Allah and the Universe

[Typh0n]

Does a person who has neither heard nor thought of the concept of a god (thereby making them an atheist, by default) claim knowledge about the existence of said?

Obviously not.

To *all* the agnostics: Is god knowable?

Depends on the god we're talking about, I suppose. Since you spelled it "god" and not "God", I suppose you mean any deity that can be conceived of as such.

And for extra credit: How do you know?

Right you would have to first know something before claiming it is knowable or not.

[Typh0n]

*agnostic atheist, agnostic theist?

How about just agnostic? Agnostic thiest, or agnostic atheist is a contradiction and a result of intellectual confusion. I believe such concepts as someone who doesn't know, yet believes (how do they believe since they admit they don't know?) is contradicting themselves. They want to have their cake and eat it, to be able to doubt yet to believe in the same thing at the same time.

Do you prefer the certainty/confidence of (current) scientific knowledge over the uncertainty of faith in the unknowable?

I suppose. Why is it about preference?

Are you comfortable with knowing that you know nothing?

If I know that I know nothing, isn't that knowing something?

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

How about just agnostic? Agnostic thiest, or agnostic atheist is a contradiction and a result of intellectual confusion. I believe such concepts as someone who doesn't know, yet believes (how do they believe since they admit they don't know?) is contradicting themselves. They want to have their cake and eat it, to be able to doubt yet to believe in the same thing at the same time.

To that I would agree, and so would William Lane Craig. Do you hold the view that the Atheist's "Simply a Lack of Belief" position is intellectually weak, and untenable?

I think the aim of the "agnostic atheist" position is to specify agnosticism while living as if there is no god, whereas the "agnostic theist" would be its opposite.

From my understanding, "Agnostic" is the philosophical position, while "Atheist" is the lifestyle position.

I suppose. Why is it about preference?

Just gauging where you stand with regards to knowledge. Some people can't abide uncertainty.

If I know that I know nothing, isn't that knowing something?

I don't know. Is knowing nothing knowing something? This just becomes a semantic game doesn't it?

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Islamic societies based on personal and family honour lead to honour killings.

You spelled "honor" wrong.

[Typh0n]

To that I would agree, and so would William Lane Craig. Do you hold the view that the Atheist's "Simply a Lack of Belief" position is intellectually weak, and untenable?

Not really. A lack of belief is a lack of belief. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I think the aim of the "agnostic atheist" position is to specify agnosticism while living as if there is no god, whereas the "agnostic theist" would be its opposite.

From my understanding, "Agnostic" is the philosophical position, while "Atheist" is the lifestyle position.

Perhaps it is, though I don't think theism and atheism are really moral or ethical codes to live by, for example an atheist Buddhist is gonna live differently than a Laveyan Satanist, also atheistic. Same with different varieties of theism, they have different codes to live by.

Just gauging where you stand with regards to knowledge. Some people can't abide uncertainty.

You're trying to determine where I stand with respect to uncertainty?

Uncertainty is part of life. The unkown is part of life. Always will be. It doesn't bother in so much as I accept that we don't, for example, have a full picture of the universe (not even we could conceive of a full picture of the universe within our minds) but we are capable of understanding it and knowing it, at least what we do know is valid even if we probably can't know everything. We just keep on expanding our knowledge of things, and every discovery leads to other questions. I'm not one to believe that all of our knowledge is subjective and relative. This just seems like a postmodernist narrative, which I don't adhere to.

I don't know. Is knowing nothing knowing something? This just becomes a semantic game doesn't it?

I would assume someone who truly knows nothing (let's say about a given subject matter, since it isn't possible for someone to know nothing about anything) would know and admit it, at least to themselves when they see others using knowledge of said subject. For example, when I came back to Belgium I didn't know a word of Dutch, and I knew I didn't know a word of Dutch. I knew because I knew French and English (other languages) and I heard people speaking Dutch so I knew that it was possible to know it.

But the Socratic assertion that "the only thing you can know is that you know nothing", is kind of a contradiction, it's more than a semantic game, it becomes a question of epistemology.

[ceecee]

You spelled "honor" wrong.

No, he didn't.

[Virtual ghost]

Like you, I also think it's higher - this percentage is only what is being reported. I live in a red, religious area and there are non-religious but there are also people that attend services because of societal pressure and appearance - I think this is a high number overall too.

I would venture to say it's closer to half, at least in the 40% range. I don't think that's overstating it - I think that's a more accurate number and that would include the atheist and agnostics who are aren't reporting due to persecution.

