"Lack of belief"

[allfoak]

An agnostic says "I don't know either way". An atheist says "I don't believe either way". None of them deny anything.

Fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, it is a complete failure to recognise context and human history, psychology, society, etc. and how these make atheism very different from 'apinkunicornism'.

Unless you want to abstract words from social context and treat them as mere grammatical formulae in some artificial normative vacuum, then it's pretty obvious why they are different.

Sounds like you're speaking to (and attempting to dismiss) the outsider test for faith:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/05/the-outsider-test-for-faith-and-how-to-take-it/

These examples don't fail to recognize the factors you listed; in fact, they call attention to them. They call attention to the fact that the reason people today believe in gods and not, say, leprechauns is because our society continuously reinforces the idea that belief in gods is reasonable and laudable, and we don't have this background noise when it comes to leprechauns.

The whole point of these other examples is to help people take a step back from their beliefs and think about only the things that are likely to indicate that the belief is actually true without psychological, social, or emotional baggage getting in the way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An agnostic says "I don't know either way". An atheist says "I don't believe either way". None of them deny anything.

Incorrect. The agnostic says "the existence of gods is unknowable." He denies that theists have valid justification for their beliefs.

 

[ArtieE]

To be certain of something that you are not certain of is delusional.

LOL you are either certain or not certain. What is delusional is thinking that you can be both certain and not certain at the same time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seriously can't say "I don't believe The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists" and are committed to the position that you cannot say if you do or do not belief that there exists an invisible pink unicorn?

Your sentence is semantically weird. Someone who neither believes no disbelieves in a thing "does not believe."

I don't believe that it would be reasonable for anyone alive today to come to believe in an invisible pink unicorn today. I also don't see how "invisible" and "pink" are compatible with each other.

However, I can't speak at all to all the "unknown unknowns" out in the universe, so I can't say at all that there definitely isn't something in those "unknown unknowns" that would make me say "yep - that's an invisible pink unicorn" if I knew about it.

In the meantime, I'm relatively certain that there's no justification for an invisible pink unicorn amongst the things that humanity does know, so I'm justified in calling belief in the IPU absurd and irrational.

 

[ArtieE]

Incorrect. The agnostic says "the existence of gods is unknowable." He denies that theists have valid justification for their beliefs.

This is how we define the different terms in the context of this discussion.

Theism = belief
Atheism = absence of belief
Gnosticism = knowledge
Agnosticism = absence of knowledge

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is how we define the different terms in the context of this discussion.

Theism = belief
Atheism = absence of belief
Gnosticism = knowledge
Agnosticism = absence of knowledge

Thanks, but I'll go with T.H. Huxley's definition of "agnostic". Serms only fair, since he coined the term and defined it.

 

[Willamena]

You doesn't lack every knowledge?
That's impressive, how do you achieve that?

I don't lack any knowledge, I have knowledge. I achieve it by knowing stuff. I can't tell you how to achieve lacks--I don't believe in them. I don't have knowledge of subjects that I haven't been exposed to. I have my knowledge, not anyone else's.

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks, but I'll go with T.H. Huxley's definition of "agnostic". Serms only fair, since he coined the term and defined it.

That was in 1869 and we are now living in 2016.

"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. [My emphasis]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

So when we are talking about theism and atheism, gnosticism and agnosticism it's only logical to use the corresponding terms. Hence

Theism = belief
Atheism = absence of belief
Gnosticism = knowledge
Agnosticism = absence of knowledge

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was in 1869 and we are now living in 2016.

"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. [My emphasis]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

So when we are talking about theism and atheism, gnosticism and agnosticism it's only logical to use the corresponding terms. Hence

Theism = belief
Atheism = absence of belief
Gnosticism = knowledge
Agnosticism = absence of knowledge

BTW: your definition of "Gnosticism" is also wrong. It's a specific religious movement, not just any old religious claim of knowledge.

 

[ArtieE]

BTW: your definition of "Gnosticism" is also wrong. It's a specific religious movement, not just any old religious claim of knowledge.

