The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

[DoctorWho]

The multiple of anecdote is not data, unfortunately, and you are right not to find those examples persuasive. Near-death experiences and other visions are informed by our pre-existing belief systems and vary accordingly from people to people. So if near-death experiences and visions are evidence for a belief system, then they are evidence for every belief system simultaneously. Taken to the extreme, that logic suggests that anything anyone has ever hallucinated is true.

However you want to define "data" is fine with me, but I don't see how it's relevant. Evidence is something to be weighed against other evidence. And I don't recall hearing of "belief systems" before. It might be a synonym for god but maybe not. But my purpose in writing is because even though we probably agree on the conclusion, this thread (although I don't know if it applies to you) seems to me to be minimizing or even ignoring argument of the other side, which to me shows a lack of confidence where it is not warranted. I will add that I am not well read on this topic and there are probably posts that can blow me out of the water.

[dpg]

Hold on now. Agnosticism is not a third way that straddles the fence between theism and atheism, much as agnostics would like it to be.

See you are either a theist (one who has theistic belief) or an atheist (one without theistic belief). Theists will answer yes if you ask them whether god exists. If you say we can't know whether god exists, then you lack theistic belief, are not a theist, and therefore are an atheist.

To repeat in a slightly different way, theism is the root word we are concerned with here, meaning belief in god. When an "a" is appended to it, we get the word atheism which means without theistic belief. Now you can't very well believe in god (be a theist) if you believe it's impossible to know if god exists, can you? Makes no sense. And if you lack theistic belief you are literally an atheist. Hence, agnostics are atheists.

Sorry, that's just how language works.

[bugbomb]

I think it is totally legitimate to put the burden of proof on anyone making an assertion and to proceed as if what they say is not true until you are convinced, but that is not the same a stating that there is no God. You have just shifted the burden of proof onto yourself.

Only if you think that "God exists" should be the default position.

[tertius]

If I am understanding Tertius's statement, an inanimate thing cannot be interested or have inherent meaning. Some parts of the universe of course have meaning (my family to me, for example), but I don't think that is what is intended.

The meaning is not in them, it's in your consciousness. From a certain metaphysical perspective.

There is lots of subjective, anecdotal evidence from near death experiences, visions, etc. I don't think it's persuasive, but it's still evidence. And there is subjective evidence too, including the existence of matter and maybe the existence of consciousness. I don't find those persuasive either, but it's still evidence.

For some values of "evidence", yes.

[wal]

Hold on now. Agnosticism is not a third way that straddles the fence between theism and atheism, much as agnostics would like it to be.

See you are either a theist (one who has theistic belief) or an atheist (one without theistic belief). Theists will answer yes if you ask them whether god exists. If you say we can't know whether god exists, then you lack theistic belief, are not a theist, and therefore are an atheist.

To repeat in a slightly different way, theism is the root word we are concerned with here, meaning belief in god. When an "a" is appended to it, we get the word atheism which means without theistic belief. Now you can't very well believe in god (be a theist) if you believe it's impossible to know if god exists, can you? Makes no sense. And if you lack theistic belief you are literally an atheist. Hence, agnostics are atheists.

Sorry, that's just how language works.

Agnostic is from the Greek, "a" is the negative and "gnostic" is knowledge. More specifically "agnōstos" unknowable.

Here is an example

Act 17:23 For G1063 as I passed by,G1330 and G2532 beheld G333 your G5216 devotions,G4574 I found G2147 an(G2532) altar G1041 with this inscription,G1722 G3739 G1924 TO THE UNKNOWN G57 GOD.G2316 Whom G3739 therefore G3767 ye ignorantly G50 worship,G2151 him G5126 declare G2605 I G1473 unto you.G5213

The numbers behind each English word are from "Strongs" concordance and give the Greek equivalent word from which the English is translated. Therefore "UNKNOWN is "agnostos", GOD is "theos", UNKNOWN GOD.

