Agnosticism - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Rotten · #46 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Reading the Santa post from Mark, and thinking about a post I made earlier, gives me an idea for an atheist/agnostic distinction.

Consider the differences in the average adults "belief" (or lack thereof) in Santa verses his "belief" (or lack thereof) in extra-terrestrials.

I think most of us believe, with some definite conviction, that Santa Clause (meaning a "jolly old elf" who lives at the North Pole and delivers presents via reindeer to good little girls and boys) does NOT exist.
Not only do we lack suitable conviction that he is real, we have considerable conviction that he is not.
It is notable that, at some point, someone probably told us "Santa does not really exist". We came to accept that statement as being true.

On the other hand, most people I know have no definite convictions about the existence of aliens. Some think they "probably exist", others that they "probably don't", but few people feel anywhere near the level of certainty they feel about the existence of Santa Clause.
We lack suitable conviction that such aliens are real, but we also lack suitable conviction that they are not.
If someone told us, "Extra-terrestrials do not exist" we'd be unlikely merely to accept it as true, and more likely to ask "How can you possibly know that?"

Atheism, I think, takes a perspective on God much as we do on Santa. If absolutely pushed to the limit, we would admit that, technically, one cannot logically prove that something doesn't exist; so absolute certainty is out of the question. But, none-the-less, we feel generally certain that he isn't real.
Agnosticism takes the perspective on God much as we do on extra-terrestrials. No strong convictions one way or another, no certain agreement to either the statement "They exist" or to the statement "They do not exist." And perhaps also a general indifference and an acceptance that we may, or may not, one day figure it out.

Thoughts?

I knew this distinction would come... I certainly am agnostic when it comes to aliens, but that's because that can be proven, and we know how. There's actually even a formula to count them; one missing data of course. I'd wait to make an opinion on that (believing or not) until we've come further in our exploration of the universe.

However, God certainly is a different question... as God probably doesn't hang out on Uranus or Jupiter... God might exist in some kind of trancendal world, which itself is unprovable. When/if we can prove God is impossible for us to know.

Dilettante · #47 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten

I knew this distinction would come... I certainly am agnostic when it comes to aliens, but that's because that can be proven, and we know how. There's actually even a formula to count them; one missing data of course. I'd wait to make an opinion on that (believing or not) until we've come further in our exploration of the universe.

But surely that's similar to the question of God. It makes me think of this section from the OP (replace God with "aliens" and so forth and it still holds):

Quote:

From the OP:
3. When it comes to the existence God, this is a reasonable stand. God has not yet proven himself to us, therefore there isn't any positive reason to believe in him.

4. However, when it comes to the non-existence of God, it makes no sense. What kind of proofs are you waiting for? How can an atheist ever prove to you, more than now, that God does not exist? If God doesn't exist, we won't get any more proofs of his non-existence than we already have. That, as the idea is laughable, as each arguement against God is answered with an ad hoc arguement ad infinitum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten

However, God certainly is a different question... as God probably doesn't hang out on Uranus or Jupiter... God might exist in some kind of trancendal world, which itself is unprovable. When/if we can prove God is impossible for us to know.

But that's pure agnosticism, isn't it?

Quote:

From the OP:
Agnosticism - The belief that God's existence can not be known. Weak agnosticism have the lack of belief in finding the answer. Strong agnostics know that the question can not be answered.

SMadsen · #48 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten

I certainly am agnostic when it comes to aliens, but that's because that can be proven, and we know how.

Emphasis mine.

I am forced to be an agnostic towards the question of the existence of divinity. I cannot know. Ever. If something appeared before me, claimed to be divinity and performed something that divinity is said to do, for example, grabbing my rib (ouch!) and creating a woman, I'd say (after running low on the obligatory sexist jokes), "Hey, there's something I didn't know could be done. Cool!"
In other words, it would either be an illusion or it would be a perfectly natural phenomenon since it happened before my very eyes in the very world where I claim to exist. It could even have been one of the extra-terrestrials that Dilettante mentioned, one with a level of knowledge and technology that humans hadn't even begun to imagine in even the most hard-core science fiction magazine, yet perfectly natural nonetheless.

There can't be any evidence of the existence of divinity. There can only be faith. So agnosticism doesn't exist because there's an expectation of evidence. It exists because of the acknowledgement that evidence of whatever one is agnostic towards can never exist.

Captain Trips · #49 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Cap'n, me pal, you're a lot of groovy things. Humble ain't one of 'em.

So you say

Your opinion of me from what I post on an internet forum can be considered by you (and others) using your own judgement(s).

