Secular Nativity

[splashscuba]

As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.
Some stop at reasons for and against God but to me that is like stopping at reasons for dinner sets or reasons for kier Starmer. You never arrive at the thing itself so it remains a theory.

There's an infinite number of things that I don't know exist. Your god is just one of them. I'd be spending an eternirty entertaining the existance of all those infinite things or I could assume they don't exist.

[jeremyp]

It has been suggested that Jesus died on a Wednesday. The Bible doesn't say that he died on a Friday, just that the next day was the sabbath - which would normally be Saturday, but it seems that the first-century Jews had seven extra sabbaths a year, which did not necessarily fall on a Saturday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sabbaths
https://christianityfaq.com/what-day-was-jesus-christ-crucified-the-debate/

It's a bit more complicated than that. If we go by the time line of the Synoptics, Jesus was executed on a high Sabbath i.e. the first day of Passover. Unfortunately, there is a problem there in that there is no way the Sanhedrin would meet on a high Sabbath. Ignoring that point, if Jesus was executed on a High Sabbath and the next day was the normal Sabbath, we have the same time table as the traditional one we use at Easter, although all the stuff about getting his body off the cross before the start of the Sabbath makes no sense.

John's gospel has Jesus being executed before the high Sabbath, so it is possible that he was executed on a Thursday, the high Sabbath is Friday and then we have the normal Sabbath. In this case, it is still less than three days in the tomb.

Anyway, Vlad has stated that the length of time you remain dead is not important. It could be three days, three billion years or three nanoseconds - it's all the same. So what exactly was the sacrifice?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Engaging with the idea of God is fine, but that is different from engaging with God surely. You can't engage with something you don't believe in.

I wanted to get that very observation across, myself. I did say there is more to it than stopping at the theory of God or, as you say the idea of God. My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there. The agnostic does not know whether there is a God or not. They do not know whether theism is wrong and therefore they must entertain that their atheist position may be wrong. This is not a question of belief then, it is a question of intellect. The agnostic is duty bound to fully realise and explore the possibility of God...and then see what would happen to their beliefs.

Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation. Evidence of that is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism and a commitment to atheist philosophies above their agnostic position which requires the possibility of God.

IMV then there are some whose comfort with atheism, atheistic philosophies isn’t serving their agnostic position.

[Gordon]

I wanted to get that very observation across, myself. I did say there is more to it than stopping at the theory of God or, as you say the idea of God. My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there. The agnostic does not know whether there is a God or not. They do not know whether theism is wrong and therefore they must entertain that their atheist position may be wrong. This is not a question of belief then, it is a question of intellect. The agnostic is duty bound to fully realise and explore the possibility of God...and then see what would happen to their beliefs.

Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation. Evidence is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism and a commitment to atheist philosophies above their agnostic position which requires the possibility of God.

IMV then there are some whose comfort with atheism, atheistic philosophies isn’t serving their agnostic position.

I'd say it is more the case that an agnostic atheist considers that since there is no reliable or valid evidence that has inter-subjective justification then the notion of 'God' can be simply dismissed as incoherent white-noise that need not be 'entertained' at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do struggle, Vlad: agnosticism refers to an absence of verifiable and/or justifiable knowledge that would be a sufficient basis to support belief (theism).

You seem to think that an agnostic atheist is somehow, by default, open to the possibility of 'God' when, as an agnostic atheist myself, I consider that there are no grounds in the form of knowledge to take claims of 'God' seriously at all.

Well that’s one interpretation of agnosticism. Another definition is that agnosticism is not knowing whether God exists. So there are multiple interpretations.

Claiming not to know whether God exists looks to me the same argument as not knowing whether God exists....or not since  a claim that I do not know whether God exists but I know he doesn’t is absurd. If an agnostic isn’t open to the possibility of God that effectively is their position I.e. an absurd one or they aren’t agnostic.

