Why agnosticism?

[MoeFaux]

errr...

I was not referring to particular tastes (among 4 billion people, chances are that some will like the smell of fart- disclaimer- I´m not one of them.

After not reading this thread for days, it's nice to come back and see that we're addressing such pressing matters.
Yes, there are plenty of people who have a fetish for this. Google it.

There is no god.
But, okay, if it's still being argued, there's no way to prove it either way. But, there is no god. We can go round and round on this. So you haven't made up your mind, or you've said, ◊◊◊◊ it, I'm not going to live my life wondering and I'm just going to pick a side. Good for you. But my mind is made up until I'm shown proof otherwise.

 

[uruk]

But you suppose the actual qualia (the odor of the fart) is created ex nihilo by the recipient. You do realise the scientific story need not depict a literal state of affairs?

Possibly, But without the anal eminations, there would be no "ex nihilo" as it were. Since our bodies are physical (exist in this universe) and the various processes are governed by the laws of physics and follow cause and effect (in the macro sense) you need a phyisical stimulus to generate the cognition.

If you had never smelled the rectal bouquet of a good ripper, then you could only assume and imagine what one smelled like.
Others could describe it to you, (egg-like or sewer-like) that is, to refrence to what has been already experienced. You've created
an "image" based on stimulus that was previously physicaly experienced.

It isn't untill you actually experiance that full bodied, piquant
gastric arouma, by having those complex molecules assault your olfactory nodes, does it become a reality and fully formed in your mind.

I believe that the quality or the experiance or the neural connection patterns formed in our brain is the direct result or response of a physical interaction. We can "build" an "experiance" which never took place but it has to be based
or refrenced on what has been previously, physicaly experianced

Any image we have of god will always be based on whatever we have experianced. ( god is anthropomorfic, god is a creator, god is male, god is female, god has emotions, god has form, ) That is one reason I belive any concept of god we can come come with will be an incorrect one. God is completely outside our experiance
and as a result we have no "frame of referene" to describe him.

It's impossible to deal with. Physics by definition cannot explain why the Universe came into being because physics only deals with the physical ie once the Universe is already there.

I agree with you there. Hawking wrote that "we have a good understanding of what happened in the first femto seconds of big bang. but we no frame work to describe what went on before". (not an exact quote, but thats the idea. For futher reading, check out his books) And I go to further to say that the same applies to any concept of god.

Right, if I translate this correctly this means you agree with me.

I agree, if you mean that the universe does not necessarily have to have been "created" by a creator.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Logic has nothing to do with experience.

Zeno's Arrow - first the arrow has to travel half the distance, then half that, etc., to infinity, therefore the arrow never reaches its target.

That's Logic.

Experience tells us that arrows hit their targets like a mofo. (Some of them miss, I know - that's irrelevant)

Now, having said that, it has logically been proven both that you should believe in God, and that you should not believe in God.

Sagan did the 'should not' on his show Cosmos. "There is the assertion that God has been here forever - why not just save a step and say that the universe has been here forever?" is more or less what he said.

I don't know who proved the 'should', but it reads more like bet hedging than cause. Nonetheless, it's something like:
Don't believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Don't believe in God - God exists - death leads to hell.
Believe in God - God exists - death leads to heaven.

So if you don't believe in God, the best that can happen is nothing and the worst is hell. If you believe, the best that can happen is heaven and the worst is nothing.

Therefore, you should believe in God.

Both are valid arguments. Basically only one can be true. So again, logic has nothing to do with experience.

However, it is not known whether God exists. At best, it can only be believed that God exists. Not only that, but then there is a question of WHICH God exists.

Agnosticism seems like the most all-encompassing position to have, especially agnosticism without religion. Any position that incorporates the most viewpoints is by my reckoning the best one.

I choose Agnosticism.

 

[MoeFaux]

Experience tells us that arrows hit their targets like a mofo.

Making reference to me?

 

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

What do you think about it,agnosticism?
Using a dictionary definition,an agnostic would state that "the existence of a God cannot be either accepted or denied".I can see how one could have a problem with this definition though,and there appears to be variations of it.
Biologist Thomas Huxley,as a famous example of an agnostic,gave us the idea of "not being able to know",while "not necessarily believing" (these are not really direct quotes).
Where philosopher Herbert Spencer felt that there will be things outside of human mind´s reach,Darwin (probable agnostic) thought that the whole issue goes beyond one´s intellect.
So,I wonder,why agnosticism? I think there are agnostics lurking around to offer their thoughts.
In a way it appears that agnosticism has logical edge in that it it appears true that the issue we are dealing with is often untestable unless predictions are made (on this ground,we can perhaps,more easily put to rest a God or two) and in that a solid one.But why should one assume this position,why not simply disbelieve? As for me,I think fairly highly of agnosticism,but I find no reason to entertain it myself,so far.
Responses of all kinds are appreciated.Thank you.

If you can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist. How can you then test a God or 2?

Is agnosticism, 'A sitting on the fence' type of philosophy?

