NationStates Jolt Archive

This is becoming popular:

Heres a theory I heard to explain that atheism is a belief.

Say there is a box which cannot be opened. One person says to three other people that there is something inside that box, another person says to the three other people that there isn't something inside that box. Without any evidence whatsoever, person A believes there is something inside that box. Person B believes that there is nothing in the box, however cannot prove this either. Person C does not believe anything because he does not know and has chosen not to decide that he knows whats in the box.

Person A represents the religious types, who believe there is a God allthough he can't prove this. Person B obviously represents the athiest who chooses to believe that there is not a God, allthough he can't prove this. Much like a religion, because he claims that he knows weather God exists or not. Often people will change their lifestyle to live by this Ideal, often they will not (again much like a religion). However person C realises that he can not know weather there is, or isn't something inside this box and so does not believe anything, exactly like the agnostic. That is why being agnostic is the only sensible way to live.

No, and it's not an anti-religion. It's simply a lack of belief in any form of deity.

Also, yes, Agnosticism is the truest of the mindsets, for simple lack of real proof on either side. No-one can tell me that they're religious or atheistic and have never had a twinge of sympathy or understanding or doubt, viz the other side of the argument. Not and have me believe them anyway.:p

No, and it's not an anti-religion. It's simply a lack of belief in any form of deity.

It's still a belief. And i didn't say it is an anti-religion.

One can be atheist and agnostic you know? Or theist and agnostic.

AUuugh! Now it's a whole topic!

I'd say A believes there's something there, B doesn't agree for some reason (or no reason at all), and C doesn't exist.

Atheist doesn't mean to Believe there's no god, it's to not believe there's a god. Agnostic doesn't not mean to believe nothing, that falls into Atheist. Agnostic is to believe a god is unknowable, or can't be proven one way or the other. You can be an agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic is a seperate kind of philosophy from Theist/Atheist, and is not some kind of middle ground between the two.

It's still a belief. And i didn't say it is an anti-religion.
No, I was just anticipating other things. Teh question was whether it was a religion. I'm not necessarily endorsing it, or anything.

Schroedingers cat (the thought experiment upon which yours is based) and probability waves aside, the problem with the TITLE of your thread is that atheism is NOT a religion.

religion
n.
1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.

2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.


Atheism has none of that. The people in your experiment might also not be religious, as the BELIEF in God does not necessarily lead to worship or following a particular set of teachings any more than the lack of belief does. Don't confuse theism with religion, they are not the same, and so atheism is not a religion either.

One can be atheist and agnostic you know? Or theist.

Not really, you can think it's more likely that it isn't a god, but as soon as you become an athiest then your not agnostic.

One can be atheist and agnostic you know? Or theist and agnostic.
How's that?

The former is a statement of belief and the latter is a statement of doubt. They cannot exist together.

How's that?

The former is a statement of belief and the latter is a statement of doubt. They cannot exist together.

You can't doubt your beliefs? Or lack thereof? And Agnostic isn't about doubt.

Schroedingers cat (the thought experiment upon which yours is based) and probability waves aside, the problem with the TITLE of your thread is that atheism is NOT a religion.

religion
n.
1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.

2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.


Atheism has none of that. The people in your experiment might also not be religious, as the BELIEF in God does not necessarily lead to worship or following a particular set of teachings any more than the lack of belief does. Don't confuse theism with religion, they are not the same, and so atheism is not a religion either.

You could argue that in many cases, it falls into option 3.

You could argue that in many cases, it falls into option 3.

Eh? Elaborate for us please.

How's that?

The former is a statement of belief and the latter is a statement of doubt. They cannot exist together.
Yes they can. Agnostics are of the opinion that the existance of God can never be proven or disproven. An agnostic atheist would believe that there is no god, but would also accept that he/she does not know that for certain. Similarly for theists.

You can't doubt your beliefs? Or lack thereof? And Agnostic isn't about doubt.
Yes, but surely we're considering absolute moral stances here, rather than just the massive grey area of actual religious pratice/belief. Otherwise, one cannot really argue any decisive point here.

Not really, you can think it's more likely that it isn't a god, but as soon as you become an athiest then your not agnostic.

Well, not quite... an agnostic atheist would be a person who understands he does not KNOW whether there is a god or not, but chooses not to believe there is one. Just as a agnostic theist doesn't know, but believes there is. And a pure agnostic doesn't know, and doesn't care either way.

Frankly, for my money, agnostic atheist is the one that makes the most sense.

Atheist doesn't mean to Believe there's no god, it's to not believe there's a god.

Thats the same thing. Whichever side you take, you are still believing something.


Agnostic doesn't not mean to believe nothing, that falls into Atheist. .

No, Atheism means to believe IN nothing.


Agnostic is to believe a god is unknowable, or can't be proven one way or the other. You can be an agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic is a seperate kind of philosophy from Theist/Atheist, and is not some kind of middle ground between the two.

Thats wrong, somebody show him the dictionary reference.

Egh. Whatev.:p I'm not going to get into semantics about this.

Not really, you can think it's more likely that it isn't a god, but as soon as you become an athiest then your not agnostic.
Why? No atheist can prove there isn't a god, so that atheist can't know if there is a god or not. As an atheist he/she believes that there isn't, but he/she does not know and as such is agnostic.

Yes they can. Agnostics are of the opinion that the existance of God can never be proven or disproven. An agnostic atheist would believe that there is no god, but would also accept that he/she does not know that for certain. Similarly for theists.

Pretty much the position I am in. I dont know there is no God, I just dont believe in a God.

IN fact, everyone who thinks about it should be an agnostic, whether they believe in a god or not. A Christian (for example) cannot know there is a god any more than an athiest can know there isnt.

Oh, and athiesm is not a religion. It is simply a belief that has nothing else tied up with it. It has no attached ideas that you should follow or believe, simply that there is no God. You could worship dragons, but still be an athiest, as long as you didnt think them gods.

Thats wrong, somebody show him the dictionary reference.
Actually I think that's right.

Yes, but surely we're considering absolute moral stances here, rather than just the massive grey area of actual religious pratice/belief. Otherwise, one cannot really argue any decisive point here.

You want absolute? Theism is the belief in a god, Atheism is anything and everything not Theism, Agnostic is "the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent".

Thats the same thing. Whichever side you take, you are still believing something.Not really. If you don't believe anything, you don't believe in a god, thus atheist.No, Atheism means to believe IN nothing.It means "Not Theism".

You could argue that in many cases, it falls into option 3.

How so? A religious order would be one in which the precepts of worship of a supernatural power are at the core. How does an atheist fall into that catagory? The atheist does not worship God because the atheist does not believe in God. That is the whole point.

Religion is worship of God. Atheisism is not worship of God. Atheism is not a religion. A=B, C=/=B so C=/=A. That is from Logic 101.

ag·nos·tic

1. a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something


Hope that clears some things up.

How so? A religious order would be one in which the precepts of worship of a supernatural power are at the core. How does an atheist fall into that catagory? The atheist does not worship God because the atheist does not believe in God. That is the whole point.

Religion is worship of God. Atheisism is not worship of God. Atheism is not a religion. A=B, C=/=B so C=/=A. That is from Logic 101.

So buddhism isn't a religion then, religion does not have to be centered around a devine power.

Hope that clears some things up.

*shrug* Not really, it's been said already. Even if you believe it's impossible to know, it doesn't stop you from believing (or not believing, I suppose). Agnosticism itself, however, isn't not believing.

So buddhism isn't a religion then, religion does not have to be centered around a devine power.

This is true. Buddhism would be 4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Hope that clears some things up.

Not really clearing things up, since it is pretty much what everyone here has been saying. But Agnosticism is a spectrum... you can be on either side of "I don't know" (well, you can also be in the middle).

That is, you can say "I don't know if there is a god, but I think there is." or "I don't know if there is a god, but I think there isn't". Both are agnostic, one is on the theist side, one on the atheist side.

I wouldn't call it, agnostic athiest though, that just sounds stupid.

So buddhism isn't a religion then, religion does not have to be centered around a devine power.
Depends which kind of buddhism we're talking about. Sorry. Said I'd backed out. Seirously though, I'm out now.

Say there is a box which cannot be opened. One person says to three other people that there is something inside that box, another person says to the three other people that there isn't something inside that box. Without any evidence whatsoever, person A believes there is something inside that box. Person B believes that there is nothing in the box, however cannot prove this either. Person C does not believe anything because he does not know and has chosen not to decide that he knows whats in the box.

Your analogy is flawed, since the existence of the box already implies the possibility of content. It s the purpose of the box to hold something.

There is no such rational reason to believe in a deity.

