4 ms·

> but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon. This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the

> but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon. This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty. If you don’t know how far you have to go to know definitively, this is a dangerous assumption. The history of physics is littered with false assumptions of “finally having complete knowledge” only to find out the model was incomplete: geocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, Ultraviolet catastrophe leading to modern QM, Standard model. How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes, to confirm that we know how big the search space is and that it is empty? No thanks, not for me, not yet at least. > I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife, you are arguing the lack of evidence of an afterlife supports your belief that there is no afterlife. Although frankly, you can have this one, I don’t particularly care. > agnostic atheist This is by definition, an oxymoron Atheists believe there are no gods. [1] Agnostics believe that there’s no telling whether god exists or not. [2] > I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. There’s no need to be condescending, especially if you’re going to get definitions wrong. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism I didn’t write these definitions, so just keep in mind it’s more than just me disagreeing with you.

Nursie 4y ago
> his is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty Only if you're making definite proclamations, which I'm not. I'm not claiming complete knowledge here, simply that there's been no evidence presented that supports the belief in such a thing, so I don't hold belief in one. There's no assumption there. To dip into physics as you seem so keen on bringing it up - there's no evidence that dark matter is really the corpses of ancient aliens, so that's not a working hypothesis for me either. I don't know what it is, I'm not sure anyone does, until we hold evidence I am a-it's-the-corpses-of-ancient-aliens-ist. I don't hold that positive belief, and I would find it weird if people came along and told me that I was making strong claims in the other direction if I said I didn't believe it. > How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes Most appear to be unfalsifiable propositions, and as such it seems a pointless quest. But I don't need to go looking in an exhaustive fashion to hold the position that I don't believe in one, given current evidence, because I'm not making an assertion that there is definitely not an afterlife, or that there cannot be one. It is sufficient that there's no evidence for one, so I don't hold the positive belief that there is one. Could there be some sort of afterlife? Sure, conceptually, but so far there's no reason to think there is one, any more than there's reason to believe in fire-breathing dragons or invisible unicorns. > By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife I don't have "a belief that there's no afterlife". There's the flaw in your thinking. Thought experiment - I claim that that I can travel to another planet, instantaneously, and live a year of my life there because time works differently, and then travel back, all in the time of a blink of the eye. I just did it now! Anyone can do it, in fact lot's of people do! Do you believe me? No? How do you know I didn't do that? You're making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe there! Your belief that I can't do that is unevidenced! Or... you can say that since there's no evidence, that seems pretty weird and unlikely, I'm going to go with the working assumption that humans can't do that until such time as some sort of evidence is presented. This is atheism, to me. > This is by definition, an oxymoron First line of the wikipedia link on atheism - "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities" First line from the one on agnosticism - "Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." These do not contradict one another. I don't claim concrete knowledge, so in the absence of evidence I hold no positive religious beliefs. If the existence of the divine is either unknown or unknowable then there's no reason to give it much thought. I don't believe in it. Which is distinct from "I believe it is impossible" or "I believe it is definitely not present", positions that you seem to want to force on me. > There’s no need to be condescending I'm not convinced - when someone is busy labouring to create a straw man and to tell you what you mean by your own words, I think it's probably an apposite response.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism and agnosticism are different, you’re right, I’m using the concepts wrong. Hadn’t previously considered that positive atheism and general “not-taking-sides” atheism weren’t the same thing. Atheism just seems like a dumb concept the closer I look. Seems to be more than a dry classification system more than anything. Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. It seems like agnostic atheism is really just (what I’d consider) agnosticism. My argument that agnosticism is atheism++ is wrong, but atheism as a concept is worth discarding altogether.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    Thanks for listening, and sorry for the snark levels - I haven't delved into this for some years and I got a bit riled up just like I used to on usenet and fark ... (edit - I believe it's quite common to think of them as a sort of spectrum from theism, through agnosticism and out to atheism on the other side, and I'm not sure that's wrong for everyone, but there is definitely philosophical space for agnostic atheism, and it may even be the dominant strain. May not of course!) > Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. I have opinions, as do many agnostic atheists - that there is no evidence for gods, that belief in them is therefore unsupportable and ridiculous, that religions largely are harmful to society and adherents both in conception (because of the requirement for faith and the discarding of reason), and in execution (just look at what organised religion tends to do when enough people follow). Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Richard Dawkins fits into the definition of agnostic atheist, and last I looked he had quite a lot to say on the matter!
    - raydiatian 4y ago
      I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religions exist regardless of how none of them can provide a proof to base their claims. But atheism doesn’t exist without somebody being theistic. That just seems so, so odd. For instance, nobody can be Aflarglethnackist, because flarglethnacks are extremely undefined, because I just invented the word out of thin air (AFAIK). In a perfect world, the only way humans would bother to answer the question “How did my consciousness get here? What will happen to my consciousness when I die?” is by replying “we really don’t know.” That is agnosticism to me. And so agnosticism seems so perfectly correct in its approach that it seems silly to bother tossing in atheism to make it more specific to contrast against an implicitly misguided concept at its core (theism). If you’re agnostic, whether the ‘reality’ is that it’s gods or flarglethnacks or an endless sea of paperclips waiting for you on the other side, it hardly makes a difference whether you’re “atheist”. But I get that I’m wishing, and that’s not how things are, agnosticism applied in the context of a world where religions matter, and thus the words have different meaning than I intend.

