Wait, so you believe that God's existence is unfalsifiable, which I think is agnosticism,
As I said, I'm an agnostic atheist.
Let's illustrate with an example to make you understand...
Consider goblins, leprachauns, unicorns, extra-dimensional aliens and santa claus. All, strictly speaking, unfalsifiable entities. It means that you can't demonstrate that they don't exist.
So, strictly speaking, you'ld be agnostic concerning all those entities.
but you're saying that you would answer 'No' to a person asking you if you believe that God exists?
Indeed. And that sentence shouldn't start with "but"... because it doesn't contradict the previous part of the quote.
It seems that you are confusing the actual meaning of these 2 questions:
1. Do you believe God exists?
and
2. Do you believe God does NOT exist?
These are 2
different questions. It is perfectly possible to answer "no" to both questions without being self-contradicting.
If you answer "no" to question 1, it does not automatically follow that you'll answer "yes" to the second.
Does that mean that you are sort of telling the person that that is your 'Best Guess', but if they were to ask you a follow up question of "So you think it's a fact that God doesn't exist?" you would also answer 'No'?
Yep.
Only it isn't a "best guess". It's merely an
honest answer to the questions, given the data at my disposal.
There is exactly zero data at my disposal which warrants accepting the claim that god(s) exist.
This complete lack of data in support of that claim is simultanously also the reason why I would consider the opposite claim a lot more likely - again, given everything that I actually DO know.
But I can't demonstrate either. However, operating in the context that no such gods exist, require me to make LESS assumptions about reality. So in practice, that's what it will come down to.
It follows from my general stance that, strictly speaking, I don't "believe" anything. Instead, I consider things likely or unlikely, to various degrees of certainty depending on the available data. Considering that there is NO DATA AT ALL in support of the existance of anything supernatural, I consider it
extremely unlikely that it exists and
extremely likely that it does not.
I hope that's clear now.
Hmm, I suppose thinking back I never really got into it with anyone about finer details of 'Belief vs Knowledge' forms of atheism. I pretty much have always just thought of it in terms of knowledge, even though the word belief is always used. I suppose that this is only what I heard people saying "Do you believe that God's existence is factual?" And if the person answered yes they could be a peaceful Christian or an evil demon lol. And theism vs deism for me was just an intellectual question of not CAN God bend the laws of nature, but does God care to ever do it (deism NO, theism YES).
I really appreciate your openness to understand my position!
It's rare to see that around these forums in such discussions....
Nice, you surprised me there.
Does agnosticism always have to be a pure knowledge based usage?
That's literally what (a)gnosticism is about: knowledge.
Even in contexts where it isn't about religion at all.
Take Java for example, which is a programming language. This language isn't tied into an operating system and is literally build from the ground up on an abstraction layer so it doesn't even have to know if it runs on a mac, a windows pc,...
In the business, we call that a "platform-
agnostic language".
Well the last question first, I've both known a boat load of atheists and have been one very early on myself, I would say that their belief systems are all over the map. But I believe being kind & generous, vs being sick & twisted can both exist on either side of the fense.
Exactly. Because someone's moral compass is a subjective thing. And while religions most certainly come with some moral rules / values, usually they are not universal within the religion at all. Take controversial topics like euthanasia and gay people for example.
I can assure you that I can point out christians who'ld consider both to be extremely evil, even to the point of demanding extremely severe punishments, while I can also point out other christians who consider both to be human and natural, who'll even call the first group of christians "not real christians" and "evil".
And I'm sure most people here are aware of that as well.
I can point at "atheists" who have the blood of millions on their hands, like Stalin, and I can point to entire secular, dominantly atheist, societies which are incredibly nice places to live with very low crime rates, like Japan and Sweden.
And the important thing to remember there, is that neither can be tied back into "atheism" - because atheism is not a doctrine, not a worldview, not a dogma and it does not come with instruction sets on how to behave or whatever.
Atheism is no more or less then a single stance on a single issue. And whatever atheists believes about social settings, political constructs, etc etc... will be completely independent from their atheism.
I really believe that 'Finding God' is the most promising move for true sociopaths.
