New / Atheism, in the PT? starts here .

FAQ: "If we can not prove the existence or nonexistence of a god, it makes more sense to self-descrevermo us as 'agnostic' instead of 'atheists'?"

March 30, 2012

(Note to regular readers of the blog: how this issue has been addressed several times here, most of the contents of this FAQ entry comes from previous posts.)

Sometimes this question is posed differently: "If you can not have absolute certainty, then there are the atheists to be as fanatical and dogmatic as believers, and will not be the only rational position is agnosticism?"

The question here is "agnostic" can have two meanings: the current, and formal.

That is, if we think of agnosticism as formal, the only thing that means is that the person does not say or think you have a total knowledge, perfect on the issue. In other words, in formal terms, I'm not absolutely sure, 100%, unwavering, that there is no god first , soon, so I'm technically "agnostic." As everyone who does not have a dogmatic belief is. Under this definition, the only "non-agnostic" (or Gnostic) are the ultra-fanatical fundamentalist believers who never have any doubts, nor believers "normal" (the overwhelming majority of them) or atheists are.

On the other hand, if I'm not absolutely sure, mathematically 100% of non-existence of any god, I'm so convinced of this as I am non-existence of nonexistence of elves, werewolves, the blue tea Russell, the Father Christmas or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does that make me an "atheist." Why? Because "evidence" is a concept that only exists in mathematics. But that would not, therefore, can not be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" about non-mathematical things. My "sure" that there is no god is equivalent to my "sure" that if you drop a coin, it will fall down and not up, yes, the laws of physics can be changed in the next second, and therefore, a mathematical way, my certainty can not technically be 100%, but even so I am "for all purposes" right. So I am an atheist, because I'm not "undecided" on the issue.

In short, I'm technically an agnostic atheist (and here the terms are not contradictory), but for all intents and purposes I am simply an atheist.

xkcd 774 Now, on the other hand, we have the current definition of "agnostic", which is quite different from what that was addressed in this FAQ entry so far. In common parlance, an "agnostic" is someone who is "in," you think you can not decide or by theism or atheism. What do you think, because we can not prove that there is no god, then you can not rationally be "atheist," because for him, or there is no evidence one way or the other, any of the positions require "faith ". It often includes the suggestion that "atheists are as fanatical as believers," and that only agnostics as he does have a rational position.

Is that the kind of thought I have a problem. For now, because it is illogical and incoherent: a person for any other subject, do not need 100% certainty (in a mathematical sense), it is sufficient certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The typical "agnostic" never have gone to Western China, and yet probably do not have doubts about whether China exists ("after all, I have no proof, I never saw her ... and even if there were, it could be an optical illusion! Indeed, we may be brains in a jar and be all in our minds! Who am I to know something?? " 2 ). Likewise, the typical "agnostic" has no doubt that tomorrow will still be 2 +2 4, although not able to prove. Why is the existence of a god should be different, or require another level of "evidence"?

It is understood that a person does not decide not to have enough data, but then only if you decide to have perfect data, with total and absolute evidence (which, again, exist only in mathematics), goes a great distance. And as I said, usually the "agnostic" does not do on other issues.

It is also an attitude in my view unfairly, as an "agnostic" typically refuses to admit that, even without proof perfect, there is evidence for each of the positions are not equivalent. On the contrary, as are the overnight. Evidence for the existence of a god are zero (typically not go bad as logical arguments " must be a first cause for all this "or" there must be God, but life does not make sense "or" without God, as can there be right and wrong? "or" atheists is that they have the obligation to prove that God does not exist "or" I can not explain something that happened to me, so was God "), and the lack of them turns out to be a strong evidence against this hypothesis. On the other hand, evidence for a 100% natural universe are huge (among many others, there is the fact that throughout history, as it learns more, supernatural explanations have been systematically being replaced by natural, not the opposite happened). An "agnostic" typical refuses to admit it, which is dishonest and illogical of him. It's like saying that if there is overwhelming evidence for any A and to B, then A and B are equally likely. Hence my dislike - the inherent intellectual dishonesty and cowardice - for this type of "agnosticism".