And I don't know about groovy either :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Being a theist (and not a weak one, BTW), one CAN know God's voice. Look at creation. Nothing more, nothing less. No dogma needed. No ideology needed. No politics needed. No proselytizing needed. Just observation & common sense.

I THINK I know what you're saying. You use plain language. But I'm so used to plain language and simple SEEMING statements being used, only as baits, that I'll only agree with you because of my own personal past experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

For a good synopsis, read Paine's Age of Reason. Hell, you can read it in its entirety for free here:

The Age of Reason

Call it the "Deist Holy Book" if you'd like. . .

I'll have a look eventually. Thanks.

Captain Trips · #50 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, being a strong Deist, I still have moments of doubt. Sometimes, that bit of revelation I have received (looking deep into the cosmos via my neighbor's kick-ass telescope, for example) begins to fade a bit. Then, along comes the birth of a child. Or the death of a loved one. Or an unexplainable (and almost unbelievable) coincidence. There is an order to the universe. But one must revel in it constantly to keep it fresh.

I think this explains weekly (or more) religious observances. It's how the faithful keep up their faith. I can respect that (though I cannot understand it). The only problem I have with religion at all (and I recognize that it's not the point of this thread, so I'll make the statement & move on quickly) is those who would intermingle their beliefs into secular governance.

Very nicely stated. It makes me wonder if I'm really agnostic. I don't know. There I go saying I don't know again

Like you said:

There is an order to the universe.

An order that must be ignored or dismissed by some to support their OWN faith (yes, it IS a faith).

This order just arranged itself by CHANCE or dumb luck they would have us believe. It is the way it is because it is the way it is. It's here because it's here. Now we don't have to think about it anymore. Life is short and only about collecting as many pleasurable experiences as you can (hedonism).

iTaliAN_ICe · #51 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Agnostic isn't a necessary term. Everybody is an agnostic; nobody has seen actual proof of a god's existence. Belief is blind faith, like it or not. Nonbelief is more pessimistic blind faith rooted in logic with a stronger scientific backing, at least presently. Until existence is proven or disproved, which I cannot imagine, everyone will be "agnostic". I do not believe in a god, but if someone asked me to prove that there was no God, I couldn't. Same thing if I did believe in a God. I still consider myself an atheist instead of an agnostic.

Captain Trips · #52 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

Agnostic isn't a necessary term. Everybody is an agnostic; nobody has seen actual proof of a god's existence.

Maybe all these terms and words cloud and confuse this issue for people. Especially if different people have different views on the meanings of these terms and words (see below).

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

Belief is blind faith, like it or not. Nonbelief is more pessimistic blind faith rooted in logic with a stronger scientific backing, at least presently. Until existence is proven or disproved, which I cannot imagine, everyone will be "agnostic". I do not believe in a god, but if someone asked me to prove that there was no God, I couldn't. Same thing if I did believe in a God. I still consider myself an atheist instead of an agnostic.

You say that you don't beleive in a God. But the way I'M reading what you say, especially:

...but if someone asked me to prove that there was no God, I couldn't. Same thing if I did believe in a God.

Makes it look like you're admitting that the possibility exists that there IS a God even though you may not presently BELIEVE in a God.

Which suggests you know that you DON'T or CAN'T know right now.

Which to ME speaks agnostic, which means "I don't know."

Which will probably only lead us BACK to:

Maybe all these terms and words cloud and confuse this issue for people. Especially if different people have different views on the meanings of these terms and words (see above).

Rotten · #53 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Emphasis mine.

I am forced to be an agnostic towards the question of the existence of divinity. I cannot know. Ever. If something appeared before me, claimed to be divinity and performed something that divinity is said to do, for example, grabbing my rib (ouch!) and creating a woman, I'd say (after running low on the obligatory sexist jokes), "Hey, there's something I didn't know could be done. Cool!"
In other words, it would either be an illusion or it would be a perfectly natural phenomenon since it happened before my very eyes in the very world where I claim to exist. It could even have been one of the extra-terrestrials that Dilettante mentioned, one with a level of knowledge and technology that humans hadn't even begun to imagine in even the most hard-core science fiction magazine, yet perfectly natural nonetheless.

There can't be any evidence of the existence of divinity. There can only be faith. So agnosticism doesn't exist because there's an expectation of evidence. It exists because of the acknowledgement that evidence of whatever one is agnostic towards can never exist.

I was waiting for you to join in on the discussion.

That bolded thing there - how can you know that? I can say "You can not say for sure that God can not be proven" The evidence that might exists might need to be "triggered" by God to be proven to us. If we can't imagine the proofs for Gods existence it doesn't need to mean they don't exist, just our lack of imagination.