I wouldn't call it, agnostic athiest though, that just sounds stupid.

*shrug*Don't really care. Doesn't change what it is.

Your analogy is flawed, since the existence of the box already implies the possibility of content. It s the purpose of the box to hold something.

There is no such rational reason to believe in a deity.

Ahhh, but existance itself implies the possibility.

atheism is the lack of faith/belief in a higher being, and faith is the foundation of religion.

Ahhh, but existance itself implies the possibility.

Why ?

Why ?

It has to have come from something.

It has to have come from something.

Care to prove that?

It has to have come from something.
Again: why ?
And in addition: would it not be necessary to apply the same argument (had to come from something) to the Creator ?

Despite my distaste for the usually definition of agnosticism as simply being "You cannot know for sure" (which makes agnosticism meaningless), agnosticism is an epistemological statement, while atheism and religion are theological statements.

I would say that agnosticism would preclude one from making theological statements, but it seems that many atheists and theists want to claim the agnostic discription for their own.

Bastards.

I wouldn't call it, agnostic athiest though, that just sounds stupid.

In your opinion. There are a great many people who prefer to call themselves just that, "agnostic atheists", because they feel it best and most succinctly describes their personal beliefs. I am sure they will be heartbroken to hear that you think they sound stupid.

I would say that agnosticism would preclude one from making theological statements

And I would say it doesn't.

Care to prove that?

Care to proove that it comes from nothing? And now we have come back to square 1.

Care to proove that it comes from nothing? And now we have come back to square 1.

Why would I? You made the claim it had to come from something, I'm asking you to support it. When have I claimed it came from nothing?

In your opinion. There are a great many people who prefer to call themselves just that, "agnostic atheists", because they feel it best and most succinctly describes their personal beliefs. I am sure they will be heartbroken to hear that you think they sound stupid.

I prefer the term, doubtful agnostic.

I prefer the term, doubtful agnostic.

*shrug* I prefer the term "infinigon" for circles.

Your analogy is flawed, since the existence of the box already implies the possibility of content. It s the purpose of the box to hold something.

The existence of a box does not imply that there is something inside it, it only implies that there is a box. It is your association of box with contents that leads you to believe something is inside it.

The same goes for his analogy, our existence does not imply the existence of a creator, it is our repeated association of creation with conscious creator that leads to the belief in God.

In both situations there is a habitually formed association that is not a substitute for reason.

Why would I? You made the claim it had to come from something, I'm asking you to support it. When have I claimed it came from nothing?

You don't understand the point im trying to make do you, im not trying to argue about his existance or not.

You don't understand the point im trying to make do you, im not trying to argue about his existance or not.

Don't think I really care. You said it had to come from something. Support that claim.

And I would say it doesn't.

Yeah, you are one of the bastards.[/joking]

You dillute the term to worthlessness, and I have to add the word strong just so the word can have any meaning.

It has to have come from something.

Does it? Why should I believe that any more than I should believe there is something in your hypothetical box?

Does it? Why should I believe that any more than I should believe there is something in your hypothetical box?

You don't have to, i was just taking one viewpoint to show how it relates to the box argument and show that the argument isn't flawed.

You dillute the term to worthlessness, and I have to add the word strong just so the word can have any meaning.

*shrug* Hey, there's certainly people out there who aren't agonstic, quite a few right here on NS. Beside, I can tell what it means to people when they choose to refer to themselves as agnostic or atheist, when they're both. The one they say usually means more to them, and says more about their views. So it still has meaning.

No, and it's not an anti-religion. It's simply a lack of belief in any form of deity.

Also, yes, Agnosticism is the truest of the mindsets, for simple lack of real proof on either side. No-one can tell me that they're religious or atheistic and have never had a twinge of sympathy or understanding or doubt, viz the other side of the argument. Not and have me believe them anyway.:p

I guess no-one can really prove that flying pigs doesn't exist, either. With agnosticist logic, that means you can't deny the existence of flying pigs. With that kind of logic, we can hardly deny the existance of anything imaginable at all.

Agnosticism is anti-intellectual since it denies the pillars of science: Empirism!

I prefer the term, doubtful agnostic.

I would think that a doubtful agnostic would be someone who doesn't know if God exists, but is not sure if they are right or not. Which, if you think about it, doesn't really mean anything. I prefer the more precise term, agnostic atheist.

You seem to be trying to define agnostics as a group of people who claim not to know, but deep down in their hearts really DO believe in God. If not, doubtful agnostic could just as easily mean "I don't know if God exists, but I doubt that there is no God"

I guess no-one can really prove that flying pigs doesn't exist, either. With agnosticist logic, that means you can't deny the existence of flying pigs. With that kind of logic, we can hardly deny the existance of anything imaginable at all.

Agnosticism is anti-intellectual since it denies the pillars of science: Empirism!

You can proove that flying pigs can't exist though, their bodies would not support wings, it would never be able to evolve that way, and many other things. You can't prove h owever that existance came from nothing.

I would think that a doubtful agnostic would be someone who doesn't know if God exists, but is not sure if they are right or not. Which, if you think about it, doesn't really mean anything. I prefer the more precise term, agnostic atheist.

You seem to be trying to define agnostics as a group of people who claim not to know, but deep down in their hearts really DO believe in God. If not, doubtful agnostic could just as easily mean "I don't know if God exists, but I doubt that there is no God"

I don't claim anything i jumbled up my words. Maybe doubtful agnostic isn't such a good word but it's not important anyway!

You can proove that flying pigs can't exist though, their bodies would not support wings, it would never be able to evolve that way, and many other things. You can't prove h owever that existance came from nothing.

You'll never disprove Santa though! Ha! :D Yay Santa!

*shrug* Hey, there's certainly people out there who aren't agonstic, quite a few right here on NS. Beside, I can tell what it means to people when they choose to refer to themselves as agnostic or atheist, when they're both. The one they say usually means more to them, and says more about their views. So it still has meaning.

No one can reasonably make the claim that they truly know the existence of God.

There is no doubtless knowledge.

So when you say that agnosticism is the doubt of absolute knowledge, then you say that every individual in history was agnostic on every single issue.

You'll never disprove Santa though! Ha! :D Yay Santa!

Why would you need to disprove santa everyone knows he exists!!!!

It has to have come from something.
Why would existance have to come from something? Isn't existance what that something is? How could you have something exist before existance? Something cannot come from nothing, that is true... but something couldn't preceed everything before it exists. The universe has always been because all it can do is be everything that is. Anything outside of it is nothing and you are implying that god is an outside maker of existance. You are implying god is nothing, which makes sense.

No one can reasonably make the claim that they truly know the existence of God.

There is no doubtless knowledge.

So when you say that agnosticism is the doubt of absolute knowledge, then you say that every individual in history was agnostic on every single issue.

When have I said agnosticism is the doubt of absolute knowledge? In fact, I even said agnostic isn't about doubt. Agnostic is about considering the truth of claims unknowable. Not everyone considers the truth of every claim unknowable. Just look a our own Bible-O-Matic, Cornilieu. He considers the truth of the statment "God exists" knowable, and thinks it completely true. He may be wrong, but that doesn't change what he believes, which is a non-agnostic belief.

You can't prove h owever that existance came from nothing.

And you cant prove it couldnt have come from nothing, a similar situation with god, where you cannot prove he exists, and you cannot prove he doesnt exist.

And you cant prove it couldnt have come from nothing, a similar situation with god, where you cannot prove he exists, and you cannot prove he doesnt exist.

Thats my point.

Thats my point.

Oh right... thats ok then.

You can proove that flying pigs can't exist though, their bodies would not support wings, it would never be able to evolve that way, and many other things. You can't prove h owever that existance came from nothing.

Proof is not an option when speaking of God. It is entirely belief (or lack of belief) upon which the existence of God rests. As such, there is no real way to say that theism, atheism or agnosticism is the best way to go. Each is strictly a matter of opinion with nothing more than philosophy and personal belief to back it up.

Agnosticism is no better or worse than theism or atheism. It is merely a different way of looking at a metaphysical problem for which no concrete solution is possible.

Proof is not an option when speaking of God. It is entirely belief (or lack of belief) upon which the existence of God rests. As such, there is no real way to say that theism, atheism or agnosticism is the best way to go. Each is strictly a matter of opinion with nothing more than philosophy and personal belief to back it up.

Agnosticism is no better or worse than theism or atheism. It is merely a different way of looking at a metaphysical problem for which no concrete solution is possible.

But agnosticism acknowledges that there is no solution yet.

But agnosticism acknowledges that there is no solution yet.

It acknowledges that the answer is unknowable.

