NationStates Jolt Archive

Intellectually I can understand the agnostic position of not taking a position, or of being convinced that there is really no way to know either way...but...come on now! It's like saying, "Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

I can't be agnostic, because frankly, I don't believe that I have to give shrift to faerie tales. Just because I don't know FOR SURE that there aren't sock gnomes, doesn't mean I have to sit on a fence and say, 'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.

'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

I think that pretty much sums up the principle of Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is for people who can't make up their damn mind.

At least with theist, they have made up their mind, even if they seem like they're full of shit most days.

I think that pretty much sums up the principle of Agnosticism.

That's my point. But it's not as though agnostics go around not taking positions on all sorts of wacky things. No, it's about God, or NotGod. I just don't understand why. What's the point, anyway, of such a position?

Agnosticism is for people who can't make up their damn mind. Well, easy to say, and a great way to piss agnostics off over a pint, but not totally accurate. They have in fact made up their minds...that something in unknowable. Neither proven to exist, nor proven not to, but simply something that transcends proof either way. Sure, you have your wishy washy fence sitters, but most agnostics I've met really aren't that way.

Well, easy to say, and a great way to piss agnostics off over a pint, but not totally accurate. They have in fact made up their minds...that something in unknowable. Neither proven to exist, nor proven not to, but simply something that transcends proof either way. Sure, you have your wishy washy fence sitters, but most agnostics I've met really aren't that way.
Of course not. Just let me be a jackass about it anyway.

I take the position that at least the Abrahamic religions are apparently so riddled with contradictions and absurdities that they cannot be entirely true in their biblical forms. I reject these positions, just as I do any other belief that is absurd and impossible, such as your flying waffle. Of course, this is a personal viewpoint and I am willing to accept the beliefs of other people as long as it is not forced upon myself or any other.

However, from my perspective, "There is a creator" is not a logically inconsistent or especially odd sentence. While for all intents and purposes I am an atheist, I adknowledge that it is possible (however unlikely) that there is a "God" of some form or another, although i'd much prefer a reality without one.

I do not know if there is a god or not. At times I feel almost certain that I am religious, at times I am almost sure that there cannot be a higher being. I seem to have fallen crotch-first onto a fence, which seems to make me agnostic, or at least a wishy washy version of one :p

On the other hand I'm sure that I do not and will not follow any organised religion I know about.

However, from my perspective, "There is a creator" is not a logically inconsistent or especially odd sentence. While for all intents and purposes I am an atheist, I adknowledge that it is possible (however unlikely) that there is a "God" of some form or another, although i'd much prefer a reality without one.

The sentence on its own isn't logically inconsistent, but the implications of it are.

not all agnostics are maybe-ers.

a more sophisticated agnostic acknowleges that there something greater than us out there but just what it is cant truly be known. we all feel sparks of the divine now and then. *I* dismiss them as a function of my brain. agnostics dont dismiss them. they know they exist but refuse to label them as "god" or "vishnu". should they be a glimpse of "god" all they can say is that all religions are wrong in that the human brain is too small to understand what god really is.

Of course not. Just let me be a jackass about it anyway.

Oh, well of course...carry on!

Oh, well of course...carry on!
*Goes about being a jackass and mocking agnostics*

I've met very spiritual people who do not follow any organised religion, but yet who would also not characterise themselves in any was as agnostic. So, simply being turned off by the business of religion does not seem to make one agnostic, there is still a belief in the divine, but not perhaps as focused. So what exactly, do agnostics feel about their beliefs?

The sentence on its own isn't logically inconsistent, but the implications of it are.

Well, i'm inclined to agree. However, that's only coming from my perspective of reality, which could be wrong (though naturally, i'd like to think not.)

In any case, whether "God" exists or not is irrelevant to how I carry on my day to day life.

I would say that I accept I'll never know for sure either way, and I know for sure I don't care either way. But that's just me.

not all agnostics are maybe-ers.

a more sophisticated agnostic acknowleges that there something greater than us out there but just what it is cant truly be known. we all feel sparks of the divine now and then. *I* dismiss them as a function of my brain. agnostics dont dismiss them. they know they exist but refuse to label them as "god" or "vishnu". should they be a glimpse of "god" all they can say is that all religions are wrong in that the human brain is too small to understand what god really is.
After reading that, I think may have mislabeled the fence I'm on...Stuck somewhere in between athiesm and agnostisism. Or maybe I'll just label myself as an undecided, wishy-washy, hormonal, often confused teenager.
*Goes about being a jackass and mocking agnostics*

Hey, a part of me might feel mocked, depending on my mood! :mad:

"Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

That's not really agnosticism, though. It doesn't concede legitimacy of theological beliefs, it just assumes that it is inherently unknowable.

Agnosticism is not really incompatible with faith. I believe in God, I just can't prove he exists and don't make an effort to (which is why I normally stay out of religious debates). That's why it's just faith and not certainty. Agnosticism is not, on the other hand, compatible with strong atheism, which asserts as (unproven) fact that there is no God or gods.

not all agnostics are maybe-ers.

a more sophisticated agnostic acknowleges that there something greater than us out there but just what it is cant truly be known. we all feel sparks of the divine now and then. *I* dismiss them as a function of my brain. agnostics dont dismiss them. they know they exist but refuse to label them as "god" or "vishnu". should they be a glimpse of "god" all they can say is that all religions are wrong in that the human brain is too small to understand what god really is.

You don't have to believe in God to experience the transcendent in the universe. The way you're describing god is so vague that it could simply mean God is the force of attraction that keeps atoms together. If that's God, then most atheists are really theists.

That's not really agnosticism, though. It doesn't concede legitimacy of theological beliefs, it just assumes that it is inherently unknowable.

Agnosticism is not really incompatible with faith. I believe in God, I just can't prove he exists and don't make an effort to (which is why I normally stay out of religious debates). That's why it's just faith and not certainty. Agnosticism is not, on the other hand, compatible with strong atheism, which asserts as (unproven) fact that there is no God or gods.

So, in your opinion, an agnostic believes in a god, but doesn't try to prove the existence of such, and an atheist insists no such thing exists.

Well, I'm an atheist, and I frankly regard the whole question as stupid. Just because there have been millions, billions, of people who believe in a higher power, does not mean the concept itself has more legitimacy than the flying waffle, and therefore should be afforded more respect.

Nor do I believe that all agnostics actually believe in a higher power.

After reading that, I think may have mislabeled the fence I'm on...Stuck somewhere in between athiesm and agnostisism. Or maybe I'll just label myself as an undecided, wishy-washy, hormonal, often confused teenager.


there is nothing wrong with being unsure when you are young. its a time for confusion.

You don't have to believe in God to experience the transcendent in the universe. The way you're describing god is so vague that it could simply mean God is the force of attraction that keeps atoms together. If that's God, then most atheists are really theists.

thats probably because im an atheist. i "take it on faith" that agnostics have a stronger feeling about these things.

thats probably because im an atheist. i "take it on faith" that agnostics have a stronger feeling about these things.

Yeah, where are the hardcore agnostics when you need them? *mutter mutter, bunch of atheists talking of out of our asses over here*

there is nothing wrong with being unsure when you are young. its a time for confusion.

Awesome!
*is confused*
*lurks* (Which implies i want some insightful conversation before I go to bed...Insightfully converse!)

Yeah, where are the hardcore agnostics when you need them? *mutter mutter, bunch of atheists talking of out of our asses over here*

probably still bleery-eyed from new years celebrations.

or stuck somewhere out on I-40, it was closed for several days from albuquerque to texas.

probably still bleery-eyed from new years celebrations.

or stuck somewhere out on I-40, it was closed for several days from albuquerque to texas.

Gah, yeah, another crappy New Year's/birthday for me, had to tend to vomitting children. Ah well, I'll rip it up some other random night :D

Definitely an atheist. It's not that I'm not sure, I actively believe there is no god. Could I be wrong? Sure. My belief that there aren't any pink dragons could also be wrong, but I don't think so.

Definitely an atheist. It's not that I'm not sure, I actively believe there is no god. Could I be wrong? Sure. My belief that there aren't any pink dragons could also be wrong, but I don't think so.

Sums it up nicely. But the fact that you can't PROVE there are no pink dragons...should that alone make you an agnostic? I just don't buy it...can't any agnostic give a coherent accounting?

Definitely an atheist. It's not that I'm not sure, I actively believe there is no god. Could I be wrong? Sure. My belief that there aren't any pink dragons could also be wrong, but I don't think so.

thats how i feel. im as certain as i can be that the religions that would send us to hell for lack of belief are completely wrong. however if the exceedingly unlikely notion of an ultimate creator turns out to be true, then i cant see that it makes all that much difference to my life.

Sums it up nicely. But the fact that you can't PROVE there are no pink dragons...should that alone make you an agnostic? I just don't buy it...can't any agnostic give a coherent accounting?

i do tend to think of that kind of agnostic as a person who just doesnt have the balls to admit that they are atheists. agnostic seems more acceptable somehow.

but then i think the same thing of people who claim to be christian but never go to church. (supposing they are of a church going belief system). their actions belie their words.

I'm suddenly reminded of the smoking comercials that use leeches as a sub for cigarettes in an attempt to get kids to stop smoking. :rolleyes:

Honestly I don't think anyone is going to know what's out there until their dead so I'll wait until I'm there before I start making any definitive claims on whats after I die.

I'm suddenly reminded of the smoking comercials that use leeches as a sub for cigarettes in an attempt to get kids to stop quitting. :rolleyes:


Er...stop smoking?...quit smoking?

Er...stop smoking?...quit smoking?

That's what I get for posting at 1 am. :headbang:

That's what I get for posting at 1 am. :headbang:LOL
We should all be so lucky to have such a handy excuse. It won't work for me since I slept most the day.

I try not to sit on fences, those pointy posts can get uncomfortable.

not all agnostics are maybe-ers.

a more sophisticated agnostic acknowleges that there something greater than us out there but just what it is cant truly be known. we all feel sparks of the divine now and then. *I* dismiss them as a function of my brain. agnostics dont dismiss them. they know they exist but refuse to label them as "god" or "vishnu". should they be a glimpse of "god" all they can say is that all religions are wrong in that the human brain is too small to understand what god really is.

Yes!

Well, easy to say, and a great way to piss agnostics off over a pint, but not totally accurate. They have in fact made up their minds...that something in unknowable. Neither proven to exist, nor proven not to, but simply something that transcends proof either way. Sure, you have your wishy washy fence sitters, but most agnostics I've met really aren't that way.

Well, in my case it's simply a case of "I don't know and I don't care either way". I wouldn't be any more or less surprised if I found out that god existed than if I found out that it'll rain tomorrow. It's possible. I think.

I do however enjoy argueing with religious people, but that's more like a mental excersise for me, a way to keep my brain busy. Those kinds of arguments normally don't touch the simple possibility of god's existence or non-existence, they tend to focus on the silly assumptions that god has to be something or other based on things that people who died centuries ago said about god.

Intellectually I can understand the agnostic position of not taking a position, or of being convinced that there is really no way to know either way...but...come on now! It's like saying, "Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

I can't be agnostic, because frankly, I don't believe that I have to give shrift to faerie tales. Just because I don't know FOR SURE that there aren't sock gnomes, doesn't mean I have to sit on a fence and say, 'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.

Agnosticism is the postition of not knowing. Meaning not all the evidence is in. Although I have recently learned there are two types of agnosticism. There is temporary and permement. Temporary meaning there will be an answer someday and the permement meaning there will never be an answer. It is questionable where the God question lies but I believe as do many others that there will be answer someday. Infact I'd say someday soon. Perhaps in my lifetime, although I got a long way to go being younger then 21. I dare say that the culture we live in will change also and very drastically because there more "out of the closet" atheists and agnostics. That population is going and no one knows how many are in the so called "closet."

I hope I answered your question.

However, from my perspective, "There is a creator" is not a logically inconsistent or especially odd sentence. While for all intents and purposes I am an atheist, I adknowledge that it is possible (however unlikely) that there is a "God" of some form or another, although i'd much prefer a reality without one.

That pretty much contradicts the principles of Aethism. Aesthists don't believe that God exists. Even if you hate God, your still believing in him.

That pretty much contradicts the principles of Aethism. Aesthists don't believe that God exists. Even if you hate God, your still believing in him.

Atheists don't believe in a theist or deist God. But as for pantheist I think some atheists believe in that kind of God. I don't know if I do but I wouldn't doubt it.

Atheism and agnosticism go together just fine. So do theism and agnosticism. My girlfriend is a theistic agnostic, for example. She believes in God, but also believes that nobody can be sure.

Atheists don't believe in a theist or deist God. But as for pantheist I think some atheists believe in that kind of God. I don't know if I do but I wouldn't doubt it.

Isn't it then a bit pointless being a Pantheist then, as surely all your saying is "Christianity sucks, i'll believe in my own God"?

That pretty much contradicts the principles of Aethism. Aesthists don't believe that God exists. Even if you hate God, your still believing in him.

I said that i'd prefer a reality without a God and I believe such a circumstance to be more likely than the alternative, but I conceded that I cannot be certain of the fact. I didn't say that I "hate God", because I don't take a position on what form a creator would take.

Isn't it then a bit pointless being a Pantheist then, as surely all your saying is "Christianity sucks, i'll believe in my own God"?

Does that make any less sense than saying, other people tell me that this is what god is like, so I better believe it without question?

Isn't it then a bit pointless being a Pantheist then, as surely all your saying is "Christianity sucks, i'll believe in my own God"?

A pantheist just believes in the laws of the universe and has respect for them. They don't have individual Gods.

Agnosticism is the postition of not knowing. Meaning not all the evidence is in. Although I have recently learned there are two types of agnosticism. There is temporary and permement. Temporary meaning there will be an answer someday and the permement meaning there will never be an answer. It is questionable where the God question lies but I believe as do many others that there will be answer someday. Infact I'd say someday soon. Perhaps in my lifetime, although I got a long way to go being younger then 21. I dare say that the culture we live in will change also and very drastically because there more "out of the closet" atheists and agnostics. That population is going and no one knows how many are in the so called "closet."
I hope I answered your question.Since when does Atheism or Agnosticism mean "being in the closet" ?

Well, there is the wishy-washy fence sitting of maybe there is a god as described by Christianity/Judaism/Islam/my-religion-of-choice, maybe there isn't, which is nothing more than an admission of ignorance and does not excuse that ignorance. It should be evident that those popular Gods are silly. They make even less sense than an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. I dunno. Maybe God exists. Maybe your large intestine wants to be a ballerina when it grows up.

Then there's the other, more philosophical, kind of agnosticism- I guess- people open to the possibility that either humanity, life, or the universe was created by some unknown intelligence.

Of course, 'intelligence' is a very fuzzy concept. How intelligent does a thing have to be before it's intelligent enough to meet the agnostic's criteria for a creator-god? I mean, even a glass of water is intelligent, to a degree. And what, precisely, is the measure of a given process's intelligence? These ambiguities would need to be resolved before any claims of this more philosophical kind could be taken seriously.

Since when does Atheism or Agnosticism mean "being in the closet" ?

Do you really think that every atheist and agnostic are self-professed? Its not popular to say your a atheist or agnostic.

Well, there is the wishy-washy fence sitting of maybe there is a god as described by Christianity/Judaism/Islam/my-religion-of-choice, maybe there isn't, which is nothing more than an admission of ignorance and does not excuse that ignorance. It should be evident that those popular Gods are silly. They make even less sense than an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. I dunno. Maybe God exists. Maybe your large intestine wants to be a ballerina when it grows up.

Then there's the other, more philosophical, kind of agnosticism- I guess- people open to the possibility that either humanity, life, or the universe was created by some unknown intelligence.

Of course, 'intelligence' is a very fuzzy concept. How intelligent does a thing have to be before it's intelligent enough to meet the agnostic's criteria for a creator-god? And what, precisely, is the measure of a given process's intelligence? These ambiguities would need to be resolved before any agnostic claims of this kind could be taken seriously.


Sounds a little like Dawkins.

No single man, woman, or thing can justify any one religion. Nor can anyone nor anything justify there being a God, or there just being us and this odd luck we have been placed on this rock.

