NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that you are here, Peepelonia, you have something to respond to (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12164460&posted=1#post12164460).

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.

Reproduced faithfully is the first of your posts that prompted my responce to you. Please note this line:

'I don't hold any faith, and concider doing so an error, as it is inherently irrational and thus stupid.'

Look at the words used and the context and the language, it says that this is a piece of knowledge that you hold to be true, it uses absolutes, there is no 'I belive' nor any 'I think' or even an 'It may be' No, absolute langauge is what you have used, and so I can only take it at it's face vaule that this is how you mean it.

So then if this is something that you hold to be true, how did you find this knowledge? By what methoeds have you justified it's varcity? I suspect that you cannot objectivly verify that this is true, and so you must instead use your own subjective best guess. Another way of putting this is you have faith that this belife is true.

Now please prove me wrong by furnishing your objective evidance for this belief.

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.


Sorry Vittos, I find you wrong, there are many pragmatic and liberal minded reliigious individuals, because you have met none is no indication that they don't exists, have you never heard of the UUA?

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.


The problem with taking that line of reasoning is that you mosty also appliy it to ever feeling, emotion, and thought. To take it further, the whole of your percived reality is so because of what your brain tells you, so then do you deny that that cup, is really a cup?

Love leaves evidance of it's existance, here am I, and here are you. I have children myself, very real evidance of the existance of love. So then it becomes what evidance is acceptable to you, for a theist the very fact of life is evidance enough for God.

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?


Ohhhhh ark at you dear! Bad day love?:D

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.


Hahahah cheers, you;re funny, that made me laugh. A Post on the correct usage of language. Whats so funny?


Ohh this bit easpecily:

'It would be better if people clarified what position they are speaking from when they use that word'

I'm speaking from a SE position in referance to the part of the country I come from, but from a more NE position in referance to the globe. Heh does that help?

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.

Love, like all human emotions, exists as a series of electrochemical reactions in the brain.

It is true that my personal experience of love exists only within my own brain, and as such is not directly shared by other individuals. But that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

It's a bit like digestion. If I eat a piece of fruit, I am the only one who experiences the taste of that particular fruit. The deliciousness of that fruit is known, directly, only to me, and exists only within my brain. But it would be silly to claim that the flavor of the fruit doesn't really exist simply because it is contained within my brain. Just as it would be silly to claim that the energy I obtain from digesting the fruit doesn't exist simply because it is confined to my digestive tract and my organs alone.


God, on the other hand, does exist according to the argument. And actual things that actually exist should leave some evidence of their existance.
If people want to claim that God is external, and is an objective reality accessable to all people, then yes.

That would be like claiming that God is the piece of fruit. The existence of the piece of fruit is something that all people are able to test (we can see, touch, smell, etc to verify the existence of the fruit).

However, one could also try the idea that God is the flavor of the fruit, and exists individually within the brain of the person experiencing God. We all might be able to see that there is a piece of fruit, but each of us might experience something very different if we taste it. If those individual tastes are "God," then it becomes somewhat harder to verify the existence of other peoples' subjective experiences.

Hahahah cheers, you;re funny, that made me laugh. A Post on the correct usage of language. Whats so funny?


Ohh this bit easpecily:

'It would be better if people clarified what position they are speaking from when they use that word'

I'm speaking from a SE position in referance to the part of the country I come from, but from a more NE position in referance to the globe. Heh does that help?

Looks to me like you're speaking from a position of mockery.

The problem with taking that line of reasoning is that you mosty also appliy it to ever feeling, emotion, and thought. To take it further, the whole of your percived reality is so because of what your brain tells you, so then do you deny that that cup, is really a cup?

Love leaves evidance of it's existance, here am I, and here are you. I have children myself, very real evidance of the existance of love. So then it becomes what evidance is acceptable to you, for a theist the very fact of life is evidance enough for God.

While I can't speak for you, I myself have had sex with someone I didn't love.

Female ovulation exists, we can see it happen.

Male ejaculation exists, we can see it happen.

Sex that results in ejaculation exists, we can see it happen.

Combine those and you get pregnancy. We can see that happen.

Wait long enough and the pregnancy results in birth. We can see THAT happen too.

Emotions, all emotions, don't exist in a physical sense other than the chemicals and chemical reactions in the brain. And those too, to an extent, we can see happy. So love exists, in a physical sense, in so far as the neurochemicals exist.