[Maeght]

I wanted to get that very observation across, myself. I did say there is more to it than stopping at the theory of God or, as you say the idea of God. My point is that an agnostic atheist does not have any justification to leave the matter there. The agnostic does not know whether there is a God or not. They do not know whether theism is wrong and therefore they must entertain that their atheist position may be wrong. This is not a question of belief then, it is a question of intellect. The agnostic is duty bound to fully realise and explore the possibility of God...and then see what would happen to their beliefs.

Many people who state they are agnostic atheists act as though they are gnostic atheists IMV. They are practically convinced that there is no God, certainly enough to forgo an adequate intellectual investigation. Evidence of that is a pretty shallow knowledge of the philosophy behind theism and a commitment to atheist philosophies above their agnostic position which requires the possibility of God.

IMV then there are some whose comfort with atheism, atheistic philosophies isn’t serving their agnostic position.

My atheism may be wrong, I acknowledge that. However again, you can engage with the idea of God (using intellect) although I'm not sure there is any duty to do so, but you can't engage with God if you have no belief in God. That may just be semantics but I'm not sure it is - I think theists who say this mean more than engaging with the idea of God. When you say engaging with God what do you actually mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd say it is more the case that an agnostic atheist considers that since there is no reliable or valid evidence that has inter-subjective justification then the notion of 'God' can be simply dismissed as incoherent white-noise that need not be 'entertained' at all.

If you are not open to the possibility of God Gordon you are not agnostic.
If you are agnostic you have an intellectual duty IMO to explore that to the uttermost.

[Gordon]

Well that’s one interpretation of agnosticism. Another definition is that agnosticism is not knowing whether God exists. So there are multiple interpretations.

No there isn't: agnosticism mean an absence of knowledge and no amount of waffling gets you to any other meaning.

Claiming not to know whether God exists looks to me the same argument as not knowing whether God exists....or not since  a claim that I do not know whether God exists but I know he doesn’t is absurd.

Then, as ever, you get it wrong: an agnostic atheist isn't claiming 'God' doesn't exist - they are saying that in the absence of sound knowledge there is no basis to even consider the notion of 'God' as being a serious proposition.

If an agnostic isn’t open to the possibility of God that effectively is their position I.e. an absurd one or they aren’t agnostic.

Wrong again: an agnostic would be open to valid, reliable and justified knowledge of 'God' - but there ain't none, to date anyway. There are no fences that agnostic atheists are required to sit upon.

[Gordon]

If you are not open to the possibility of God Gordon you are not agnostic.
If you are agnostic you have an intellectual duty IMO to explore that to the uttermost.

Nonsense on stilts - see my recent post.

I may though have an 'intellectual duty' to call out batshit-crazy theobollocks whenever I encounter some.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My atheism may be wrong, I acknowledge that. However again, you can engage with the idea of God (using intellect) although I'm not sure there is any duty to do so, but you can't engage with God if you have no belief in God. That may just be semantics but I'm not sure it is - I think theists who say this mean more than engaging with the idea of God. When you say engaging with God what do you actually mean?

I’m not convinced that the argument “ There may or may not be a God, but you know what? I can’t be asked” is a good look as the young people would say.
The possibility of God is also the possibility of encountering God. It opens the possibility of increased intellectual possibility IMV.

[Gordon]

I’m not convinced that the argument “ There may or may not be a God, but you know what? I can’t be asked” is a good look as the young people would say.

Smashing - but then nobody is saying that (outwith your imagination).

The possibility of God is also the possibility of encountering God. It opens the possibility of increased intellectual possibility IMV.

Then you need to demonstrate this 'possibility' in meaningful terms first - but I suspect you're just fooling yourself ('intellectually speaking') and you seem surprised that others of us are less easily fooled.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are not open to the possibility of God Gordon you are not agnostic.
If you are agnostic you have an intellectual duty IMO to explore that to the uttermost.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong again: an agnostic would be open to valid, reliable and justified knowledge of 'God' - but there ain't none, to date anyway. There are no fences that agnostic atheists are required to sit upon.