Agnosticism sort of amplifies that, with a - "I don't feel that I can say there is no God or that there is a God." but Agnosticism isn't only with 'God', it is also in most cases with Religion. Most Agnostics are your general Christian, who have turned from being called 'religious' by adopting their new title 'Joe the Agnostic'. Most people today will agree that Religion on most levels is quite strange compared to ordinary life, and most Religions that try to implify modern methods and techniques are sort of out casted and thus are never really made big. No body wants to sit in a big, cold, booring and insence smelling room for 2 hours praying and reading a bible. Not even a self-proclaimed Christian, on average, likes doing that. Most who still do are doing it because it has become a 'thing' they do, a sociable and even though booring...stress releiving thing.

I myself, however, am the type of Agnostic who says - "I want to believe in a God, but this entity even if it exists sends mixed messages. Though I follow some, and ignore most, I believe that in the end God is either the very core of my 'good' and my 'evil' either Spiritually in the form of the Creator or of my own way of keeping sane." I also dislike Religion heavily. I don't dislike Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc etc etc. I just don't like the practice of it all, restricting your life to pure morals because if you don't...you'll get a straightaway ticket to the fiery infernal known as hell. Also, not to nitpick or well...signal out a certain faith/branch, Catholics really get on my nerves.

I have a friend who is a devout Catholic, to the point where he is arrogant and pig headed. By Devout you'd think 'Doesn't curse, doesn't do anything harmful to his body, doesn't sodomize, etc etc'. He is so self-inflatuated, and so are a 'few' others that I know of, that he feels like he belongs to the Chosen People. He basically says this -

"By the end of the day, I don't have to worry about what I've done, said, or expressed. All I have to do is repent, ask for forgiveness, and the next day is to my reeping. You want to know why? Because I'm a Catholic, and I belong to the Only Religion."

It angers me that one can be so arrogant. By this, he is telling my he can go out and use a Condom and fuck a chick in the ass, eat her out, splurge all over something random, and at the end of the bed gets to kneel before his own bed saying - "God forgive me" and each sunday going "Father, I think I've put my penis in another's bumm."

Well, swaying from that, my point is -

Agnostics are not totally one way, it is a diverse thing. In literal meaning, it is as diverse as Christianity. Christianity doesn't just include Christians, it has Lutherans, Catholics, Prebysterians *sp*, Methodists, Othordoxy, etc. Agnosticis are the same way, they have all their different fields of beliefes and 'practices'. Atheism is like Islam, where there is generally one set popular way of following it *hint - Shi'a Islam is a bit more populous than Sunni Islam*. Most Atheists are the type that say - No God, nope nothing. Just us, science has proven it, we are just on a rock with no real Godly purpous. Some others, like our topic starter, is sort of the hysterical type. Now, I don't mean this as in 'Insane' but I mean take it to a new level.

Example - Ever hear a guy proclaim "Why do I want to believe in faerie tales, talking lawn Gnomes, etc etc". I'm sorry, but these are generally the Jackass type imho. How I view them is that they have no real good reason to explain why not, so they chastise it and compare the biggest Question to the smallest, stupidest Travel Agency. Yet, in 'theory' they are right to chastise it because in any one person's *or thing's; Voila Computer* can and will view it as silly as the Boogiemonster, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.

To come back to the mainstream Atheism -

To sort of get away from personal opinion, well still opinion because it is how I view it but I believe it may be pretty accurate -

Mainstream Atheists believe that there is no Divine Being. Some may say there is a 'Creator', but not in the form of an almighty God. Those types are confused as Agnostics, but we will leave that for later. Most, going back to the majority atleast, are safe in the knowledge to not have to fear a being that doesn't exist. They know that they may do what they will with-in what they believe is right, hopefully in the sense of law *no, I'm not saying Atheists break the law.*, and are devoted to sort of question this 'God'. This is just plain typical of us all. We will question anything, everything, even the bizarre, the supreme, and the natural. We will question the core beliefe of another to get a rise out of them, either to feel witty and fulfill that want to just be a Jackass, or to engage intelectually to learn why.

So I guess to try and end this post -

To answer this question of Atheism vs Agnosticism -

There isn't any versus. A comparison, yes, and I'm positive that is what you meant. Instead of trying to chastise either one, I will put it straight. Now, by straight I do not mean 100% factual because I am no Historian, no Scientist, not even a Teacher of any sort. I am the average [b]teen[b] male who knows how to express his opinions. The comparison of both of which is simple -

Atheism mainlines the core value of there being no such thing as a Supreme Entity. Smaller cores are that of 'There is no higher power that controls my fate, for there is no fate and only my 'fate' is in my own grasps and my control.' to that of a sense of Anarchism. Notice, smaller cores. Others ensue the hysterical 'Lawn Gnome' which I will admit intices a good laugh or two in even my self. For I'm no Atheist, I will say very little on my comparison for them. From my view point, most believe in no Higher Power. Either Science, or a pure mistake...maybe just a very small astronomical event occured and boom here we were. That is what most, in what I know, Atheists seem to view it all as.

Agnosticism, like I said *and again, in my own eyes*, is the very non-religious version of Christianity. None of us, atleast most of us, do not fear any consequence of denouncing 'God', the Lord, YHVH, Allah, etc. But, we will denounce science. We will denounce all of it until the fog has cleared, some are more head-lined on either side. Some believe in God, but don't want Religion to interfere. Some believe in Science, but don't want to be chastised by the Religious sects in which most people represent by openly admitting they are probably just Atheist. Majority, perhaps, are on a swing-swing situation where they just do not know which to believe. Neither can be proven true ultimately, and given a fair chance...both parties really have no power in them to say 'I'm right, you're wrong.' vise versa.

Me? I'm a lost Christian as most Religious people would say, some Atheists would call me a conformist for still being a 'believer', others will say I'm living a fantasy dream. Most will end up just saying, like most Agnostics, 'Why?'. So, I leave it at that.

We have no ultimate power in our selves to denounce anything without proof omitted by either side. Atleast when Harry Potter was written, it had the note of - Pure Fiction - that came along with it. The Bible bestowed no such thing, and as any 'real' person would have to admit - The Bible wasn't written by conspiracists to entice world injustices and the such, but was written by people who are just like us - Why? And, to cover my ass, yes...a lot of people will say that it is true that a lot of the Bible is fictionalized. No one, not even an average Christian *Note - I'm not trying to exclude any religious sect, it's only because I was prior to this Lutheran*, will say that David took on a Giant. Maybe if he had fought such a Giant, it may have been a man 7 Foot tall who got a bit pissy because David said something to his face. And, to exemplify Religion, these men in their blind pursuit of happyness decided to folklore it. *Note that I'm not saying it is all folklored, but you have to admit that yes...some things may have been extended. Even our most prominent figures today will over-extend the truth to make it glory. Even you, friend, who dare to read this far over-extend true things to give it such power...to give you such glory.*

So, I leave you all with the very common question...the ultimate question, in my eyes.

Why?

Intellectually I can understand the agnostic position of not taking a position, or of being convinced that there is really no way to know either way...but...come on now! It's like saying, "Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

I can't be agnostic, because frankly, I don't believe that I have to give shrift to faerie tales. Just because I don't know FOR SURE that there aren't sock gnomes, doesn't mean I have to sit on a fence and say, 'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.

I take my agnosticism in three directions:

1. Human reason is based in logical patterns based on temporal and spatial causation and relation, any supernatural being would be completely unbound by these, therefore human reason is completely unequipped to make a statement either way.

2. Religion is entirely individual and subjective. Any objective (and possibly shared) evidence and experience of religion is an impossibility.

3. If there is a God, its works are unknown to us, except maybe in our subconscious emotional renderings. Any conscious devotion to any God would therefore be meaningless. If there is a God, you must follow your conscience and trust that what God exists would not lead you astray. Therefore any attempt at a "religion" is meaningless.


Saying that agnostics are simply indecisive is a mischaracterization.

Do you really think that every atheist and agnostic are self-professed? Its not popular to say your an atheist or agnostic.Where?

Where?

In the United States.

In the United States.Sure?

In the United States.

Indeed. Say you are atheist/agnostic in the office or in school and see how many people swamp you calling you stupid.


I am Agnostic because all religions seem stupid, but there is no absolute evidence condemning most of them to be fake.

Indeed. Say you are atheist/agnostic in the office or in school and see how many people swamp you calling you stupid.The US is a bag of shit then.

I am Agnostic because all religions seem stupid, but there is no absolute evidence condemning most of them to be fake.There is sufficient evidence.

The US is a bag of shit then.

If you mean intolerant people suck, then yes.

There is sufficient evidence.

I have yet to see a study that proves there is no heaven, hell, soul, or where the material for the big bang came from.

Antitheism is better than both.

If you mean intolerant people suck, then yes.If it is "unpopular" to be an atheist or agnostic in the US then US people are intolerant people. But what else is new?
Does an employer have the right to ask for an applicant's beliefs at all?

I have yet to see a study that proves there is no heaven, hell, soul, or where the material for the big bang came from.At least there is sufficient evidence that the Jewish/Christian version of religion doesn't hold water, since we in fact know where all the bits and pieces of their beliefs once came from.

I don't know what to call myself and frankly I don't care. I've never really made a separation between atheism and agnostism because they seem to be similar to me. My standpoint is that there is probably a greater force in the universe that we can't understand but I'm sure that it isn't explained in the Bible or the Koran or in any other fairy tales. People who believe don't base their beliefs on logic or evidence, that's why I dismiss their beliefs as BS. Just because I believe that there is something greater that we cannot fully understand doesn't mean I have to come up with a fairy tale to explain it.

So what would you call me, atheist or agnostic?

I've heard the philosophical arguments for theist claims of a god's existence and I have heard the philosophical arguments for the nonexistence of a god.

I am a strong atheist and an antitheist.

The arguments for a god's existence don't hold water in my opinion and the arguments for a god's nonexistence are definitely more credible and their criticisms are definitely lacking in persuasive power to me. I have been raised an evangelical Xtian and my dad is a second generation ordained minister (but not a pastor, more an occaisional preacher). I've seen it all. I've only recently become an apostate and only after I realized I was talking to myself when I was talking to God which led me to search for the truth. Apologists are pathetic subhuman mental handicaps; I tried hard to find something worth repeating they had to say before I became agnostic. Then eventually I became an atheist, and then a strong atheist, and then an antitheist.

I am not ignorant of the arguments up for debate on the topic of gods, but I have not heard anyone defend agnosticism (i.e. "the supernatural's unknowable"). Not once.

All I hear is claims that knowledge of the supernatural is unknowable without any arguments for why this is so. The only thing that even remotely comes close to this is the comment from Vittos the City Sacker. And in my opinion, statements 2 and 3 are very weak. 1 is a very interesting statement though and it deserves consideration for debate.

Other than that one statement, there is never any argument from agnostics that goes beyond "I dunno and neither do you" and that's just an assertion. Atleast theists and atheists have something to talk about. The lack of arguments FOR agnosticism indicate to me that it is mostly full of shit so much so that there is not even a bad defense of it (unlike theism which atleast has arguments), or that people who claim agnosticism are actually apatheists, ignostic or theological noncognitivists (all of which I could respect much more than the agnostic position).

I would REALLY like to hear a defense of agnosticism.

1. Human reason is based in logical patterns based on temporal and spatial causation and relation, any supernatural being would be completely unbound by these, therefore human reason is completely unequipped to make a statement either way.



Who says the rest of the world is bound by these things either? Our brain is simply a device for telling itself very useful fictions about an incomprehensible world in a way that allows itself to survive long enough to reproduce. Science is just a process of making these fictions ever more elaborate and useful.

In other words, what agnostics forget is that you can't prove or make 'true' statements about anything at all. It could be a giant coincidence that every time it rains there's a cloud in the sky, but so far assuming that there is some causal connection has been pretty useful, say, for telling me when I need to bring my umbrella. This is the only possible criterion for 'truth'. The idea of God has no such use, and is therefore untrue.

I would REALLY like to hear a defense of agnosticism.

I don't know, and I don't care.
Why would I defend agnosticism, I think people should be free to believe whatever they choose. I don't feel the need to go evangelising for any sort of faith, be that in the existence or non-existence of god.

I've had lots of arguments about religious topics on here in the past, but I don't feel the need to argue about the possible existence of god. When I argue, it's usually because someone claims to know god's nature and will in detail. All I then try to do is show them that that is impossible. Other than that, I leave them alone. To each their own.

If it is "unpopular" to be an atheist or agnostic in the US then US people are intolerant people. But what else is new?
Does an employer have the right to ask for an applicant's beliefs at all?

They're not supposed to, but some will try to figure it out by asking if the person is free to work Sunday mornings, and other things. Sort of like how some will try to figure out if a woman plans on having kids by pressing information about Day-Care policies on them.

Personally, I've been agnostic for about two years, I'm lucky enough to have a group of friends that includes a Deist, and a pagan(He calls himself Christian, but also says he believes other gods exist, confuses me to no end how that works.) We also have a very intelligent Christian in the group, but I think he doesn't really like religous debates, which is a shame, since I'd love to hear what he thinks.

My position is that we should acknowledge the fact that we don't know, then try and fix that. It's a bit hard to seek answers if you refuse to admit you don't know them.

there is never any argument from agnostics that goes beyond "I dunno and neither do you" and that's just an assertion.It's not just an assertion. There is simply a fundamental grounding problem to human knowledge.
"I think, therefor I am"; and even that's disputable. Anything above that is guesswork and not actual knowledge. It will always be conditional on assumptions.
Hence scepticism is justified. Agnosticism simply follows from that; we have no basis for knowledge about god, either pro or con. The bible might be the work of madmen, or it might be the result of revelation. How can we know the difference? We can't.
We can only guess at which we find more probable, which world view gives a more consistent or usable result. And let's face it, God makes no difference there.

It's silly to take an extreme position; there is no justifiable basis for it.

In other words, what agnostics forget is that you can't prove or make 'true' statements about anything at all.Actually, quite the contrary.

It could be a giant coincidence that every time it rains there's a cloud in the sky, but so far assuming that there is some causal connection has been pretty useful, say, for telling me when I need to bring my umbrella. This is the only possible criterion for 'truth'.It's not. More importantly, you don't need it here. Probability suffices well enough.
And considering how often it's clouded here without there being rain, the mere presence of a cloud doesn't by any stretch of the imagination makes it true that it will rain.

The idea of God has no such use, and is therefore untrue.Confusing truthfull and usefull doesn't seem usefull to me. So it can't be true.

I don't know, and I don't care.
Why would I defend agnosticism, I think people should be free to believe whatever they choose. I don't feel the need to go evangelising for any sort of faith, be that in the existence or non-existence of god.

I've had lots of arguments about religious topics on here in the past, but I don't feel the need to argue about the possible existence of god. When I argue, it's usually because someone claims to know god's nature and will in detail. All I then try to do is show them that that is impossible. Other than that, I leave them alone. To each their own.


Defend Agnostacism? Why it really don't need it.

To say 'Well I don't know what to think, you see coz there aint any proof' seems kinda sensible to me, what need to defend that?

It's not just an assertion. There is simply a fundamental grounding problem to human knowledge.
"I think, therefor I am"; and even that's disputable. Anything above that is guesswork and not actual knowledge. It will always be conditional on assumptions.
Hence scepticism is justified. Agnosticism simply follows from that; we have no basis for knowledge about god, either pro or con. The bible might be the work of madmen, or it might be the result of revelation. How can we know the difference? We can't.
We can only guess at which we find more probable, which world view gives a more consistent or usable result. And let's face it, God makes no difference there.

It's silly to take an extreme position; there is no justifiable basis for it.


No not silly quite normal for us humans.

Is it right or wrong to hate somebody based on the colour of their skin? The answer to that depends on what you think. Disregarding for a moment human morality, how can we prove either stance correct, I mean in an absolute way?

We can't we can only look at it subjectivly, yet who sits on the fence with this issue? Nobody, you ether belive it is wrong, or you are the other end of the other extreame and belive it is right. Silly, or normal I ask you?

I couldn’t agree more with the OP. Agnostics are irritating in their wishy-washiness. Sometimes I think they just aren’t strong enough to take on the full social stigma of being an atheist in a faith-obsessed society.

I couldn’t agree more with the OP. Agnostics are irritating in their wishy-washiness. Sometimes I think they just aren’t strong enough to take on the full social stigma of being an atheist in a faith-obsessed society.

Might be the case in the US. Here, people couldn't care less about anyone else's faith.
And I personally don't care if there's a god or not. It doesn't make the slightest difference.