I don't believe there is a God/s but I can't prove he/she/it/them aren't out there. Would it be that I have a closed mind being an atheist?

Where as an agnostic has their own personal views, but leaves the field open to other possibilities?

 

[SFB]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
However, it is not known whether God exists. At best, it can only be believed that God exists. Not only that, but then there is a question of WHICH God exists. ....

Yes, not only that but religions can be viewed as explanations for human experiences. These explanations make sense to me. Religions themselves do not. Take merely the many contradictions within them, let alone the fact one must drop all common sense about what we observe to be true, and believe in something we otherwise would not.

 

[69dodge]

Re: Necessary versus arbitrary

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
If this world was artificially created rather than arising out of blind logical necessity, there should be markers of it.

You seem to assume that there are only two choices:

1. there is only one logically possible world, and our world is it, or
2. our world was created by a creator.[/list=1]It seems obvious to me there are many different worlds that are all logically possible. But it is still not obvious to me that our world had a creator. Perhaps our world simply happens to exist, and the many other logically possible worlds happen not to exist.

 

[Correa Neto]

Nonetheless, it's something like:
Don't believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Believe in God - God doesn't exist - death is the end.
Don't believe in God - God exists - death leads to hell.
Believe in God - God exists - death leads to heaven.

One could also add:
Don't believe in God - God exists - death is the end.
Believe in God - God exists - death is the end.

I don´t see why the existence of god necessarily imply on the existence of an afterlife, unless you stick with the definitions of god that are given by religions.

 

[Cinorjer]

Logic has nothing to do with experience.

Zeno's Arrow - first the arrow has to travel half the distance, then half that, etc., to infinity, therefore the arrow never reaches its target.

That's Logic.

I'm not using mathematic or symbolic logic - that isn't the only definiton of the term, you know. Those logic games start with a premise and ask you to reach a conclusion based only on the premise. Given that for x amount of time an arrow only travels halfway to its goal, then by solving that equation you conclude the arrow never reaches it's goal. But the logic of experience: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration", tells you that in fact, arrows do indeed, in reality, reach their goal. Logical reasoning tells you the example isn't a valid description of reality, that there's something wrong with the equation. This is not intuition (I hate that term), but using logic to reach conclusions based on our demonstrated experience.

If you start with the premise that there is a God, then you still need to further define its attributes before you can logically draw any conclusions about it. But that sort of thing is nothing but word games. As a Minister once told me, when I said I was an atheist: "Tell me what sort of God you don't believe in. I probably don't believe in it, either."

 

[Bazza]

Agnostics are essentially fence sitters - they are hedging their bets by not committing one way or another. Unfortunately for them a vengeful god would whip their butts to hell with the atheists (Can't I have purgatory instead cries the Agno!!)

A smart Agno may as well profess a belief & if there is a God he is allocated his 2 square metres & polished harp!! If he's wrong what the heck? He's manure like the rest of us (including the fundamentalists!!)

Isn't that what religion is about? Covering your own butt!

The sad thing for us Athos is that if we are right, big deal we can't say Ha Ha - told you so!!! If the Christians are right, well we've got some harrassing coming our way, although I suspect God would turn off the BBQ cookers & tell us to come on up for a beer after a couple of million years. Isn't he about forgiveness?

I am confident that God was a creation of humans & not vice-versa therefore won't fence sit, but to quote Irish comedian Dave Allen " I don't believe in God, but I'm not against a death bed repentance - there's nothing like a bit of insurance on the way out!!"

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Agnostics are essentially fence sitters - they are hedging their bets by not committing one way or another.

Huxley's agnosticism was (and is) a sound methodological foundation for atheism.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Fact: Atheists are atheists because they like feeling special knowing that they were that one sperm that made it will all of the sperm that men produce and go through instead of being pre-selected. It's a great feeling knowing that you beat all those billions of other sperm sort of like winning the loto!



@!

 

[SFB]

Fact: Atheists are atheists because they like feeling special knowing that they were that one sperm that made it will all of the sperm that men produce and go through instead of being pre-selected. It's a great feeling knowing that you beat all those billions of other sperm sort of like winning the loto!



@!

Care to expand on your statements? Frankly they don't make a lick of sense (to me). What's this about sperm that "go through instead of being pre-selected"? If you are against atheists in what way were you "pre-selected"? How can a sperm be singled out from others?

Are you serious? Or am I missing something here?

And is it billions or millions???

ACCKKKKKK!

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Care to expand on your statements? Frankly they don't make a lick of sense (to me). What's this about sperm that "go through instead of being pre-selected"? If you are against atheists in what way were you "pre-selected"? How can a sperm be singled out from others?

Are you serious? Or am I missing something here?

And is it billions or millions???

ACCKKKKKK!

There are many sperm that guys produce and go through I don't think that is questionable.

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?t...arehous/articles/wh_20030827p192_testicle.asp
"An average pair of testicles can produce 150 million sperm in one day, and can store up to about two billion sperm at a time. Guys, just think about that the next time someone says you're not being productive!"