Should be Gordon, Should be.

[Maeght]

I’m not convinced that the argument “ There may or may not be a God, but you know what? I can’t be asked” is a good look as the young people would say.
The possibility of God is also the possibility of encountering God. It opens the possibility of increased intellectual possibility IMV.

What do you mean by 'I can't be asked'? My position is that I have no belief in God and do not find the evidence presented for God to be convincing. As with anything there is a possibility I may be wrong on my conclusion. Other atheists may have other positions/arguments but that is fine since the only thing we definitely have in common i that we have no belief in God.

You have now mentioned encountering but not said what you mean by engaging with God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

As they say “Because the possibility is there”. Are you really asking “why intellectual pursuit”.
A close relative of mine who was no mean but unself recognised philosopher used to call contemplation of the ultimate and fundamental “Habby horses shite”...He was wrong of course.

[Nearly Sane]

As they say “Because the possibility is there”. Are you really asking “why intellectual pursuit”.
A close relative of mine who was no mean but unself recognised philosopher used to call contemplation of the ultimate and fundamental “Habby horses shite”...He was wrong of course.

The possibility of time travel is there. Should I pursue that to the uttermost? If I pursue god or time travel, or any number of other things that are possible to the uttermost then I won't be able to do that for any of the other things so your statement as so often has an inbuilt logical contradiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by 'I can't be asked'? My position is that I have no belief in God and do not find the evidence presented for God to be convincing. As with anything there is a possibility I may be wrong on my conclusion. Other atheists may have other positions/arguments but that is fine since the only thing we definitely have in common i that we have no belief in God.

You have now mentioned encountering but not said what you mean by engaging with God.

If you encounter God your response to that is your engagement.

[Nearly Sane]

What do you mean by 'I can't be asked'? My position is that I have no belief in God and do not find the evidence presented for God to be convincing. As with anything there is a possibility I may be wrong on my conclusion. Other atheists may have other positions/arguments but that is fine since the only thing we definitely have in common i that we have no belief in God.

You have now mentioned encountering but not said what you mean by engaging with God.

I think he means 'I can't be arsed'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The possibility of time teavel is there. Should I pursue that to the uttermost? If I pursue god or time travel, or any number of other things that are possible to the uttermost then I won't be able to do that for any of the other things so your statement as so often has an inbuilt logical contradiction.

I would ask whether time travel is fundamental or ultimate in all domains of human experience. It obviously fails the test.

By uttermost I mean within your own intellectual capabilities.

I love the ins and outs of the science of time travel but there is no way I am going to solve it.

[Maeght]

If you encounter God your response to that is your engagement.

So if you don't encounter God then you can't engage - which is essentially what I have been saying that you can't engage if you don't have a belief in God.

[Maeght]

I think he means 'I can't be arsed'

Oh yes, of course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if you don't encounter God then you can't engage - which is essentially what I have been saying that you can't engage if you don't have a belief in God.

But if you are agnostic you never have any guarantee that you aren’t going to encounter God.
Your belief here seems to be that you can’t encounter God.

[Maeght]

But if you are agnostic you never have any guarantee that you aren’t going to encounter God.
Your belief here seems to be that you can’t encounter God.

No it isn't. It is that I currently have no belief in God so cannot engage with God.

[Nearly Sane]

I would ask whether time travel is fundamental or ultimate in all domains of human experience. It obviously fails the test.

By uttermost I mean within your own intellectual capabilities.

I love the ins and outs of the science of time travel but there is no way I am going to solve it.

By stating that god is fundamental or ultimate in all domains of human experience, you're begging the question.

[jeremyp]

There's always the possibility that there is a god, but the evidence of its existence is zero. There may be a god that is hidden from us, but that's functionally equivalent to no god as far as I am concerned, so while I acknowledge the possibility of God, I come to the tentative conclusion that I may as well not believe in it and get on with my life.

However, I an 100% certain that the Christian god doesn't exist.