they can prove up the point.
[End quote]

I am sorry that you do not see that it is not up to your readers to figure out what the heck you actually mean, despite what you wrote; it is, unfortunately, up to you to make your intended meaning as clear as you possibly can-- or at least, I should add, that is the ideal.

 

I posted both your strawman and a detailed response to it, nice switching horses to something I did not claim was a strawman but is now.

 

Im not here to publish a book just for you, sorry, if you are not basically on the same page with an understanding of the terms and philosophy supporting it then you need to stick with the psychology end where you can have everything your way.

 

Here again if they are too ignorant to understand what the scientific method is, and that it is grounded in neutrality and reason and takes no sides that are not proven by the scientific method, so sowwy they need to read someone elses posts. I am not here to write a thesis on every word I use and every concept I post.

In other words in the interest of science its who proves the point, without any other consideration.

 

Again, you are reading things that are not there, or which you are neglecting to explain where you see them. I never said, "agnostic-atheist," which seems a foolish term to me, as well, and this should be clear to you, from my first post to Greenleft, just a few days ago, which began your replies to me.

I clearly made the point that accepting just the possibility that there may be a God, by definition, excludes one from being an atheist; accepting for a certainty that there is no God, disqualifies one from being an agnostic-- because, as I've already repeatedly stated (also beyond the credible claims of my leaving any doubt), an agnostic concedes the possibility of God, but assumes that, if It exists, It is beyond our understanding.

So, it would logically appear to me, that if you see me suggesting anything about agnostic-atheists-- which it is uncertain as to whether or not you mean to say this, because of your signature, unclear manner of expressing your thought-- that would be a purely subjective creation, of your own mind.

 

Thats a false narrative, you are using a bastardized definition.
Agnostics do not presume its impossible to know for all time, like agnostic-atheist that is irrational as the people making that claim.
Its whatever is possible at the time of its review.

 

another false narrative, agnostic assumes there may be a god while simultaneously assuming there may not be a god, awaiting for both sides to lay out their evidence and prove up the point.
Agnostic refuses to take either position until one side or the other is proven.
Claiming theist or atheist is a claim of certainty.

Not necessarily, the data may be out of our reach, it may be in alpha cetauri and we do not have the means to get it.

 

Below, is what you posted, which I was terming your phoney strawman argument. The argument that you earlier alleged was a strawman, was not what you wrote in this post, which is what my reply (to this post) was calling into question.

Kokomojojo said: ↑
Oh yeh and as durkhiem pointed out there is no requirement for religion to be based upon faith, it can also be based upon scientific fact according to scientific method. That to which you are bound. (which is the definition the supreme court watered down in their decision that secular humanism is a religion. You might be one of those guys that think religion only applies to dieties and the supernatural, it doesnt, it also applies to secular.
(End quote)

You have NOT shown me saying that "there is a requirement for religion to be based on faith, and it cannot also be based on scientific fact." If I am truly wrong about this, then you are truly wrong in thinking you win the debate point by just claiming that you posted my strawman and, "a detailed response to it..." What even one of those idiots, to whom you earlier referred, would at least understand, is that-- especially as this is a relatively new conversation, with all our posts, more or less together, in the thread-- to prove your point, which I have questioned, you need simply re-post your evidence.

Once more, your ramblings suggest that you are thinking about several different things at once, and have not the ability to slow your stream of consciousness thoughts, in your text, into something cohesive & clearly comprehensible.

This is the kind of thing, I feel is a poor use of my time, to be required to explain, as anyone who cannot express their ideas in a manner that appears organized-- to the perspective of the average reader, not your own-- does not meet my litmus, for determining a person who has worthwhile thoughts to share. I have given you warning, and the benefit of time, to gather yourself, and show that you can compose your messages in a way that manifests the composure of your own mind.

Now here is a word to the wise, in case that might include you. If you care to carry on a thoughtful conversation with me, do not continue to rattle off semi-lucid diatribes. Have I made myself clear?

