45
   

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

 
 
igm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2021 03:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:


Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.


The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.


Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"


Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.



This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2021 08:00 pm
@igm,
Quote:
(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.

I still don't get how this passes as 'established fact', but i am assuming this is a philosophical discussion.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 02:30 am
@igm,
igm wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:


Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.


The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.


Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"


Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.



This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.



Here is my agnostic argument. Take it piece by piece...and tell me where you feel it is defective.

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;

I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...

...so I don't.


(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 02:36 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:


Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.


The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.


Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"


Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.



This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.



#1 is absurd as I pointed out in my last post...not because of whether or not there is an absence of good reason to "believe" there are no gods...BUT BECAUSE THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF A GOOD REASON IS NOT ITSELF A GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT "GOD" DOES NOT EXIST.

And if this supposed philosopher were actually as good as you seem to think, he would not be talking about GOD...he would be dealing with gods...any gods.

Look, atheists are gonna atheist...and theists are gonna theist. You people are playing with yourselves.

There may be gods; there may be just one GOD; there may be no gods.

We do not know.





The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 02:39 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:


Here is something else to ponder on this topic:

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.


The problem is: "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist."

That is preposterous...about as lacking in logic as any other arguments being made for "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods."

First of all...there is as much an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that no gods exist...as there is an ABSENCE of good reasons to "believe" that God (or gods) exist. The assertion "The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist" is about as gratuitous as it is possible to get.

Two, even if it made sense (which it doesn't) would one say (as one could) that the absence of good reasons to "believe" that sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is a good reason to "believe" that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets.

Hell, no...is the correct answer to that.

Gary Gutting's argument is a joke...and an affront to logic.


Here is his biography just to add some flesh to the bones of the late American philosopher and holder of an endowed chair in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gutting

"Work
Gutting was an expert on the philosopher Michel Foucault and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Through his publications in such media outlets as The New York Times and The Stone, he adopted the role of a public intellectual. He dealt with both continental and analytic philosophy and had written on bridging the analytic-continental divide.[14]

Books
Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016"


Wow...excellent credentials for him, igm.

I cannot imagine how he managed to get this one thing so very wrong.



This appears to me to be a valid deductive argument (see below) and if premise (1) is true then the conclusion is true and that makes the argument a sound argument. To argue against premise (1) it would require having good reasons to believe God exists which would be fatal to the agnostic’s argument that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable whether one accepts premise (1) or attempts to prove premise (1) is false, and those are the only two possibilities.

This argument is included in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and wouldn’t be included there if it wasn’t a valid deductive argument against the type of agnosticism which says they are agnostic because: we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist.

To reiterate for the sake of clarity: Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.



So...the fact that there is an absence of good reasons to believe that there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol is itself a good reason to believe that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets????

C'mon!
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 08:11 am
To try to explain the premise: (1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Let's remove the word god and replace it with the word 'something' and simplify the premise:

The absence of good reasons for something to exist is a good reason to believe that something does not exist?

For example: If the prosecution has a lack of evidence (the absence of good reasons) in a case against a defendant then the judge, in that case, will deem that to be evidence (good reason) for the defendant to be found not guilty and move to acquit the defendant or direct the jury to do so. The Jury may also understand that the lack of good reasons (lack of evidence) for them to find the defendant guilty, put forward by the prosecution, is a good reason to find the defendant not guilty. Similarly, the defence will draw the jury's attention to the lack of evidence (lack of good reasons) in the case put forward by the prosecution, and thereby persuade the jury that this is a good reason for them to find the defendant not guilty.

There are many real-world examples of how the lack of good reasons for something is a good reason against it.

Therefore, this makes perfect logical sense but there will be some who agree and some who disagree and some who don't care and any other combination you can think of, ...such is life:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:
Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.


Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 08:24 am
@igm,
igm wrote:


To try to explain the premise: (1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Let's remove the word god and replace it with the word 'something' and simplify the premise:

The absence of good reasons for something to exist is a good reason to believe that something does not exist?

