For one, that's a blind assertion from a self-serving and partisan definition which does not fit the general theistic view that God (the national deity of the ancient Israelites) is a personal being who acts as a participatory agent in the material world. And for two, Huxley knew what he meant.Seth wrote:Huxley's construct fails on the premise that God is unknowable because God is not a "material phenomenon,"...Brian Peacock wrote:T.H. Huxley coined the phrase 'agnostic' to reflect an epistemic position which was antithetical to those whom declared knowledge of God; to denote not that God was simply unknowable, but that knowledge of God was absent and to deny even the possibility of such knowledge. Though nowadays the term reflects a position of essential uncertainty, doubtfulness, non-committal, or even general ambivalence on the question of the existence of God or gods, being agnostic renders one a default atheist - for all those who are not counted as theists are necessarily a-theists; no-theists, not-theists.rEvolutionist wrote:The two aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't help our side of the argument when you make posts like this. In fact, the vast majority of atheists are agnostics. Seth knows this, but refuses to acknowledge it as it destroys his idiotic biases.Blind groper wrote:All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.
Er, what other kind of description can there be - and besides, Huxley was reacting to the claims and assertions of the theists of his time and not pulling a description of God out of thin air.Seth wrote:... which is not a rational conclusion because a) he bases his presumption on human descriptions of God(s)...
Already debunked.Seth wrote:... which is the Atheist's Fallacy in a nutshell...
His point exactly. One cannot secure knowledge of anything claimed as an actual-factual thing (here, a specific type of entity with particular personal attributes who acts as a participatory agent in the natural world) but for which there are no proportionate and relevant (empirical, observable, material, etc) evidences.Seth wrote:... and b) because he has no evidence that God(s) are as described by humans.
This is a (necessarily) un-evidenced assertion about the nature of God indistinguishable from a fiction or a falsehood.Seth wrote:... Because it is possible for God(s) to be both material phenomena not yet detectable or quantifiable by humans......
For one, what kind of description of God can there by other than a 'human'? And for two, as pointed out, your assertions about the nature of God are (necessarily) dependent on presupposing the existence of God.Seth wrote:... and for human descriptions of God(s) to be inaccurate...
Now while I accept that you're quite entitled to take that wager yourself, and use it to bolster you argument as you see fit, you will have to do more than simply declaring it 'rational and logical' to do so iff you want to convince others that the possible existence of the national deity of the Israelites is probable enough to make the presupposition a necessary contingent factor in their assessment of, and conclusions about, the claims and assertions of theists.
And besides, what self-declared atheists hasn't arrived at atheism after taking the various claims for the existence of God or gods at face value, for the sake of argument? It's not like we pull the conclusion that there are no controlling supernatural agents out of thin air is it(?)
Firstly, HUP applies to the quantum realm only and does not even begin to apply here, even if you are going to characterise the claims for a (as yet undefined) knowledge of God as a binary function. And secondly, you've just shifted the goalposts again, arguing against Huxley's agnosticism on the basis of "exact knowledge", by which I take you mean actual-factual reliable certainty, when he was merely reacting to the unsupported claims for knowledge of theists and saying that as knowing something about something-or-other relies on demonstrating that something-or-other is actually the case then without such demonstration there can be no knowledge - even where it is claimed to exist (that is; knowledge with regards to the nature, scope, abilities, properties, responsibilities, etc, of God).Seth wrote:... and because humans can have no "exact knowledge" (according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) "agnosticism" is an irrational conclusion.
Though I have adequately and truthfully reflected T.H. Huxley's basic position I invite you to read his own words on the matter if you want to argue the toss over what he really meant:The term agnostic was coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge.