Now that may sound unromantic, and I don't mean it to be, but proving "love" runs into the same problem of proving god, and the argument works like this:

"Love as a feeling exists, but you can't show love. Same as god."

"but love doesn't exist in a physical sense. You can't show love anymore than you can show god."

"but we feel love."

"well why do we feel love?"

"because we have emotions."

"well what are emotions?"

"they are feelings."

"well what causes feelings?"

"well our brain."

"and our brain uses neurochemicals and neuraltransmitters to create those feelings?"

"well...yes."

"OK, so in theory if we cracked your head open and observed your brain as you feel this love, we can see those neuraltransmitters and neurochemicals working right?"

"well...yes"

"ah, so we CAN observe love, theoretically, after all. Now how can we observe god?"

Looks to me like you're speaking from a position of mockery.

Damn caught out! Naaa not really mockery, but Irony!:rolleyes:

While I can't speak for you, I myself have had sex with someone I didn't love.

Female ovulation exists, we can see it happen.

Male ejaculation exists, we can see it happen.

Sex that results in ejaculation exists, we can see it happen.

Combine those and you get pregnancy. We can see that happen.

Wait long enough and the pregnancy results in birth. We can see THAT happen too.

Emotions, all emotions, don't exist in a physical sense other than the chemicals and chemical reactions in the brain. And those too, to an extent, we can see happy. So love exists, in a physical sense, in so far as the neurochemicals exist.

Now that may sound unromantic, and I don't mean it to be, but proving "love" runs into the same problem of proving god, and the argument works like this:

"Love as a feeling exists, but you can't show love. Same as god."

"but love doesn't exist in a physical sense. You can't show love anymore than you can show god."

"but we feel love."

"well why do we feel love?"

"because we have emotions."

"well what are emotions?"

"they are feelings."

"well what causes feelings?"

"well our brain."

"and our brain uses neurochemicals and neuraltransmitters to create those feelings?"

"well...yes."

"OK, so in theory if we cracked your head open and observed your brain as you feel this love, we can see those neuraltransmitters and neurochemicals working right?"

"well...yes"

"ah, so we CAN observe love, theoretically, after all. Now how can we observe god?"


Heheh yeah I do belive I answered that already when I said:

'For a Theist the very fact of life is evidance for God'

Heh I guess that means if you want to observe God, then look out of the window.

Heheh yeah I do belive I answered that already when I said:

'For a Theist the very fact of life is evidance for God'

Heh I guess that means if you want to observe God, then look out of the window.

The problem with that is, a chain of evidence must lead to a conclusion.

If you want to claim love exists, we can test for this (theoretically). We can ask people "do you feel love right now?" and check their brain chemistry.

If we do this enough we can generally come up with the chemicals and neural responses we believe are associated with this feeling called "love".

Now as you said, some might say "you exist, that's evidence", to which someone who understsand how evidence works will create a new conversation

"god exist"

"how do you know"

"because you exist"

"can I not exist without god?"

"no"

"well why not?"

And thus we run into the same problem. Existance is only evidence of a creator if we needed to be created, and nothing has shown that we need to be created by a creator.

Reproduced faithfully is the first of your posts that prompted my responce to you. Please note this line:

'I don't hold any faith, and concider doing so an error, as it is inherently irrational and thus stupid.'

Look at the words used and the context and the language, it says that this is a piece of knowledge that you hold to be true, it uses absolutes, there is no 'I belive' nor any 'I think' or even an 'It may be' No, absolute langauge is what you have used, and so I can only take it at it's face vaule that this is how you mean it.

So then if this is something that you hold to be true, how did you find this knowledge? By what methoeds have you justified it's varcity? I suspect that you cannot objectivly verify that this is true, and so you must instead use your own subjective best guess. Another way of putting this is you have faith that this belife is true.

Now please prove me wrong by furnishing your objective evidance for this belief.There are two separate bits in there; "I don't hold any faith", as well as the one about faith being inherently irrational.

The latter is a question of logic. Faith, in the sense here referred to, essentially means conviction that is not logically justifiable. As there is no evidence to support them, only possibilities far from certain, religious beliefs are not logically justifiable. And what is not logically justifiable, is not rational.