Finally, there is another possibility. For those who have suffered the consequences of religious fundamentalism, is always present in his memory as such believers were quite sure of what they believed, without ever questioning those beliefs. The escape of such fundamentalism, it is natural to pass to distrust the very idea of having absolute and dogmatic certainties, immune to any fact or argument. And think a person in this situation, it is atheism simply the other side of the same coin - the "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there are no gods? There are atheists victims (or perpetrators) in exactly the same error? If we do not have (nor should we) a 100% belief unchangeable and perfect, will not make more sense to a person "keep an open mind" and describe themselves as agnostic?

The answer is "no", for one simple reason: there is an error definitions. Atheism is not "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there is no god, is, rather, the lack of belief in a god or gods. You treat "God" as it is "fairy" or "elves": a person need not have to be "absolutely, dogmatically" certain that these creatures do not exist, just do not believe them, having no belief in them.

No need to have a perfect knowledge of the universe (omniscience), or "evidence" absolute non-existence of a god, to be an atheist. Just as follows: scalar beliefs according evidence, which is in any case the position is to be rational. Note that an openly Christian beliefs does not scale according to the evidence, what it does, however, is to affirm that belief without evidence (ie, "faith") is a virtue. (Interestingly, the same believer typically do not apply it to the beliefs of other religions, which he will obviously be wrong ...)

But for those who prefer, rationally, calling their beliefs according to the evidence, it is easy to get up to atheism, indeed, is the only logical conclusion. Zero evidence for something -> zero belief in something, and "zero faith" in a god or gods is the definition of atheism. You do not need faith, or omniscience, nor any certainty "absolute and dogmatic" to reach this position.

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not other issues such as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

  1. although they have with respect to, for example, from 3 monotheisms gods, which are obviously invented self-contradictory. [ ↩ ]
  2. yes, there are people who say things like this, but do not do that in real life, if they did, they could not get out of a padded cell. [ ↩ ]

In the category Agnosticism , Atheism , Atheism FAQ | 3 Comments »

Back in business

March 29, 2012

I've been away from this blog (to be exact, blogging in general) for quite a while, but I have been back ... and feel like I've seen that I have much to do in relation to comments since the blog seems to be filled Comment:

- Copy & pastes tangencionalmente of things (or nothing) related to the subject of the post

- Insults and silly accusations (eg "you are but it is a satanic!")

- Anti-Semitisms (!)

I'll have to spend some time to address these comments. Most will simply be deleted, but can leave some - with the proper response - to illustrate the mentality of certain people.

I'll also see if I update the rules for comments, especially for copy & pastes huge - often made by those who do not understand the contents thereof, and is not able to answer questions about them. Not that such commentators look at the rules, but may rarely be exceptions. :)

I guess it is just to spend my fingers, but, please, learn to comment. Respond to posts or to other comments. Put questions, or ask for explanations. Tell me where do I (or the author of the commentary to which they respond) am / is wrong and why. And let that of imbecility to make copy & paste of meaningless monstrosities, often not even related to the post where he commented. Act like rational adults, instead of appearing types of beard, clothes dirty and torn, on top of wooden boxes, with a megaphone in hand.

In the category Atheism-PT (blog) | 3 Comments »

FAQ: "I had an experience that proves God exists."

April 23, 2011

Warning: your memory of that experience is, almost certainly, something with which you have a strong emotional connection, and any arguments against your interpretation of that experience will you look like a personal attack. They are not.

This argument is relatively common. There are several possible variants:

  • "The worst time of my life when nothing seemed to make sense and there seemed no hope, I felt God's presence, which inspired me to straighten my life"
  • "A time of desperation, I asked God for help, and other unusual thing happened to be a mere coincidence, I believe it was a miracle"
  • "Something happened that I can not explain, that there may have been a natural phenomenon, therefore, can only have been an act of God"

Possibly, your case will be equal or similar to the one above (if not, please tell it in a comment). And once again, I believe this is now something "special" for you, something in which you have a big emotional investment. It was possibly as estares drowning and you feel someone grab you in his hand and pull yourself up, and even now the memory is more important in your life. Believe it or not, I understand, probably better than imaginarás, how important it is for you.

But I also believe that reality must always be foremost, we must correct any mistaken beliefs we have, however well they make us feel. Feel free to disagree with this. It is your right questionares not something that you are comfortable. Therefore, it is better stop reading now.