I couldn’t agree more with the OP. Agnostics are irritating in their wishy-washiness. Sometimes I think they just aren’t strong enough to take on the full social stigma of being an atheist in a faith-obsessed society.

Heh so you too belive one way based soley on a lack of evidance?

Might be the case in the US. Here, people couldn't care less about anyone else's faith.
And I personally don't care if there's a god or not. It doesn't make the slightest difference.
Good for you, and I agree.
Heh so you too belive one way based soley on a lack of evidance?
That line of thinking is full of assumptions.
I don’t need a lack of evidence to the contrary to not believe in Santa Claus. What makes the idea of God so special besides its memetic endurance?

i always got the impression that the reason for a middle ground or fence is because religion is such an important and influential part of human culture that it is counter-productive to simply have two diametrically opposed view-points on the fundamental basis of religion. it really is futile for an atheist and a theist to debate on religion because each is coming into the debate with fundamentally incompatible starting assumptions. and agnostic joining the debate can at least diffuse the inevitable stalemate by simply trotting out the agnostic "can't know, can't prove, can't be bothered" routine.

i would class myself as an atheist because i simply don't believe in all-powerful sky fairies. but i can't then completely dismiss the issue by simply saying i don't believe because it is such an important facet of human existence and that belief needs to be justified. i can't explain my disbelief because i don't know enough about theology, physics, philosophy and all that, so i must accept that i can't 'know' for sure whether god exists or not. when it comes down to academics i have to accept an agnostic position because i can't justify my belief, but atheism is what i believe.

i appreciate this is a bit convoluted but my head is full of cotton wool and i'm very sleepy. :p

That line of thinking is full of assumptions.
I don’t need a lack of evidence to the contrary to not believe in Santa Claus. What makes the idea of God so special besides its memetic endurance?

You seem to assume that if god (or Santa, or the tooth fairy) don't exist in one particular form, they can't exist in any form at all. There's the difference between atheism and agnosticism right there :
Agnostics refuse to believe existence or none-existence, and they don't assume that simply because there's no coke-drinking, obese old guy sitting in your living room on christmas eve there's no santa. Things might be far more complex than that ;)

Good for you, and I agree.

That line of thinking is full of assumptions.
I don’t need a lack of evidence to the contrary to not believe in Santa Claus. What makes the idea of God so special besides its memetic endurance?

memetic endurance is exactly what makes it so important. it's not something that is going to disappear simply by trying to get everyone to be logical about it. it is something that plays a very influential role in world relations and individual lives. that's what makes it special. if a belief in santa was powerful enough that different sects sprung up according to different interpretations of what this belief should mean and caused conflicts and war then simply saying that there is nothing to prove that santa exists would not be sufficient to resolve the problem. you need something else. i don't know what to suggest apart from tolerance for wackos really.

No not silly quite normal for us humans.Humans are normally quite silly. :rolleyes:

You seem to assume that if god (or Santa, or the tooth fairy) don't exist in one particular form, they can't exist in any form at all. There's the difference between atheism and agnosticism right there :
Agnostics refuse to believe existence or none-existence, and they don't assume that simply because there's no coke-drinking, obese old guy sitting in your living room on christmas eve there's no santa. Things might be far more complex than that ;)
If you don’t worship a God, then you are an atheist, period, no matter your pretensions.
i don't know what to suggest apart from tolerance for wackos really.
Which, I assure you, I demonstrate on a nearly daily basis.

You seem to assume that if god (or Santa, or the tooth fairy) don't exist in one particular form, they can't exist in any form at all. There's the difference between atheism and agnosticism right there :
Agnostics refuse to believe existence or none-existence, and they don't assume that simply because there's no coke-drinking, obese old guy sitting in your living room on christmas eve there's no santa. Things might be far more complex than that ;)Yeah, Santa does exist. He's all the fathers and mothers that late at night put gifts under the christmas tree for their children to find early in the morning.

Good for you, and I agree.

That line of thinking is full of assumptions.
I don’t need a lack of evidence to the contrary to not believe in Santa Claus. What makes the idea of God so special besides its memetic endurance?


Then your non belife in Santa is based on the same kind of thinking as your Atheisim?

Let's get this straight from the first, I don't actualy care that you don't belive in God, it is after all none of my bussiness.

My point is that you delcare Agnostics too wishy washy, and in short you don't think they have the balls to just say yeah that's right I'm Atheist.

This is based(I assume) on the argument that becsaue there is no proof then the norm is to not believe. It is my stance that this 'norm' that you think about is wrong, and in fact the norm is to say well on a lack of evidance I shall say I don't know. Rather than make your mind up one way or the other, which if you think about it is something us God botheres and you Atheists have in common. Beliveing to one extreame or another without proof, say isn't that irrational? Hahaha;)

If you don’t worship a God, then you are an atheist, period, no matter your pretensions. If that's how you define atheism, then sure.
Most people though (I think), would say it's not about worship of a god, but (dis)belief in god.

I could easily define agnosticism such that nearly everyone would need to admit (s)he is one. Doesn't serve the discussion much though.

If you don’t worship a God, then you are an atheist, period, no matter your pretensions.


I'm an atheistic agnositic. I don't believe either way, but my gut feeling is there is no god. At least not in the way described by any current religion.

Yeah, Santa does exist. He's all the fathers and mothers that late at night put gifts under the christmas tree for their children to find early in the morning.

Which is just what god might be ;)

Which is just what god might be ;)That reminds me of a comic (http://www.lowbright.com/Comics/InterviewWithAHuman/InterviewWithAHuman.htm) I happened to read yesterday.

Intellectually I can understand the agnostic position of not taking a position, or of being convinced that there is really no way to know either way...but...come on now! It's like saying, "Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

I can't be agnostic, because frankly, I don't believe that I have to give shrift to faerie tales. Just because I don't know FOR SURE that there aren't sock gnomes, doesn't mean I have to sit on a fence and say, 'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.

Given that there are as many different definitions of "God" as there are God-believers, and given that these definitions span a very large range of absurdity, I remain agnostic mainly due to the lack of sufficient information to even know what we're talking about when we discuss "God."

Some people have told me that God is a baby's first laugh, a lovely sunrise, and is found in the heart of every rose. As wishy-washy and bogus as this philosophy may sound, I am forced to admit that I do believe baby's laughter, sunrises, and roses exist. I have absolutely no way of determining if this wishy-washy and bogus-sounding definition is a better or worse definition of "God" than any other definition.

If you don’t worship a God, then you are an atheist, period, no matter your pretensions.

Hardly. Atheism/theism refers to one's belief regarding the existence of God. It's quite possible to believe something exists without worshipping it.

For instance, I am pretty sure that George W. Bush does, in fact, exist. However, I do not worship him, nor would I ever consider doing so.

Similarly, even if I firmly believed the Christian God existed, I would not remotely consider worshipping it.

If you don’t worship a God, then you are an atheist, period, no matter your pretensions. I believe the issue is completely irrelevant until proven otherwise.

I consider myself an agnostic as the metaphysical questions of possible existence of g/God(s) are IMO extremely counterproductive. I'm not even touching the definitions of aforementioned supposedly qualitatively different beings - ie. What does a g/God(s) need to do or be in order to be ultimately unreachable in, well, powers and stature?

I think a lot of the confusion on this issue can be traced to a lack of differentiation between naturalism and theism. I for instance, acknowledge that it is within the realm of possibility that there is a force or forces at work in the universe that we as human beings do not currently understand. However, I see no reason to believe that such forces, if not understandable by the human mind, could not be understood and eventually imitated and/or harnessed by a sentient being of enough intelligence. This is a naturalistic, not theistic, worldview, and doesn’t make me any less of an atheist despite my acknowledgement of a possible “higher” power.

I think a lot of the confusion on this issue can be traced to a lack of differentiation between naturalism and theism. I for instance, acknowledge that it is within the realm of possibility that there is a force or forces at work in the universe that we as human beings do not currently understand. However, I see no reason to believe that such forces, if not understandable by the human mind, could not be understood and eventually imitated and/or harnessed by a sentient being of enough intelligence. This is a naturalistic, not theistic, worldview, and doesn’t make me any less of an atheist despite my acknowledgement of a possible “higher” power.

I think that's very much a matter of definition. Based on the description you provide, I would call you a theist agnostic. But you're free to call yourself whatever you like, of course.

Let the intolerance flow. Both from atheists and religious people, it is all the same hateful "I am right and you suck" BS. Continue. :mad:

Actually, quite the contrary.

It's not. More importantly, you don't need it here. Probability suffices well enough.
And considering how often it's clouded here without there being rain, the mere presence of a cloud doesn't by any stretch of the imagination makes it true that it will rain.

Confusing truthfull and usefull doesn't seem usefull to me. So it can't be true.

It was a sort of sloppy example...my point was that it makes sense to say there's some sort of causal connection between rain and clouds even though it's in theory possible to think of ways that might not be the case. And this is an extremely useful idea if you're a quantum theorist, where you can get in a horrible twist if you start worrying about 'how can this possibly be true?' instead of just seeing that the equations work, and where you have to costruct contradicting models for yourself depending on the situation.

Edit: Also, to compare the chances of the rain-cloud connection being real and being a coincidence, you need to know the chance of there being a connection before you've made any observations. There's no way you can do that, so you can't just say that a coincidence is improbable.

Hardly. Atheism/theism refers to one's belief regarding the existence of God. It's quite possible to believe something exists without worshipping it.



I'm not sure you can say that. A little while ago, Sir Martin Rees proposed that it was quite likely that the universe is actually a computer simulation by a very advanced civilisation, so you could call the programmer 'God'. However, I'm pretty sure that he still considers himself an atheist if he was one before he had that idea. I think part of the problem is how badly defined the word 'God' is.

Let the intolerance flow. Both from atheists and religious people, it is all the same hateful "I am right and you suck" BS. Continue. :mad:
I always find it cute when somebody pops into one of these thread simply to get up on their high horse and chastise all the supposedly "intolerant" people participating in the discussion.

There are jerks in every thread. Welcome to the internet, genius.

If you actually troubled yourself to read the thread, however, you'd find plenty of people--theists and atheists alike--who are behaving themselves. But then you might not feel entitled to wag your little finger as vigorously. And that would be such a shame.

I think part of the problem is how badly defined the word 'God' is.


Hahah I can't agree with that at all. God the all, the creator. What else is there that I have missed there?

I think that's very much a matter of definition. Based on the description you provide, I would call you a theist agnostic. But you're free to call yourself whatever you like, of course.
It’s all the same. To the vast majority of people that I deal with on a daily basis, I’m some sort of social retard with no reason to behave ethically and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office or be around small children. They would think the same of you, despite our differing opinions.
One question, though. How can you call someone who doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the supernatural, a theist?

Hahah I can't agree with that at all. God the all, the creator. What else is there that I have missed there?
Well, for one thing, your definition is unclear already.

God = all? God = whatever created the universe? Both?

No single man, woman, or thing can justify any one religion. Nor can anyone nor anything justify there being a God, or there just being us and this odd luck we have been placed on this rock.

<snipped for space>.

Why?

wow adding in the random porn really makes a person read the post to the end (hoping for more).

I always find it cute when somebody pops into one of these thread simply to get up on their high horse and chastise all the supposedly "intolerant" people participating in the discussion.

There are jerks in every thread. Welcome to the internet, genius.

If you actually troubled yourself to read the thread, however, you'd find plenty of people--theists and atheists alike--who are behaving themselves. But then you might not feel entitled to wag your little finger as vigorously. And that would be such a shame.

I've posted in the thread like 3 times off my high horse. It just bothers me when someone calls someone else intolerant then says something just as bad right back.

I've posted in the thread like 3 times off my high horse. It just bothers me when someone calls someone else intolerant then says something just as bad right back.
That bugs me, too. But it's pointless and rude to act like such individuals define a thread. Don't let their behavior set the tone, and don't insult all the people who are behaving themselves.

Agnosticism is for people who can't make up their damn mind.

At least with theist, they have made up their mind, even if they seem like they're full of shit most days.

I never understood this mindset.

Why is it a virtue to make up your mind when you've got no evidence? Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, as long as you're definite? What a load of bullshit.

There's a name for people who do that. Schizophrenic.

Or George W. Bush.

Being decisive is good, to a point. That point is where evidence exists to make a clear qualitative difference between two courses. If someone places two identical dishes in front of you and asks you which one is better, it is not waffling to say "I can't decide which is better." Unless it's actually a plate of waffles. Then maybe.

I never understood this mindset.

Why is it a virtue to make up your mind when you've got no evidence? Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, as long as you're definite? What a load of bullshit.

Exactly.

Maybe it's because I have been a scientist my whole life, but I have never felt any sense of failure at saying, "I lack sufficient evidence to answer this question right now."

I do not have the information I need to decide whether or not I believe God exists (largely because nobody can provide me with a standardized definition of the term in the first place). Would it really be a virtue for me to leap to some premature conclusion on this topic, without having the faintest idea if I'm even in the right ballpark? Wouldn't that be pretty arrogant and silly of me? I think it's wiser for me to admit the limitations of my knowledge.

Well, there is the wishy-washy fence sitting of maybe there is a god as described by Christianity/Judaism/Islam/my-religion-of-choice, maybe there isn't, which is nothing more than an admission of ignorance and does not excuse that ignorance. It should be evident that those popular Gods are silly. They make even less sense than an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. I dunno. Maybe God exists. Maybe your large intestine wants to be a ballerina when it grows up.

Curiously, mine wants to be a lathe operator at an auto-assembley plant.

I don't know what to call myself and frankly I don't care. I've never really made a separation between atheism and agnostism because they seem to be similar to me. My standpoint is that there is probably a greater force in the universe that we can't understand but I'm sure that it isn't explained in the Bible or the Koran or in any other fairy tales. People who believe don't base their beliefs on logic or evidence, that's why I dismiss their beliefs as BS. Just because I believe that there is something greater that we cannot fully understand doesn't mean I have to come up with a fairy tale to explain it.

So what would you call me, atheist or agnostic?

that would make you an agnostic.

Well, for one thing, your definition is unclear already.

God = all? God = whatever created the universe? Both?

Really Bottle? I am supprised.

All = Everything.

Creator = That which creates.

It really is that simple.

But let me break it down further, God is all = everything that is, is God.

It’s all the same. To the vast majority of people that I deal with on a daily basis, I’m some sort of social retard with no reason to behave ethically and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office or be around small children. They would think the same of you, despite our differing opinions.
One question, though. How can you call someone who doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the supernatural, a theist?

Those people are idiots. If you have no set of morals without religion, your morals are worth fuck all with religion. Morals were there before religion was invented to give them foundation.

I understood your reference to a "higher power" to mean "supernatural power". My mistake if that wasn't what you meant.

Really Bottle? I am supprised.

All = Everything.

Creator = That which creates.

It really is that simple.

But let me break it down further, God is all = everything that is, is God.
Ok, so God is everything. Since "everything" exists, God exists.

I'm a something. I am part of "everything." I am also God. If God = everything = Creator, does this mean I created the universe?

Hahah I can't agree with that at all. God the all, the creator. What else is there that I have missed there?

God is the creator? So if the Big Bang was the result of another universe collapsing in on itself, would that universe be God? No, God has a consciousness. The same sort of consciousness we have? No, an incredibly advanced consciousness, that we can never understand. So how do we know He's conscious? And can God interact with the world? If so, how? Through some undiscovered physical force? How is this controlled by His consciousness? Etc. etc. etc.

I'd say I am agnostic, but not "wishy-washy" in the slightest. The whole issue is a very broad one. I don't hold any faith, and concider doing so an error, as it is inherently irrational and thus stupid.

If you ask me about the existence of something spiritual, I'd say that there is a fair chance of there being something. There is a reason I am "sitting on the fence" on this one: The two weights are equally heavy. Give me something to tip the scales, and I'll cease this apparently so horribly "wishy-washy" behavior of mine.

However, the answer might be another for a more closely defined question. For example, were you to ask me whether one or more gods in one of the manners presented by the major religions exist, the short answer would be "No", the longer being: I concider that so unlikely that the possibility for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

Ok, so God is everything. Since "everything" exists, God exists.

I'm a something. I am part of "everything." I am also God. If God = everything = Creator, does this mean I created the universe?

Do you remember creating the universe?