Why would existance have to come from something? Isn't existance what that something is? How could you have something exist before existance? Something cannot come from nothing, that is true... but something couldn't preceed everything before it exists. The universe has always been because all it can do is be everything that is.
...

Wow! I've never seen existence being put into perspective so profoundly!

*takes hat off and bows deeply*

When have I said agnosticism is the doubt of absolute knowledge? In fact, I even said agnostic isn't about doubt. Agnostic is about considering the truth of claims unknowable. Not everyone considers the truth of every claim unknowable. Just look a our own Bible-O-Matic, Cornilieu. He considers the truth of the statment "God exists" knowable, and thinks it completely true. He may be wrong, but that doesn't change what he believes, which is a non-agnostic belief.

Varying levels of knowability is largely the same as varying levels of doubt.

As I said, no one can make the claim to have complete knowledge of anything, and as such no one can reasonably make the claim that knowledge of God is fully knowable.

The errors of Corneliu's "non-agnostic belief" can be shown in probably two questions. At that point he must claim that he cannot be sure of knowledge of God, or take an unreasonable position.

Thanks. But it isnt my idea, you would have to thank Jean-Paul Sartre

Thanks. But it isnt my idea, you would have to thank Jean-Paul Sartre

Never mind, I don't actually own a hat anyway! :p

As I said, no one can make the claim to have complete knowledge of anything, and as such no one can reasonably make the claim that knowledge of God is fully knowable.

They can claim it, whether it's true or not, they can believe whatever they want.

The errors of Corneliu's "non-agnostic belief" can be shown in probably two questions. At that point he must claim that he cannot be sure of knowledge of God, or take an unreasonable position.

Oh really? Why don't you go ahead and try it then.

But agnosticism acknowledges that there is no solution yet.

First of all... yet? Does agnosticism think that someday there WILL be proof about God? I don't think that will ever be the case.

Secondly, it is a problem that does not require a solution. Metaphysics is all about the questions, questions that do not HAVE solutions. "Does God exist?" is one of those questions to which there is no one right answer. But there is no reason to prefer any one set of beliefs over any other. The atheist is right. There is no God. The theist is right. There is a God. The agnostic is merely someone who has a different answer to the question.

Of the three, there is one group that is religious, and that would be the theists (although not all of them are). The atheist and the agnostic have no need to be follow a religion (although for different reasons). If your beef is against religion, as your thread topic suggests, you have simply misunderstood the definition of religion. If your beef is against absolute beliefs (into which catagory both the atheist and the theist fall, but neither of which require religion) then you should have not dragged the idea of religion into it.

Why would existance have to come from something? Isn't existance what that something is? How could you have something exist before existance? Something cannot come from nothing, that is true... but something couldn't preceed everything before it exists. The universe has always been because all it can do is be everything that is. Anything outside of it is nothing and you are implying that god is an outside maker of existance. You are implying god is nothing, which makes sense.

Your theory is good but flawed. Why do you assume that everything outside our universe is nothing? How do you know there isn't more then one universe?

First of all... yet? Does agnosticism think that someday there WILL be proof about God? I don't think that will ever be the case.

Secondly, it is a problem that does not require a solution. Metaphysics is all about the questions, questions that do not HAVE solutions. "Does God exist?" is one of those questions to which there is no one right answer. But there is no reason to prefer any one set of beliefs over any other. The atheist is right. There is no God. The theist is right. There is a God. The agnostic is merely someone who has a different answer to the question.


Oh? So what would that make you then? It's funny that you can't tell me the "answer" that agnostics have, thats because they don't have an answer, like you, and me.

Replace "universe" with "existance" or "cosmos" I get tired or using the same words repeatedly. There is nothing outside of existance.. If there were something else is would be just that: something. The theory is that existance preceeds essence. You cannot have a meaning for existance preceeding the meanings existance. Existance is the most basic part of reality. God would have to be before he would have to be something. So there is no predetermined meaning of life, it is all just out there and you and I are the only ones giving anything meaning.

Replace "universe" with "existance" or "cosmos" I get tired or using the same words repeatedly. There is nothing outside of existance.. If there were something else is would be just that: something. The theory is that existance preceeds essence. You cannot have a meaning for existance preceeding the meanings existance. Existance is the most basic part of reality. God would have to be before he would have to be something. So there is no predetermined meaning of life, it is all just out there and you and I are the only ones giving anything meaning.

Technically, God is the universe.

Your theory is good but flawed. Why do you assume that everything outside our universe is nothing? How do you know there isn't more then one universe?

If we define universe as "all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole" then that would include everything that is. How can there be anything MORE than everything that is? Whatever that more might be, it is part of what is. If we define universe as "all matter and engery that travels through the same dimensions of space and time that we do" there may be a possibility of something else... but still no reason to think that what we experience, as well as all we don't, didn't always exist in some form.

Technically, you are an idiot. That really dosnt mean anything... If you replace the idea of everything with god, then that makes just as much sense as saying everything is cheese.. yes, that is what I believe- and you cannot deny it.. because really... its all just cheese /sarcasm

Technically, you are an idiot. That really dosnt mean anything... If you replace the idea of everything with god, then that makes just as much sense as saying everything is cheese.. yes, that is what I believe- and you cannot deny it.. because really... its all just cheese /sarcasm

That makes no sense. There are thousands of different deffinitions of God. One definition may say: why does god have to be outside of existance, he is just the beggining of existance.

Oh? So what would that make you then? It's funny that you can't tell me the "answer" that agnostics have, thats because they don't have an answer, like you, and me.

What difference could it possibly make what answer I think I have? If I have an answer, it is no more right or wrong than yours (and "I don't know" IS an answer, it is simply not an absolute one) or anyone elses. That is the point I am trying to make. You started off this thread with a value judgement about an issue where there are no concrete values.

If we define universe as "all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole" then that would include everything that is. How can there be anything MORE than everything that is? Whatever that more might be, it is part of what is. If we define universe as "all matter and engery that travels through the same dimensions of space and time that we do" there may be a possibility of something else... but still no reason to think that what we experience, as well as all we don't, didn't always exist in some form.

Ok but thats not really what a universe is.

Ok but thats not really what a universe is.

OK. What is a universe?

What difference could it possibly make what answer I think I have? If I have an answer, it is no more right or wrong than yours (and "I don't know" IS an answer, it is simply not an absolute one) or anyone elses. That is the point I am trying to make. You started off this thread with a value judgement about an issue where there are no concrete values.

Im showing that theists, and atheists think that they know something that they cannot know. Agnostics don't thats why they are better.

God cannot be the beginning, the fact that he exists would be the begining. And it wouldn't even be he or she or anything definable at that point. God wouldn't be god or anything meaningful. Just existance.

OK. What is a universe?

It's extremely complex, you need to look up the theory of relativity.

You can proove that flying pigs can't exist though, their bodies would not support wings, it would never be able to evolve that way, and many other things. You can't prove h owever that existance came from nothing.

Exactly so. You can only truly believe in reality. Reality is what can be directly verified with instumentation, be it artificial or our senses. However since the reality that we experience is merely one in an infinite amount of variations in the multiverse. Our perception of reality is merely one path through all probabilities.
For those who truly believe in a higher being, who have experienced things they attribute to a higher being, "god" as a force influenced their reality.Those who truly do not believe in "god" will have a reality influenced in other explainable ways. Either way reality is personal to each one of us. Our past experiences color how we will pecieve future experiences. "God" is real only if you want him to be.

I go with b.s. ;)

Its so hard to argue about god because there is this silly notion that it could be anything. People don't realize that that could lead to people saying "I am god" or "anything could be god" which basically is establishing that the notion of god is something with indeterminate properties. That makes god an impossibility.

Agnosticism is teh ridiculous.

Anyway its Two Scales!!

Theism....................Atheism
Gnostic....Agnostic....Gnostic

That makes no sense. There are thousands of different deffinitions of God. One definition may say: why does god have to be outside of existance, he is just the beggining of existance.

Why do you keep preaching theism? Each time it comes around, you come down on the side of defending the existance of God. Agnostically, there is no reason to think that the cheese theory has any less weight than the theory that God is the universe, which is a completely theist idea.

Personally, I think the cheese theory is full of holes, :D , but NoWrinkle Rubber DID put a /sarcasm at the end of the post to indicate that he/she thought so too.

Its so hard to argue about god because there is this silly notion that it could be anything. People don't realize that that could lead to people saying "I am god" or "anything could be god" which basically is establishing that the notion of god is something with indeterminate properties. That makes god an impossibility.

You could say that about many things, for the purpose of this discussion we are talking about a "creator".