If you're still there ... I beg you to start by asking yourself the following in relation to your experience, how do you know that your interpretation is correct? I do not suppose you aches infallible nor omniscient, so, so you should ask yourself about why you know that what happened can only be "divine" origin, it is not possible any other explanation. Consideraste even other hypotheses? Consideraste seriously the possible natural explanations before you walk into a supernatural? And if you did not, do not you think that you should have done?

"Feeling the presence of God" in a moment of despair - that is, emotional vulnerability - is nothing unique or even unusual. It is a time when our emotions are at the top, and our rationality and skepticism are the minimum, ie, is a time when we desperately want to feel something, want to feel a presence, a comforting touch, feel that, much that the world is cold and gray, people do not care, and our life is horrible, there is "up there" someone who cares, and we never betray or abandon. Between wanting to desperately feel it, and actually feel it, the distance is too short, do not you think?

Also note the following: the believers of other religions have almost the same sensations. Even the non-believers may, in certain situations. This strongly suggests that they do not come from a specific god, but of our own minds.

For coincidences, they happen often. The essential question here is this: we often do not realize that they do not happen. Most superstitions arises something like this. For example, a football player makes a game much better than usual, scoring several goals and the like. At the end of the challenge, it notices in that (eg) having a hole in the right half. Immediately, this becomes the "half luck" to him. Possibly, as did several games with the same median half, but he forgets that. Will have had good games without it, but will not have that in mind. In the future, will have bad games with the same half, but again not in repair thereof. But if we again have a good game with this half? "See? My half of luck never fails! "

145.png In summary, the human mind is terrible to deal with "coincidences." The trend is repararmos the times that it seems to confirm our belief, and ignore the times it is denied.

In other words, if one day you asked God something possible (eg "I'm late for work, God forbid that there is no traffic today") and that something actually happens, remember that thou wilt in the future. If not, thou shalt forget, not even pensarás about it. That's how our minds work, and there is no need to be ashamed of it, but precisely because it is good to prepare for these possible errors.

Finally, for alleged "miracles" (which are not mere "coincidence", as described above), perhaps the best is the same descreveres a comment. But, again, the human mind is very easy to deceive; visions, hallucinations and dreams "surreal" are the most frequent there.

I would add that, even if it were shown conclusively that an event was indeed supernatural (which never happened until today), so only one could conclude that "the supernatural exists." Never something like "God exists" and even "the god religion in which I was educated there. " The first conclusion for the following two will jump much higher than they probably imagine, and you can not logically give.

Again, if you had any experience that does not fit in the three types I mentioned, or that you think it is possible to prove with facts and logic (rather than simply "to me is well and ready"), is free to comment .

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not other issues such as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

In the category FAQ Atheism , Religion | 8 Comments »

Richard Dawkins, and atheism vs. agnosticism

April 21, 2011

Richard Dawkins on Global Atheist Convention 2010 in Australia:

YouTube Preview Image

Excellent, I strongly recommend, etc.. etc. .. It is more about biology / evolution of what exactly atheism or religion, but it's worth.

But this post, as well as working to share the video focuses on a question in Q & A section at the end of the video, and response. The question is:

Self-describe myself as agnostic, because, although I believe that there is no god, I'm not absolutely sure, there is always a little, tiny chance. When describing themselves as atheists, do not you run the risk of being so dogmatic as believers?

Dawkins's response was good: we are all technically agnostic to all that we do not believe (eg fairies, werewolves), since it is not possible to prove that something does not exist. Said the scale of belief that I had used to explain this issue in The God Delusion, where 1 is "I know there is a god" and 7 is "I know that does not exist", and described to himself as a 6.9. But I think he could also have gone the other hand.

In a way, I understand the concern of the kind that asked the question. For those who have suffered the consequences of religious fundamentalism, is always present in his memory as such believers were quite sure of what they believed, without ever questioning those beliefs. The escape of such fundamentalism, it is natural to pass to distrust the very idea of having absolute and dogmatic certainties, immune to any fact or argument. And think a person in this situation, it is atheism simply the other side of the same coin - the "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there are no gods? There are atheists victims (or perpetrators) in exactly the same error? If it is not possible to have 100% certainty, not a person will make more sense to describe themselves as agnostic?