The former is not. While it cannot be known absolutely, it can be known to a relatively large certainty. It relies on observations made of the workings of my mind; those observations cannot be much more certain than, say, that I have a body, or that I am now sitting in front of a computer typing this. (a bit more certain they can be, though, as they do not rely on anything outside of my mind) As with those two examples, though, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. The possibilities of it being otherwise remain, but fall below the threshold of relevance. Were you to ask me whether I have a body, I wouldn't say "I may have one". (as for the example you gave before of whether my parents love me or not, I however would reply "Probably." were I asked if they do, as the possibility of it being otherwise is large enough to be far more relevant)

... and so you must instead use your own subjective best guess. Another way of putting this is you have faith that this belife is true.
"using your own subjective best guess" =/= having absolute belief

You can make "your own subjective best guess" an absolute belief if you want, though that'd be rather silly. You can however go by it as the best explanation avaliable without making the assumption that there is no possibility of it being wrong. For example, many non-theistic agnostics find Christian beliefs very unlikely to be true, and do not bother trying to avoid burning in hell. Does that somehow mean that they hold faith that Christian beliefs are false? No. I find Scientologist beliefs to be very, very, very unlikely to be true, and very, very likely to be useless, pure, stupid garbage, and for practical purposes there is no reason to take the very, very, very slim possibility that they are true into account. Still, I do not hold it as an absolute belief that they are false, and if someone can prove them right (something that I deem very, very, very unlikely) beyond any reasonable doubt, I'll happily concider them so. The practical difference might be small, in many cases, but the theoretical is not so.

The problem with that is, a chain of evidence must lead to a conclusion.

If you want to claim love exists, we can test for this (theoretically). We can ask people "do you feel love right now?" and check their brain chemistry.

If we do this enough we can generally come up with the chemicals and neural responses we believe are associated with this feeling called "love".

Now as you said, some might say "you exist, that's evidence", to which someone who understsand how evidence works will create a new conversation

"god exist"

"how do you know"

"because you exist"

"can I not exist without god?"

"no"

"well why not?"

And thus we run into the same problem. Existance is only evidence of a creator if we needed to be created, and nothing has shown that we need to be created by a creator.


Heh I want to draw your attention back to your previous post about, love being chemical/electrical happenings in the brain.

You said that theoreticaly we can open up peoples heads anda see what happens when people feel love. We can also do this withoput the need to open up their heads, we have done this for many types of brain happenings, and what can we conclude?

The most we can conclude is that certian areas of the brain apper to be working when we encounter certian feelings. I dare say that we can measure brain activity for thoguhts and feelings concering God as well, and we can come to the same conclusion.


So if we can show that areas of the brain work when feelings of love, or thoughts of God are going on does this prove the existance of either Love or God? No of course it does not, yet if I asked a room of 100 people does love exist then, I am sure I would get a larger afirmative answer than otherwise.

In your earlier example, your evidance of the existance of love, wasn't really that, just evidance of something in the brain working, and so as I have already said, because evidance is subjective, it really does depend on what, or what degree of subjective evidance would sway you to beliving in God.

I don't know about you, but perosnaly ones truck with God is, or at least should be a very private thing. You don't belive in God? Well that is your business, I would say that a belife in God has certianly enriched my life, could it do the same to yours? Heheh shit I don't know, but the same could be said a bout being a Dad, that too has certianly enriched my life, but is it for you?

Again I don't know, make your own mind up huh!:p

However, one could also try the idea that God is the flavor of the fruit, and exists individually within the brain of the person experiencing God. We all might be able to see that there is a piece of fruit, but each of us might experience something very different if we taste it. If those individual tastes are "God," then it becomes somewhat harder to verify the existence of other peoples' subjective experiences.

I don't see how that analogy works in the way you meant it to. If you can taste a fruit where no fruit actually exists, that's a hallucination. So to say you believe in a 'God-flavour' is, it seems to me, saying you know, or at least acknowledge the possibility, that your feeling of God's existence is a lie, but you trick yourself into believing it anyway.

So if we can show that areas of the brain work when feelings of love, or thoughts of God are going on does this prove the existance of either Love or God? No of course it does not, yet if I asked a room of 100 people does love exist then, I am sure I would get a larger afirmative answer than otherwise.

In your earlier example, your evidance of the existance of love, wasn't really that, just evidance of something in the brain working, and so as I have already said, because evidance is subjective, it really does depend on what, or what degree of subjective evidance would sway you to beliving in God.You forget we can observe the chemical goings-on in the body, and check up on what relates to what. Perhaps we can't prove why love exists, but empirically proving that it exists is easy enough. All it takes is a bit of elaborate drug testing.