Silly question. If this is indeed in the 40% range wouldn't that be too high number to allow direct surpression of this group ?

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Not really. A lack of belief is a lack of belief. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Then my dog is an atheist. We are born into this world lacking any beliefs. As soon as one is introduced to any concept, you can believe or not believe. Not believing isn't the same as lacking belief.

This atheist philosopher is calling for the 'lack of belief' position to be abandoned because it is weak and dishonest, which ironically, reinforces the theist's view of the "dishonest atheist."

Take a read and see what you think.

Perhaps it is, though I don't think theism and atheism are really moral or ethical codes to live by, for example an atheist Buddhist is gonna live differently than a Laveyan Satanist, also atheistic. Same with different varieties of theism, they have different codes to live by.

All things being equal, the Buddhist and the Satanist still live as though there is/are no god(s). Morals needn't be involved here.

Uncertainty is part of life. The unkown is part of life. Always will be. It doesn't bother in so much as I accept that we don't, for example, have a full picture of the universe (not even we could conceive of a full picture of the universe within our minds) but we are capable of understanding it and knowing it, at least what we do know is valid even if we probably can't know everything. We just keep on expanding our knowledge of things, and every discovery leads to other questions. I'm not one to believe that all of our knowledge is subjective and relative. This just seems like a postmodernist narrative, which I don't adhere to.

I would assume someone who truly knows nothing (let's say about a given subject matter, since it isn't possible for someone to know nothing about anything) would know and admit it, at least to themselves when they see others using knowledge of said subject. For example, when I came back to Belgium I didn't know a word of Dutch, and I knew I didn't know a word of Dutch. I knew because I knew French and English (other languages) and I heard people speaking Dutch so I knew that it was possible to know it.

But the Socratic assertion that "the only thing you can know is that you know nothing", is kind of a contradiction, it's more than a semantic game, it becomes a question of epistemology.

I think the "know nothing" Socrates is referring to knowing there is knowledge you aren't cognizant of. Not knowing how to speak Dutch doesn't necessarily fall into the "know nothing" category because you know there's a language called Dutch. Even if you didn't know of a language called Dutch specifically, you know other languages do exist, so it's plausible a language called Dutch exists.

Knowing nothing addresses something like: "Oh, I didn't know that existed."

The other day, my boss, our IT guy, and I were griping about touchless car washes having a limited time on the under-carriage wash. Living in the rust-belt, it's important to wash your under-carriage to prevent rust if salt was used on the roads, and before it gets about 50 degrees F because that's when it starts oxidizing. So, we brainstormed creating our own under-carriage wash using PVC piping and a water hose.

Today, the IT guy shows me this

As far as that knowledge, I truly knew nothing.

[nor]

Obviously not.

So atheism needn't be about making claims at all, no?

Atheism is not a belief/claim -- it isn't a position. It's a non-position; lack of belief, such that there exists no coherent "atheist framework of thought". There also exists no "atheist position", as Isk Stark would have us believe. Nor can an "atheist lifestyle" be observed, insofar as two atheists may hold disparate (actual) positions on whatever issues (which I see you've already suggested, though erroneously extended to theism). Not believing in god, here, is comparable to not believing in "oubdfihbw".

Do we all live an "atheist lifestyle" with regards to the existence of Zeus? What about the existence of shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts?

--

Agnosticism is indeed a philosophical position regarding theistic thought/purported knowledge, though, but not one that makes much sense, to me.

Having said all of this, why are you not an atheist, then?

Depends on the god we're talking about, I suppose. Since you spelled it "god" and not "God", I suppose you mean any deity that can be conceived of as such.

Sure. So is god knowable? (Not making any claims, myself, nor expounding my position.)

Right you would have to first know something before claiming it is knowable or not.

So any claims about the unknowable nature of god are claims about the nature of said god, which is pretty fucking brilliant, eh? Further, we might also observe that if one were to claim god unknowable, they'd essentially be tossing the very idea of said god, and any knowledge about it, out of existence, thereby making the very god question meaningless and incoherent.

--

When they are mowing us down in our streets, it is time to remember Winston Churchill, and "We will never. surrender".

Who is "they" and "we"? When does the mowing commence?

--

Then my dog is an atheist. We are born into this world lacking any beliefs. As soon as one is introduced to any concept, you can believe or not believe. Not believing isn't the same as lacking belief.

Does your dog believe in god?

Not believing is quite literally lacking belief.

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

S
Does your dog believe in god?

Not believing is quite literally lacking belief.

No, it lacks a belief in god(s), so she's atheist according to popular definition.