The answer is "no", for one simple reason: there is an error definitions. Atheism is not "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there is no god, is, rather, the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is, as Dawkins pointed out, treat "God" as this "fairy" or "elves": a person need not have to be "absolutely, dogmatically" certain that these creatures do not exist, just do not believe them, have no belief in them.

As I have argued in the past, no need to have a perfect knowledge of the universe (omniscience), or "evidence" absolute non-existence of a god, to be an atheist. Just as follows: scalar beliefs according evidence, which is in any case the position is to be rational. Note that an openly Christian beliefs does not scale according to the evidence, what it does, however, is to affirm that belief without evidence (ie, "faith") is a virtue. (Interestingly, the same believer typically do not apply it to the beliefs of other religions, which he will obviously be wrong ...)

But for those who prefer, rationally, calling their beliefs according to the evidence, it is easy to get up to atheism, indeed, is the only logical conclusion. Zero evidence for something -> zero belief in something, and "zero faith" in a god or gods is the definition of atheism. You do not need faith, or omniscience, nor any certainty "absolute and dogmatic" to reach this position. After all, if one day appear * any * evidence, I (like any rational atheist) would reconsider my position ...

Labels: ,
In the category Agnosticism , Atheism , Evolution | 5 Comments »

Why not believe in "Conspiracy Theories"

April 18, 2011

The yet, the Ultimate Evil Remains Largely unmanifest, and Its exact powers and Intentions are still a bit obscure, since it lurks just outside the range of even the most sensitive, long-range detectors, Which We feel Gives an evidence conclusive as to the Ultimate Evil's nefarious intent.

- Fwiffo, Star Control II

The idea that we live in a chaotic world, without a "plan" sole and deliberate, and that our "leaders" - leaders of countries and managers of multinational companies - do not know, in large part, what they are doing, is for many people, the more frightening it can be. It is somehow the equivalent of a small child become aware for the first time in his life that his parents are imperfect, they do not have all the answers, which are often not in tune with each other. There is no one perfectly competent to take care of us. It is a terror base, which does not disappear completely simply because we reach adulthood. The human being, in some respects, never fully grow: we still require, in varying degrees, to feel safe, feel that there is order in the universe, that there is a plan, that there is a kind of "father" who cares of us - even though they often do not understand it, in its objectives are largely incomprehensible, and it seems to us sometimes even cruel.

No, I'm not in this case, talking about religion, though everything I wrote above is perfectly applicable here too. :) I mean, yes, for those who believe in conspiracy theories (call them "conspiracy theorists", although that does not sound any better - but it is always better than the "conspiratorial theorists" who appeared in Portuguese subtitles in time ...): the idea that there are certain "Powers That Be", usually in the form of an ultra-secret organization - so secret that most people never heard of it - that control, from the shadows, the advance and destiny of mankind, being above the presidents and other leaders "visible". And this is so for centuries or even millennia.

To a conspiracy theorist, everything that happens - the results of an election, a coup, an economic crisis, a celebrity murdered, or even a scientific breakthrough - is because they so decided, and according to your Plan. They control everything, are absolutely competent, and it is virtually impossible to thwart their plans - especially since most of the "sheep" are unaware that they even exist, living happily in their ignorance. And they are obviously very efficient to make evidence disappear ... or people. After all, do it for hundreds of years. And all the events recorded in history have a different meaning when interpreted from this point of view.

More incredibly, when faced with the lack of evidence to justify his belief that the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderberg and the like control the destiny of humanity, conspiracy theorists have at his fingertips the answer, in his view, perfect : this only proves that they are absolutely competent to keeping its influence, and in some cases their existence. As the quote at the beginning of the post, proof that they exist is that we can not detect. The proof is controlling everything that we can not even see this control. And the explanation for such "stealth"? Sinister intentions, of course.

It is a curious logic: the less evidence let more competent and evil are, so if there is zero evidence, then they are evil and supremely competent. The idea that evidence can also zero, you know, who knows, does not really indicate that there are (or, in cases such as Freemasonry, they have the power or do things that are attributed to them) nor do they seem to pass by the head ...