Of course, we can also empirically prove that people can & do communicate with [insert deity] in what appears to be exactly the same way as they communicate with each other. Unfortunately, we can't determine why they do this. There's no deity-drug to be found. That means there's no more proof that these unfortunate fundies aren't every bit as insane as your average, voice-hearing schizophrenic - because their bodies exhibit similar behaviour when they're going bonkers.

I don't know about you, but perosnaly ones truck with God is, or at least should be a very private thing. You don't belive in God? Well that is your business, I would say that a belife in God has certianly enriched my life, could it do the same to yours? Heheh shit I don't know, but the same could be said a bout being a Dad, that too has certianly enriched my life, but is it for you?Until I found out that some religious people really do manage to make themselves believe, fully & completely, that [insert deity] is a real, personal thing that communicates directly with them, I agreed up to a point.

I mean, what harm is there in some wanker running around hoping there's an invisible buddy for him or her? - As long as they don't raise their kids to believe in the same absurd shit, and don't subjugate others in any way, it's a personal thing & of no more consequence than who I have sex with.

But if these believers are real schizophrenics, are we not obligated to help them? And can they truely be considered of sound mind? I don't know anymore. I know the overly religious scare the shit out of me, because they're no more reliable or responsible than your average non-religious schizo.

There are two separate bits in there; "I don't hold any faith", as well as the one about faith being inherently irrational.

The latter is a question of logic. Faith, in the sense here referred to, essentially means conviction that is not logically justifiable.

Ohhhh I see your game here. You first say '....any faith' and then you wish to change the meaning of this. Faith does not mean having absolute belief. Faith is simply to belive that which you do not have absolute proof for, look it up, there is no mention of degrees of faiht neither me nor you has mentioned degrees of faith until just now, please stick to the defineintion of the word, none of your wiggley tricks here.:p


As there is no evidence to support them, only possibilities far from certain, religious beliefs are not logically justifiable. And what is not logically justifiable, is not rational.

Religious belife as is the belife that love exists are logicaly subjectivly justifiable. Because you have found no subjective evidance of a God does not mean there is none, only that you have found none. As to logicaly justifiable. Where does this logic come from? What makes it king of thought? Isn't it the case that logics like, maths or any of the laws of nature are merely manmade tools to enable our better understanding of the universe around us? In which case where is the objective proof that logics is sound, and indeed at the forefront of modes of thought? Or is this a self evidant truth, a mark of common sense, or to put it another way an article of faith?

The former is not. While it cannot be known absolutely, it can be known to a relatively large certainty. It relies on observations made of the workings of my mind; those observations cannot be much more certain than, say, that I have a body, or that I am now sitting in front of a computer typing this. (a bit more certain they can be, though, as they do not rely on anything outside of my mind) As with those two examples, though, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. The possibilities of it being otherwise remain, but fall below the threshold of relevance. Were you to ask me whether I have a body, I wouldn't say "I may have one". (as for the example you gave before of whether my parents love me or not, I however would reply "Probably." were I asked if they do, as the possibility of it being otherwise is large enough to be far more relevant)

Ahhhh yes certianty and degrees of such. So what you are saying is that you find that the degree of certianty that God is, is so small as to make the idea irrelevant to you? I can respect that, yet the degree of certianty that God is is very high for me and so I regard it as true. Tell me then what is the differance in our belifes and how we come to them? If it really is just a question of degrees of certianty, then there is no differance in how we obtain our belifes, just a differance in the degree and type of subjective evidance we are prepared to belive.


"using your own subjective best guess" =/= having absolute belief

Nope that is not what I said is it, lemme break it down for you.

subjective best guess, an educated guess based on some degree or other of subjective evidance. Or in other words, belief in something without objective proof, or faith. We all do it, if you have not got 100 objective proof for any one of your belifes, if any one of them reliase not on objective proof but instead on a dgree of subjective evidance, then you are palceing your faith in that idea. You don't know 100% objectivly, so you must have a degree of faith about it. Argue that if you want, but your argument will only be a semantic one about degress of faith.