God is the creator? So if the Big Bang was the result of another universe collapsing in on itself, would that universe be God? No, God has a consciousness. The same sort of consciousness we have? No, an incredibly advanced consciousness, that we can never understand. So how do we know He's conscious? And can God interact with the world? If so, how? Through some undiscovered physical force? How is this controlled by His consciousness? Etc. etc. etc.

Hehe how do we know anything? Isn't it all best guess work?

Do you remember creating the universe?
I have no memory of the universe existing before I did, so I must admit it is entirely possible I did create the universe.

You would have a point if the idea of no God is much more likely then the idea of a God (and i'm talking about the very basic prime mover un religious sort of God here at the moment), but since there are only two options you can take in the line of cause and effect: one being that matter/ the universe appeared spontaniously out of nothing, and one that matter/ the universe was caused to be. With both possibilities being infinately impossible as each other, it is retarded and impossible to say you know what happened.

It is not the same as disproving a flying sock monster at mars, as the alternative is much more likely, and there is no need for the flying sock monster.

I'd say I am agnostic, but not "wishy-washy" in the slightest. The whole issue is a very broad one. I don't hold any faith, and concider doing so an error, as it is inherently irrational and thus stupid.

If you ask me about the existence of something spiritual, I'd say that there is a fair chance of there being something. There is a reason I am "sitting on the fence" on this one: The two weights are equally heavy. Give me something to tip the scales, and I'll cease this apparently so horribly "wishy-washy" behavior of mine.

However, the answer might be another for a more closely defined question. For example, were you to ask me whether one or more gods in one of the manners presented by the major religions exist, the short answer would be "No", the longer being: I concider that so unlikely that the possibility for all practical purposes is irrelevant.


I quite agree there seems to me to be something quite sensible in saying I have not enough proof to make up my mind one way or the other, and not wishy washy at all. However I bet you do take things on faith, and a lot of stuff too, so therefore you are as guilkty as the rest of us in your irratinal thoughts patterns and so must also be stupid!;)

I have no memory of the universe existing before I did, so I must admit it is entirely possible I did create the universe.

Heheh thats a fair way of putting it. Perhaps even fairer than the point I was going to make, which was of course that indeed you are God, you just can't remember it.

Hehe how do we know anything? Isn't it all best guess work?

True. But any coherent 'Theory of God' would have to at least set the terms in which we could pose these sorts of questions rather than shroud them in vagueness.

True. But any coherent 'Theory of God' would have to at least set the terms in which we could pose these sorts of questions rather than shroud them in vagueness.


Speaking in scientific terms perhaps you are correct. Yet would you use chemsitry to talk about and discus ideas of maths, or perhaps wood working terminology and skills to relate matters of the French language.

Before we can really, discus God then don't you thing we should use the appropratite language and skills? That of metaphysics, how can we talk scintificaly about that which transends science?

Exactly.

Maybe it's because I have been a scientist my whole life, but I have never felt any sense of failure at saying, "I lack sufficient evidence to answer this question right now."

In Science of Discworld III, a book that Terry Pratchett wrote with two professors from Caimbridge (or Oxford, I can never remember which) he told a story about some official from Oxford (this time I'm pretty sure it was Oxford) who told reporters "I don't want to work with scientists. You never know where they stand. Every time there's new evidence they change their minds." The writers then explain that the reporters then got the joke, but today most politicians wouldn't even realize it was a joke.

Or as Stephen Colbert fecitiously praised George W. Bush, "he's a man who believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday no matter what happened Tuesday."

Ok, so God is everything. Since "everything" exists, God exists.

I'm a something. I am part of "everything." I am also God. If God = everything = Creator, does this mean I created the universe?

Mythologically speaking, the god represents a "masculine" or impregnating force, which is to say a part of [the act of] creation that acts on the Creation [thing created]. The goddess represents a "feminine" or gestating force, that is a creator who is the thing so created. Symbolically, the goddess was the land and all the things of the land, including us; and the god was the heavens, and a part of all Creation. What was originally a union or marriage of Heaven and Earth that together represented creation became a divorce that saw her pushed aside from religious experience. So 'God' went from being a part of his Creation to being apart from Creation, looking down on it from the Heavens.

I have no memory of the universe existing before I did, so I must admit it is entirely possible I did create the universe.

And since the universe seems to extend for the same distance, and in similar condition in all directions from me, I must conclude that I am the center of the universe.

Mythologically speaking, the god represents a "masculine" or impregnating force, which is to say a part of [the act of] creation that acts on the Creation [thing created]. The goddess represents a "feminine" or gestating force, that is a creator who is the thing so created. Symbolically, the goddess was the land and all the things of the land, including us; and the god was the heavens, and a part of all Creation. What was originally a union or marriage of Heaven and Earth that together represented creation became a divorce that saw her pushed aside from religious experience. So 'God' went from being a part of his Creation to being apart from Creation, looking down on it from the Heavens.
Which is all extremely funny to me, given my understanding of the mechanics of reproduction. It sounds mostly like a bunch of people had no clue about the functions of their own bodies and made up some lovely stories based on their ignorance. :D

Mythologically speaking, the god represents a "masculine" or impregnating force, which is to say a part of [the act of] creation that acts on the Creation [thing created]. The goddess represents a "feminine" or gestating force, that is a creator who is the thing so created. Symbolically, the goddess was the land and all the things of the land, including us; and the god was the heavens, and a part of all Creation. What was originally a union or marriage of Heaven and Earth that together represented creation became a divorce that saw her pushed aside from religious experience. So 'God' went from being a part of his Creation to being apart from Creation, looking down on it from the Heavens.

Speaking Paganisticly yeah, I like that idea.

Which is all extremely funny to me, given my understanding of the mechanics of reproduction. It sounds mostly like a bunch of people had no clue about the functions of their own bodies and made up some lovely stories based on their ignorance. :D

Well, they did live two or three millennia ago, before science, so that's hardly a criticism. :)

It's not about our reproductive functions, but about the idea of creation represented in a symbolic form.

True. But any coherent 'Theory of God' would have to at least set the terms in which we could pose these sorts of questions rather than shroud them in vagueness.

On the other hand, we don't have a clear idea what constitutes a drug. Sugar has as much an impact on your short term metabolic proceces as cafine yet the latter is a drug and the former is not. Any definition of drugs we have almost always allows for the inclusion of things we most definitly would exclude from the catagory. Yet we still have a scientific field of medecine.

Our idea of what constitues a species is becoming increasingly vague. Horses and Donkeys have been known to produce fertile mules. Jakals and dogs produce fertile offspring yet they are different species. Europeans are as genetically distinct from Kalahari Bushmen as dogs are from jakals, yet only the openly racist would ever consider classifying them as two different species. Yet we still recognize taxonomy in biology.

While it is a nice ideal to provide definitions that include everything that we wish to have the term apply to and excludes everything that shouldn't, at some level the human brain makes names work by having words mean the thing that we're talking about when we use the term and hope that the other person follows along.

That's why no one can agree on what constitutes a terrorist. Any definition that excludes President Bush whom we (for the most part) wish to classify as 'not a terrorist' will also exclude the Bombers of the USS Kole who are classified as terrorists.

On the other hand, we don't have a clear idea what constitutes a drug.

A drug is any biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that is taken for non-dietary needs.


Sugar has as much an impact on your short term metabolic proceces as cafine yet the latter is a drug and the former is not.

Any definition of drugs we have almost always allows for the inclusion of things we most definitly would exclude from the catagory. Yet we still have a scientific field of medecine.

I think you are confusing the popular social use of the term "drug" with the scientific (and medical) understanding of the term. As somebody who has worked in pharmacology labs, allow me to reassure you: most individuals who work in the scientific field of medicine are well aware of what does and does not constitute a drug.

Of course, there are substances which can be both a drug and not a drug, depending on how and why they are ingested.

Similarly, with terms like "terrorist," the fact that some ignorant people (like President Bush) don't know what they are talking about does not mean that there is no actual definition of the term. People misuse words all the time, but that doesn't mean definitions don't exist.

Which is all extremely funny to me, given my understanding of the mechanics of reproduction. It sounds mostly like a bunch of people had no clue about the functions of their own bodies and made up some lovely stories based on their ignorance. :D

Their own bodies functioning they understood. It's the rest of the mechanical universe that they didn't. That's why they saw the sun as impregnating the ground. They had no other analogies for applying one thing to another and getting new life.

Their own bodies functioning they understood. It's the rest of the mechanical universe that they didn't. That's why they saw the sun as impregnating the ground. They had no other analogies for applying one thing to another and getting new life.

to have that myth at all they have to have come to an understanding of the male participation in making babies. its not that obvious since babies appear so long after the sex takes place.

the whole discussion reminds me of uranos and gaia, where uranos is represented by the sea fog rolling up upon the land (gaia) in an act of sexual creation. i love the image.

A drug is any biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that is taken for non-dietary needs.

Well then you've got to explain what constitutes "dietary."

When British sailors sucked a lime was that non-dietary because it was being used to treat a disease, or dietary because the disease was simply the result of a particular type of malnutrition?

When people ate a mashed up hog's stomach and intestines for their "extrinsic and intrinsic factors" was that medicinal because it treated their inability to metabolize B12 or dietary because it is simply ground organ meat? What about a B12 shot?

Marijuana taken to alleviate nausea? If a deficiency in a person's GI health means that they must consume some plant that contains THC as pot does instead of calcium as broccoli does, then why is it a drug instead of a dietary supplement or simply a uniquely necessary food like hog's belly mentioned above?

And artificial sweetners. I've never heard of Splenda being called a drug, though it follows from your definition. And stevia, another artificial sweetner is officially considered a dietary supplement, meaning it's dietary, but doesn't provide nutrition.

to have that myth at all they have to have come to an understanding of the male participation in making babies. its not that obvious since babies appear so long after the sex takes place.

the whole discussion reminds me of uranos and gaia, where uranos is represented by the sea fog rolling up upon the land (gaia) in an act of sexual creation. i love the image.

Most peoples figure it out pretty early in their development that men have a role in sex. If nothing else they would see that the kids often look like the guy that the woman was sleeping with the most. It may not be obvious to us, since we learn about it in science class, which they did not have. But they learned about all sorts of things in ways we never can.

Very often when people try to imagine hunter-gatherer, or neo-lithic understandings of the world they simply try to imagine not knowing all the things we learn by means that didn't exist back then. We completly forget to add the things we don't have now (like herbal medicine that actually works). It's the same sort of logical fallacy that leads people to believe that "irreducable complexity" disproves evolution.

Well then you've got to explain what constitutes "dietary."

When British sailors sucked a lime was that non-dietary because it was being used to treat a disease, or dietary because the disease was simply the result of a particular type of malnutrition?

When people ate a mashed up hog's stomach and intestines for their "extrinsic and intrinsic factors" was that medicinal because it treated their inability to metabolize B12 or dietary because it is simply ground organ meat? What about a B12 shot?

Marijuana taken to alleviate nausea? If a deficiency in a person's GI health means that they must consume some plant that contains THC as pot does instead of calcium as broccoli does, then why is it a drug instead of a dietary supplement or simply a uniquely necessary food like hog's belly mentioned above?

And artificial sweetners. I've never heard of Splenda being called a drug, though it follows from your definition. And stevia, another artificial sweetner is officially considered a dietary supplement, meaning it's dietary, but doesn't provide nutrition.
As I said in my post, it is possible for a given substance to be both a drug and not a drug depending on how and why it is consumed.

However I bet you do take things on faith, and a lot of stuff too, so therefore you are as guilkty as the rest of us in your irratinal thoughts patterns and so must also be stupid!;)Not nearly as much as most. But, indeed, some stupidity is inherent in human nature and impossible to get rid of. Unlike a very large majority of people though, I correct all the faults that I find. I started out relatively well to begin with, and have since progressed quite far.

Now, just look at that post of yours; an assumption made and used to justify an incorrect conclusion immedietly following it.;) Making irrational assumptions are one of the most common errors made. And that, I very, very seldom do. It is a basic principle that I follow whenever viable: Always concider, never assume. Of cource, estimations are error-prone, and I am far from infallible.

In the various rantings about human stupidity I have made on this board and others, I have never claimed to be perfect myself. I am indeed "guilty", but far less than most, and I strive towards improvement to the best of my ability.

Most peoples figure it out pretty early in their development that men have a role in sex. If nothing else they would see that the kids often look like the guy that the woman was sleeping with the most. It may not be obvious to us, since we learn about it in science class, which they did not have. But they learned about all sorts of things in ways we never can.

Very often when people try to imagine hunter-gatherer, or neo-lithic understandings of the world they simply try to imagine not knowing all the things we learn by means that didn't exist back then. We completly forget to add the things we don't have now (like herbal medicine that actually works). It's the same sort of logical fallacy that leads people to believe that "irreducable complexity" disproves evolution.
I’ve tried to explain this to people so many times. You did it quite well.:)

A drug is any biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that is taken for non-dietary needs.

So, like, sugar.

So, like, sugar.
Sugars do serve dietary needs, though one could consume sugar for non-dietary reasons.

It is possible for a substance to be psychoactive even if it is not classified as a drug. A psychoactive (or psychotropic) substance is one that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior.

Most peoples figure it out pretty early in their development that men have a role in sex. If nothing else they would see that the kids often look like the guy that the woman was sleeping with the most. It may not be obvious to us, since we learn about it in science class, which they did not have. But they learned about all sorts of things in ways we never can.

Very often when people try to imagine hunter-gatherer, or neo-lithic understandings of the world they simply try to imagine not knowing all the things we learn by means that didn't exist back then. We completly forget to add the things we don't have now (like herbal medicine that actually works). It's the same sort of logical fallacy that leads people to believe that "irreducable complexity" disproves evolution.

yes the vast majority of humanity knows it now.

but there had to be a time in our progress from animal to human where people started wondering about procreation. the role of woman is obvious and was extremely powerful in the mythos of the earliest civilizations. the role of man has to be figured out.

not until society regulates female sexuality can it be recognized. if a woman isnt permitted to have sex until a certain age after menarche, then you know that until she has sex, she wont conceive. if you make her wait until she is matched to a certain man, if that wait is long enough, you begin to understand that HE is responsible for her children. without HIM she wont conceive. predicated on her faithfulness.

the gradual change from a theology based on female procreativity to one of a mutual procreativity to one where only the male creates the universe is a reflection of this process of realization.

Not nearly as much as most. But, indeed, some stupidity is inherent in human nature and impossible to get rid of. Unlike a very large majority of people though, I correct all the faults that I find. I started out relatively well to begin with, and have since progressed quite far.

Now, just look at that post of yours; an assumption made and used to justify an incorrect conclusion immedietly following it.;) Making irrational assumptions are one of the most common errors made. And that, I very, very seldom do. It is a basic principle that I follow whenever viable: Always concider, never assume. Of cource, estimations are error-prone, and I am far from infallible.

In the various rantings about human stupidity I have made on this board and others, I have never claimed to be perfect myself. I am indeed "guilty", but far less than most, and I strive towards improvement to the best of my ability.


As do we all huh! I would though ask you to point out my assupmtion and my incorrect conclusion to me?

So you would admit then that seeing as faith based belife does seem to be the norm for us humans rather than ratinal thought, it can not then be ummm 'stupid' for us to have such belifes? Or did I read your post wrong, you did just admit to having irrational beliefs?

I would also call you out on this statement 'I correct all the faults that I find'

Can you show me for example that your parents love you? I don't mean bring me countless examples of subjective acts that proove they must love you, I don't mean countless axmples of where they have said or written the words 'I love you' In either case they might be lying, I mean objectivly verifieable proof?

So you would admit then that seeing as faith based belife does seem to be the norm for us humans rather than ratinal thought, it can not then be ummm 'stupid' for us to have such belifes?

"Stupid" is subjective. It's quite possible to believe that the majority of humans are stupid, as are their beliefs. In addition, the correctness of a given idea is not (in my opinion) defined by how many people believe in that idea. It doesn't matter how many humans believe the world is flat...it's still not so.

"Stupid" is subjective. It's quite possible to believe that the majority of humans are stupid, as are their beliefs. In addition, the correctness of a given idea is not (in my opinion) defined by how many people believe in that idea. It doesn't matter how many humans believe the world is flat...it's still not so.

Of course it is, I was just using the Posters own words back towards him. He did state that he holds no beliefs only objective knowldege, and futhermore, that all such belifes are both irrational and stupid.