Possibly, some conspiracy theorists to consider themselves skeptics - that is, not blindly believe, they say, the "common version" of history, politics, of how humanity manages and progresses. But this is a mistake. O verdadeiro cepticismo baseia-se em escolher e escalar as nossas crenças de acordo com as evidências disponíveis, e não em rejeitar toda e qualquer evidência contrária a uma crença pré-assumida — ou, pior ainda, em reinterpretar a ausência de evidência a favor dessa crença como “prova” de que ela é válida (!). E é isto que um teórico de conspiração efectivamente faz. Depois de construir a sua crença, não há evidências contra essa crença que surtam qualquer efeito; tudo pode ser reinterpretado como “ isso é o que eles querem que pensemos! “. Por outro lado, qualquer ponto aparentemente a favor dessa crença, por muito “rebuscado” que seja, serve-lhe de confirmação — mais do que suficiente, para ele — de que a mesma é legítima. Isto, como espero ser óbvio, não é uma forma nem científica, nem céptica, nem intelectualmente honesta de ver as coisas.

E com isto lanço um desafio a qualquer teórico de conspiração que leia isto e não concorde com a minha posição. O desafio é este: há alguma coisa, algum tipo de evidência, que te fizesse admitir que estás errado/a, que as tuas crenças sobre conspirações e organizações ultra-secretas são infundadas, que o mundo realmente é caótico, os nossos “líderes” são na sua maioria mais ou menos incompetentes, e não há qualquer “plano” a ser mantido cuidadosamente por um grupo sombrio?

Se não há, se qualquer possível evidência que te fornecessem seria imediatamente reinterpretada como “ isso é o que eles querem que se pense ” (confirmando, dessa forma, ainda mais a tua posição), se a tua crença é completamente imune à realidade, então de onde é que ela realmente vem? Será de um medo de viveres num mundo caótico onde as coisas acontecem muitas vezes sem explicação, sem fazerem parte de um plano? Ou é simplesmente porque sabe bem sentires-te “especial”, ao seres o único, ou dos pouquíssimos únicos, que sabe a “verdade” por detrás das coisas, enquanto o resto da humanidade não passa de ”carneiros” iludidos? Pensa lá bem. É que acabaste de demonstrar que não procede de factos, de evidências, ou de uma observação honesta do mundo… o que faz de ti o oposto de um “céptico”: um crente dogmático , que escolhe e mantém determinadas crenças apenas porque isso o faz sentir-se bem.

Etiquetas: , , , ,
Na categoria Cepticismo | 6 Comentários »

The skeptic in the room (music)

30 de Março, 2011

Isto está lindo . :) Grande letra, e grandes exemplos.

YouTube Preview Image

Adoro o optimismo da conclusão, também. Já várias pessoas me perguntaram, por eu escrever sobre estes assuntos (se bem que o tenho feito menos nos últimos tempos, em parte por andar mais ocupado com o meu novo blog de temas “geeky”, Winterdrake ), se eu acho (por vezes com uma atitude de “serás assim tão ingénuo?”) que o que escrevo neste blog, eo que já escrevia noutros no passado, alguma vez vai fazer alguém mudar de ideias, já que 1) as pessoas em geral não o fazem, ponto, 2) religiosos são especialmente difíceis e dogmáticos, tratando em geral as suas crenças como “tabu”, e 3) se eles próprios admitem que não é pelo uso da razão que têm as suas crenças, não são argumentos racionais que alguma vez os vão afectar.

All this is largely true. Mas, sim, se sem dúvida não dá para atingir os fundamentalistas fanáticos, também há crentes “on the fence”, que começaram a duvidar das crenças em que foram educados desde bebés, mas que mesmo assim não fazem ideia de que livrar-se completamente delas é uma opção, que é possível ser-se um ateu (ou qualquer forma de “não-crente”) sem que isso faça de nós a) monstros imorais, eb) pessoas deprimidas, com vidas frias, cinzentas e sem objectivo. Às vezes, um mero exemplo pode fazer a diferença. Outras vezes, pode ser um argumento.