Let's use aliens - you probably agree that aliens can be proven (if they exist of course). Which means, we might explore the universe and find no other life, or signs thereof. Then, what could be that thing messing with your rib? I can also do the other way around - God could pretend to an alien, thus concealing himself.

Rotten · #54 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Maybe all these terms and words cloud and confuse this issue for people. Especially if different people have different views on the meanings of these terms and words (see below).

You say that you don't beleive in a God. But the way I'M reading what you say, especially:

...but if someone asked me to prove that there was no God, I couldn't. Same thing if I did believe in a God.

Makes it look like you're admitting that the possibility exists that there IS a God even though you may not presently BELIEVE in a God.

Which suggests you know that you DON'T or CAN'T know right now.

Which to ME speaks agnostic, which means "I don't know."

Which will probably only lead us BACK to:

Maybe all these terms and words cloud and confuse this issue for people. Especially if different people have different views on the meanings of these terms and words (see above).

Cogito Ergo Sum - You can't know anything (except that you exist).

There's nothing in atheism that says you can't have an open mind for God. Atheism is afterall non-belief, and have no dogmas. I can't know that next time I drop a rock, it'll fall to the ground - there's no logic in that. But each time I have dropped a rock, it has fallen to the ground, and I've never heard of anyone experienced it flying away. But do you think it is unreasonable of me to believe that next time I drop a rock it will fall to the ground?

Mark_Twain · #55 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

So you say

Your opinion of me from what I post on an internet forum can be considered by you (and others) using your own judgement(s).

And I don't know about groovy either :-)

Just me messin' w/you a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

I THINK I know what you're saying. You use plain language. But I'm so used to plain language and simple SEEMING statements being used, only as baits, that I'll only agree with you because of my own personal past experience.

Much like Paine, I try to use the plainest language available for the greatest level of comprehension by the vast majority of villagers.

No bait here. Pure & utter sincerity on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

I'll have a look eventually. Thanks.

You'll enjoy Paine. A quick read. And plain language.

Captain Trips · #56 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Just me messin' w/you a bit.

I wondered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Much like Paine, I try to use the plainest language available for the greatest level of comprehension by the vast majority of villagers.

As do I. The best teachers are those who can communicate and teach their ideas and skills to ANYONE. But no, I'm not a teacher. Except I am raising a one year old and a 3 year old :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

No bait here. Pure & utter sincerity on my part.

You'll enjoy Paine. A quick read. And plain language.

Ok. I saved the link and will get to it eventually.

Captain Trips · #57 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten

Cogito Ergo Sum - You can't know anything (except that you exist).

There's nothing in atheism that says you can't have an open mind for God.

This seems to be a matter of opinion. Some atheists will tell us that there is no God to have an open mind FOR, so there's no POINT to "having an open mind for God. There's no point wasting time and thought energy on such foolish things."

This is the attitude by some atheists which leads me to call their brand of atheism a faith on the same level as Christianity is a faith. Sort of a narcissistic hedonism.

But, like I was saying earlier:

...all these terms and words cloud and confuse this issue for people. Especially if different people have different views on the meanings of these terms and words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten

Atheism is afterall non-belief, and have no dogmas. I can't know that next time I drop a rock, it'll fall to the ground - there's no logic in that. But each time I have dropped a rock, it has fallen to the ground, and I've never heard of anyone experienced it flying away. But do you think it is unreasonable of me to believe that next time I drop a rock it will fall to the ground?

No, it's not unreasonable for you to believe that next time you drop a rock it will fall to the ground. The reality you inhabit and are a part of, makes it perfectly justified and reasonable for you to beleive that the forces of gravity will consistently apply every day for as long as humans have been writing about, studying and recording such events and phenomena.

But, you ARE right. You cannot KNOW that the next time you let go of a rock it will fall straight down to the ground. It might zig zag or make an S pattern on it's way down. It might transform into fudge before it hits the ground. These things have never been observed by anyone I know of (that wasn't under the effect of some mind altering substances), so they seem very unlikely.

Just as a God may seem unlikely to some. Then there is the saying:

The truth is stranger than fiction.

Captain Trips · #58 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

The Age Of Reason - Part I

Abso-freakin'-lutely.

I like it so far :-)

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Key words: ...appear to me.

I think he's right for the most part. I wouldn't be so sure of it's truthfulness as a blanket statement though.

Infidelity .... consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

Sounds right.

Captain Trips · #59 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

Very interesting. Thanks for the read. I'll be at it awhile probably LOL

Captain Trips · #60 (**permalink**) 06-15-2007

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?

Is it just me, or does this seem like what we're seeing a bit of today ? I guess this would be nothing new though. It just seems to be becoming more common doesn't it ?