Why do you keep preaching theism? Each time it comes around, you come down on the side of defending the existance of God. Agnostically, there is no reason to think that the cheese theory has any less weight than the theory that God is the universe, which is a completely theist idea.

Personally, I think the cheese theory is full of holes, :D , but NoWrinkle Rubber DID put a /sarcasm at the end of the post to indicate that he/she thought so too.

Again, you can proove that the universe isn't cheese because we know the chemical construct of cheese and can see it is not in anything else.

[QUOTE=That makes god an impossibility.[/QUOTE]

Bingo:)

Our consiousness of the world creates the world we live in.

They can claim it, whether it's true or not, they can believe whatever they want.

Oh really? Why don't you go ahead and try it then.

I have a feeling that Corneliu and those of his position will fall back on a position of ignoring doubt, rather than espousing the full knowability of God.

Im showing that theists, and atheists think that they know something that they cannot know. Agnostics don't thats why they are better.

You are on shaky ground there. There are millions of theists who will tell you that they have personally experienced God in their lives. Are they wrong? Can you prove it? If not, you have no support for your claim.

Likewise, athiests have their beliefs based on a complete lack of any proof at all. Can you show that they are incorrect in believing that with no credible proof, a thing does not exist? (Careful, remember your position on flying pigs... you can show me scientifically that they don't fly, but how about magically?)

Agnosticism is not better or worse, it is merely different. It makes more sense to YOU and that is a fine thing. But the Pope firmly believes that God ordained him to tell millions of Catholics what to do, and he is just as convinced of his right as you are and thinks you are just denying what he knows to be the truth. And the atheist who doesn't believe in any of that hooey that no one can provide empirical proof for is just as sure that his belief is the most correct and all of your waffling is so much nonsense.

Bingo:)

Our consiousness of the world creates the world we live in.

Thats nice... However thats false, it just creates our perception of reality.

Technically, you are an idiot. That really dosnt mean anything... If you replace the idea of everything with god, then that makes just as much sense as saying everything is cheese.. yes, that is what I believe- and you cannot deny it.. because really... its all just cheese /sarcasm

Now this is not coming from an expert on philosophy, but I believe Hegel argued that all of reality was the revealing of God's absolute mind to finite minds through the course of history.

I could say that the forces that make up the deterministic chain I believe in are God, and as such all of existence is an organic God.

Neither of those stances are particularly idiotic.

You can proove that flying pigs can't exist though, their bodies would not support wings

actualy, pigs could have wings, but they would have to be ENORMOUS. just like humans; if we got wings, they'd have to strecth out very far, so its possible, but unlikely. birds just have it easier because of their thin bones and baloon-like lungs.

It's extremely complex, you need to look up the theory of relativity.

Which means that the definition I provided might just as well stand during this discussion, unless you can provide a better one.

Our perception of reality is all we can base our beliefs about reality on. Considering current quantum string theory shows that our universe consists of 11 dimensions and we can only percieve 4, we are only capable of understanding a very small portion of "reality".

Thats nice... However thats false, it just creates our perception of reality.

What is your proof?

You are on shaky ground there. There are millions of theists who will tell you that they have personally experienced God in their lives. Are they wrong? Can you prove it? If not, you have no support for your claim.


No, thats the point of agnosticism, i do not claim that anyone is wrong, I just claim that they can not know even though they claim that they do know. You should be asking the theists if they can proove what they say.


Likewise, athiests have their beliefs based on a complete lack of any proof at all. Can you show that they are incorrect in believing that with no credible proof, a thing does not exist?


They still can not know.


Agnosticism is not better or worse, it is merely different. It makes more sense to YOU and that is a fine thing. But the Pope firmly believes that God ordained him to tell millions of Catholics what to do, and he is just as convinced of his right as you are and thinks you are just denying what he knows to be the truth. And the atheist who doesn't believe in any of that hooey that no one can provide empirical proof for is just as sure that his belief is the most correct and all of your waffling is so much nonsense.

Exactly, theists and atheists claim they know even though they can not know. Agnostics don't claim they can proove or disproove anything but they know its a possibility. They know only that they do not know. That means that they are being realistic and realise what is true unlike atheists who do not realise that they can not know (unless of course you think they can).

Heres a theory I heard to explain that atheism is a belief.

Say there is a box which cannot be opened. One person says to three other people that there is something inside that box, another person says to the three other people that there isn't something inside that box. Without any evidence whatsoever, person A believes there is something inside that box. Person B believes that there is nothing in the box, however cannot prove this either. Person C does not believe anything because he does not know and has chosen not to decide that he knows whats in the box.

Person A represents the religious types, who believe there is a God allthough he can't prove this. Person B obviously represents the athiest who chooses to believe that there is not a God, allthough he can't prove this. Much like a religion, because he claims that he knows weather God exists or not. Often people will change their lifestyle to live by this Ideal, often they will not (again much like a religion). However person C realises that he can not know weather there is, or isn't something inside this box and so does not believe anything, exactly like the agnostic. That is why being agnostic is the only sensible way to live.I'm coming to the discussion late, but I'm going to take some liberties with the opening analogy to explain my viewpoint on the matter.

I would say, with this analogy, it is not that you have Person A who believes "something" is in the box. It is that you have any number of Person A, say Persons A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, who generally have a *rather definite* idea of what is in the box. A1 may believe that there is a duck in the box, while A2 believes it is a goose and A3 believes it is a swan. A4 believes it is a badger (causing A1-3 to look at A4 a bit askance), while A5 the mystic does in fact believe that there is simply "something" inside the box.

Person C simply throws up his hands and says "we can't open the box, so I don't know if there is a duck/goose/swan/badger/something inside the box."

Person B says, "I can't open the box... but...." and then listens to the box. He hears no evidence of quacking, honking, or growling. The box, when lifted, seems to be around the same weight as he would expect for an empty box of that size and construction, and when shaken, doesn't make any noise from inside. He also notes that, unless there is a compressed air supply inside the box, the box wouldn't be a very *useful* way to contain a live animal.

Person B admits that he can't completely rule out the possibility of there being *something* inside the box, but everything he can observe is consistent with the box being empty -- and he is reasonably sure, unless someone is playing an elaborate prank on him, that there is NOT a duck, goose, swan, or badger inside.

In short, person B believes the box is empty not necessarily because it is an article of faith for him, but because it seems to be the simplest, most rational, and best theory to explain the box within the limits of his experience.

There may well be some atheists who believe, as an article of faith, that not only does the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc God/gods not exist, but that there is no God/gods/"spiritual force" in any sense. It is my experience though that many atheists simply find their experiences are consistent with the lack of any description of God they have heard. It is simpler to say, "it would seem there is no God," than to believe in a God which, to them, hides Himself so as to appear (within their experience) exactly as if He did not exist.

No, thats the point of agnosticism, i do not claim that anyone is wrong, I just claim that they can not know even though they claim that they do know. You should be asking the theists if they can proove what they say.

They still can not know.

Exactly, theists and atheists claim they know even though they can not know. Agnostics don't claim they can proove or disproove anything but they know its a possibility. They know only that they do not know. That means that they are being realistic and realise what is true unlike atheists who do not realise that they can not know (unless of course you think they can).

I am not looking for you to actually prove anything, as I have said repeatedly it is impossible to do so. What I am trying to show you is that all three points of view are based in the unprovable, but that no one of those points of view is necessarily better than any other. For agnosticism to be BETTER, it would have to be able to prove the other two wrong, which cannot be done. Agnosticism is not better, merely other.

You are free to passionately argue your point of view (as you have done) but it is disingenuous to claim it as a superior belief when it is only a different one.

I am not looking for you to actually prove anything, as I have said repeatedly it is impossible to do so. What I am trying to show you is that all three points of view are based in the unprovable, but that no one of those points of view is necessarily better than any other. For agnosticism to be BETTER, it would have to be able to prove the other two wrong, which cannot be done. Agnosticism is not better, merely other.

You are free to passionately argue your point of view (as you have done) but it is disingenuous to claim it as a superior belief when it is only a different one.

It would not need to prove that they are wrong, only that they can not no weather they are right or not. You seem to believe this, just out of interest are you Agnostic?

I'm coming to the discussion late, but I'm going to take some liberties with the opening analogy to explain my viewpoint on the matter.

I would say, with this analogy, it is not that you have Person A who believes "something" is in the box. It is that you have any number of Person A, say Persons A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, who generally have a *rather definite* idea of what is in the box. A1 may believe that there is a duck in the box, while A2 believes it is a goose and A3 believes it is a swan. A4 believes it is a badger (causing A1-3 to look at A4 a bit askance), while A5 the mystic does in fact believe that there is simply "something" inside the box.