Da mesma forma, é possível que passem por aqui crentes que acham que chegaram à sua fé de uma forma racional, que respeitam o raciocínio ea lógica 1 . Infelizmente, em mais de um ano de existência deste blog, continuo à espera.), e que talvez reconsiderem as suas crenças se confrontados com o facto de que o raciocínio ea lógica são incompatíveis com tais crenças. Sim, sem dúvida que muitos aí escolherão rejeitar o raciocínio e lógica, rejeitar a mente… mas é possível que nem todos o façam. E uma pessoa libertar-se das suas crenças (coisa que me disseram que já aconteceu, noutro blog, anos atrás) já é bom , já fez tudo valer a pena.

  1. aliás, adorava um dia ter aqui comentários de algum crente capaz de argumentar com factos e lógica, em vez de simplesmente “pregar”, citar a Bíblia EM MAIÚSCULAS (o que obviamente é mais convincente), ameaçar-me com a Aposta de Pascal, ou tentar psicanalisar-me por eu falar destes assuntos (“obviamente, precisas de te sentir superior… ah, e és ateu porque odeias Deus por causa de uma má experiência na infância!”) [ ↩ ]

Na categoria Ateísmo-PT (o blog) , Cepticismo , Criacionismo , Humor , Música , New Age | Sem Comentários »

Sam Harris: “'Ateísmo' é um termo que nem devia existir”

28 de Janeiro, 2011
Sam Harris: 'Ateismo' é um termo que nem devia existir

Fonte: The Jewmanist

Etiquetas:
Na categoria Ateísmo | Sem Comentários »

Beta Ray Bill, o ateu

30 de Dezembro, 2010

Não posso resistir a partilhar o seguinte (obrigado, André):

I am alone. I look at the heavens and think them empty. And if not empty, I find the idea of worshipping whatever dwells there obscene.

(Source: Beta Ray Bill: The Green of Eden )

In three squares and little dialogue, not only summarizes atheism - including the idea that even if something was, "Love is" something that would automatically crawl a cowardly and repugnant - as also humanism - doing " and "not from fear of punishment or desire for reward, but because it is the right thing to do, because this universe is, to our knowledge, the only one we have, and if we can influence in some way, in a way that is good.

Labels: ,
In the category Atheism , Comics | 1 Comment »

At the Nutty 189.69.21.176 ...

December 9, 2010

... Please stop making comments completely insane and "rambling", full of long paragraphs in capital letters, totally devoid of content, and without being related to the theme of the posts. 8 and less than one day.

It is obvious that such comments will be deleted, since 1) violate the rules for comments , and 2) do not say anything (and note that it does not say "no interest" or "not correct", is nothing at all). But are bothersome.

Still waiting in this blog, the first comment minimally coherent part of any believer. "Consistent" here means to present their position and justify it. This is so difficult? Saying "you're wrong on X because Y" or even "believe X because Y"? Balls, in a blog in English appeared from time to time as well. What happens to the believers and Brazilian Portuguese? They are so obsessed with copy & paste of bizarre verbal diarrhea? : (

In the category Atheism-PT (the blog) , Stupidity | No Comments »

The two types of "agnosticism"

November 10, 2010

Yes, my last post, Definition of Agnosticism , is intentionally provocative. But someone who happened to have read all the posts on this blog (yes, I like to imagine that there is someone like that) can perhaps remember an older post , imported personal blog , which refers to a concept of " agnosticism "quite different.

What happens then? I am completely contradicting myself? I changed my mind in the last year?

Nope. What is happening is that "agnostic" can have two meanings: the current, and formal.

Small "the party": something similar happens with the term "theory" in everyday language, gives the idea of a hypothesis that we raised between the 3rd and 4th beer of the night, a conversation of friends. Scientifically, it is much more detailed and formal, which is supposed to 1) be able to make verifiable predictions, and 2) be desprovável 1 , but not having the facts "desprovem." Thus, when a creationist says "evolution is just a theory", it is to be ignorant (confusing meanings) or, more likely, dishonest (because of certainty that someone has already explained about the scientific meaning of "theory", but he continues to intentionally confuse things).