For example: If the prosecution has a lack of evidence (the absence of good reasons) in a case against a defendant then the judge, in that case, will deem that to be evidence (good reason) for the defendant to be found not guilty and move to acquit the defendant or direct the jury to do so. The Jury may also understand that the lack of good reasons (lack of evidence) for them to find the defendant guilty, put forward by the prosecution, is a good reason to find the defendant not guilty. Similarly, the defence will draw the jury's attention to the lack of evidence (lack of good reasons) in the case put forward by the prosecution, and thereby persuade the jury that this is a good reason for them to find the defendant not guilty.

There are many real-world examples of how the lack of good reasons for something is a good reason against it.

Therefore, this makes perfect logical sense but there will be some who agree and some who disagree and some who don't care and any other combination you can think of, ...such is life:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
It follows from (1) and (2) that
(3) There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:
Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.





Let me see if I understand you, and this Gutting person, correctly:

You two are saying that the absence of a good reason to believe that there are sentient beings on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...is itself a good reason to believe that no sentient beings exist on any of those planets?

And you suppose there is a competent scientist or logician on this planet that would agree with that???

You gotta be kidding.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 08:31 am
All I know is the universe functioned perfectly well from the big bang until a few thousand years ago with no notion of a god. Then humans evolved enough consciousness to wonder about things. With zero evidence and plenty of ignorance, they stated, "There is some invisible being behind all of this. A god." Being a myth-making animal by then the myths about this invented god became elaborated upon and profited off of and ingrained in enough that they would die to protect a figment of the imagination. I wouldn't believe people could remain so gullible at this date with all of the knowledge coming in of science if I didn't witness it with my own eyes.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 10:06 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
...ingrained in enough that they would die to protect a figment of the imagination. I wouldn't believe people could remain so gullible...

An awesome and revealing snippet of thought!

This is exactly the dynamic we see playing out in the world today.
If i were to simplify it into two 'sides', the West cannot comprehend the East's belief in something they'd be willing to die for.
This weakness of the West results in the scene playing out now in Afghanistan.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 10:25 am
@Leadfoot,
East/west - we all are human. There is no magical entity making one superior to the other. Some of us likely just latch on to other cultures superficially to avoid acknowledging the failures of our own and being ignorant of the failures of the other.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 11:10 am
@edgarblythe,
I was not choosing a side edgar.

Can't you for one minute step outside of yourself and look at the world from the hypothetical viewpoint of a lone alien visitor to the planet?

Besides, can't you see my cowboy hat.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 11:56 am
Having the type of Asperger's I have, plus other considerations I won't bring into this, I have viewed it all from an alien's viewpoint.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 01:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
No kidding, maybe we are all alike.
Some are just better at faking normality.
Kudos for not even bothering to try.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 02:18 pm
@Leadfoot,
You are making it personal with that last remark. You have no idea.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 05:47 pm
@edgarblythe,
None of us know the actual lives that anyone else lives. I think that's sad.

Yes it was personal. And intended as a compliment.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 06:02 pm
@Leadfoot,
I apologize. I misunderstood.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 06:21 pm
@edgarblythe,
Gladly accepted.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2021 09:08 pm
@Leadfoot,
Yeah, I was so ready to be argued with I didn't read it properly. I will try to do better.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2021 06:58 am
The lack of evidence that there is a god, is to some degree, evidence that there is no god, which can be useful to an atheist as an added reason for their atheism.

Theists do not require evidence because faith is a psychological state and doesn't, and shouldn't require evidence, merely faith.

Some agnostics require there not to be evidence that god does not exist, so the lack of evidence that there is a god, being evidence that there isn't a god, is problematic.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2021 07:28 am
The trouble i have with that scenario is that the 'lack of evidence that a God exists' is a 'modern' idea to most men. 'Atheism' for most of human history was mostly for a few philosophers, and even they were a minority.

Modern atheists for the most part rely on 'authorities' for this 'fact'. This is a philosophically bankrupt reason to accept it.

This is not to be confused for appeal to majority or rejection of science.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 05:57:58