Hehe I'm just trying to get him to see the error of what he has said.

My position is similar to what Kanabia, I think, said a few pages back. Atheistic agnostic. My original feeling is that of the non-existence of a supernatural power, but it is impossible to provide evidence or prove either way, and I think it is arrogant to say that your version of god/gods is the only right one.

I also object to people saying that you should be either in one camp or the other. There is no obligation. They seem to say that believing strongly in one or the other regardless of correctness is superior to saying, 'There is not sufficient evidence to say either way'; this is entirely wrong. For some reason this reminds me of the people who say that bisexual people are just confused and only the diametrically-opposed positions exist, and again, this is entirely wrong and narrow-minded on their part.

I don't doubt there are true agnostics but I would say that the majority are chicken atheists.......fear of persecution makes most say they are agnostic rather than atheist......in many surveys when people are asked if they believe in god, of those who say they do not believe in a god(atheists) the number who are willing to label themselves atheists typically ranges from 10 to 25% of the total......

I don't doubt there are true agnostics but I would say that the majority are chicken atheists.......fear of persecution makes most say they are agnostic rather than atheist......in many surveys when people are asked if they believe in god, of those who say they do not believe in a god(atheists) the number who are willing to label themselves atheists typically ranges from 10 to 25% of the total......
I think it's more likely that most people simply don't understand what "agnostic" actually means. I have met tons of people who think that "agnostic" means "I don't care," or "I believe in God, but not in any of the popular images of God," or a variety of other things.

not until society regulates female sexuality can it be recognized. if a woman isnt permitted to have sex until a certain age after menarche, then you know that until she has sex, she wont conceive. if you make her wait until she is matched to a certain man, if that wait is long enough, you begin to understand that HE is responsible for her children. without HIM she wont conceive. predicated on her faithfulness.
Actually, that sounds backwards. Regulating female sexuality would be because these things have been recognized. It's because a man has been recognized to be a father that the woman is made to wait for a particular match.

I don't doubt there are true agnostics but I would say that the majority are chicken atheists.......fear of persecution makes most say they are agnostic rather than atheist......in many surveys when people are asked if they believe in god, of those who say they do not believe in a god(atheists) the number who are willing to label themselves atheists typically ranges from 10 to 25% of the total......

Agnosticism has a firm philosophical foundation in the idea of 'Self'. There is nothing "chicken atheist" about it. Admittedly, though, we are talking about proper agnostics.

I think it's more likely that most people simply don't understand what "agnostic" actually means. I have met tons of people who think that "agnostic" means "I don't care," or "I believe in God, but not in any of the popular images of God," or a variety of other things.

that quite likely happens as well....but when a survey is taken and 40-50% of those surveyed say they do not believe in god, then in the same survey when asked if they are atheist only 15% say they are, it would indicate that 1-they either don't know what the meaning of the word atheist is or 2- they're lying....personally I don't believe there are that many people who don't know what an atheist is, and the same I suspect is true with those who claim to be agnostic....

that quite likely happens as well....but when a survey is taken and 40-50% of those surveyed say they do not believe in god, then in the same survey when asked if they are atheist only 15% say they are, it would indicate that 1-they either don't know what the meaning of the word atheist is or 2- they're lying....personally I don't believe there are that many people who don't know what an atheist is, and the same I suspect is true with those who claim to be agnostic....

...or 3- they make no grammatical distinction between "I don't believe" and "I have no belief."

As do we all huh!Not very much so regarding this matter. Few are willing to throughoutly examine the way they think and correct or tear down whatever incorrect patterns are found. Doing so to a large extent is bound to affect your emotional response, and so has happened in my case.

I would though ask you to point out my assupmtion and my incorrect conclusion to me?Assumption: "I bet you do take things on faith, and a lot of stuff too".
Conclusion: "so therefore you are as guilkty as the rest of us in your irratinal thoughts patterns and so must also be stupid!"

So you would admit then that seeing as faith based belife does seem to be the norm for us humans rather than ratinal thought, it can not then be ummm 'stupid' for us to have such belifes?It is the norm, indeed, but something being the norm does not in any way automatically make it any less stupid.

To clarify what I see as intelligent and stupid: Imagine a system of some kind. It is capable of doing something, and has a certain capacity. Maybe it is a computer, maybe it is a brain. Its capability equals its "intelligence", which can be categorized accoriding to what exactly the capabilities are. Many such systems are error-prone, for one reason or another, and act incorrectly in certain situations. That is stupidity. A rock cannot be stupid; the greater the intelligence, the greater the potential for stupidity.

Humanity doesn't have any clear purpose, so you can't really say how it objectively is supposed to work. So, in that absense, I make use of my preferred standard, a rather simple and clear one, for what stupidity is; irrationality.
Or did I read your post wrong, you did just admit to having irrational beliefs?No.

I would also call you out on this statement 'I correct all the faults that I find'

Can you show me for example that your parents love you? I don't mean bring me countless examples of subjective acts that proove they must love you, I don't mean countless axmples of where they have said or written the words 'I love you' In either case they might be lying, I mean objectivly verifieable proof?No. Their actions so far seem to indicate that they care for me; they are consistent with it being so, and it is currently more plausible than the alternatives. That's all that can be determined.

I don't doubt there are true agnostics but I would say that the majority are chicken atheists.......fear of persecution makes most say they are agnostic rather than atheist......in many surveys when people are asked if they believe in god, of those who say they do not believe in a god(atheists) the number who are willing to label themselves atheists typically ranges from 10 to 25% of the total......

What a load of nonsensicle rubbish.

...or 3- they make no grammatical distinction between "I don't believe" and "I have no belief."

I don't see a grammatical distinction, it means the same to me......of course we don't know the exact wording of the question in various languages......40% of a population saying they do not believe in a god and then 70-80% of that number denying they are atheists is a contradiction.....

I don't doubt there are true agnostics but I would say that the majority are chicken atheists.......fear of persecution makes most say they are agnostic rather than atheistI'm not entirely sure that makes much sense. As agnostic they'll be accosted both by theists and athiests, after all..
And rabid athiests are as bad as rabid thiests..

that quite likely happens as well....but when a survey is taken and 40-50% of those surveyed say they do not believe in god, then in the same survey when asked if they are atheist only 15% say they areWell, is being an athiest "not believing in god", or "believing in not-god"? And what of other spiritual forces?
A lot of people believe in "something" rather than a god. I doubt many of them would claim to be athiest, as that's a position of non-belief.
It'd be like when asked what nationality I have, I say I'm non-american. I may be non-american, but that's not my nationality. And someone that beliefs in "something" when asked what his beliefs are wouldn't reply atheist, but whateverthatpersonbeliefsin-ist, or failing that "other".

40% of a population saying they do not believe in a god and then 70-80% of that number denying they are atheists is a contradiction.....That depends on what they were asked to choose between. See above

Not very much so regarding this matter. Few are willing to throughoutly examine the way they think and correct or tear down whatever incorrect patterns are found. Doing so to a large extent is bound to affect your emotional response, and so has happened in my case.

Heheh including your own I see, you deemed my responces to be emotional? That sir is only because of the emotion you place on my words and writing style, if I was to say I felt no emotion other than incredulusness at your statement that you hold no belifes, I wonder would you belive me, and if so how would you verify that I tell the truth, or would you take my words on faith?

I would further like to ask correct and incorrect, by what methoeds do you judge such things? I mean of course seeing as you hold no faith based belifes, by what objective methoeds do you judge what is correct or incorrect?


Assumption: "I bet you do take things on faith, and a lot of stuff too".
Conclusion: "so therefore you are as guilkty as the rest of us in your irratinal thoughts patterns and so must also be stupid!"

Ahhh I see, but that is neither assumption nor incorrect conclusion. I bet you you do take things on faith and a lot too, was not an asumpption, but rather a challange for you to prove to me that you do not, to prove to me that your original statement, that you hold no beliefes is in fact true and not a false hood. I don't assume that you hold belifes I know that you do.

Again your own words called anybody that holds belifes irrational and stupid, so not the wrong conclusion, but the correct one, unless you can show me that you hold no belifes?


It is the norm, indeed, but something being the norm does not in any way automatically make it any less stupid.

And in that you are correct, as one defines such a word, but then again you have started to contradict your self. You did say that anybody who held belifes was irrational, and therefore stupid? And you did admit to holding some beliefs(although not as much as the rest of the wrold)? Therefore by your own words, and your own admission, you must call your self stupid.



To clarify what I see as intelligent and stupid: Imagine a system of some kind. It is capable of doing something, and has a certain capacity. Maybe it is a computer, maybe it is a brain. Its capability equals its "intelligence", which can be categorized accoriding to what exactly the capabilities are. Many such systems are error-prone, for one reason or another, and act incorrectly in certain situations. That is stupidity. A rock cannot be stupid; the greater the intelligence, the greater the potential for stupidity.

Well fine, yet that does not explain away your stupidity.



Humanity doesn't have any clear purpose, so you can't really say how it objectively is supposed to work. So, in that absense, I make use of my preferred standard, a rather simple and clear one, for what stupidity is; irrationality.
No.

And here you show us just how stupid you are. Can you proove to me that Humanity does not have any clear purpose? No, so it is something you believe then? But hold on I thought you didn't have any, and that people who did were stupid?


No. Their actions so far seem to indicate that they care for me; they are consistent with it being so, and it is currently more plausible than the alternatives. That's all that can be determined.

Good, so you can't proove to me that your parents love you, but based on subjective evidance, and a lifestimes experiance(yours) you think that they do?, it is more plausible that they do than they don't?

Sooooo another belife of yours then. heheh Stupid boy.:p


I think it is ironic that you come here and spout all sorts of nonsense about the stupidity of belife, and how you fix these sorts of problems in your life, and apparently more so than anybody else does. When it is very clear to me that in fact you are just like everybody else I know, except not yet self aware enough to realise that you do hold belifes and so your statement was both a lie and a stupid one at that.

I'm not entirely sure that makes much sense. As agnostic they'll be accosted both by theists and athiests, after all..
And rabid athiests are as bad as rabid thiests.
I truly wonder where that sentiment comes from. When’s the last time a group of atheists tried to ban gay marriage or censor television?
In my experience, the whole “radical atheist” caricature is just as valid as the “feminazi” myth.

Well, is being an athiest "not believing in god", or "believing in not-god"? And what of other spiritual forces?
A lot of people believe in "something" rather than a god. I doubt many of them would claim to be athiest, as that's a position of non-belief.



believing in "something" rather than a god=atheist

belief in a god/gods=theist

.....followers of Buddhism or Confucianism......those are believing in something but it's a way of life not in a God so they are atheists

I truly wonder where that sentiment comes from. When’s the last time a group of atheists tried to ban gay marriage or censor television?
In my experience, the whole “radical atheist” caricature is just as valid as the “feminazi” myth.

Hehehthen try going here: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.philosophy?hl=en

And telling them that Atheisism is a belife that God does not exist. Other than saying Atheism is a lack of belife in the existance of God. Shit man they will jump down your throat. I dunno, both senatnces mean the same to me, but ohhhh hehheh go on go there I dare ya!:p

I truly wonder where that sentiment comes from. When’s the last time a group of atheists tried to ban gay marriage or censor television?
In my experience, the whole “radical atheist” caricature is just as valid as the “feminazi” myth.I meant in discussions, not politically.

believing in "something" rather than a god=atheist

belief in a god/gods=theist

.....followers of Buddhism or Confucianism......those are believing in something but it's a way of life not in a God so they are atheistsTechnically, sure. However, it doesn't characterize their beliefs.

I truly wonder where that sentiment comes from. When’s the last time a group of atheists tried to ban gay marriage or censor television?
In my experience, the whole “radical atheist” caricature is just as valid as the “feminazi” myth.

Nice try.

What about the hugely popular ultra fascist thought police idea: banning religion, yep banning freedom to think.

Lets not forget about satanists, and people who vandalize churches or even kill theists.

What about condesending amature philosopher Richard Dawkins?

And telling them that Atheisism is a belife that God does not exist. Other than saying Atheism is a lack of belife in the existance of God. Shit man they will jump down your throat. I dunno, both senatnces mean the same to me, but ohhhh hehheh go on go there I dare ya!:pBelieving that god doesn't exist is stronger then not believing he does. In the latter case you might also not believe he doesn't; i.e. not believe either position. For example because you don't have enough evidence for either position.
It's similar to the difference between not knowing something is the case, or knowing that it isn't the case. Except belief is much weaker than knowledge.

I truly wonder where that sentiment comes from. When’s the last time a group of atheists tried to ban gay marriage or censor television?
In my experience, the whole “radical atheist” caricature is just as valid as the “feminazi” myth.

agreed...atheists from my experience are very moderate, "live and let live" types, they don't go around trying to convert people to their beliefs......a radical atheist I suppose would be an atheist who stands up and insists on a secular state, from a theist point of view I guess that would appear to be aggressive....

Nice try.

What about the hugely popular ultra fascist thought police idea: banning religion, yep banning freedom to think.

Lets not forget about satanists, and people who vandalize churches or even kill theists.

What about condesending amature philosopher Richard Dawkins?

if you really believe all that you i feel sorry for you....(are there monsters under your bed too?)

satanists are theists rolleyes:, I've never even met one or know of any.....

Nice try.
I thought so.
What about the hugely popular ultra fascist thought police idea: banning religion, yep banning freedom to think.
“Hugely popular”? You been reading Jenkins? Fact of the matter is, atheists are a very small minority in the US making any of our ideas by definition not “hugely popular.” Even atheists that are anti-religion don’t want to ban religion; we want people to come to a rational world view on their own. We love free thought. It keeps us off the stake.
Lets not forget about satanists, and people who vandalize churches or even kill theists.
Followers of the Left Hand Path are not atheists.
What about condesending amature philosopher Richard Dawkins?
What about him? He's one man who happens to disaprove of a faith-based society. He hates religion, but he doesn't want to ban it.
a radical atheist I suppose would be an atheist who stands up and insists on a secular state, from a theist point of view I guess that would appear to be aggressive....
That's probably it. Can't have a secular state. Everyone knows that without a God there's no reason to behave.

if you really believe all that you i feel sorry for you....(are there monsters under your bed too?)

satanists are theists rolleyes:, I've never even met one or know of any.....

Yes I do believe it, when people are always saying it on the press (like Elton John).

There was even a protest about banning religion in the city I live in. If you havn't heard of this movement, you have had your head in the sand.

As for satanism, many satinists, if not most become satanists purely to piss off theists and collect their hatred towards them.

You can pretend away all you like that all athiests are kind loving liberal types, if that will make you feel better though.

I don't see a grammatical distinction, it means the same to me......of course we don't know the exact wording of the question in various languages......40% of a population saying they do not believe in a god and then 70-80% of that number denying they are atheists is a contradiction.....

To a person who makes no distinction between the two, the person who says they do not believe in god is an atheist. To the person who makes the distinction, they can be "not an atheist" while not having a belief in god.

It's the difference between hard and soft atheism, the latter of which can be considered to be nontheism.

“Hugely popular”? You been reading Jenkins? Fact of the matter is, atheists are a very small minority in the US making any of our ideas by definition not “hugely popular.” Even atheists that are anti-religion don’t want to ban religion; we want people to come to a rational world view on their own. We love free thought. It keeps us off the stake.


Who says I am talking about the US? Even famous people like Elton John want to ban religion.


Followers of the Left Hand Path are not atheists.


I'm not talking about him.


What about him? He's one man who happens to disaprove of a faith-based society. He hates religion, but he doesn't want to ban it.


He also supports genocide, personally attacks as many people as he can without letting them debate back (much like a fundamentalists) etc...


That's probably it. Can't have a secular state. Everyone knows that without a God there's no reason to behave.

You agree with his argument "theists think this, because I say so..." do you?

I don't follow any specific religion. I'd rather just sit back and chill. I believe in several Gods and Godesses. But when dumb people ask my religion I just say I'm agnostic. :)


-the Kate Vegas
love&.

I don't follow any specific religion. I'd rather just sit back and chill. I believe in several Gods and Godesses. But when dumb people ask my religion I just say I'm agnostic. :)


-the Kate Vegas
love&.

ahhh.....a chicken theist, why are you afraid to admit your beliefs they are as legitimate as any other religion?