The only remaining question, then, is:
can you make yourself clear?

 

No, yours is the "false narrative," or overly-narrow one. Prove to me, or to anyone other than yourself, that a true agnostic cannot be uncertain, as to whether or not God exists, allowing the chance that either might be correct, without--
you know, I have to stop, because I realize that, what you wrote, does not even make sense, so I really don't know what you mean by it. I

I had kind of assumed-- FYI, it is just this type of unclear expression, on your part, which is quickly dissipating my interest in reading, what frequently seems to me, your babble-- that you were saying that an agnostic must both assume that God exists and assume that God does not exist. While this idea, clearly, screams for the person suggesting it, to go into more explanation, which you failed to do, at least it would have seemed that you were trying to make a real, if unbelievably universal-- i.e., applying to ALL, which is, once again, how you are presenting your supposed variations, when you label my words "false narratives"-- distinction. But, forced to re-type all your unclear words, back to you, I see that you are objecting to my saying that an agnostic accepts the POSSIBILITY that God may, or may not, exist; then, as your correction of my totally misleading, "false narrative," you are giving this explanation:
"agnostic assumes there may be a god while simultaneously assuming there may not be a god," which, to me, because of your inclusion of the word "may," means nothing strikingly different from what I'd said, does it?

So I'm guessing that you must have meant to emphasize the latter part of your description. Well, here's a tip: as anyone who knew how to, or had any real facility for expressing themselves, would have understood, in this case, you present your difference more effectively, by omitting the part of your definition that was the same as my own-- much less should you have, not only included it but, used different verbiage, so as to give the appearance that it might be there, you were trying to draw some distinction. Can you comprehend the logic, behind that concept?

And the thing you are disputing, then, would be that, in your mind, every agnostic is just waiting for one side, or the other, to prove its case (which is so apparent, in its inaccuracy, that it would be no exaggeration to call it self-evidently incorrect).

And for that, you start off your post, crying out "false narrative!" Even though I have given the source of my information, that you are disputing; and it is a source-- Wikipedia-- that you apparently acknowledge as scholarly, since I noticed you offering up wikipedia-sourced quotes, YOURSELF!

You are down to your final strike, with me (and you really don't deserve that). Don't waste it.

 

SOME do. The truth seems to be just the way, I commented, it felt to me-- like an inter-denominational rivalry. You are apparently one type of Agnostic, who is reserving judgement until there is some scientific proof, either way, which you find acceptable. That's fine. But there are also, as with Theists, and Atheists, different varieties of Agnostics. This is not in the least bit surprising; rather, it would be striking if there weren't. And some of that other group of Agnostics, do not believe that it is the science, we only need await, to get an answer to the big question. I can certainly understand them thinking that science is not going to give us a photocopy of God's I.D., which we only have to read it listing his occupation as "God," or Creator & Sustainer of the Universe, or Great Universal Spirit, or Master of All, to settle the question. In other words, we may detect some sign of God, at some point, but how are we going to recognize it as God? It is a childishly naive notion, in fact, that anything that suggests itself as possibly relating to God, won't be hotly contested, by those who see it as merely a natural feature of our universe. For that matter, how could we be sure that we haven't already stumbled across God's shoelaces, or whatever. It is not reason, but only faith-- which you reject playing any part in being an Agnostic (at least a good one)-- which could give a person any certainty that we would be able to understand how, whatever things we detect, come together, within the overall Being, if I may use the word loosely, of God. Ironically, those Agnostics who do not trust science to supply all the answers, are in fact the ones NOT relying on any faith.

In just my own opinion, the way you see your brand of agnosticism, makes it seem just as un-self-reliant, as do any of Theism's theological constructs, like heaven; just as much a surrender of one's own judgement; but instead of God, who will come to save us all, it is Science, to the rescue, to explain everything for us, give us all the answers, and set everything right. Oh Daddy!