That is, if we think of agnosticism as formal, the only thing that means is that the person does not claim full knowledge, perfect on the issue. In other words, in formal terms, I'm not absolutely sure, 100%, unwavering, that there is no god 2 , right, so I'm technically "agnostic." As everyone who does not have a dogmatic belief is. Under this definition, the only "non-agnostic" fundamentalist fanatics are believers, or believers "normal" or atheists are.

On the other hand, if I'm not absolutely sure, mathematically 100% of non-existence of any god, I'm so convinced of this as I am non-existence of nonexistence of elves, werewolves, the blue tea Russell, the Father Christmas or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does that make me an "atheist." Why? Because "evidence" is a concept that only exists in mathematics. But that would not, therefore, can not be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" about non-mathematical things. My "sure" that there is no god is equivalent to my "sure" that if you drop a coin, it will fall down and not up, yes, the laws of physics can be changed in the next second, and therefore, a mathematical way, my certainty can not technically be 100%, but even so I am "for all purposes" right. So I am an atheist, because I'm not "undecided" on the issue.

In short, I'm technically an agnostic atheist (and here the terms are not contradictory), but for all intents and purposes I am simply an atheist.

xkcd 774 Now, on the other hand, we have the current definition of "agnostic", which is quite different from what you've been talking about in this post so far. In common parlance, an "agnostic" is someone who is "in," you think you can not decide or by theism or atheism. What do you think, because we can not prove that there is no god, then you can not rationally be "atheist," because for him, or there is no evidence one way or the other, any of the positions require "faith ".

Is that the kind of thought I have a problem. Para já, porque é ilógico e incoerente: uma pessoa, para qualquer outro assunto, não precisa de certezas a 100% (num sentido matemático); bastam-lhe certezas “para além de uma dúvida razoável”. O típico “agnóstico” ocidental nunca terá ido à China, e no entanto provavelmente não tem dúvidas sobre se a China existe (“afinal, não tenho provas, nunca a vi… e mesmo que lá fosse, tudo poderia ser uma ilusão de óptica! Aliás, podemos ser cérebros num frasco e estar tudo nas nossas mentes! Quem sou eu para saber alguma coisa ???” 3 ). Porque é que a existência ou não de um deus deverá ser diferente, ou exigir outro nível de “provas”?

Compreende-se que uma pessoa não se decida por não ter dados suficientes, mas daí até só se decidir tendo dados perfeitos , tendo provas totais e absolutas (que, mais uma vez, só existem na matemática), vai uma grande distância. E, como eu disse, em geral o “agnóstico” não o faz relativamente a outras questões.

É também uma atitude a meu ver desonesta, já que um “agnóstico” tipicamente recusa-se a admitir que, mesmo sem provas perfeitas, as evidências que há para cada uma das posições não são equivalentes. Muito pelo contrário, são como da noite para o dia. As evidências para a existência de um deus são zero (tipicamente nem passam de argumentos lógicos péssimos como “ tem de haver uma primeira causa para isto tudo ” ou “ tem de haver Deus, senão a vida não faz sentido ” ou “ sem Deus, como é que pode haver certo e errado? ” ou “ os ateus é que têm a obrigação de provar que Deus não existe “) , ea ausência das mesmas acaba por ser uma forte evidência contra essa hipótese. Por outro lado, as evidências para um universo 100% natural são imensas (entre muitas outras, há o facto de que durante toda a história, à medida que se aprende mais, explicações sobrenaturais têm vindo sistematicamente a ser substituídas por naturais, eo oposto nunca aconteceu). Um “agnóstico” típico recusa-se a admitir isso, o que é desonesto e ilógico da parte dele. Daí a minha última definição . E daí a minha antipatia — pela desonestidade e cobardia intelectuais inerentes — relativamente a esse tipo de “agnosticismo”.

  1. “foi Deus” não é desprovável, logo nunca pode ser uma teoria científica. [ ↩ ]
  2. se bem que a tenho em relação, por exemplo, aos deuses dos 3 monoteísmos, que são obviamente inventados e auto-contraditórios. [ ↩ ]
  3. sim, há gente que diz coisas deste género, mas não agem assim na vida real; caso o fizessem, não poderiam sair de uma cela acolchoada. [ ↩ ]

Na categoria Agnosticismo , Ateísmo , Lógica | 8 Comentários »

«Previous Entries
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
This work by Dehumanizer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal .