Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[joe1776]

What's wrong with the comparison?

You are asking me to repeat thoughts I've already posted.

Words change meanings over the years but when we debate we use the current meanings. In the same way, it's the reputation of fairies today that concern us when we debate. That's what the posters who first used them intended.

 

[sealchan]

These most people yok speak of pretend Santa exists solely for the children. Santa is used many times as a tool on children who don't know any better to get better behavior.

Imagine that, using a non-existing fictional character to influence behavior. Clearly reminds me of something else that's world wide.

Yes and why it may seem less insulting than unicorns and more applicable to understanding a belief in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are asking me to repeat thoughts I've already posted.

Words change meanings over the years but when we debate we use the current meanings. In the same way, it's the reputation of fairies today that concern us when we debate. That's what the posters who first used them intended.

I see it as a way of using the Outsider Test for Faith: consider whether a similar idea would sound reasonable when it doesn't have all the emotional investment associated with a person's own religion.

 

[joe1776]

I see it as a way of using the Outsider Test for Faith: consider whether a similar idea would sound reasonable when it doesn't have all the emotional investment associated with a person's own religion.

That's an interesting site. I'll have to go back and see what it offers. However, what you're suggesting sounds like an "argument from analogy" which are rarely persuasive.

I live in the USA which is 80% Christian. I can make quick, effective arguments that the Bible fails the "moral test." Scripture exists opposed to humanity's moral advances like the abolition of slavery, women's rights, homosexual right, etc.-- and therefore this is evidence that the Bible's text was not divinely-inspired as claimed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's an interesting site. I'll have to go back and see what it offers. However, what you're suggesting sounds like an "argument from analogy" which are rarely persuasive.

As to all the other arguments against religious positions, which ardent believers accept all the time, right?

I live in the USA which is 80% Christian. I can make quick, effective arguments that the Bible fails the "moral test." Scripture exists opposed to humanity's moral advances like the abolition of slavery, women's rights, homosexual right, etc.-- and therefore this is evidence that the Bible's text was not divinely-inspired as claimed.

... or that it's divinely inspired but God is just a jerk.

 

[Quintessence]

What about Santa Claus? That is something that most people know doesnt exist, but still has the quality of most of those people pretending he does.

What it means for something to "exist" is not so simple and straightforward of a question. But let's set that aside for the moment.

Comparing the gods to Santa is a better, albeit still a problematic comparison. The figure of Santa, at least, comes packaged with mythos that is enacted through ritual. That makes it a much closer analog to the gods, as practical theism is defined by having both myth* and ritual**. However, Santa is still not regarded as an object of worship, which is the critical characteristic of gods. While a source of meaning, it is not a central axis of meaning in people's lives like the gods are. It could be, of course. The only thing that makes a god a god is the decision to deify it or declare it as worthy of worship. Literally anything can be deified... and has been by various peoples and cultures. It's the substance behind the label that matters, which is part of why comparing gods to other "fantastical creatures" is a dead end. It doesn't process that important context.

*For clarity, by "myth" I of course mean myth as understood in a religious context where the term means "sacred stories that convey important cultural truths or meaning."

**Again for clarity, by "ritual" I'm talking about behaviors that honor various myths. What this looks like varies widely, but consider that theatre in its original inception was basically a form of ritual enactment of sacred stories or myths.

 

[metis]

No amount of "personal testimony" is ever going to be sufficient for me to accept claims as extra-ordinary as the claims we see in theism.

What I posted dealing with my experience has nothing to do with you, nor do I have any desire whatsoever to try and even convince you because most personal experiences are just that-- "personal".

To me though, it rather comes accross as a cop-out and a rather weak excuse in order to avoid dealing with the fact,

That's just your perception that happens to be a wrong one.

I don't care about personal experience and other anecdotes.
I care about objective evidence.

Frankly, I don't believe that for one minute as I'm quite certain many personal experiences that you have had have shaped your life in at least some respects.

I'm very much into objective evidence, especially since I'm a retired scientist (anthropology). But I am also quite aware of the fact that not all one may know or come to understand is going to be based on just objective evidence, and your posts reflect that you don't either as you've jumped to conclusions based on nothing but your own bias, such as what one can read in your last post alone.

The irony here with you is that you never got around to even asking me what my personal experience (actually experiences) was, and yet you drew conclusions that they were phony anyway. That's not in any way being "objective", so you have unwittingly undercut your own allegation that you are only interested in "objective evidence".

Anyhow, moving on...

 

[joe1776]

As to all the other arguments against religious positions, which ardent believers accept all the time, right?

Right

... or that it's divinely inspired but God is just a jerk.

Right again.

 

[Polymath257]

You stated an opinion. You didn't ask a question. Nevertheless...