May I again repeat that we're living in 2016 and that the word Gnosticism in Greek literally means "having knowledge" so we use it with this meaning in this context?

 

[Erebus]

I'm going to call your attention to one of the "absurd" examples you gave earlier: leprechauns.

Leprechauns weren't invented to make fun of theists; they were devoutly believed in by real people who thought they had good reason to do so.

Do you have any justification for anything beyond "lack of belief" when it comes to leprechauns? Do you have some piece of evidence in your back pocket that would make the idea of leprechauns any more ridiculous than the idea of some god?

I don't believe I did cite leprechauns as an example? I consider genuine folkloric creatures different to things made up for the express purpose of being ridiculous. Why decide that the unicorn cited be invisible and pink if not to make it seem more silly than its folkloric counterpart? Why not just stick with folkloric beings or even other gods to make the same point? I would argue it's because the invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster were designed to be absurd. Do you disagree?

Again: a person can consider a particular belief absurd without considering the thing being believed in absurd. I can think that it's irrational to believe that pixies painted the sky blue while still believing that the sky is blue.

They can, but that's beside the point isn't it? There are people who consider both the belief in gods AND gods themselves absurd.

Why? What's your justification for this position?

Even if you think that they were made up, you should still recognize that people sometimes make serendipitously correct guesses without proper justification.

The rational course of action on, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to recognize that no evidence for the FSM exists and therefore to give it no regard. This still lets you believe that someone who really does believe in the FSM exists is being foolish (provided you're sure he doesn't have any evidence that you don't have) while still leaving the actual existence of the FSM as an open question.

My justification is that they were designed from the get go to parody theism. Could the person doing it have accidentally guessed right? I suppose so. Does that acknowledgement have any bearing on how I actually feel about the idea of a flying spaghetti monster? No, not really.

Okay... so you DO have justification for something more than "lack of belief" for the FSM. Great! Please make your case.

Sure, the flying spaghetti monster was an invention of Bobby Henderson, designed to parody creationism. Since then, it's been used as a parody of various expressions of religious thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

May I again repeat that we're living in 2016 and that the word Gnosticism in Greek literally means "having knowledge" so we use it with this meaning in this context?

Do you understand that etymology doesn't dictate definition?

What's next: are you going to call any religion with a method "Methodist"? Disagreeable religious people "Protestants"?

 

[Augustus]

The whole point of these other examples is to help people take a step back from their beliefs and think about only the things that are likely to indicate that the belief is actually true without psychological, social, or emotional baggage getting in the way.

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. The point is these things do exist, and there are reasons why they exist. You also assume the value of gods rests in some objective truth standard.

The belief in pink unicorns is irrelevant to our world and worldview whereas the belief in gods is not. Pink unicorns don't figure in mythologies that give meaning to our existence. We don't exist in a world shaped by belief in pink unicorns. This is why people don't study the cognitive science of pink unicorns. This is why they are not the same.

Believing in gods is in no way the same as believing in pink unicorns unless you want to completely ignore any wider context.

It is cod 'rationalism' to say 'why should they be different?' The point is they are 'because humans and human history'.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you understand that etymology doesn't dictate definition?

What's next: are you going to call any religion with a method "Methodist"? Disagreeable religious people "Protestants"?

LOL what a pathetic attempt at building a straw man to avoid having to admit what I say is logical.

 

[PackJason]

I also don't see how "invisible" and "pink" are compatible with each other.

The Invisible Pink Unicorns are omnipotent and therefore can be both pink and invisible.

You know, "religion logic."

 

[atanu]

I lack belief in sincerity of some atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

I lack belief in sincerity of some atheists.

I lack belief in sincerity of some theists.

 

[atanu]

I lack belief in sincerity of some theists.

Yeah. That is it. There seems a total lack ....

 

[ArtieE]

Yeah. That is it. There seems a total lack ....

Have you noticed how many theists criticize atheists for not believing their god(s) exist while at the same those same theists see nothing wrong in not believing that other theists god(s) exist?