The word atheist broken down is "a" meaning no and "theos" meaning god, no god in other words. Agnostic means no knowledge of anything not specifically God.

I would suggest therefore when you meet Him, you would have a better chance if you called yourself an agnostic. Ha!

[blandrick]

Hold on now. Agnosticism is not a third way that straddles the fence between theism and atheism, much as agnostics would like it to be.

See you are either a theist (one who has theistic belief) or an atheist (one without theistic belief). Theists will answer yes if you ask them whether god exists. If you say we can't know whether god exists, then you lack theistic belief, are not a theist, and therefore are an atheist.

To repeat in a slightly different way, theism is the root word we are concerned with here, meaning belief in god. When an "a" is appended to it, we get the word atheism which means without theistic belief. Now you can't very well believe in god (be a theist) if you believe it's impossible to know if god exists, can you? Makes no sense. And if you lack theistic belief you are literally an atheist. Hence, agnostics are atheists.

Sorry, that's just how language works.

Since we cannot empirically, without a doubt, 800% PROVE that God exists, the intellectually honest position is one of agnostisicm. It is simply stating that you cannot know FOR CERTAIN whether a God/FSM/etc exists. This is entirely separate from theism/atheism, which is a description of a person's beliefs regarding whether or not a God exists. People who self identify as agnostics are atheists, usually, but there are agnostic theists. They admit that they cannot know FOR CERTAIN that a God exists, but they believe it to be so.

You can have beliefs about things that you aren't totally certain about.

[Sean Herbison]

To repeat in a slightly different way, theism is the root word we are concerned with here, meaning belief in god. When an "a" is appended to it, we get the word atheism which means without theistic belief. Now you can't very well believe in god (be a theist) if you believe it's impossible to know if god exists, can you? Makes no sense. And if you lack theistic belief you are literally an atheist. Hence, agnostics are atheists.

The word atheism has two slightly different meanings, both of which you mentioned. The prefix "a" (meaning "not") can, like you said, be:
1. a simple lack of belief in god (not having belief in a god)
but it can also mean
2. a belief in the lack of a god (believing there is not a god).

The problem is we don't agree on what the standard meaning is.

Further complicating this is the two closely related meanings of agnosticism:
1. believing the existence of god is simply unknown
2. believing the existence of god is ultimately unknowable

[jdjohnson50]

Ah, Pascal's wager. Now tell me...given that there are approximately 30,000 religions across the globe that assert that some sort of damnation is awaiting me if I don't believe in their particular tales, which one should I accept as true? After all, if I accept Jesus, but it turns out that Buddhism was right, then I am in deep shit. And vice versa.

What if there is actually a creator and the differing religions are just man's interpretations of the creator's works? What if it doesn't matter what religion you believe in, just that you believe? What if heaven turns out to be whatever you believe it will be.

Not saying I believe this. In fact I think religion is ludicrous. Faith maybe not so much. My favorite quote regarding religion is:

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
~ Robert Heinlein

[perman]

Threads on this board go in weird directions often...

[dpg]

Since we cannot empirically, without a doubt, 800% PROVE that God exists, the intellectually honest position is one of agnostisicm. It is simply stating that you cannot know FOR CERTAIN whether a God/FSM/etc exists. This is entirely separate from theism/atheism, which is a description of a person's beliefs regarding whether or not a God exists. People who self identify as agnostics are atheists, usually, but there are agnostic theists. They admit that they cannot know FOR CERTAIN that a God exists, but they believe it to be so.

You can have beliefs about things that you aren't totally certain about.

I see what you're saying. That's where I'm at regarding the existence of extra terrestrials. There's not enough evidence to say for sure that the Earth has been visited by beings from another planet, but I think it's very likely for a number of reasons. It would probably be incorrect to call me either a believer or a non-believer in extra terrestrials. So I guess some might say I'm an extra terrestrial agnostic. But unlike an agnostic, I think it's possible for us to know whether ET's exist (if evidence came to light).