Atheists like the feeling of being that one sperm who beat all the other sperm, if it was another sperm that made it instead the one you developed from then it wouldn't have been "you" who was born. If something like re-incarnation was true it would be a 1:1 chance because nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it. Like I said given those chances it's a good feeling kind of like winning the lotto!

 

[SFB]

There are many sperm that guys produce and go through I don't think that is questionable.

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?t...arehous/articles/wh_20030827p192_testicle.asp
"An average pair of testicles can produce 150 million sperm in one day, and can store up to about two billion sperm at a time. Guys, just think about that the next time someone says you're not being productive!"

Atheists like the feeling of being that one sperm who beat all the other sperm, if it was another sperm that made it instead the one you developed from then it wouldn't have been "you" who was born. If something like re-incarnation was true it would be a 1:1 chance because nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it. Like I said given those chances it's a good feeling kind of like winning the lotto!

"If something like re-incarnation was true..."

Well, there's no evidence for anything similar to reincarnation.

"ecause nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it."

Umm... come again? Perhaps you should expound a bit more, I don't get it.

Are you a fatalist?

I don't follow, nor agree with your assessment of atheists.

You seem to say some humans are ingrained, fated, to be atheists. If this is your stance, please provide an argument for it.

 

[MoeFaux]

Dude, that's whack.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Well, there's no evidence for anything similar to reincarnation.

You may be right but I don't know!

"ecause nomatter which sperm made it your the same consciousness would enter the body regarless of which of the millions of sperm made it."

Umm... come again? Perhaps you should expound a bit more, I don't get it.

If re-incarnation was true it would not matter which sperm made it to the egg. Your consciousness would have existed before that so it would not matter which sperm made it, the same consciousness will occupy the body therefore the sperm that makes it to the egg is irrelevant. If there is no re-incarnation/afterlife then it would not be the same "you" that exists now if another sperm had fertilized the egg, so you beat millions (probably billions) of sperm to that egg. If those stats are right it's about 150 million sperm produced a day but times x number of days that a guy lives. Just look at the chances of you being that one sperm that made it to fertilize the egg. Use the Occam's razor on the stats for both sides!

Are you a fatalist?

No, I'm a blainetologist.

I don't follow, nor agree with your assessment of atheists.

I'm not even being serious there but I have a point with the chances compared to re-incarnation!

You seem to say some humans are ingrained, fated, to be atheists. If this is your stance, please provide an argument for it.

I don't think that.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Dude, that's whack.

 

[Titus Rivas]

A very late reply

69dodge:

Originally posted by Titus Rivas:
If this world was artificially created rather than arising out of blind logical necessity, there should be markers of it.You seem to assume that there are only two choices:

1. there is only one logically possible world, and our world is it, or
2. our world was created by a creator.

It seems obvious to me there are many different worlds that are all logically possible. But it is still not obvious to me that our world had a creator. Perhaps our world simply happens to exist, and the many other logically possible worlds happen not to exist.

Perhaps, yes, but my point was that IF this world was created it would be different from what it would be IF it was not created.

Best wishes,

Titus

 

[Titus Rivas]

Another very late reply

Another late reply, to Adam this time:

The first sentence is how I would characterize Atheism, I agree that an Atheist thinks they know it is reasonable not to believe in any Gods. But this doesn't mean that they know there is no Gods.

I'm an Atheist, I don't think it's reasonable to claim I know there is no God(s).

So I agree that an Atheist claims to know something, but not that there is no God(s), only that it is rational to not believe in any God(s). [with a disclaimer that the reason it's rational in my experience is a lack of evidence, if someone has experienced evidence of God(s) it's different]

Okay, you're right about this. Atheism may be of two types: absolute atheism, which claims it has been absolutely proven that there can be no God, and parsimonious atheism which just holds there is as of yet no conclusive evidence for the existence of a God.

I believe such a philosophical position is possible of course, but I don't think I've ever heard it said it was the theist philosophical position.

As far as I know it would be the theist position within the philosophy of religion.

But I don't think it really matters, it's probably just usage, and usage varies across territories. Did you know there are a fair number of people on these boards that were taught 'W' is sometimes a vowel, in the same way 'Y' is? I'd never heard of that before!

No, I didn't know. I did know however that the W evolved from two Vs which were originally pronounced as oo in Latin as V en U was really the same letter in the Latin alphabet.

I'm really surprised by that one though! How would a deist claim to know this? The situation of the world is exactly the same whether he's right or wrong, what is his reasoning for knowing a Deist position to be the case?? Subjective revelation?

Not at all, a deist does hold that there are plenty of signs in the natural world that it was created. Remember that deism was formulated in the days of the French Encyclopedia, long before contemporary evolutionar biology or cosmology.

Just curious. I've met only two people who called themselves a Deist, one is on this board (Joshua) and the other was in RL. I've not asked Josh, but the guy I met in school certainly didn't think he 'knew' Deism was true, he was in philosophy also.

Then why is he a Deist?

Kind regards,

Titus