- Huxley on Agnosticism:
- Agnosticism, 1889
- Agnosticism: A rejoiner, 1889
- Agnosticism and Christianity, 1889
Nope, I used the word 'position', not agenda - specifically the political position of granting people a right to be left alone to believe anything they want. Nonetheless, it's not like we're unfamiliar with your self-declared agenda in this matter: to teach atheists a lesson in humility, rationality, and logic, to tone-police their expression of disbelief and incredulity about god-claims, and to chide them when and where they fail to meet your personal standards or accept the legitimacy and primacy of your opinion about their atheism.Seth wrote:The problem is that you are assuming a political agenda exists that drives my argument.Brian Peacock wrote:The problem for Seth's point of view is that it is a political position (about granting people a right to be left alone to believe anything they want - which is something many, if not most, atheists would agree people are entitled to do even though he chides us for denying it if-and-when we challenge religiosity in the public square) which he merely asserts as a 'rationally and logically' necessary epistemic practice in order to bolster his self-declared authority on this matter.
LOLYou are incorrect. It is my argument that drives a social/political agenda. You are assuming the cart goes before the horse. In this case the horse is Atheist irrationality masquerading as reason and logic, and the cart is the arrogant presumption of intellectual superiority that goes along with that masquerade that drives the Atheist political and social agenda of extirpating religion from the public sphere.
You seemed to have wandered somewhat from the point. Nonetheless, not only do you define 'Atheism' as degenerate for your own purposes, and then define all atheists who don't meet your personal standards into that lamentable grouping simply to justify the stiff treatment you like to dish out, but you work very hard (some would suggest too hard) to conflate the secular principle advocated by atheists with atheists seeking to 'extirpate religion from the public sphere' (extinguish, destroy, crush, outlaw, etc) - this is pure hyperbole. Secular atheists propose exactly the same thing as secular theists: that self-declared membership of a voluntary club does not and should not afford club members any particular rights, privileges, or exceptions, or any particular say or sway in public affairs. If you think that offering your deliberate caricature of atheists who advocate the secular principle as being staunch anti-theists 'Atheists' helps your case, then be my guest - but it's still a strawman that avoids the issues in favour of justifying cheapshots and personal jibes (and no, I'm not saying that all atheists are automatically exempt from any such criticism - just that your exaggerated definition of 'Atheism' is a handy caricature for you to rely on).As you invented this fallaciously self-serving category 'Atheists' I'll leave your tedious speechifying on 'Atheism' to someone who actually gives a toss.If Atheists were logically and rationally correct, then it would be rational to have a political and social agenda of suppressing and eliminating religion from the human psyche. But Atheists are not correct, they are wrong, as I have shown, and therefore their insistence on suppressing religion is also wrong.
As above.The core argument here is reason and logic. If one professes to be basing one's actions and arguments on reason and logic then one should actually be doing so. Atheists are not.
You suggest, when you say "that religion exists for a reason", that religiosity is socially necessary, at least to those who find it useful, and that it's also reasonable, wise, prudent, and judicious to remove from the surface of society (excoriate) any anti-social aspects of religious belief and/or practice.They are basing their agenda in an irrational antipathy to some particular negative secondary social effects of religious belief while ignoring the larger fact that religion exists for a reason, and that for the most part it makes life better for those who believe.
It is perfectly rational to excoriate those specific instances where religious belief leads to antisocial actions, but it is irrational and bigoted to tar the entirety of the religiously-believing human population with that particular brush.
For one, I hope you are not setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what particular aspects of any particular religion should or shouldn't be excoriated from the face of society and what forms of expression and action are appropriate in achieving this (such that when atheists call for it they are automatically being irrational, illogical, and unprincipled anti-theists, but when you call for it it's always and only ever reasonable and legitimate)? That would be applying a double standard. And for two, and that aside, the principle you outlined simply shits, walks, and quacks like secularism: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Now that the red herrings have been filleted, if you'd care to address the topic at hand, and along with it my charge, that your requirement of an evidenced dismissal to an un-evidenced claim as being a rational obligation for validating any such dismissal, and that this should form the basis of a normative epistemic practice, is bunkum, then I await your reply in earnest and eager anticipation.