Person C simply throws up his hands and says "we can't open the box, so I don't know if there is a duck/goose/swan/badger/something inside the box."

Person B says, "I can't open the box... but...." and then listens to the box. He hears no evidence of quacking, honking, or growling. The box, when lifted, seems to be around the same weight as he would expect for an empty box of that size and construction, and when shaken, doesn't make any noise from inside. He also notes that, unless there is a compressed air supply inside the box, the box wouldn't be a very *useful* way to contain a live animal.

Person B admits that he can't completely rule out the possibility of there being *something* inside the box, but everything he can observe is consistent with the box being empty -- and he is reasonably sure, unless someone is playing an elaborate prank on him, that there is NOT a duck, goose, swan, or badger inside.

In short, person B believes the box is empty not necessarily because it is an article of faith for him, but because it seems to be the simplest, most rational, and best theory to explain the box within the limits of his experience.

There may well be some atheists who believe, as an article of faith, that not only does the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc God/gods not exist, but that there is no God/gods/"spiritual force" in any sense. It is my experience though that many atheists simply find their experiences are consistent with the lack of any description of God they have heard. It is simpler to say, "it would seem there is no God," than to believe in a God which, to them, hides Himself so as to appear (within their experience) exactly as if He did not exist.

Briliant post, however person B has got a lot of proof that there is nothing inside that box. Atheists however have no proof thats why i might change the box to a sound proof box stuck to the floor.

Dolfor: very nice analogy. Although analogies can't perfectly describe a situation, that's pretty good.

So how is a belief "better" than another one? Just because a belief is correct doesn't mean it's "better" than another one. Let's say Person A believes that he's going be be hit by a bus tomorrow, and Person B believes that he will live a long and happy life. Which belief is better?

Now, what if Person A did get hit by a bus tomorrow? Now which belief is better?

What's I'm trying to show is that beliefs can't be "better" than another one. They can be "right" or "wrong", but not "better".

Hydesland: Why do you say Atheists have no proof?

It would not need to prove that they are wrong, only that they can not no weather they are right or not. You seem to believe this, just out of interest are you Agnostic?

It would have to prove that they cannot KNOW... which it also can't do. It is possible to prove they cannot PROVE something, but not that they cannot KNOW it. A person who hears God KNOWS that they do, but there is no proof...

My beliefs are not germane to the discussion which is why I try not to push them. I just like discussion for the sake of discussion. For the most part, I will take the atheist agnostic side if forced to play for one team or the other, but that is not necessarily what I actually believe.

It would not need to prove that they are wrong, only that they can not no weather they are right or not. In some sense one has to ask how can you Know-with-a-capital-K *anything*. (This is an ongoing issue in philosophy, for instance.)

The point isn't necessarily "do I KNOW that God does not exist" but rather, "is all of my experience consistent with the nonexistence of God? If so, then why postulate the existence of a God which has absolutely no observable effect within my experience?"

Briliant post, however person B has got a lot of proof that there is nothing inside that box. Atheists however have no proof thats why i might change the box to a sound proof box stuck to the floor.Technically, person B doesn't have PROOF that there is nothing in the box... but the evidence is very suggestive. He may have made faulty assumptions about the thickness or density or softness of the interior of the box. Even if his assumptions are not wildly out of whack, he can't definitively say there is NOTHING in the box (it could contain, say, a feather).

I would argue that in some sense we *can* perform some measurements upon the box. If the world seems to work entirely due to a complex set of physical laws, it seems that to postulate the existence of a God which hides inside of those laws (unless you believe that God *is* those laws, which is a different matter altogether) is utterly unnecessary.

Another way of arguing this viewpoint is to look at your latest version of the analogy, in which the box is known to be soundproofed and fixed to the floor. In this case, if there is no way the contents of the box can possibly be observed, inferred, or indeed have any effect on persons A1-5, B, and C, then person B may just simply say "It may as well be an empty box for all the effect it has on me -- even if it were filled with monkeys, the box doesn't have any effect on me that an empty one wouldn't have. Since the simplest theory to explain what is going on is as good as any other, I figure I'll just believe that one." If pressed on the issue, person B may admit that he doesn't KNOW that the box is empty, but will ask you whether there is any difference between an empty box and the inaccessible one sitting over there.

Person B says, "I can't open the box... but...." and then listens to the box. He hears no evidence of quacking, honking, or growling. The box, when lifted, seems to be around the same weight as he would expect for an empty box of that size and construction, and when shaken, doesn't make any noise from inside. He also notes that, unless there is a compressed air supply inside the box, the box wouldn't be a very *useful* way to contain a live animal.

...

There may well be some atheists who believe, as an article of faith, that not only does the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc God/gods not exist, but that there is no God/gods/"spiritual force" in any sense. It is my experience though that many atheists simply find their experiences are consistent with the lack of any description of God they have heard. It is simpler to say, "it would seem there is no God," than to believe in a God which, to them, hides Himself so as to appear (within their experience) exactly as if He did not exist.

Exactly, person B in your analogy is not testing the whether is actually something in the box, he is testing the opinions of the others.

This the essential problem with making arguments about God. All of our faculties for perception and understanding are natural, so how can they interact with something that is supernatural?

When person B shakes the box, he is testing for natural reactions, as that is all he can do, yet that is not sufficient for testing supernatural entities or forces.

In some sense one has to ask how can you Know-with-a-capital-K *anything*. (This is an ongoing issue in philosophy, for instance.)

And why I hate the catch-all use of the word agnostic.

If someone can show how the human mind can actually truly know anything, then we can say that agnostics simply think that God is ultimately unknowable.

Until then, I say agnosticism states that one can know nothing of God, and therefore can make no statements pertaining to the existence or nonexistence of God.

Logical argument that God cannot exist:

Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

If he can then he can't lift an object

If he can't then he can't make anything he wants

If God by his nature is omnipitent (all powerful and can do anything), then he should be able to do anything. However if he can't do everything then he deny's his nature and he can't exist.


Logical argument that God does exist:

God is infinite

Man is Finite: There are things that man can't know and we know that there are things that we can't know. Therefore, man could have no concept of God (the infinite) if God had not revealed himself to us.

nitpick: why is God infinite? Why is man Finite?

We are mortal... we end. We did not always exist... finite

God by his nature has always existed, will always exist, and was never created... infinite.

Man is Finite: There are things that man can't know and we know that there are things that we can't know. Therefore, man could have no concept of God (the infinite) if God had not revealed himself to us.

Non sequitor

as an agnostic you are suggesting that i should believe in something unknownable and nonunderstandable.

as an atheist is ask "why bother then?"

Say there is a box which cannot be opened. One person says to three other people that there is something inside that box, another person says to the three other people that there isn't something inside that box. Without any evidence whatsoever, person A believes there is something inside that box. Person B believes that there is nothing in the box, however cannot prove this either. Person C does not believe anything because he does not know and has chosen not to decide that he knows whats in the box.


the believers aren't saying "Theres something in the box" they are saying "there is a pink birthday cake in the box" or "there is a pony in the box". the agnostic is saying "there is something in the box but i dont know what it is or how it got there and im not sure that we can tell what it is once we open it up" the non believer is saying "you both are full of shit, how would anything get into an unopenable box? we can't open the box anyway,it's empty or it might as well be empty"

believers aren't neutral in their religious beliefs. they dont say "i believe in jesus, or buddha or vishnu, whatever". they all have a story they want us to subscribe to.

agnostics refuse to define anything.

atheists demand proof of everything.

When person B shakes the box, he is testing for natural reactions, as that is all he can do, yet that is not sufficient for testing supernatural entities or forces.Person B can just as easily ask, if there is something supernatural going on which has *no observable natural consequence*, what significance does it have? If it can't affect us, why even posit it exists? (Or, to turn it about, how can the supernatural affect us?)

Logical argument that God does exist:

God is infinite

Man is Finite: There are things that man can't know and we know that there are things that we can't know. Therefore, man could have no concept of God (the infinite) if God had not revealed himself to us.Descartes' old chestnut. It suffers from a profound problem:

We can quite easily arrive at the concept of the "infinite" without God revealing Himself to us. In fact, in English, the very word "infinite" is the simple negation of the word "finite" -- literally, we use the word to mean "NOT bounded, NOT limited, NOT like us." The fact that we have this word doesn't mean that we necessarily have a point of reference for it, simply that we are capable of forming a abstracted idea, and then conceiving of the negation of that idea.

I would argue that people (or at least every person I have ever met) don't *really* have a solid, positive definition of "infinite" anyway. You can wave your hands a bit and say "not limited like us," or you can use the more mathematically based definition which is more properly expressed as "indefinite" -- you can always keep adding 1. In mathematics, the concept of infinity is built as a limit -- as some variable X keeps increasing and increasing to an arbitrarily large number, function f(x) exhibits a certain behavior.