You can make "your own subjective best guess" an absolute belief if you want, though that'd be rather silly. You can however go by it as the best explanation avaliable without making the assumption that there is no possibility of it being wrong. For example, many non-theistic agnostics find Christian beliefs very unlikely to be true, and do not bother trying to avoid burning in hell. Does that somehow mean that they hold faith that Christian beliefs are false? No. I find Scientologist beliefs to be very, very, very unlikely to be true, and very, very likely to be useless, pure, stupid garbage, and for practical purposes there is no reason to take the very, very, very slim possibility that they are true into account. Still, I do not hold it as an absolute belief that they are false, and if someone can prove them right (something that I deem very, very, very unlikely) beyond any reasonable doubt, I'll happily concider them so. The practical difference might be small, in many cases, but the theoretical is not so.

Heh again it is you that equated subjective best guess with absolute belife not I.

Athieists are the new wave of the future. It is important to realize that when religions were created society depended on the organization, brotherhood, and protection of eachother to thrive as a species. Yes, religion has helped man kind greatly over the ages. The only problem with religion now is that it helped out society so much that population reached a point where individual religions ended up colliding thus giving us problems of war throughout the world. The next logical step is belief in no god, (or one god for all religions, not my personal belief but whatever). We now know, because of advancments in society, how to help the human race out and what everyday attitudes help society. In the long run organized religions, although preaches good things, are not nessisary because there are morals instilled into todays society, partially because of religions being there when laws where made and accepted. So atheism or agnoism, however it's spelt, can be seen as a natural progression of the human race and society rather than a godlessness, non-moral stand point, combating all known religions and gods throughout the world.

You forget we can observe the chemical goings-on in the body, and check up on what relates to what. Perhaps we can't prove why love exists, but empirically proving that it exists is easy enough. All it takes is a bit of elaborate drug testing.

Heh well as far as I know the only thing that we can find from brain scans done during certian activities is that certian areas of the brian where active during that time. What we can't do is show what was occuring in these areas, much less pin down the actual chemical/electrical occourances that equates with the activity. So no we cannot objectivly prove the existance of love that way.



I mean, what harm is there in some wanker running around hoping there's an invisible buddy for him or her? - As long as they don't raise their kids to believe in the same absurd shit, and don't subjugate others in any way, it's a personal thing & of no more consequence than who I have sex with.


Ahhh I see the curse of rightness strickes again huh! Surley you mean percived wankers? How do you know that they are wankers, they may not be, you think they are, but how can I be sure that you are more correct than anyother person I meet? As to raiseing kids, whilst I agree it seems better to let the kids decide for them selves, can you be allowed to tell others how they should raise their kids? Would you appreciate people telling you the same thing?



But if these believers are real schizophrenics, are we not obligated to help them? And can they truely be considered of sound mind? I don't know anymore. I know the overly religious scare the shit out of me, because they're no more reliable or responsible than your average non-religious schizo.

Now this struck a real cord in me. I am often bombared with people telling me how stupid, or irrational I am, and yet in these very same people I see much evidance of the same fault. I personaly know a lot of people that suffer from schizophrenia, and funnily enough I find them all to be quite normal avargae people. I find it remarkable that for a rational person you seem to be quite content to belive the stereo type rather than find out for your self.

On a similar note though, can you please tell me how you know that the shcizophrenic brain is not what the normal huamn brian should work like?

Athieists are the new wave of the future. It is important to realize that when religions were created society depended on the organization, brotherhood, and protection of eachother to thrive as a species. Yes, religion has helped man kind greatly over the ages. The only problem with religion now is that it helped out society so much that population reached a point where individual religions ended up colliding thus giving us problems of war throughout the world. The next logical step is belief in no god, (or one god for all religions, not my personal belief but whatever). We now know, because of advancments in society, how to help the human race out and what everyday attitudes help society. In the long run organized religions, although preaches good things, are not nessisary because there are morals instilled into todays society, partially because of religions being there when laws where made and accepted. So atheism or agnoism, however it's spelt, can be seen as a natural progression of the human race and society rather than a godlessness, non-moral stand point, combating all known religions and gods throughout the world.



Hahahahh and your sources for this belife of yours?

Hahahahh and your sources for this belife of yours?

This is a small taste of fact i've learned over a long period of time, are you refuting this?? or...

I don't see how that analogy works in the way you meant it to. If you can taste a fruit where no fruit actually exists, that's a hallucination. So to say you believe in a 'God-flavour' is, it seems to me, saying you know, or at least acknowledge the possibility, that your feeling of God's existence is a lie, but you trick yourself into believing it anyway.
That could be, or it could be that your personal experience of God is stimulated by something that does NOT stimulate a God-experience in another person. In which case you aren't necessarily halucinating, nor are they, you simply are experiencing an objective stimulus in subjectively different ways.