Who says I am talking about the US? Even famous people like Elton John want to ban religion.
Well, religion hasn't exactly been kind to Sir John has it?
He also supports genocide, personally attacks as many people as he can without letting them debate back (much like a fundamentalists) etc...
He's a bad guy, and I don't like him, but he is just one man.
You agree with his argument "theists think this, because I say so..." do you?
When they demonstrate that kind of attitude to me day in and day out, yes. I do nothing but tolerate what I find to be even the most ridiculous religious beliefs, and in return I am assumed to be an immoral social retard.

Well, religion hasn't exactly been kind to Sir John has it?


Thats no excuse.


He's a bad guy, and I don't like him, but he is just one man.


Yet there are so many people who act exactly as he does, so many people I know personally.


When they demonstrate that kind of attitude to me day in and day out, yes. I do nothing but tolerate what I find to be even the most ridiculous religious beliefs, and in return I am assumed to be an immoral social retard.

By they, you mean a very small minority of theists, by which you decide to use the actions of them to generalize against all of them.

Of course it is, I was just using the Posters own words back towards him. He did state that he holds no beliefs only objective knowldege, and futhermore, that all such belifes are both irrational and stupid.

Hehe I'm just trying to get him to see the error of what he has said.
There's a third possibility--Dawkins covers it in The God Delusion. It's that the belief in an authoritative god is a side effect of an evolutionary benefit that comes along with listening to parental figures--taking advice, in other words. There's a benefit to doing that--when a parent says "don't play near the crocodile infested river," the gene that makes it more likely for the person to listen will be selected for more often than the one that ignores it. That same genetic predeliction may--and I emphasize the may here--be the same thing that predisposes us toward belief in God.

'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.

Simple. Because anything other than "the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible" is simply intellectual dishonesty.

ahhh.....a chicken theist, why are you afraid to admit your beliefs they are as legitimate as any other religion?


I'm not afraid to admit my beliefs. I told them on here, did I not? It's just that sometimes I don't have the time to sit and explain myself - or I just don't want to. Sometimes. ^_^

By they, you mean a very small minority of theists, by which you decide to use the actions of them to generalize against all of them.
No. In fact just the opposite. When I meet someone, I assume that they are a decent human being. When I find out someone’s religion (a topic I never bring up), I assume they are tolerant of other faiths and non-faiths. More often than not, I am disappointed.
Maybe that's not how it is in most of the world, but that's how it is here.
I hold nothing against people for believing in God, whatever makes you happy. All I ask for is the same level of respect.

An agnostic is just and athiest without balls.

Simple. Because anything other than "the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible" is simply intellectual dishonesty.

But certainly you can concede that the possibility of something can be so remote as to make it irrelevant?

An agnostic is just and athiest without balls.You mean they're women athiests?

Actually, that sounds backwards. Regulating female sexuality would be because these things have been recognized. It's because a man has been recognized to be a father that the woman is made to wait for a particular match.

well yes, once a society figures out the need for semen to start babies and that babies are not just the mother's child but the fathers too, the urge to regulate a woman's sexuality increases.

in some cases they end up denying the mother's motherhood completely. the ancient greek writers insisted that the woman was just the vessel for the man's procreative semen. all she did was cook the baby up, HE was the only true parent.

during the rise of anthropology, there were still people who hadnt made the connection between sex and procreation. being told was part of what destroyed their culture.

An agnostic is just and athiest without balls.

...except, of course, for the agnostic theists?

Intellectually I can understand the agnostic position of not taking a position, or of being convinced that there is really no way to know either way...but...come on now! It's like saying, "Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

I can't be agnostic, because frankly, I don't believe that I have to give shrift to faerie tales. Just because I don't know FOR SURE that there aren't sock gnomes, doesn't mean I have to sit on a fence and say, 'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.
Correct. The difference is that atheism is arrogant.

Correct. The difference is that atheism is arrogant.
And believing that the creator of the universe cares to have a personal relationship with you and that you understand his nature while other do not is not arrogant?
You insult me, and I'll insult you.
during the rise of anthropology, there were still people who hadnt made the connection between sex and procreation. being told was part of what destroyed their culture.
If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to know more about this.

Correct. The difference is that atheism is arrogant.
Atheism has gotten more arrogant ... more militant, if you will. I find that a disturbing trend. I'm an atheist and I really don't much care if you believe there's a God or gods or a flying spaghetti monster or whatever. Really, I don't.

And believing that the creator of the universe cares to have a personal relationship with you and that you understand his nature while other do not is not arrogant?
You insult me, and I'll insult you.

If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to know more about this.

So would I. The rise of anthropology?

Atheism has gotten more arrogant ... more militant, if you will. I find that a disturbing trend. I'm an atheist and I really don't much care if you believe there's a God or gods or a flying spaghetti monster or whatever. Really, I don't.
I don't either, until religious people start insulting atheism.

.

If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to know more about this.

hard to believe but true......my mother told me she was twenty before she knew where babies came from or how they got there, so it wouldn't surprise me that entire societies never made the biological connection between sex and babies......

Atheism has gotten more arrogant ... more militant, if you will. I find that a disturbing trend.


if more militant/arrogant means atheists fighting for their right to be respected in society and defending their beliefs...guilty as charged.....

but I don't agree, speaking out in support of your belief as we are entitled to do is a human right, if it makes us seem militant to theists that's their problem...

But certainly you can concede that the possibility of something can be so remote as to make it irrelevant?

Generally I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but not the wording, especially when you talk about possibility.

For example, what is the possibility that god exists? How the hell am I supposed to answer that question? I have no frame of reference, I have no mathematics that can answer that question. It's possible that the likelihood of god is 100%. It's possible that it's 0%. Not only are the options POSSIBLE, but I can't even begin to calculate what the odds are.

What I will say is that skepticism is maintained through absence of proof. Because I see nothing to prove god, I see no way to concern myself with god in my life.

In other words it's irrelevant, not because it's hardly possible, as I can not calculate the odds of a diety, but because for the very reason I can not believe as there is no proof, there is no proof that it actually influences my life directly.

if more militant/arrogant means atheists fighting for their right to be respected in society and defending their beliefs...guilty as charged.....

but I don't agree, speaking out in support of your belief as we are entitled to do is a human right, if it makes us seem militant to theists that's their problem...

Why do non-religious people not have the right to be just as militant in their opinions as religious people anyway? I thought that a flag of many colors was what this land was supposed to be about. Apparently, they didn't get the memo.

-snip-
I see no problem with any of that.
if more militant/arrogant means atheists fighting for their right to be respected in society and defending their beliefs...guilty as charged.....

but I don't agree, speaking out in support of your belief as we are entitled to do is a human right, if it makes us seem militant to theists that's their problem...
It’s irritating that a Christian can write a book supporting Christianity and it’s just another Christian book, but if an atheist writes a book supporting atheism he’s trying to bring down the fabric of society.
They want us to shut up, and then still be free to disapprove after they find out that we’re unbelievers.

Not to mention every descriptor of what we believe is negative, at least any that the average person can recognize. I can call myself a naturalist all I want but no one’s going got know what that means. In the end I must refer to myself as a negative, an unbeliever, an atheist, one without faith.

You mean they're women athiests?

Ofcourse there are women athiests, An agnostic is and athiest without "balls", balls being an expression.

do american atheists on this forum particularly those in the southern states feel threatened , persecuted or shunned where they live?

I ask because of a survey that I saw that asked americans which group they distrusted/disliked the most......apparently atheists (even american ones) were lower down the list than terrorists........

Militant atheism is just as bad as militant theism:

"There can't ever be a Creator no matter what the evidence says."

Some of us choose to adopt the position that, if there is a Creator, we can't ever really know what it is because we are a comparatively insignificant organism. If we can't even imagine the world in more than three dimensions, how can we possibly imagine something that exists both within all of and outside of all of the dimensions? It's like asking bacteria to see human beings. They might think of a human being as a very large bacterium (if they think at all), but in reality it would be impossible for a bacterium to actually see a human or understand what one is, because it lives inside of them. Or something.

/incoherent argument

Nice try.

What about the hugely popular ultra fascist thought police idea: banning religion, yep banning freedom to think.

Lets not forget about satanists, and people who vandalize churches or even kill theists.

What about condesending amature philosopher Richard Dawkins?

Banning religion was only the work of one particular group of Communists. Most communist governments and virtually all fascists incorporated religion into the political ethos of the party.

And banning religion was never even the point of Stalinism. The point (that was never realized) was creating a truly equal government in which all members of society would have their contributions valued. Religion was rejected as a means by which some people could claim superiority over others by claiming to be closer to God.

do american atheists on this forum particularly those in the southern states feel threatened , persecuted or shunned where they live?

I ask because of a survey that I saw that asked americans which group they distrusted/disliked the most......apparently atheists (even american ones) were lower down the list than terrorists........

We have a few on these forums. Most of them do feel quite threatened, persecuted, and shunned. I live up in the supposedly tolerant Northeast and I still get queer looks when I tell people I'm an atheist. One of my high school guidance counselors was a Christian who would frequently tell me that in times of trouble God would help me, until I finally was forced to say that I couldn't exactly rely on God, because I didn't believe in one. The next day I came to school and found that I'd been transferred to a different guidance counselor.

Why does it always seem that everyone over in Europe and Asia is far more civilised and tolerant than we are, and vice versa?

do american atheists on this forum particularly those in the southern states feel threatened , persecuted or shunned where they live?
I live in Texas, and I certainly do.

I ask because of a survey that I saw that asked americans which group they distrusted/disliked the most......apparently atheists (even american ones) were lower down the list than terrorists........[/QUOTE]
I live in Texas, and I certainly do. I can’t talk about what I believe with the majority of my family. Even my mother, who isn’t religious but is very into “spirituality” upon my saying I was an atheist said “Don’t talk like that.”

Currently, I’m in my last year of high school. When there is a class discussion is an English class or other subject where one’s personal opinions on life might be relevant, I usually don’t say anything, lest it be offensive.
In fact, there’s only a few people I talk to about the stuff at all, an agnostic, a Hindu and a couple of entirely irreligious people who “kind of” believe in God.

When other people find out what I believe, they think there is something wrong with me. Despite the fact that I go out of my way to help people whenever they ask and despite showing nothing but tolerance to religious people, I am considered amoral simply because I don’t accept the same things as fact that they do.

And heaven forbid if I ever wish to seek public office someday. The constitution may forbid religious tests on public officials, but if you don’t believe in God, don’t even bother running.

Why does it always seem that everyone over in Europe and Asia is far more civilised and tolerant than we are, and vice versa?
Western Europe and Eastern Asia, yeah. Gets kind of bad in the middle.

Militant atheism is merely a means to an end though this is a form of faith which can not be rationally considered wise. On the other hand, it takes fire to fight fire, so making a point with a certain amount of agression is (unfortunately) a valid method.

On the agnost vs. atheist front: why the boolean distinction? Any truly rational person must conclude that the evidence points (very very) strongly in the direction of the absence any form of "god". Though this does not mean such a being cannot exist. (For an indication of the odds I suggest a basic course in statistics, indubitably available by means of your local search-engine.)

Ofcourse there are women athiests, An agnostic is and athiest without "balls", balls being an expression.I'm not sure which is sadder, your lack of grammar, or what you're trying to say..

Anyway, why fight for a place in the mud, when there's a perfectly good fence to sit on.

There is a reason that devotion to a religious point of view is called "faith." It cannot be definitively proven, and it cannot be disproven. Those who subscribe to these views must accept the fact that there is no logical argument to give their views absolute ligitamacy. It is when the mind (and soul, if you believe in such a thing) go beyond simple logic that true faith exists; to label a belief uncompromisingly as truth no matter how much evidence there is for or against it. There is something foolhardy and dangerous about this, yet it can also lead people to do great things.

People who adhere to the position that absence of evidence, after a thorough search, is ligitimate proof of absence are atheists. They generally come by their position in one of two ways: either they that feel god is adequately disproven by the lack of proof for its existence, or they feel god is a non-issue because all things can be, now or in the future, explained by the understanding of the universe offered by science or other direct observation. Those in the former group could theoretically be convinced to become deists or theists if they were shown an argument for god's existence that they could not refute. Those in the latter group could be convinced if they were shown that god was personally relevant to them. Atheism in theory lacks the "faith" element of religion, being based on a logical pattern of thought. However, the sustained adversity between religious and atheistic groups, combined with a generational passing-down of the viewpoint in much the way religion is passed from parents to children, has led to many faith-based athiests; people who have been taught to believe that there is no god and actively resist or simply decline to acknowledge arguments for god's existence. There is a third school of atheism that seeks to abolish religious thought because of a belief that it is harmful to individuals and/or society (in much the same way that many religious proponents see their faith as a basis for morality that preserves society), but this is a somewhat less religious argument, so I will decline to discuss it.

Agnostics come in two types: weak and strong. "Weak" agnostics do not know whether or not god exists. "Strong" agnostics declare that nobody can know whether there is a god, and that religious and athiest types alike have based their views on faulty assumptions and poor judgement. Weak agnostics are generally those that wish to avoid taking a position for whatever reason, but can also be people who have carefully thought through the matter and come to the conclusion that they cannot be sure, but are unwilling to speak for others. Strong agnosticism stems from this same careful analysis of the evidence in play, but rejects the possibility that there is any more evidence of consequence that the agnostic is unaware of. This type of agnosticism is usually purely based upon logic.


This is my take as a weak agnostic. Both athiesm and agnosticism rely to some extent on logic, but whereas the athiest proclaims that if there is no evidence that something exists, it must not exist, the agnostic responds that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. The flaw in Neesika's "flying waffle" argument is that a waffle is a physical thing, subject to the laws of nature. God is a supernatural force or being, inexplicable and unbound by physical laws. If god was manifested as a waffle, perhaps it could indeed provide nonstop service to Japan. By this point we must recognize that possibility and liklihood have long since parted ways, but is it really justifiable to call it impossible? There are many things that science stumbles in trying to explain. Perhaps one day it will be able to answer all our questions, but I do not think it unreasonable to entertain the possibility that there are forces at work that simply lie beyond our understanding. Does this lead me to believe that there must be a god? No. And certainly not the personified god of the theist. A truth about religion, as I defined it earlier, is that it cannot be proven. It is a test of faith. So, can I rightfully say it is impossible for god to exist, given that he is supposed to be beyond the limits of human understanding and perception? No. This leaves me to live as I please, either without god or with it, but no longer with the arrogance of certainty or bound by the chains of convention. I am free to consider all possibilities and alternatives. Despite what you may think of me, I wouldn't have it any other way.

The arguments for a god's existence don't hold water in my opinion and the arguments for a god's nonexistence are definitely more credible and their criticisms are definitely lacking in persuasive power to me. I have been raised an evangelical Xtian and my dad is a second generation ordained minister (but not a pastor, more an occaisional preacher). I've seen it all. I've only recently become an apostate and only after I realized I was talking to myself when I was talking to God which led me to search for the truth. Apologists are pathetic subhuman mental handicaps; I tried hard to find something worth repeating they had to say before I became agnostic. Then eventually I became an atheist, and then a strong atheist, and then an antitheist.

You only make comments about the practical applications of one religion and frankly they reek of an angry rebellion rather than a rational rethinking. I will fully agree that the literal translation of biblical events and scriptural dogma appears to be complete nonsense. However, the ineptitude of a singular religious phenomenon is not sufficient for the complete dismissal of the existence of a higher power or its governance over us.

All I hear is claims that knowledge of the supernatural is unknowable without any arguments for why this is so. The only thing that even remotely comes close to this is the comment from Vittos the City Sacker. And in my opinion, statements 2 and 3 are very weak. 1 is a very interesting statement though and it deserves consideration for debate.

The first statement is the central backing for my epistemological position concerning theological thought. We simply cannot base our knowledge of the existence of gods in our reason and science. We base all of our knowledge on probabilities and causation. We say that this caused this, which caused this, which will cause this in the future. All of this is based in relationships of space and time, which, while they make up the whole of our perception and reason, make up very little of what might actually be. In the end, if there is a god, he will not be bound by such stringent limitations, and therefore would be completely unknowable to us.

Statements two and three are an extension of this which don't really deal with what we can and cannot know, but what we can and cannot confirm and hold true to other people. It is a rejection of the theist or atheist who hold what is true for them is true for others.

The lack of arguments FOR agnosticism indicate to me that it is mostly full of shit so much so that there is not even a bad defense of it (unlike theism which atleast has arguments), or that people who claim agnosticism are actually apatheists, ignostic or theological noncognitivists (all of which I could respect much more than the agnostic position).