Why do you believe that's a fair question? Is it your opinion that nothing can exist or we highly intelligent beings would have objective evidence of it; therefore, all claims of existence lacking objective evidence can be compared to a belief in fairies?

All I can say is that all evidence *so far* can be compared to that for the existence of fairies that I have seen. Yes, if it isn't objective evidence (a redundancy), then isn't evidence.

If you have evidence that goes beyond that, I would like to see it.

 

[Polymath257]

What it means for something to "exist" is not so simple and straightforward of a question. But let's set that aside for the moment.

Comparing the gods to Santa is a better, albeit still a problematic comparison. The figure of Santa, at least, comes packaged with mythos that is enacted through ritual. That makes it a much closer analog to the gods, as practical theism is defined by having both myth* and ritual**. However, Santa is still not regarded as an object of worship, which is the critical characteristic of gods. While a source of meaning, it is not a central axis of meaning in people's lives like the gods are. It could be, of course. The only thing that makes a god a god is the decision to deify it or declare it as worthy of worship. Literally anything can be deified... and has been by various peoples and cultures. It's the substance behind the label that matters, which is part of why comparing gods to other "fantastical creatures" is a dead end. It doesn't process that important context.

*For clarity, by "myth" I of course mean myth as understood in a religious context where the term means "sacred stories that convey important cultural truths or meaning."

**Again for clarity, by "ritual" I'm talking about behaviors that honor various myths. What this looks like varies widely, but consider that theatre in its original inception was basically a form of ritual enactment of sacred stories or myths.

OK, so gods are our societal assumptions and do not have an existence independent of us? It is simply our choice to worship them that determines their existence?

Because that, for me, is the main question: do gods have an *objective* existence independent of humans?

I'm also not clear why the amount of societal investment in an idea makes it any more likely to be true. Unless, that is, it is *just* a societal abstraction, like, say, money.

 

[joe1776]

All I can say is that all evidence *so far* can be compared to that for the existence of fairies that I have seen. Yes, if it isn't objective evidence (a redundancy), then isn't evidence.

If you have evidence that goes beyond that, I would like to see it.

Our exchange isn't about ME providing you with evidence.

I understood your position from your previous comments. My response would only be repetition of MY previous comments.

 

[Polymath257]

Our exchange isn't about ME providing you with evidence.

So what is it about if not whether there is evidence and what it might be?

OK, *you* don't have to provide it. But don't you think *someone* should? If there is evidence, should it not be available easily?

 

[PureX]

OK, so gods are our societal assumptions and do not have an existence independent of us? It is simply our choice to worship them that determines their existence?

Because that, for me, is the main question: do gods have an *objective* existence independent of humans?

What you keep refusing to acknowledge is that "objective existence independent of humans" isn't something that any human could possibly determine. So the criteria you keep trying to apply is a criteria that can't possibly be met. Not just about the gods, but about everything.

I'm also not clear why the amount of societal investment in an idea makes it any more likely to be true. Unless, that is, it is *just* a societal abstraction, like, say, money.

Isn't that what scientific repeatability is all about? A consensus of human experience ... the "proof" of your "objective reality"?

 

[Quintessence]

OK, so gods are our societal assumptions and do not have an existence independent of us? It is simply our choice to worship them that determines their existence?

Not quite. Deification is an attribution we place on a subject. It's a title, like "master" or "doctor" and so forth. However, if we stop calling something a "master" or "doctor" or "god" that doesn't negate the existence of the subject in any way. Put another way, what we choose to deify is map of territory; the territory exists regardless of how we map it, but the map is definitely a construct that (arguably) does not carry weight outside of its makers and users.

Because that, for me, is the main question: do gods have an *objective* existence independent of humans?

Well, the things many cultures deify indisputably exist even for those who have a rather narrow concept of what it means for something to exist. But many cultures - especially today - do not deify these things anymore. This also brings up the problem of what it means to "exist," which... I've been trying to steer clear of because there is no answer to that question.

I'm also not clear why the amount of societal investment in an idea makes it any more likely to be true. Unless, that is, it is *just* a societal abstraction, like, say, money.

I'm not sure I made such remarks myself, but it would depend on what is meant by "true." If we mean true in the narrow sense of being factual, the amount of cultural capital (or societal investment) a particular construct has is irrelevant. If we mean true in the broader sense of being meaningful, useful, important, or valued? The cultural capital is everything. Such sacred stories translated to practices form the heart of all cultures, whether or not it is labeled as religions. It is found in ideologies like "freedom of speech" to ethical precepts like "do not steal."

EDIT - to fix me butchering the quote function

 

[joe1776]

So what is it about if not whether there is evidence and what it might be?