So what does that require of you, then?

 

red herring, I told you my comments are not based in psychology, only definitional boundaries with regard to the procedure and its ideological intended meaning by the creator of the word. I have no interest in discussing illiterate nut cases peeing in the porridge with y0u. Why do you insist on a subjective baseless discussion?

So now you agree with me and present your agreement as an argument? thats whack!
Of course when someone is uncertain they are required to accept neither premise if they wish to call themselves agnostic.

Thank you!

 

was distracted and missed the edit window

redaction: So now you agree with me and present your agreement as an argument? thats whack! Of course when someone is uncertain they are required to accept neither premise if they wish to call themselves agnostic.

I dont believe any amount of evidence can 'prove' anything to you. However the creator of the word stated its meaning and usage:

CORRECTION:

“I do not much care to speak of anything as “unknowable.” Huxley clarified the agnostic principle.

Huxley was sincere in his rejection of the charge of outright atheism against himself. He refused to be "a liar".

he was to coin the word "agnostic" to describe his own position as neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but one who considered himself free to inquire rationally into the basis of knowledge, a philosopher of pure reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Thank you! I get seriously bored chasing constant assaults of red herrings and strawman arguments.

 

I laugh every time I read a pro-atheist thread because atheists don't believe in religion...Period...Which is a belief, er, an example of bigotry (I know atheists are gonna get all technical that bigotry isn't religion).

Oh yes, atheists believe in certain conspiracy theories...Atheists just don't believe in religion...Period...Which is a belief, er, an example of bigotry (I know atheists are gonna get all technical that bigotry isn't religion). There's nothing special or thought provoking about atheists...They just hate religion...Period...Which is a belief, er, an example of bigotry (I know atheists are gonna get all technical that bigotry isn't religion)...All right atheists, you aren't religious fanatics you're just bigots.

 

To me, it is all a question of the truth. Some accept it. Some reject it. Others are uncertain of what to do in regards to the truth. Then there is the counterfeit of truth, as in false Gods, religions and sects. Again some accept, some reject, others are uncertain. It all begs the question, what is the truth. Where abides the given God in whom one should trust, if not already in the spirit of peace and friendship. Solomon said eloquently:
Proverbs 3
1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:

2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:

4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

9 Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

11 My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction:

12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.

15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.

16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.

17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.

18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

 

You may have "told " me that mouthful of baloney but-- unless you are implying that you are the "creator of the word"-- you have certainly NOT provided me evidence of that claim. This, I think, would make a logical starting point for two people to consider this question, in a reasonable fashion. Therefore, I will thank you for your improvement-- though I am shooting this reply to you, prior to reading the remainder of your post-- in your responding with pertinent information, and at the outset of your communication, no less. I will await your verification of your, granted, important claim, with interest.

 

And, in your very next passage, you manifest the recidivist impulse, I feared. Your quote, above, is a reply to these words, you quoted from me:

DEFinning said: ↑
No, yours is the "false narrative," or overly-narrow one. Prove to me, or to anyone other than yourself, that a true agnostic cannot be uncertain, as to whether or not God exists, allowing the chance that either might be correct,
[End quote]

I will call this out as a patent falsehood, that I have not, all along, presented this as my position: that an agnostic is uncertain, on the question of God's existence. It is ludicrous, then, for you to present this as only my "agreement," with you, and something new, from me.
I will offer evidence, of my claim (as is customary, on a debate, despite your seeming belief that this is nothing with which you should trouble yourself).

This is just a small selection, beginning with my 1st post, and scattered throughout; I could produce numerous more, if you think there is a reason, but I did not wish to be overly-redundant, in my quotes, which (to my perception) clearly demonstrate that I have portrayed this consistent view, all along: namely, that Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of either the existence, or non-existence, of God. Granted, in some of the above cases, it might require the tiniest bit of thought, on the part of the reader, to "do the math," but that equation requires only the most elementary level of reasoning ability. I presume that this should not exclude your own understanding.