I am actually not in great disagreement with you here, as the number of self-proclaimed agnostics who are in actuality simply atheist/theist apologetics drives me up the wall.

Why does it always seem that everyone over in Europe and Asia is far more civilised and tolerant than we are, and vice versa?

could be for a number of reasons
-better education....
-more socially progressive....(those evil socialists again)
-they've been through many religious wars and see the futility and hypocrisy in religion.....
- in the far east China, Korea, Japan for centuries their beliefs tended to be more life style choices/morality and less on god based beliefs

... you deemed my responces to be emotional?No. Nowhere did I state so; you misread the statement.

I would further like to ask correct and incorrect, by what methoeds do you judge such things? I mean of course seeing as you hold no faith based belifes, by what objective methoeds do you judge what is correct or incorrect?Some things can be determined, others not. For those that can, it is a matter of logic. For those that can't, you can only estimate.

Very few things regarding this existence can be known ultimately to absolute certainty. Among these are the fact that something exists. I also know that "I" exist, as "I" perceive. Knowing that "you" perceive, you (assuming you do exist;)) can know for sure that "you" exist as well. However, I can't know with absolute certainty that you exist, nor you that I do. There is, in most cases, when dealing with matters regarding the world, some level of uncertainty.

Not recognizing that uncertainty and seeing your "knowledge" of something that can not be ultimately proven as absolute is a case of belief. Of irrationality, and stupidity.

Ahhh I see, but that is neither assumption nor incorrect conclusion. I bet you you do take things on faith and a lot too, was not an asumpption, but rather a challange for you to prove to me that you do not, to prove to me that your original statement, that you hold no beliefes is in fact true and not a false hood. I don't assume that you hold belifes I know that you do.Very well. Though your "knowledge" here seems suspiciously much like an assumption.

Again your own words called anybody that holds belifes irrational and stupid, so not the wrong conclusion, but the correct one, unless you can show me that you hold no belifes?The correct one, providing that what you claim to know is true.

Also, recognize the matter of degree. I made clear from the beginning that I am not perfect, nor concider myself so, and am not alltogether free from stupidity. However, I do maintain that I hold no faith whatsoever. Your statement, while not correct, was not completely off, and that I won't claim it to be.

And in that you are correct, as one defines such a word, but then again you have started to contradict your self. You did say that anybody who held belifes was irrational, and therefore stupid? And you did admit to holding some beliefs(although not as much as the rest of the wrold)? Therefore by your own words, and your own admission, you must call your self stupid.I have not admitted to holding any beliefs.

And were I to hold any, there is the question of determining exactly how stupid they are. Stupidity is a relative description; were you to state that you so were, you'd generally do so referring to some sort of relative standard. But indeed, I would be significantly more stupid than otherwise.

Well fine, yet that does not explain away your stupidity.My supposed stupidity, in this case. And no, it was not supposed to explain anything except what I stated it was meant to, ie. what I see as intelligent and stupid, as part of my response to the quote in question.

And here you show us just how stupid you are. Can you proove to me that Humanity does not have any clear purpose? No, so it is something you believe then? But hold on I thought you didn't have any, and that people who did were stupid?I did not display a single bit of stupidity there, unlike you, in your response.

My claim was that humanity doesn't have any clear purpose. Proving it is very simple. Is the purpose of humanity, if any, clear? Has it been determined, or can it be so? No, as is pretty damn evident; determining whether humanity has a purpose or not, and if so, what it is, would require answers to certain religious and philosophical questions that remain unanswered. The purpose of humanity, if any, is thus unclear. Humanity doesn't have any clear purpose.

Good, so you can't proove to me that your parents love you, but based on subjective evidance, and a lifestimes experiance(yours) you think that they do?, it is more plausible that they do than they don't?It is more plausible, but not certain. And I do not hold it as a certain belief that they do. I concider it rather likely. No less, no more.

Sooooo another belife of yours then.No. No belief involved.

heheh Stupid boy.:pYou have yet to prove so. And a nice demonstration of premature judgement there, I see.

I think it is ironic that you come here and spout all sorts of nonsense about the stupidity of belife, and how you fix these sorts of problems in your life, and apparently more so than anybody else does.Not neccessarily more so than everybody else. It wouldn't surprise me (but then, nothing does, anymore) if there were a few more, equal to or surpassing me in that regard, though I have yet to see or meet any.

... When it is very clear to me that in fact you are just like everybody else I know, except not yet self aware enough to realise that you do hold belifes and so your statement was both a lie and a stupid one at that.Oh, it is very much the opposite. I have become much more self-aware over the last couple of years. I found, confronted and got rid of a massive load of garbage, rebuilt my world-view, throwing away a load of - guess what - beliefs, and adjusted my emotional response (what I was saying happened near the top of my previous post, which you seem to have misread... somewhat), among other things.

It could be a giant coincidence that every time it rains there's a cloud in the sky, but so far assuming that there is some causal connection has been pretty useful, say, for telling me when I need to bring my umbrella. This is the only possible criterion for 'truth'. The idea of God has no such use, and is therefore untrue.

And why is this an argument against agnosticism?

Why is this not an argument against both theism and atheism? Isn't the idea of no God also untrue?

do american atheists on this forum particularly those in the southern states feel threatened , persecuted or shunned where they live?

I ask because of a survey that I saw that asked americans which group they distrusted/disliked the most......apparently atheists (even american ones) were lower down the list than terrorists........

As an agnostic living in Georgia, I have never lost a friend due to my agnosticism. I do not feel, however, that religion is an appropriate topic of conversation between mere acquaintances. That may be a belief based in self-preservation.

I'm sure it's been said before, but "possible" =/= "probable," by a long shot.

I'm loving the nationstates forum, which I came to know just a few days ago. But I'm getting pissed off about how for every thread I wanna answer I see 15 pages of posts that I gotta read through. We need to make some more specific folders or something cause it's like having a hundred people in one room trying to talk about something.

Like I said, I only checked out the forum by chance but I'm really happy that I suddenly found this place full of smart people. In responding to the original post: I agree with what you said exactly. I see religion and god as any crackpot idea that someone comes up with. Christianity was just lucky enough to have plenty of charismatic preachers so it managed to gain a huge following and it snowballed. Even though I currently have this semi-nihilistic view on things philosophically, I still call myself an atheist (even though some of my formerly atheist friends have moved to agnosticism) because I feel I'm making a social point. Atheism to me is a rejection of god and religion and that's what I wanna maintain. I see agnosticism as a semi-nihilistic standpoint, but I reject it because it gives credit to religion as being equally serious as atheism. I think it's really important to reject religion and point out that it's just as dumb as any daily fantasy. By claiming to be an atheist I feel I'm making that point.

I just wanna point out that I think people have probably said this already, and that's why I feel pretty useless in this huge forum. That's why I think nationstates should try and organize things a little better. I also wanna praise nationstates for creating an online game that includes a forum that invites people with all kinds of beliefs. That way we find ourselves debating with all kinds of people and we're not just making points to people that agree with us already.

As an agnostic living in Georgia, I have never lost a friend due to my agnosticism. I do not feel, however, that religion is an appropriate topic of conversation between mere acquaintances. That may be a belief based in self-preservation.

I think that your belief based in self-preservation is real..... I've been shunned, abused by teachers in school and rejected by a friend, christians can be the worst of hypocrites.....I see the very low statistics for atheists in the US and wonder if it's accurate or are people afraid to disclose their beliefs. USA is out of line with other highly industrialized/educated countries and it's number of atheists.....

I see agnosticism as a semi-nihilistic standpoint, but I reject it because it gives credit to religion as being equally serious as atheism. I think it's really important to reject religion and point out that it's just as dumb as any daily fantasy. By claiming to be an atheist I feel I'm making that point.
Heck, if religion WAS what you believe it to be, I'd be an atheist too, and for much the same reason.

Welcome to the forums.

Atheism has gotten more arrogant ... more militant, if you will. I find that a disturbing trend. I'm an atheist and I really don't much care if you believe there's a God or gods or a flying spaghetti monster or whatever. Really, I don't.
You know, if religious people didn't demand special treatment at every fucking turn just because they happen to believe something with absolutely no empirical reason for doing so, maybe I'd be a bit less militant these days, but frankly, I'm more than a little tired of their shit.

And believing that the creator of the universe cares to have a personal relationship with you and that you understand his nature while other do not is not arrogant?
You insult me, and I'll insult you.
No, atheism is more like the worst kind of fundamentalism. At least most religious people will say that other religions have truth in them (while for them, their religion contains the most). The worst kind of fundamentalists think that all other religions and everything else are completely false, and that only the Bible/Koran/whatever that is true.

Atheists are typically like this, but with science instead of a holy book.

No, atheism is more like the worst kind of fundamentalism. At least most religious people will say that other religions have truth in them (while for them, their religion contains the most). The worst kind of fundamentalists think that all other religions and everything else are completely false, and that only the Bible/Koran/whatever that is true.

Atheists are typically like this, but with science instead of a holy book.
Build that straw man yourself? Why don't you let atheists speak for themselves instead of speaking for them?

No, atheism is more like the worst kind of fundamentalism. At least most religious people will say that other religions have truth in them (while for them, their religion contains the most). The worst kind of fundamentalists think that all other religions and everything else are completely false, and that only the Bible/Koran/whatever that is true.

Atheists are typically like this, but with science instead of a holy book.

Religious believers only lend truth to other religions where those religions concur with their own. That is no measure of virtue, nor does it separate the theist from the atheist.

You know, if religious people didn't demand special treatment at every fucking turn... [snip]
And how is any of this harming you?

Build that straw man yourself? Why don't you let atheists speak for themselves instead of speaking for them?
Analysing atheists' views isn't building straw men.

Intellectually I can understand the agnostic position of not taking a position, or of being convinced that there is really no way to know either way...but...come on now! It's like saying, "Some people believe a huge flying waffle will some day deliver them to Japan in a nappy, but since I can't DISPROVE this, I must regard it as a legitimate belief, and take no position either way."

I can't be agnostic, because frankly, I don't believe that I have to give shrift to faerie tales. Just because I don't know FOR SURE that there aren't sock gnomes, doesn't mean I have to sit on a fence and say, 'well, it's highly unlikely, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must accept it as possible....'

So, agnostics, please...explain. It's something I've never really been able to fathom.
You've explained it very well. It's a perfectly reasonable position; some people (like you, apparently) just don't like reason.

Why does everyone ignore my posts :confused:

I posted this a while ago but no-one responded,was it so good that you can't debate back, or so bad that it wasn't worth debating?:

"You would have a point if the idea of no God is much more likely then the idea of a God (and i'm talking about the very basic prime mover un religious sort of God here at the moment), but since there are only two options you can take in the line of cause and effect: one being that matter/ the universe appeared spontaniously out of nothing, and one that matter/ the universe was caused to be. With both possibilities being infinately impossible as each other, it is retarded and impossible to say you know what happened.

It is not the same as disproving a flying sock monster at mars, as the alternative is much more likely, and there is no need for the flying sock monster."

I see agnosticism as a semi-nihilistic standpoint, but I reject it because it gives credit to religion as being equally serious as atheism. I think it's really important to reject religion and point out that it's just as dumb as any daily fantasy. By claiming to be an atheist I feel I'm making that point.

As an agnostic, I consider atheism as being equally baseless as religion.

"Serious" is a loaded term that has no bearing on the truth or nature of an idea or belief.

I just wanna point out that I think people have probably said this already, and that's why I feel pretty useless in this huge forum. That's why I think nationstates should try and organize things a little better. I also wanna praise nationstates for creating an online game that includes a forum that invites people with all kinds of beliefs. That way we find ourselves debating with all kinds of people and we're not just making points to people that agree with us already.

I have been on NS for a couple of years and I rarely read an entire thread unless it really catches my interest. Agnosticism is one of my favorite topics and I only breezed through the thread for responses to my original post or posts by some of my favorite posters. I generally stick to reading the last couple of pages in full because those are the posters that are still on the forum. That might be the best course of action for you until you get a grasp on the threads and posters you like or dislike.

Welcome to NS, by the way.

And how is any of this harming you?


See, for example, Massechusets wanting to ban gay marriage, Bush saying God told him to do stuff, Intelligent design actually being taught to children. And the general growing void between religion and science which wouldnt be so much of a problem if the administration wasnt on the side of religion.

And how is any of this harming you?

How could you even ask such as stupid question?

Religious believers only lend truth to other religions where those religions concur with their own. That is no measure of virtue, nor does it separate the theist from the atheist.
It is a measure of virtue, especially when the fundamental tenets of the religions in question differ. Many atheists would insist that the Bible (or whatever) is entirely wrong even if science agrees with it sometimes. More often, atheists dismiss claims made in the Bible even if they are not explained by science, on the premise that if they're in a religious book then they must be untrue.

How could you even ask such as stupid question?
I don't live in the same country as Nazz. I don't know what he's referring to, but I do know that he does like the harm principle.

It is a measure of virtue, especially when the fundamental tenets of the religions in question differ.

And as I said, religious individuals find truth in other religions only when the other religions agree with their own.

I have not known a Christian to find any merit in the Hindu ideas of reincarnation.

Many atheists would insist that the Bible (or whatever) is entirely wrong even if science agrees with it sometimes. More often, atheists dismiss claims made in the Bible even if they are not explained by science, on the premise that if they're in a religious book then they must be untrue.

Bullshit. All of it.

EDIT: Your comments, that is, not religious texts.

I don't live in the same country as Nazz. I don't know what he's referring to, but I do know that he does like the harm principle.

Then let us set up in your nation a group of rights only extended to those who renounce their belief in God. Perhaps your empathy will register then.

Then let us set up in your nation a group of rights only extended to those who renounce their belief in God. Perhaps your empathy will register then.
There already is such a right - it's called sense.

Bullshit. All of it.

Thats a bit harsh. Some of the purely historical stuff is more or less accurate. And some of the people in there might have existed.

And how is any of this harming you?Try living in the US where christians are able to get away with damn near anything by dropping the "you can't criticize my beliefs" dodge at the drop of a hat and see where it gets you.

Analysing atheists' views isn't building straw men.
Making those views up and then criticizing them is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Why does everyone ignore my posts :confused:

I posted this a while ago but no-one responded,was it so good that you can't debate back, or so bad that it wasn't worth debating?:

"You would have a point if the idea of no God is much more likely then the idea of a God (and i'm talking about the very basic prime mover un religious sort of God here at the moment), but since there are only two options you can take in the line of cause and effect: one being that matter/ the universe appeared spontaniously out of nothing, and one that matter/ the universe was caused to be. With both possibilities being infinately impossible as each other, it is retarded and impossible to say you know what happened.

It is not the same as disproving a flying sock monster at mars, as the alternative is much more likely, and there is no need for the flying sock monster."

the problem with the "god" theory is that it still leaves you with a pime mover problem. what made god? why should god exist without needing to be created?

isnt it better to suppose that we really dont know the origins of the stuff the big bang was made out of instead of supposing that it was made by "someone"? especially if that someone is supposed to have all sorts of other supernatural qualities.

in theory, if there is a god then when we find the origins of the matter of the big bang, we will find god.

No, atheism is more like the worst kind of fundamentalism. At least most religious people will say that other religions have truth in them (while for them, their religion contains the most). The worst kind of fundamentalists think that all other religions and everything else are completely false, and that only the Bible/Koran/whatever that is true.

Atheists are typically like this, but with science instead of a holy book.

you really don't comprehend atheists at all.....unlike theists we only ask to be treated as equal and with respect in a secular state and nothing else....unlike some theist sects we will never bang on your door on Saturday morning trying convert you..... we won't try lure your children into an atheist cult.....we don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to impose your morals and beliefs on us......we really don't care if you share our beliefs or not......how all that makes us the worst kind of fundamentalists is bewildering....

Thats a bit harsh. Some of the purely historical stuff is more or less accurate. And some of the people in there might have existed.

No, I mean all of the quoted comments were bullshit. I have never heard an atheist reject science because it concurred with the bible, nor have I heard an atheist state that a religious text must be untrue simply on the basis of it being a religious text.

I imagine that he is going from either a very small pool of atheists, takes a very imaginative view of science, or is completely talking out of his ass.