To extend the analogy, this might be compared to the phenomenon of "tasters" versus "non-tasters." There is an inherited taste trait that determines people’s sensitivity to bitter tastes, and people can be classified as “tasters” or “nontasters” based on whether they are able to detect 6-n-propylthiouracil. This substances tastes bitter to some people ("tasters"), but tastes as benign as water to others ("non-tasters"). Non-tasters are more likely to enjoy things like black coffee or plain fresh grapefruit.

Tasters are not halucinating when they report a bitter taste, nor are non-tasters halucinating when they do not. Both may consume the same piece of fruit, but have very different experiences of that fruit.

I don't think that God-believers are actually encountering fundamentally different stimuli than myself. They live in the same world as I, and experience the same fundamental reality. However, their subjective perceptions of that reality appear to be extremely different from my own.

Heh well as far as I know the only thing that we can find from brain scans done during certian activities is that certian areas of the brian where active during that time. What we can't do is show what was occuring in these areas, much less pin down the actual chemical/electrical occourances that equates with the activity. So no we cannot objectivly prove the existance of love that way.

We do not fully understand how the human brain functions, that's true. But there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that we are able to understand it, and that it is entirely likely we will understand it in the not-too-distant future.

When it comes to love, we know of specific chemicals that are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. We know that some of these chemicals are at high levels during the "lust" phase of love, while others are present during the "attraction" phase, and others are strongly associated with long-term bonding and attachment.

The study of the neurochemical (and electrophysiological) basis for human emotions is really quite fascinating. It always stuns me to hear people claim that we cannot empirically investigate emotions like love...I've had a wonderful time in the lab doing exactly that!

We do not fully understand how the human brain functions, that's true. But there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that we are able to understand it, and that it is entirely likely we will understand it in the not-too-distant future.

When it comes to love, we know of specific chemicals that are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. We know that some of these chemicals are at high levels during the "lust" phase of love, while others are present during the "attraction" phase, and others are strongly associated with long-term bonding and attachment.

The study of the neurochemical (and electrophysiological) basis for human emotions is really quite fascinating. It always stuns me to hear people claim that we cannot empirically investigate emotions like love...I've had a wonderful time in the lab doing exactly that!

I agree totally. Plenty of research has gone into such proof.

This is a small taste of fact i've learned over a long period of time, are you refuting this?? or...


Why yes, I certianly do refute it!:D

Heh well as far as I know the only thing that we can find from brain scans done during certian activities is that certian areas of the brian where active during that time. What we can't do is show what was occuring in these areas, much less pin down the actual chemical/electrical occourances that equates with the activity. So no we cannot objectivly prove the existance of love that way.We can demonstrate the relationship of emotions, brainactivity & bodychemistry. Like I said, it's basically elaborate drug testing.Ahhh I see the curse of rightness strickes again huh! Surley you mean percived wankers?If you're so sure, why do you ask? How do you know that they are wankers, they may not be, you think they are, but how can I be sure that you are more correct than anyother person I meet?I'm not here to be polite, wrap my words in cotton, make you feel good about yourself, or anything else of the sort. I'm here purely to intertain myself. That said, most people are wankers.As to raiseing kids, whilst I agree it seems better to let the kids decide for them selves, can you be allowed to tell others how they should raise their kids?Whether I can be allowed is besides the point. Wards exists because they're incapable of taking care of themselves (physically & mentally). Guardians exists to take care of the ward & do what is in the best interest of the ward, not what is in the best interest of the guardians.Would you appreciate people telling you the same thing?I don't know. What matters isn't how I feel though, but rather what's best for the child.Now this struck a real cord in me. I am often bombared with people telling me how stupid, or irrational I am, and yet in these very same people I see much evidance of the same fault.I very much doubt I called you stupid. My girlfriend's religious & unlike her, I don't date stupid people.

You are irrational, however. Doesn't matter which way you try to argue it. Religion is a superstition & not the slightest bit rational. If it bothers you to be labeled irrational, then don't give people cause to.I personaly know a lot of people that suffer from schizophrenia, and funnily enough I find them all to be quite normal avargae people.I don't know a lot, but I do know two. Both are on medication & doing just fine, but I have had the displeasure of experiencing both of the off meds, and they were in no position to take responsibility for their actions. And they agree with that, by the way.I find it remarkable that for a rational person you seem to be quite content to belive the stereo type rather than find out for your self.Find out what?On a similar note though, can you please tell me how you know that the shcizophrenic brain is not what the normal huamn brian should work like?Like the fundies being MR scanned while praying, schizos have been MR scanned while having episodes. Both show results activity similar to sane people having a conversation.