Nursie 4y ago

> his is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty Only if you're making definite proclamations, which I'm not. I'm not claiming complete knowledge here, simply that there's been no evidence presented that supports the belief in such a thing, so I don't hold belief in one. There's no assumption there. To dip into physics as you seem so keen on bringing it up - there's no evidence that dark matter is really the corpses of ancient aliens, so that's not a working hypothesis for me either. I don't know what it is, I'm not sure anyone does, until we hold evidence I am a-it's-the-corpses-of-ancient-aliens-ist. I don't hold that positive belief, and I would find it weird if people came along and told me that I was making strong claims in the other direction if I said I didn't believe it. > How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes Most appear to be unfalsifiable propositions, and as such it seems a pointless quest. But I don't need to go looking in an exhaustive fashion to hold the position that I don't believe in one, given current evidence, because I'm not making an assertion that there is definitely not an afterlife, or that there cannot be one. It is sufficient that there's no evidence for one, so I don't hold the positive belief that there is one. Could there be some sort of afterlife? Sure, conceptually, but so far there's no reason to think there is one, any more than there's reason to believe in fire-breathing dragons or invisible unicorns. > By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife I don't have "a belief that there's no afterlife". There's the flaw in your thinking. Thought experiment - I claim that that I can travel to another planet, instantaneously, and live a year of my life there because time works differently, and then travel back, all in the time of a blink of the eye. I just did it now! Anyone can do it, in fact lot's of people do! Do you believe me? No? How do you know I didn't do that? You're making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe there! Your belief that I can't do that is unevidenced! Or... you can say that since there's no evidence, that seems pretty weird and unlikely, I'm going to go with the working assumption that humans can't do that until such time as some sort of evidence is presented. This is atheism, to me. > This is by definition, an oxymoron First line of the wikipedia link on atheism - "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities" First line from the one on agnosticism - "Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." These do not contradict one another. I don't claim concrete knowledge, so in the absence of evidence I hold no positive religious beliefs. If the existence of the divine is either unknown or unknowable then there's no reason to give it much thought. I don't believe in it. Which is distinct from "I believe it is impossible" or "I believe it is definitely not present", positions that you seem to want to force on me. > There’s no need to be condescending I'm not convinced - when someone is busy labouring to create a straw man and to tell you what you mean by your own words, I think it's probably an apposite response.

raydiatian 4y ago
I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism and agnosticism are different, you’re right, I’m using the concepts wrong. Hadn’t previously considered that positive atheism and general “not-taking-sides” atheism weren’t the same thing. Atheism just seems like a dumb concept the closer I look. Seems to be more than a dry classification system more than anything. Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. It seems like agnostic atheism is really just (what I’d consider) agnosticism. My argument that agnosticism is atheism++ is wrong, but atheism as a concept is worth discarding altogether.
- Nursie 4y ago
  Thanks for listening, and sorry for the snark levels - I haven't delved into this for some years and I got a bit riled up just like I used to on usenet and fark ... (edit - I believe it's quite common to think of them as a sort of spectrum from theism, through agnosticism and out to atheism on the other side, and I'm not sure that's wrong for everyone, but there is definitely philosophical space for agnostic atheism, and it may even be the dominant strain. May not of course!) > Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. I have opinions, as do many agnostic atheists - that there is no evidence for gods, that belief in them is therefore unsupportable and ridiculous, that religions largely are harmful to society and adherents both in conception (because of the requirement for faith and the discarding of reason), and in execution (just look at what organised religion tends to do when enough people follow). Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Richard Dawkins fits into the definition of agnostic atheist, and last I looked he had quite a lot to say on the matter!
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religions exist regardless of how none of them can provide a proof to base their claims. But atheism doesn’t exist without somebody being theistic. That just seems so, so odd. For instance, nobody can be Aflarglethnackist, because flarglethnacks are extremely undefined, because I just invented the word out of thin air (AFAIK). In a perfect world, the only way humans would bother to answer the question “How did my consciousness get here? What will happen to my consciousness when I die?” is by replying “we really don’t know.” That is agnosticism to me. And so agnosticism seems so perfectly correct in its approach that it seems silly to bother tossing in atheism to make it more specific to contrast against an implicitly misguided concept at its core (theism). If you’re agnostic, whether the ‘reality’ is that it’s gods or flarglethnacks or an endless sea of paperclips waiting for you on the other side, it hardly makes a difference whether you’re “atheist”. But I get that I’m wishing, and that’s not how things are, agnosticism applied in the context of a world where religions matter, and thus the words have different meaning than I intend.