I will mention, once again, for whatever it's worth, that it is considered the principled, polite thing, after one has falsely claimed or implied things, about someone else, that they extend an apology, or at the very least, they issue a retraction of their prior words, which have been shown to have been erroneous or misleading.




MISCELLANEOUS:

While I'm reproducing my quotes, I noticed an instance in which I was ill-served, by spell-correct.
In the following post, for clarity's sake, I had intended it to read, that "I am presenting definitions..." though it ends up reading, that I am "accepting," them.

 

Kind of sad, that I need to point out to you that, what you posted, IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER, SUPPORTS your advocated position, namely: that every Agnostic must subordinate his or her own uncertainty, about the existence of God, to an Absolute Trust in the Scientific Method to, ultimately, eliminate that uncertainty (to be a valid Agnostic).

Did I miss something?


P.S.-- Actually, it appears that you may have:

Unless the rest of the quote was, "but which, for a certainty, one day, will be Knowable," but which erroneously got omitted, Huxley seems to be tying his own rope closer to the other Agnostics' mooring post.

 

That doesn't sound much like the Solomon who wrote Ecclesiastes. That very short book was meant to be his own philosophy & insights, gathered over a lifetime. Read & compare. It should be obvious, but I'll mention that the closing sentence sounds like it was written by someone else, & may well have been added by a later editor, to wrap things up in a kosher bow, because the entire rest of it, offers an heretical sounding viewpoint (or else Solomon threw in that ending just because he felt he had to, as head of the people & so, in a way, of the religion.

Solomon points out that a person gets NO benefit from God, just for following the rules, and living a "good" life. He mentions the many of those with great piety & generosity, who life just walks all over; while others who are sinners, are nevertheless favored by life, get all the breaks. Life just smiles on some & frowns on others, in its own, arbitrary way, that has nothing to do with who deserves boon, or has earned setbacks, based on the way they live. It sounds very much like the Protestant view of predestination and the Elect, which came along much, much later (though Solomon doesn't talk about heaven, because that idea developed later on).

The non sequitur ending, after basically saying that you get no reward in good fortune, for being a good person, and there is no punishment (in this life, which was all he could speak of) for being selfish or a bad person, is to the effect of, therefore you should live with reverence to God, & live by his laws. But the whole book, offered up no reason why a person should do, as the ending recommends. It is, in fact, diametrically opposed to how, logically, it should conclude.
Not: whatever life has in store for you is not going to be helped, or hurt, by anything you do, therefore you should live a holy & upright life. The implied recommendation, by common sense, would be the ending therefore, live doing whatever you like.

I am not trying to suggest to anyone, how they should live. I'm just pointing out-- in case you gave credence to, & drew inspiration from, Solomon's verses, at all because of his stellar reputation-- well, the wisest man in the world also had another side, and a darker perspective.

 

Proverbs does no such thing - you are trying to view writings from 900BC through a 20th century lenz .. and you are out of focus mate

 

I quoted Solomon for his affinity to God as a given, the concept around which Atheists and Agnostics revolve, in that God isn't or might be. And yet it is the gravity of the matter holding their attention. Still they esteem it mirth to stand upon a foundation of truth and declare that God lives and is divine.

In Ecclesiastes, the Preacher bemoans the fact that God sustains the unbelievers, fools, sinners, etc. as if to justify their unbelief or make them appear equal to those who love and follow God. To me this reinforces Gods kindness, mercy and patience. But to Atheists and Agnostics, it merely reinforces their position or beliefs that either there is no God or there might be but cannot be proven. Ironically, to me, God is hidden by his own mercy and charity. And so it goes.

 

I gave you an explanation of direct quotes, and you summarily deny the argument.

That post is a disaster, if you want to fix it so its comprehensible I will be happy to respond.

Nice spin on what he never implied and from what he did say never intended, another red herring from you. apparently thats all you got