OK, *you* don't have to provide it. But don't you think *someone* should? If there is evidence, should it not be available easily?

My interest here is limited to the matter we have already discussed: your expressing your opinion on the evidence in such a way that your comment amounts to ridicule of an opponent's position and not an argument in debate.

 

[leibowde84]

I pose the question of the title, and then I'll have to wait for your responses until Saturday as I'm outta town tomorrow. First, to define terms:

Theism: a belief that there is at least one deity.

Agnosticism: not knowing if there's a deity or deities.

Atheism: a belief there are no deities.


Which is logically the weakest and why? I say it's the latter by far.

See yas Saturday, so play nice now.

I would say that atheism and theism (according to your definitions provided) are equally weak. They both rest on a proposition that cannot be proven or really even evidenced beyond arguments from ignorance and subjective experience.

 

[Ponder This]

Actually there is in science as we differentiate between a "hypothesis", "theory", and "axiom". Not all concepts have the same degree of evidence to support them.

As you can see, people in this thread have presented their own arguments to support positions.
The OP did not present any arguments. The OP presented a bunch of positions without any logical arguments to support them.

In the absence of arguments supporting the positions, all the positions offered in the OP are equally logically strong... which is to say: they are all weak, being only just slightly stronger than an argument that is illogical bull****.

You might as well have made an opinion poll asking which position people favor and to post why in the thread.
People will argue about which is "logically stronger," when no supportive arguments were offered.

 

[blü 2]

No, I post this knowing that I don't know what existence entails apart from my limited experience and capacity to understand it. The question of "hallucination" is bogus, as it springs from the presumption that perceived reality has to be either 'fake', or 'real', when in truth, it's both.

How does that outlook work when it's time to breathe in? The air is both real and fake? When you were born, was your mother both real and fake? What does 'fake' mean here?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Feeling as though one received great wisdom,
but it cannot be put in words, no way to tell
anyone about what you learned.

That would cancel out all the prophets etc,
would it not?

No, it just means that most of what they had learned got lost in the transmission from them to us. For example, Ezekiel sees a vision. I don't think for one second that what is written in scripture does justice to what he experienced. I think it is absolutely hopeless the way that people try to figure out what he was talking about. They just aren't going to have his experience.

Most of Israel's prophets basically say something like this "You sinful Israel, God says he is going to discipline you for your idolatry and heck you can't even imagine what is going to happen. But THEN he is going to bring you back and restore you and bless you and the wolf will lie down with the lamb..."

That's a kind of lattice upon which they hang imagery. And the imagery is the attempt to put into words what they really saw and experienced. But can any of the bad crap that they say really put into words the chilling feeling they got when they realized that Israel was in for some consequences? Or does any of their "beating swords into plowshares" do justice to the beatific vision?

Has anyone had wires hooked up when the
had a religious experience such as you describe?

And also-what significance do you attribute
to whatever brain wave patterns are seen during
religious practice / experience?

It's been a while since I've read anything. If my memory serves me right, yes. They found people who had specific behaviors (such as meditation or singing or chanting) that they used to induce mystical experiences, and had the machines on during the occurrence. But that seems to be in my mind very small and far away.

Okay, I googled, and found one such study using MRI and Carmelite nuns having mystical experiences.
https://institutpsychoneuro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Beauregard2006-Carmelites-fmri.pdf

The really big thing in my brain, meaning it would be more recent and a larger study, was one in which they tested Tibetan monks meditating and Franciscan nuns and an even Muslims doing their own kind of meditation and compared the differences to a baseline and to each other (not all the religions got the same result).

I don't have an opinion formed yet on the imaging patterns formed. I find it curious, but I'm still looking for significant patterns. Some of the things reported are just stupidness, like "While praying, the language centers of catholic nuns lit up." well DUH. Other things seem part of the discipline of meditation. I'm more curious to see what studies of PASSIVE experiences show, such as the link I gave you. We need many many more of these done, to see if results are replicated. Then we can begin drawing conclusions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But we are talking about objective claims of reality, claims of the existance of things.
Not about subjective things like whether or not you "like" somebody.

We are talking about things like Einstein intuiting the next level of physics. He of course THEN went and proved his insight with math. I do similar. I'll have an ah ha moment, and then I'll see if I can reach the same conclusion using reason. If I have both intuition and reason on my side, I'll tilt any windmill. But I find that the intuition comes first and fast. Many times, too, there simply isn't time to check -- you have to make a quick decision, and it's either trust your gut or stand back and let life mow you down. But getting back to the question, yes we are talking about real life objective things like who is the best employee to promote, should I quit my job and go into business for myself, or which strategy should I have my team use next when half time is over. I'm not saying intuition is perfect for such questions -- I'm simply saying it's a wiser strategy in those situations than analysis.