In the end, arguing about whether or not God exists boils down to trying to define what this "God" IS, that you are saying does or doesn't exist.

Person B can just as easily ask, if there is something supernatural going on which has *no observable natural consequence*, what significance does it have? If it can't affect us, why even posit it exists? (Or, to turn it about, how can the supernatural affect us?)

Yet another justification for strong agnosticism, not that pansy "I don't know for sure" junk.

One can be atheist and agnostic you know? Or theist and agnostic.

Well, you're still Agnostic, but you're slightly leaning more towards one side than the other.

as an agnostic you are suggesting that i should believe in something unknownable and nonunderstandable.

as an atheist is ask "why bother then?"



the believers aren't saying "Theres something in the box" they are saying "there is a pink birthday cake in the box" or "there is a pony in the box". the agnostic is saying "there is something in the box but i dont know what it is or how it got there and im not sure that we can tell what it is once we open it up" the non believer is saying "you both are full of shit, how would anything get into an unopenable box? we can't open the box anyway,it's empty or it might as well be empty"

believers aren't neutral in their religious beliefs. they dont say "i believe in jesus, or buddha or vishnu, whatever". they all have a story they want us to subscribe to.

agnostics refuse to define anything.

atheists demand proof of everything.

No, the agnosic is saying that I don't know weather there is or isn't something inside that box and it is impossible to know.

Athiesm is most probably along the lines of "I don't believe you!" rather then "well there isn't anything there" and sometimes is more like "Although I say your wrong I am not going to state the existance of anything to avoid looking like an idiot. Of course considering Athiesm isn't a structure belief system or religon how the idividual display their disbelief in god is entirly upto them.

Schroedingers cat (the thought experiment upon which yours is based)
Hold on. I thought Schroedingers cat had nothing to do with matter having a possibility of be 50 % dead and 50% alive. It had more to do with show the falibility of Quantum Mechanics at the time.

Atheism isn't a religion in much the same way that anarchy isn't a form of government. That is not to say that atheists have no beliefs whatsoever.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that a generic atheist's beliefs tend to fall along the lines of secular humanism.

Hold on. I thought Schroedingers cat had nothing to do with matter having a possibility of be 50 % dead and 50% alive. It had more to do with show the falibility of Quantum Mechanics at the time.

Well, I was just referring to the fact that Schroedingers cat was about something unknown in a box... as a sort of a joke, you see.

No, the agnosic is saying that I don't know weather there is or isn't something inside that box and it is impossible to know.
yeah and that its impossible to know the true nature of the thing in the box if there is something in the box at all

to go with with topic of the thread....why agnosticism is the best...

i still have to ask "why bother then?" if its impossible to know, why mess with it at all? in the end, its the same as if god doesnt exist since god doesnt have enough of an impact on life for anyone to even be able to come down on the side of "yes he exists in some form or other" (theism)

its like an agnostic is an atheist who doesnt want to upset anyone. "oh im not saying youre wrong, im saying i dont know one way or the other" or as if they are slightly religious people who dont want to get up early on sunday "oh i dont know if christianity is the correct definition of god so im gonna hit the snooze button"

yeah and that its impossible to know the true nature of the thing in the box if there is something in the box at all

to go with with topic of the thread....why agnosticism is the best...

i still have to ask "why bother then?" if its impossible to know, why mess with it at all?

Well, that's the general conclusion most agnostics come to. "If there is no way for me to know whether or not there is a God, then I also logically cannot know about any properties that God might or might not have. So why should I waste my time speculating about the qualities/desires/demands of a being that I cannot even know exists? I have better things to do with my time. Let's go to the pub."


in the end, its the same as if god doesnt exist since god doesnt have enough of an impact on life for anyone to even be able to come down on the side of "yes he exists in some form or other" (theism)

Externally, I suppose the two viewpoints have pretty much the same impact on others. However, in terms of the individual's views, there is a big distinction. Consciously concluding that you cannot know whether or not God exists is a very crucial bit of thought, and it puts the issue in an entirely different light.

Also, keep in mind that a great many self-described God-believers are actually agnostics. Many Christians will tell you that the whole point is that we should "believe" even though we cannot "know."


its like an agnostic is an atheist who doesnt want to upset anyone. "oh im not saying youre wrong, im saying i dont know one way or the other"
Now that's just bullshit. I'm agnostic, and I freaking LOVE to upset people. :)

Also, being agnostic does not in any way mean that I'm less likely to tell somebody they're wrong. I think anybody who claims to know whether or not God exists is wrong, lying, or crazy, and I have no problem telling them so.

Well, that's the general conclusion most agnostics come to. "If there is no way for me to know whether or not there is a God, then I also logically cannot know about any properties that God might or might not have. So why should I waste my time speculating about the qualities/desires/demands of a being that I cannot even know exists? I have better things to do with my time. Let's go to the pub."

Or more importantly: "Since we will never know God's plan for us, we had better start making our own plans."

Or more importantly: "Since we will never know God's plan for us, we had better start making our own plans."
Well, for some agnostics, at least.

But really, we cannot forget about the agnostics who say, "Since we will never know God's plan, we should all just assume that this one book holds the accurate description of God's plan, even though we have absolutely no way of verifying it. Why? Well, because this books says we should, and it makes me feel good to believe in this stuff. No, that's not a circular argument. Shut up."

This is becoming popular:

Heres a theory I heard to explain that atheism is a belief.

Say there is a box which cannot be opened. One person says to three other people that there is something inside that box, another person says to the three other people that there isn't something inside that box. Without any evidence whatsoever, person A believes there is something inside that box. Person B believes that there is nothing in the box, however cannot prove this either. Person C does not believe anything because he does not know and has chosen not to decide that he knows whats in the box.

Person A represents the religious types, who believe there is a God allthough he can't prove this. Person B obviously represents the athiest who chooses to believe that there is not a God, allthough he can't prove this. Much like a religion, because he claims that he knows weather God exists or not. Often people will change their lifestyle to live by this Ideal, often they will not (again much like a religion). However person C realises that he can not know weather there is, or isn't something inside this box and so does not believe anything, exactly like the agnostic. That is why being agnostic is the only sensible way to live.
atheism is a belief that there is no god. in the sense that this belief pertains to a religious question it is a religious belief. it does not follow, however, that atheism is therefore a religion.

Agnosticism best?

Well.. It's the only honest stance. In the case of the box, an undecided agnostic stance would seem the most rational. In relation to deities, an agnostic atheist stance seems more rational. After all, in the case of deities, it's really a question of whether there is a box at all. The hypothetical content, or lack of it, comes after. Since there's no indication of any box to begin with, there's no reason to assume it exists.

I've heard about immaterial, obese bunnies, with a preference for resting atop people's heads. I've never seriously considered it a possibility, though I can't honestly say that I know it is an impossibility. Gods are similar.

But really, we cannot forget about the agnostics who say, "Since we will never know God's plan, we should all just assume that this one book holds the accurate description of God's plan, even though we have absolutely no way of verifying it. Why? Well, because this books says we should, and it makes me feel good to believe in this stuff. No, that's not a circular argument. Shut up."

I try to forget about those agnostics any way I can.

I try to forget about those agnostics any way I can.I know the feeling. A few of my friends are like that.

I try to excuse it by maintaining that we're all a bit insane, in our own special way.

I know the feeling. A few of my friends are like that.

I try to excuse it by maintaining that we're all a bit insane, in our own special way.

Well it is one thing to simply be a bit insane, it is another to be purposefully insane.

If I didn't have a skull, my brain would reach out and slap those people.

Well it is one thing to simply be a bit insane, it is another to be purposefully insane.Quite, but short of strangling them, there's not much to be done about it. At least they're not literalists & don't bug others with their beliefs.If I didn't have a skull, my brain would reach out and slap those people.Priceless :p

I'm looking forward to using that line in the near future.

Can't possibly be a religion, religion is belief in god.

Well, for some agnostics, at least.

But really, we cannot forget about the agnostics who say, "Since we will never know God's plan, we should all just assume that this one book holds the accurate description of God's plan, even though we have absolutely no way of verifying it. Why? Well, because this books says we should, and it makes me feel good to believe in this stuff. No, that's not a circular argument. Shut up."
No, the agnostic theist is more like, "Since we will never know god or its plans for us, whatever is written in books and religious texts is irrelevant to that. That means it was written for another purpose than to dictate a literal description of a being and a literal plan to us."

Agnosticism best?