(Actually, concerning the quote I called bullshit, I would go with all three.)

the problem with the "god" theory is that it still leaves you with a pime mover problem. what made god? why should god exist without needing to be created?

isnt it better to suppose that we really dont know the origins of the stuff the big bang was made out of instead of supposing that it was made by "someone"? especially if that someone is supposed to have all sorts of other supernatural qualities.

in theory, if there is a god, then when we find the origins of the matter of the big bang, we will find god.

The idea of God is that he is the uncaused causer, he is infinate and timeless, so if he is infinate he cannot have a start. Though the matter of the universe is within time and if you go by the principles of physics within our universe, everything must have a cause and effect.

But these things are irrelivent, as the idea of having an origin of nothingness is also a sort of paradox. So if God and no God are both paradoxes, it doesn't matter what other complications you may add to each option, thats like adding 1 to infinity. The point is, they are both equally impossible, with no option being drasticly more likely then the other. That is why agnosticism or agnostic atheism is the only rational position you can take.

You mean they're women athiests?

Yes there are. Imagine that, atheism isn't just for people with a penis any more!

Correct. The difference is that atheism is arrogant.

And religion isn't? :rolleyes:

No, atheism is more like the worst kind of fundamentalism. At least most religious people will say that other religions have truth in them (while for them, their religion contains the most). The worst kind of fundamentalists think that all other religions and everything else are completely false, and that only the Bible/Koran/whatever that is true.

Atheists are typically like this, but with science instead of a holy book.

The worse kind of fundamentalism is any type, though religion is far more intolerable than atheism as a fundamental concept for beliefs.

It's only militant atheists who are that way, the ones who treat science as the Southern Baptist treat the Bible, though, I don't see how being zealous about science is a bad thing. At least it forces people to think beyond the little bubble of security we have been wrapped in.

Build that straw man yourself? Why don't you let atheists speak for themselves instead of speaking for them?

Because it's more fun to try and pretend to know more than the atheist themself.

It is a measure of virtue, especially when the fundamental tenets of the religions in question differ. Many atheists would insist that the Bible (or whatever) is entirely wrong even if science agrees with it sometimes. More often, atheists dismiss claims made in the Bible even if they are not explained by science, on the premise that if they're in a religious book then they must be untrue.
I want proof that the Bible agrees with science.

I refuse to believe that the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran agree with science until there is proof. You know, proof, that which proves the validity, existence or non-existence of something.

maybe it's like someone who isnt sure if love exists.

lots of people believe in it and even claim to have felt it. Others havent and dont believe it is even real. Others believe in love because they want to feel it oh so badly.

Some people can say that maybe they have felt love and can see why others might believe in it and why others dont. They're the lovegnostics. :p

I've felt love so I believe it exists but I couldnt put love into words that would make anyone else understand love the way I do (I wouldnt even know where to begin - is it just a bad vocabulary or is love beyond words?). The same goes with 'God' for me personally.

The idea of God is that he is the uncaused causer, he is infinate and timeless, so if he is infinate he cannot have a start. Though the matter of the universe is within time and if you go by the principles of physics within our universe, everything must have a cause and effect.

But these things are irrelivent, as the idea of having an origin of nothingness is also a sort of paradox. So if God and no God are both paradoxes, it doesn't matter what other complications you may add to each option, thats like adding 1 to infinity. The point is, they are both equally impossible, with no option being drasticly more likely then the other. That is why agnosticism or agnostic atheism is the only rational position you can take.

thats the IDEA but why am i bound by an idea? as it makes no rational sense for there to be no cause, there is no rational sense for there to be a cause with no cause. all "God" does is to stop the look for the answer. science fueled by the refusal to accept the idea that "god caused it" will come up with many answers to the origins of the big bang. they will likely bring up more questions but at least its looking.

i dont have a problem with the notion that there is some remote possibilty that the universe has an intelligent origin. i just consider it so unknowable and remote a possibility that i still classify myself as an atheist. in the same way, i accept the idea of the big bang as the best for-now notion of the beginning of the universe. i have no huge tie to the idea, some day it will be replaced by some other notion and i will accept that one as easily as i accept this one. the truth has no impact on my life.

the other problem with this idea of the starter of the universe being "god" is that in our society it implies all sorts of things that are unjustifiable. notions of power, knowledge, justice and love that are in no way implied by having a prime mover. it leaves me with the question "fine there is a prime mover, so what?". the answer is that it is as irrelevant as the truth of the big bang in my life. its just an answer. nothing more. that still leaves me with the same result in the running of my life as that of being atheist.

Yes there are. Imagine that, atheism isn't just for people with a penis any more!



And religion isn't? :rolleyes:



The worse kind of fundamentalism is any type, though religion is far more intolerable than atheism as a fundamental concept for beliefs.

It's only militant atheists who are that way, the ones who treat science as the Southern Baptist treat the Bible, though, I don't see how being zealous about science is a bad thing. At least it forces people to think beyond the little bubble of security we have been wrapped in.



Because it's more fun to try and pretend to know more than the atheist themself.


I want proof that the Bible agrees with science.

I refuse to believe that the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran agree with science until there is proof. You know, proof, that which proves the validity, existence or non-existence of something.

Baha'i Holy Writings proclaim the oneness of humanity which science has found to be true. In fact the Baha'i Faith was way ahead of science on this one.

Baha'i Holy Writings proclaim the oneness of humanity which science has found to be true. In fact the Baha'i Faith was way ahead of science on this one.

Good for the Baha' Faith then.
More often, atheists dismiss claims made in the Bible even if they are not explained by science, on the premise that if they're in a religious book then they must be untrue.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Nice try.

What about the hugely popular ultra fascist thought police idea: banning religion, yep banning freedom to think.

Lets not forget about satanists, and people who vandalize churches or even kill theists.

What about condesending amature philosopher Richard Dawkins?


What about Satanists?

maybe it's like someone who isnt sure if love exists.

lots of people believe in it and even claim to have felt it. Others havent and dont believe it is even real. Others believe in love because they want to feel it oh so badly.

Some people can say that maybe they have felt love and can see why others might believe in it and why others dont. They're the lovegnostics. :p

I've felt love so I believe it exists but I couldnt put love into words that would make anyone else understand love the way I do (I wouldnt even know where to begin - is it just a bad vocabulary or is love beyond words?). The same goes with 'God' for me personally.

But that's just it. Love doesn't exist, at least in a physical sense. I can't point to something and say "that is love". Love is a feeling, and feelings have no actual presence. The only physical presence love might have is a series of chemicals, which most certainly have been proven to exist. But love is a concept, not a thing. "Love" no sooner exists in a real physical sense then does "warm", it's a mental and emotional construct.

God, on the other hand, does exist according to the argument. And actual things that actually exist should leave some evidence of their existance.

I'm agnostic because I don't give a shit what atheists or theists say about the entire issue. I do not care whether god exists or doesn't.

I'm agnostic because I don't give a shit what atheists or theists say about the entire issue. I do not care whether god exists or doesn't.

That would make you apathetic, not agnostic.

if you really believe all that you i feel sorry for you....(are there monsters under your bed too?)

satanists are theists rolleyes:, I've never even met one or know of any.....

By your own admission you haven't met a Satanist nor do you know of any; how then is it you are so sure Satanists are theists?

I am telling you, Satanists are not theists. Satanists have read the book authored by Anton LaVey, titled, The Satanic Bible. Satanists did not exist before LaVey. Anyone else claiming to be a Satanist is either heretical (with the implication that they have read the Satanic Bible but disagree with LaVey and still insist that they are Satanists) or a plagiarist (if I made carbonated lime drink I wouldn't legally be able to call it Mountain Dew or 7UP or Sprite), or just a stupid teenager.


This entire thread is devolving to a point of entropy so scattered that it is becoming impossible to have any kind of coherrent conversation and all because 98% of the people on this thread have little idea of exactly what they are talking about. This has basically come down to one single theme, the same theme almost every discussion I've been a part of has come to before arresting - There are a lot of people who have very little knowledge of the distinctions between philosophical positions which are concerned with supernatural matters and these people rob everyone's time by forcing the few who do know the differences and the definitions of each position to explain these in depth before any serious discussion on the original topic can occurr.

So, please, before posting anything more that makes any assumptions or assertions about any philosophical position, look it up first. Here's a head start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Qualifying_agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

And just because...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm


Please, no more premature ejaculation... uh I mean interjections. K?

That would make you apathetic, not agnostic.

Apatheticism is just as much a religion as any other.

See I put ism on the end of it to prove the point.

That would make you apathetic, not agnostic.

Ze Church of Apathetic Agnostics (http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/)

Heh, no one flamed my post...

Now that makes me wonder - Was it way to long or did it just not entice thought...lol

Well I saw someone say something about waiting to see more, and someone else asking to see someone really defend Agnosticism.

When I'm in a less stressing environment, I'll add Part 2 to my Odd-Ball Philosohpy..>>

Ze Church of Apathetic Agnostics (http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/)

...wow lol...

That made my day even better, ;).

Ze Church of Apathetic Agnostics (http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/)

I salute the awesome of this Church.

Apatheticism is just as much a religion as any other.

See I put ism on the end of it to prove the point.

Apatheists do not belong to a religion, and apatheism is not a religion.

Definitions of religion on the Web:

* 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

*enerally 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


I realize you may be trying to be funny or something but I want to make sure everyone is clear on this, irreligion IS NOT religion.

You only make comments about the practical applications of one religion and frankly they reek of an angry rebellion rather than a rational rethinking. I will fully agree that the literal translation of biblical events and scriptural dogma appears to be complete nonsense. However, the ineptitude of a singular religious phenomenon is not sufficient for the complete dismissal of the existence of a higher power or its governance over us.



The first statement is the central backing for my epistemological position concerning theological thought. We simply cannot base our knowledge of the existence of gods in our reason and science. We base all of our knowledge on probabilities and causation. We say that this caused this, which caused this, which will cause this in the future. All of this is based in relationships of space and time, which, while they make up the whole of our perception and reason, make up very little of what might actually be. In the end, if there is a god, he will not be bound by such stringent limitations, and therefore would be completely unknowable to us.

Statements two and three are an extension of this which don't really deal with what we can and cannot know, but what we can and cannot confirm and hold true to other people. It is a rejection of the theist or atheist who hold what is true for them is true for others.



I am actually not in great disagreement with you here, as the number of self-proclaimed agnostics who are in actuality simply atheist/theist apologetics drives me up the wall.

I know what my post sounded like. And I am angry, truth told, to some extent. But it's no rebelion. It'd be much easier on me if I'd conform. But all I know is what I have concluded based on what I've examined so far.

So far you're the only person I see making a real effort regarding agnosticism here, kudos.

I think most of the trouble here is the definition of a god. It's hard for me to argue against the existence of something that is not definitively described first.

I will concede I'm bound by Hume's fork, but I have my practical reasons for believing the nonexistence of God, a god, or gods. Definition will always play an important role in these, though.
I would like to get your opinion on some of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

Personally, The Problem of Evil holds a lot of water with me.

Furthermore, maybe absence of evidence really is evidence of absence?

Personally, The Problem of Evil holds a lot of water with me.

Furthermore, maybe absence of evidence really is evidence of absence?

The problem of evil is just crap, but I agree about abscence of evidence. I mean a lack of evidence does not necessarily disprove a theory, for example the theory of relativity was perfectly reasonable before anyone started flying clocks around to test it. But if Einstein had suggested his theory with absolutely nothing to support it and no way to test it, it would obviously be bollocks.

I've met very spiritual people

The word "spiritual" is overused. In fact, it has taken on so many different meanings that it doesn't really mean anything. It would be better if people clarified what position they are speaking from when they use that word.

The word "spiritual" is overused. In fact, it has taken on so many different meanings that it doesn't really mean anything. It would be better if people clarified what position they are speaking from when they use that word.

why? To satisfy your particular sensibilities? Sorry, you're not special enough to get to tell people how to refer to themselves.

The word "spiritual" is overused. In fact, it has taken on so many different meanings that it doesn't really mean anything. It would be better if people clarified what position they are speaking from when they use that word.

YES! As with so many other words.

Like I was saying, it's hard to have a conversation any more because all words are being diluted of their meaning and being used incorrectly. English is rapidly heading for doom. Does anyone read a dictionary anymore?

Maybe I just have prescriptive linguistic leanings...

The problem of evil is just crap, but I agree about abscence of evidence. I mean a lack of evidence does not necessarily disprove a theory, for example the theory of relativity was perfectly reasonable before anyone started flying clocks around to test it. But if Einstein had suggested his theory with absolutely nothing to support it and no way to test it, it would obviously be bollocks.

Elaborate on The Problem of Evil being crap.
Before you do, you should probably pick out which one you mean or confusion will follow. There are several alternatives and versions on the corresponding wikipedia page.

Believing that god doesn't exist is stronger then not believing he does. In the latter case you might also not believe he doesn't; i.e. not believe either position. For example because you don't have enough evidence for either position.
It's similar to the difference between not knowing something is the case, or knowing that it isn't the case. Except belief is much weaker than knowledge.


Yeah I know that. I was replying to a post that suggested that 'Radical Athiests' do not exists.

if you really believe all that you i feel sorry for you....(are there monsters under your bed too?)

satanists are theists rolleyes:, I've never even met one or know of any.....


Noo Satanist are wankers, but theists no.

There's a third possibility--Dawkins covers it in The God Delusion. It's that the belief in an authoritative god is a side effect of an evolutionary benefit that comes along with listening to parental figures--taking advice, in other words. There's a benefit to doing that--when a parent says "don't play near the crocodile infested river," the gene that makes it more likely for the person to listen will be selected for more often than the one that ignores it. That same genetic predeliction may--and I emphasize the may here--be the same thing that predisposes us toward belief in God.

I've yet to read that he is a scary man to me.

Heh it does make me laff though. Does Dawkins supply any evidance for this supposition in the book? How do you think he come to this conclusion, do we know enough about both the workings of the human brain and the history of it's evolution for him to say this and be correct? Is it just his best guess, does he believe this based soley on subjective evidance, or put another way irrational faith. He has faith tha what he thinks is correct, yet can he objectivly prove it so, if not then he is guilty of the type of irrational thought process that are natural to humanity, and that he wants to see destroyed.

i used to be an athiest when i was a teenager, later i became a agnostic.

1st. It seems like supreme arrogance to say the is/isn't a god/afterlife/giantwaffle/whatever and that everyone else is wrong!

2nd. Whether there is a god or not, you're not going to be proven right/wrong until your dead. So why argue the point?

3rd. I don't think there is a god, but i'd rather find out i was wrong when i'm dead.

basically the reason im agnostic is simply becasue i cant agree with religion or rule it out as void, your answer right there

I don't either, until religious people start insulting atheism.

Umm that's a very telling utterance there.

What does it tell us?

I am constantly ammazed at how some religons and some religous people take offence so easily. I mean how can one offend God? I would argue that you can't offend God. So then I would ask what are you taking offence over then, surly not on Gods behalf? That does seem sorta I dunno, blaspehmous to me.

Your sentance though helps shred much light on the matter. What upset can be caused by insulting a belief? I mean think about it, what possible harm can you recive to your self to be told that Athieists are wankers, for example?

It actulay does you not one bit of harm, not one shred are you harmed, yet you, me, we all take offense directly for any insult to people who we deem think like us. Why should this be the case?

Triballisational feelings? Human nautre? Whatever it all stems from the wholey human emotional response, and irrational thought huh!

So Atheist, Agnostic, Theist, we are indeed all as irrational as each other, but that really doesn't matter, it seems to be inherent in humainty, why fight agaist what is your basic nature.

Why does it always seem that everyone over in Europe and Asia is far more civilised and tolerant than we are, and vice versa?


Heheh perhaps because we are?

I am agnostic, it isnt as many have asserted, because I have not made up my mind, or cant decide, or am indecisive. It is just that I very forcefully dont give a rats ass. Why be against something you cant prove or disprove? Sure it is ludicrous, but isn't it just as silly to bother being forcefully in opposition?

I have my principles and beliefs, and they are based on what I feel is reason. They are similar to those preached by many religions, but I find religions never stick all that close to the most basic of principles (murder, rape, stealing, lying, especially greed=BAD, helping, equality, nondescrimination=GOOD) so I forget em, and only worry about spirituality when it effects human nature, usually negatively in my opinion, though I admit that I have certainly seen religion do wonderful things for people.

To each his own.