Depends on which "god" they are finding.
The thing about sociapaths / psychopaths, is that they have real big problems with determining by themselves if something is good or bad. Unlike "normal" people, such people require some perceived authority to tell them what is good or bad.
There is this famous social experiment with children which can be used to detect psychopathy, or at least symptoms thereof, at a young age.
It consists of a classroom filled with kids and an "authority figure" (the teacher).
The children are told that it is forbidden to drink in the classroom as a general rule. But one day it is really hot outside... the teacher then tells the kids that for this once, it's okay to drink in class. The children are asked if in such a case, it is indeed okay to drink in class? The children collectively respond with "sure - the teacher allows it, so why not?".
Next, there is a general rule that students are not allowed to fight with eachother. But one day the teacher says that for this once, it is okay for the kids to punch their neighbour in the nose. The children are again asked if in such a case, it is indeed okay to do so... Most of the children will collectively immediatly notice the problem and state that no - it is NOT okay, not even if the teacher allows it. These children even go on to question the teacher and recognise that it would be immoral of the teacher to allow it.
Except those children with psychopathic tendencies. They don't see a problem. If the teacher says it's okay - then it's okay!
So yes, a psychopaths finding a "perceived authority" to inform them of what is right and what is wrong... that could certainly help them - but only if that perceived authority is actually a moral source.
And I'm sure that you've already thought up a religious rule or two that you'ld definatly prefer psychopaths NOT to follow strictly....
Now I do have to admit that you will also get your religious sickos, the people who kill their kids because God told them to, stories like that.
Uhu. Or like that article I just read about that couple in the US... their baby had hepatitis. The nurse
urged them to go to the hospital. They told the nurse that "god makes no mistakes". The next day it got way worse, off course. Instead of rushing to the emergency, they called the other people of their church to "collectively pray" for the baby. The baby died 2 days later.
But from my humble vantage point these types of stories are extremely few and far between
I wish I could agree to that, but I can't.
I see religious people engage in deeply immoral and downright evil behaviour every single day, everywhere (and not just jihadists....). And what I find most depressing... is that every single one of them thinks they are engaging in the most moral things they could, because they believe they are just following god's commandments.
Of course I'm not saying that atheists are incapable of composing themselves and talking themselves down...but I just feel like there is an extra positive nudging factor going on with the God believer.
I very much disagree. And mainly in the context of "moral behaviour".
Let's assume for a moment that going by religious commandments always has a positive result (which most certainly isn't true, but let's assume).
I can not call that moral behaviour. What that is, is just blind obedience.
The "moral" aspect of behavious is determined by the reasoning process prior to the action. By the intent, by the motivation.
Consider this simplistic example:
"I was so mad, I could have killed him!"
"So why didn't you?"
"God didn't allow it..."
Would you consider that moral? I sure wouldn't.
Sure, no crime took place and that's always a good thing. The point is though, it didn't took place for all the wrong reasons. That's not moral reasoning. It's not even immoral. It is, in fact a-moral. It's just obedience.
Because on the flip side, if god DID allow it (meaning: if the person
believed that god allowed it - or worse: commanded it), then it would actually be GOOD to commit that murder.
In such a world, X isn't "good" for such and such
reason. X is "good" simply because the perceived authority said so. Remember what I said earlier concerning psychopathy?
Oh and I'll throw out that I have a unique theory (I think it's unique) on priests who rape little boys. I'm of the opinion that most of them KNEW they were pedophiles to begin with so they specifically pursued a life of priesthood. It literally is the ideal career move for those sickos! What better situation for them, a pillar of the community (causing their victims extra fear to come forward) who's surrounded by alter boys. IMO it's like a playboy purposely deciding to start a business that would result in plenty of younger women always being around. Just my theory of that.
And what about Ratzinger's explicit efforts and internal communications in which he explicitly calls for secrecy and "internal handling" of the situation which resulted not in punishing the guilty or bringing restitution to victims, but rather in moving those priests around to other congretations in what-can-only-be-called "cover ups"?
Sorry, couldn't help but to mention that one....