Well.. It's the only honest stance. In the case of the box, an undecided agnostic stance would seem the most rational. In relation to deities, an agnostic atheist stance seems more rational. After all, in the case of deities, it's really a question of whether there is a box at all. The hypothetical content, or lack of it, comes after. Since there's no indication of any box to begin with, there's no reason to assume it exists.

I've heard about immaterial, obese bunnies, with a preference for resting atop people's heads. I've never seriously considered it a possibility, though I can't honestly say that I know it is an impossibility. Gods are similar.
Well, now you've changed the analogy, though, from a comparison of Schroedinger's Cat>God to a to a comparison of Schroedinger's Cat's box>God. Only the first is the valid analogy: the box is there, as imagined as it always was, enclosing the unknowable. The question remains, is there anything inside it.

The "undecided agnostic atheist stance" is only more rational if the question of what is in the box refers to actual existence, as opposed to other forms of existence (e.g. potential, unreal/imagined, symbolic/meaningful). For example, a number such as 79826543038 is an abstract quantity: does it exist even in the case where nothing in the universe is actually of that particular amount?

No, the agnostic theist is more like, "Since we will never know god or its plans for us, whatever is written in books and religious texts is irrelevant to that. That means it was written for another purpose than to dictate a literal description of a being and a literal plan to us."

How can agnostic theists hold any sort of consistent belief?

How can agnostic theists hold any sort of consistent belief?

Because you can believe without knowing.

How can agnostic theists hold any sort of consistent belief?Easy: OK, I realise I can't prove this religious, God-love I'm full of, but I'm still full of it.Well, now you've changed the analogy, though, from a comparison of Schroedinger's Cat>God to a to a comparison of Schroedinger's Cat's box>God. Only the first is the valid analogy: the box is there, as imagined as it always was, enclosing the unknowable. The question remains, is there anything inside it.Be warned, I'm semi-drugged.

But no. The former is the relevant analogy. See if we go by the latter, we have a defined realm which we know may contain something. In case of the former, we have no such thing, just like we in the real world, have no reason to suspect there's any deities flapping about (or however such entities move, if they do).

The "undecided agnostic atheist stance" is only more rational if the question of what is in the box refers to actual existence, as opposed to other forms of existence (e.g. potential, unreal/imagined, symbolic/meaningful). For example, a number such as 79826543038 is an abstract quantity: does it exist even in the case where nothing in the universe is actually of that particular amount?Remind me, is it you or me that's on pain medication?

Conceptually, everything exists. In the real world, things are a bit more limited. So do numbers exist? Yups, because they're a property of something. Do gods? Not necessarily, because they're not properties of something.

Unless of course, you define a deity as being anything thought or concieved as a deity. But then, this would mean that you equate the idea of divinity with divinity. I doubt many people do. I know I don't. It creates too many conflicts with the supposed properties of deities, such as miraculous powers & realms we mortals go to in the afterlife.

How can agnostic theists hold any sort of consistent belief?
Consistent with whom?

Easy: OK, I realise I can't prove this religious, God-love I'm full of, but I'm still full of it.Be warned, I'm semi-drugged.

But no. The former is the relevant analogy. See if we go by the latter, we have a defined realm which we know may contain something. In case of the former, we have no such thing, just like we in the real world, have no reason to suspect there's any deities flapping about (or however such entities move, if they do).
I'll assume you have 'former' and 'latter' switched, and proceed from there.

If you make the box an analogy of God, then it is knowable --it has properties that distinguish it as a box. The cat contained in the box, on the other hand, could be anything in the box --it has no fixed properties; anything could work just as well as the unknown/unknowable thing. But in order to be unknowable, it must be separated from us by walls, literal or figurative.

Remind me, is it you or me that's on pain medication?

Conceptually, everything exists. In the real world, things are a bit more limited. So do numbers exist? Yups, because they're a property of something. Do gods? Not necessarily, because they're not properties of something.

Unless of course, you define a deity as being anything thought or concieved as a deity. But then, this would mean that you equate the idea of divinity with divinity. I doubt many people do. I know I don't. It creates too many conflicts with the supposed properties of deities, such as miraculous powers & realms we mortals go to in the afterlife.
How can a number be a property of something if is there is nothing actual to claim that as its property (which is the scenario I presented)? You see what I'm saying?

God doesn't have to be 'composed of thought' to be non-actual, that's literal thinking. That's still expecting that god be actual, because you are thinking in terms of its existence being defined by something real. Think outside the box.

God is the meaning we give to the spirit and soul of "the other". Myth is the means to understand god --it's a tool, not a narrative.

Because you can believe without knowing.

How can anyone believe without any knowledge of the subject of belief?

If one cannot take experience or religious teachings and text as evidence, how can one establish belief?

OK, I realise I can't prove this religious, God-love I'm full of, but I'm still full of it.

Agnosticism is not about providing proof, it is about knowing.

One can't provide proof of anything other than the relationships between mathematical qualities.

Consistent with whom?

With themselves, they admit that they have no benchmark for belief, yet they still manage to believe.

I'll assume you have 'former' and 'latter' switched, and proceed from there.Eh.. Uhm.. Oops?

If you make the box an analogy of God, then it is knowable --it has properties that distinguish it as a box. The cat contained in the box, on the other hand, could be anything in the box --it has no fixed properties; anything could work just as well as the unknown/unknowable thing. But in order to be unknowable, it must be separated from us by walls, literal or figurative.OK. The reason I dislike the analogy, is because it defines a realm in which something may exist. Reality is different. There's no defined realm, so we have no reason to suspect there is such a thing, nor that anything exists within it.

The box analogy is terribly biased towards a certain conclusion, and from what we know of reality, it isn't.


How can a number be a property of something if is there is nothing actual to claim that as its property (which is the scenario I presented)? You see what I'm saying?I should have said product instead of peoperty, but I'm a bit foggy right now. What I meant is that the number is a product of your imagination (at least) - it's a property of you, me, math in general & so on.

God doesn't have to be 'composed of thought' to be non-actual, that's literal thinking. That's still expecting that god be actual, because you are thinking in terms of its existence being defined by something real. Think outside the box.

God is the meaning we give to the spirit and soul of "the other". Myth is the means to understand god --it's a tool, not a narrative.So you do define a deity as anything thought of, or percieved as divine. Be my guest. I don't, as it would lead to unnecessary confusion.

How would you know if agnosticism is the best?

One food of thought:

God is long dead if he existed.

If he does not exist, then it is the stupidity of him to place so many restriction on one's self and on the whole mankind.........

With themselves, they admit that they have no benchmark for belief, yet they still manage to believe.
No, they admit that they cannot know if God exists. What is the 'benchmark' for other theists?

Eh.. Uhm.. Oops?

OK. The reason I dislike the analogy, is because it defines a realm in which something may exist. Reality is different. There's no defined realm, so we have no reason to suspect there is such a thing, nor that anything exists within it.

The box analogy is terribly biased towards a certain conclusion, and from what we know of reality, it isn't.
Ah! That's where the myth comes in. Myth is built on metaphors. In fact, myth provides us with a relevant metaphor here: the 'box' myth of the god, a framework of metaphoric images, both visual and literary, within which the kernal of knowledge is contained, and for those who cannot see inside the box (who don't understand the metaphors) the knowledge is every bit the unknown/unknowable. For those who cannot see inside that box, it is nothing but a box (a story about god).

I should have said product instead of peoperty, but I'm a bit foggy right now. What I meant is that the number is a product of your imagination (at least) - it's a property of you, me, math in general & so on.

So you do define a deity as anything thought of, or percieved as divine. Be my guest. I don't, as it would lead to unnecessary confusion.
I don't define deity, because I don't know god --what I do is hold up an image of god. I make comparisons, allusions, analogies; I use symbolism, images, meaningful phrases; I draw lines, circles and arrows, and I know it's all in vain. That's okay, too. God lives in here *taps her chest*.

Agnosticism is not about providing proof, it is about knowing.

One can't provide proof of anything other than the relationships between mathematical qualities..Fine.. More poor wording on my parrt then, or perhaps just bloodymindedness on your part.

"Pip the Agnostic ponders divinity. Pip feels in his heart of hearts, that Christianity & this Jesus The Saviour thing, is very compelling & real.
Pip tries to think this through a bit more, and decides that since a hell of a lot of people feel more or less the same way, his feelings are valid enuff. But since factual knowledge about this religion business, is a logical impossibility, he decides he's not arrogant enough to claim that he must be 100% correct about all things faith-related.

Pip becomes Pip the Agnostic theist."

Ah! That's where the myth comes in. Myth is built on metaphors. In fact, myth provides us with a relevant metaphor here: the 'box' myth of the god, a framework of metaphoric images, both visual and literary, within which the kernal of knowledge is contained, and for those who cannot see inside the box (who don't understand the metaphors) the knowledge is every bit the unknown/unknowable. For those who cannot see inside that box, it is nothing but a box (a story about god).For those who see no reason to believe the supernatural exists, it still exists.. At least, that's what it sounds like to me - and that's why I think the box thing is hopelessly flawed. We don't know there's a box anymore than we know it contains a cat, if it exists.I don't define deity, because I don't know god --what I do is hold up an image of god. I make comparisons, allusions, analogies; I use symbolism, images, meaningful phrases; I draw lines, circles and arrows, and I know it's all in vain. That's okay, too. God lives in here *taps her chest*.I forsee great confusion based on this :p

- but hey, I butcher language on a daily basis, so why shouldn't you redefine it.

Atheism is a belief, but not a religion. Religion implies an organised belief system based on the existence of supernatural deities.

I googled 'religion' and found some definitions:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world.
www.modernhumanorigins.com/r.html

a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.
www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm

Has many definitions - most of them involve the idea of supernatural agency.
www.csa.com/hottopics/religion/gloss.php

Religious affiliation, practices, and views.
www.albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html

Oxford dictionary definition (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. ...
www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm

System of beliefs and practices concerned with sacred things and or symbols uniting individuals into a single moral community.....

There were more, but they were mostly very similar.

Atheism is a belief, but not a religion. There is a difference.Nope. It's the lack of belief. Do you believe unbelieving in 300ft superintelligent pirate squirrels from Tabago, or do you simply not believe in them?

For those who see no reason to believe the supernatural exists, it still exists.. At least, that's what it sounds like to me - and that's why I think the box thing is hopelessly flawed. We don't know there's a box anymore than we know it contains a cat, if it exists.
More like... for those who see no meaning in the supernatural, it is literally meaningless.

Presumably, Schroedinger had a vested interest in his cat's wellbeing.

I forsee great confusion based on this :p

- but hey, I butcher language on a daily basis, so why shouldn't you redefine it.
It made sense to me when I read the many books written about it. ;)

It made a lot of things make more sense.

Nope. It's the lack of belief. Do you believe unbelieving in 300ft superintelligent pirate squirrels from Tabago, or do you simply not believe in them?

Hmm... but surely if you believe there aren't giant pirate squirrels even though you have never been to Tobago, then that is also a belief, similarly, if you believe that you're never going to know whether there are giant squirrels or not, then that is also a belief. The problem arises with the wide range of definitions for atheism and agnosticism.

It is very difficult to have absolutely no belief in something, as most people will either believe it does exist, believe it doesn't exist, or believe that they don't/won't know whether it exists or not, so those who don't believe in something will normally believe that they don't exist.

In simple terms, I am an agnostic, and I believe that God may or may not exist, and I also believe that it is impossible to know whether he/she/it exists or not. (Unless God does exist and wants to make it blatantly obvious that he/she/it does.)

More like... for those who see no meaning in the supernatural, it is literally meaningless.

Presumably, Schroedinger had a vested interest in his cat's wellbeing.Precisely. Which again is why the analogy is highly biased. It presupposes some pretty radical "IF's".

Do I believe there's a cat in a box I can't open? A rational reply might be "If anything may or may not be present inside the box, then the chance of it being a cat is probably fairly minute, however there's probably a good chance something is in it."

On the other hand, if the question is whether I believe there's an impregnable box, that may or may not contain something, which may or may not be a cat, then I think a rationable reply would be "Why would I believe any such thing? It sounds terribly silly".It made sense to me when I read the many books written about it. ;)

It made a lot of things make more sense.I think my brain gave up. I'll try sleeping..

The problem arises with the wide range of definitions for atheism and agnosticism.I think you're just confusing yourself. LAck of belief insomething, isn't belief in itself. It's just non-belief.

Surely if I don't believe 300ft pirate squirrels live on Tabago, it's because I have no reason what so ever, to believe any such thing? Or do you think the basic disposition of the human mind, is to believe everything concievable, until it is proved wrong?

Like I said, I think you're just confusing yourself.

I think you're just confusing yourself. LAck of belief insomething, isn't belief in itself. It's just non-belief.

Surely if I don't believe 300ft pirate squirrels live on Tabago, it's because I have no reason what so ever, to believe any such thing? Or do you think the basic disposition of the human mind, is to believe everything concievable, until it is proved wrong?

Like I said, I think you're just confusing yourself.

Probably, I do that quite a lot.

But still, if you don't believe that something exists, surely that means that you believe that it doesn't exist? I'm not saying that a belief is wrong, it can be based on fact, for example I believe that 1+1=2, and some philosophers would disagree with me, but I have proof to believe that that is true.

Nope. It's the lack of belief. Do you believe unbelieving in 300ft superintelligent pirate squirrels from Tabago, or do you simply not believe in them?

Atheism can imply nonbelief in the existence of a god, or it can imply the belief in the nonexistence of god.

EDIT: And from my position, any statement on the existence of God takes a degree of belief.

This is becoming popular:

Heres a theory I heard to explain that atheism is a belief.

Say there is a box which cannot be opened. One person says to three other people that there is something inside that box, another person says to the three other people that there isn't something inside that box. Without any evidence whatsoever, person A believes there is something inside that box. Person B believes that there is nothing in the box, however cannot prove this either. Person C does not believe anything because he does not know and has chosen not to decide that he knows whats in the box.

Person A represents the religious types, who believe there is a God allthough he can't prove this. Person B obviously represents the athiest who chooses to believe that there is not a God, allthough he can't prove this. Much like a religion, because he claims that he knows weather God exists or not. Often people will change their lifestyle to live by this Ideal, often they will not (again much like a religion). However person C realises that he can not know weather there is, or isn't something inside this box and so does not believe anything, exactly like the agnostic. That is why being agnostic is the only sensible way to live.

Yeah, it's like that, except, in the place the unspecified something, put a pink rainbow unicorn with cookies for all.

Yeah, it's like that, except, in the place the unspecified something, put a pink rainbow unicorn with cookies for all.

...
What kind of cookies?

...
What kind of cookies?

It's going to be a split between double chocolate brownies, traditional scottish shortbread, and ginger snaps.

It's going to be a split between double chocolate brownies, traditional scottish shortbread, and ginger snaps.

COOKIE! *tears open box*

Is it a Religion? they way some of these Atheists react and treat Athiesm... yes, they make it look like a Religion.

My personal definition of Atheism is basically believing that there are no gods of any kind. Is that a belief? Yes. Is that a religion? No. Belief =/= Religion.

Atheism can imply nonbelief in the existence of a god, or it can imply the belief in the nonexistence of god.

EDIT: And from my position, any statement on the existence of God takes a degree of belief.So do I believe in the non-existence of goblins in my fridge? Or do I simply not believe there's goblins in my fridge?

Hmm.. The no-goblins-in-the-fridge religion....

Heh, I've always wondered if there's such a thing as militant agnosticism :D

So do I believe in the non-existence of goblins in my fridge? Or do I simply not believe there's goblins in my fridge?

Hmm.. The no-goblins-in-the-fridge religion....

Don't bother. Go with either Pastafarianism or Debrism.

So do I believe in the non-existence of goblins in my fridge? Or do I simply not believe there's goblins in my fridge?

Hmm.. The no-goblins-in-the-fridge religion....

Adding the "in my fridge part" kind of ruins the analogy.

I believe that goblins do not exist.

However, I do believe that there is no bologna in the fridge.

Person B obviously represents the athiest who chooses to believe that there is not a God, allthough he can't prove this.

Atheism is not a belief it is simply a theory that does not acknowledge the existense of any form of 'Supreme Being'.

And, hypothetically speaking, wouldnt an angnostic person be 'punished' the same way that an atheist would at the time of judgement? Therefore, being angnostic is no more 'safe' than being athiest.

And one more thing: any person who truly is 'religious' would never question thier beliefs. if someoes going to question thier beliefs they might as well not even believe.

Atheism is not a belief it is simply a theory that does not acknowledge the existense of any form of 'Supreme Being'.

And, hypothetically speaking, wouldnt an angnostic person be 'punished' the same way that an atheist would at the time of judgement? Therefore, being angnostic is no more 'safe' than being athiest.

And one more thing: any person who truly is 'religious' would never question thier beliefs. if someoes going to question thier beliefs they might as well not even believe.




Ow. Ow. Ow.

Darn, that's three more braincells lost to badly colored posts.

Ow. Ow. Ow.

Darn, that's three more braincells lost to badly colored posts.

Won't happen again......