We do not fully understand how the human brain functions, that's true. But there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that we are able to understand it, and that it is entirely likely we will understand it in the not-too-distant future.

When it comes to love, we know of specific chemicals that are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. We know that some of these chemicals are at high levels during the "lust" phase of love, while others are present during the "attraction" phase, and others are strongly associated with long-term bonding and attachment.

The study of the neurochemical (and electrophysiological) basis for human emotions is really quite fascinating. It always stuns me to hear people claim that we cannot empirically investigate emotions like love...I've had a wonderful time in the lab doing exactly that!

You can explain what is happening in your brain during these sensations, and show that "this much x makes you feel F, and this much D makes you feel like E", but we can't explain what the nature of these sensations actually are and there isn't anything truly physical that we can test, as emotions are not objective objects.

We do not fully understand how the human brain functions, that's true. But there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that we are able to understand it, and that it is entirely likely we will understand it in the not-too-distant future.

When it comes to love, we know of specific chemicals that are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. We know that some of these chemicals are at high levels during the "lust" phase of love, while others are present during the "attraction" phase, and others are strongly associated with long-term bonding and attachment.

The study of the neurochemical (and electrophysiological) basis for human emotions is really quite fascinating. It always stuns me to hear people claim that we cannot empirically investigate emotions like love...I've had a wonderful time in the lab doing exactly that!


Hey Bottle,

I speak of course only from my laymans understanding of such stuff. Feel free to correct me anytime.

I know a little bit about brain chemistry, tell me all of the chemicals you mention above are present in the brain anyway yes? And it is true that any experiments done so far can only tell us that certian parts of the brain are doing something, and that certian chemicals are present at certian levels? Yet we still do not know how this works?

We do not fully understand how the human brain functions, that's true. But there is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that we are able to understand it, and that it is entirely likely we will understand it in the not-too-distant future.

I disagree that love has yet to be understood. I say we already understand love, in its entirety; we have since the beginning of mankind. We understand its function, its sources, its effects, and its meaning; we know its non-verbal mechanics and its wiley methodology. It has been referenced in literature and poetry back to the earliest writings. What you are claiming as something that has yet to be understood cannot be love, because love is understood.

You are obviously talking about something else.

When it comes to love, we know of specific chemicals that are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. We know that some of these chemicals are at high levels during the "lust" phase of love, while others are present during the "attraction" phase, and others are strongly associated with long-term bonding and attachment.

The study of the neurochemical (and electrophysiological) basis for human emotions is really quite fascinating. It always stuns me to hear people claim that we cannot empirically investigate emotions like love...I've had a wonderful time in the lab doing exactly that!

Oh, well see? there you go, you *are* talking about something else. You're talking about chemical stimulants that generate emotions and inspire us to feelings. You're talking about finding a particular stimulant that invokes a particular feeling. You are not talking about love.

You can explain what is happening in your brain during these sensations, and show that "this much x makes you feel F, and this much D makes you feel like E", but we can't explain what the nature of these sensations actually are

What do you mean by, "the nature of these sensations"?


and there isn't anything truly physical that we can test, as emotions are objective objects.
Emotions are not "objective objects." Our subjective experiences of emotion are the result of objectively-existing cascades of chemical and electrical signaling in our objectively-existing brain. We can test these objectively-existing physical elements through a wide variety of methods. We do not yet fully understand them, but there is no reason to doubt that we are capable of understanding and will probably understand them in time.

What do you mean by, "the nature of these sensations"?


The conscious feeling of emotion.


Emotions are not "objective objects." Our subjective experiences of emotion are the result of objectively-existing cascades of chemical and electrical signaling in our objectively-existing brain. We can test these objectively-existing physical elements through a wide variety of methods. We do not yet fully understand them, but there is no reason to doubt that we are capable of understanding and will probably understand them in time.

Yeah it was a typo (see edit), emotions exist but are not physical and therefor cannot be analysed.

I disagree that love has yet to be understood. I say we already understand love, in its entirety; we have since the beginning of mankind. We understand its function, its sources, its effects, and its meaning; we know its non-verbal mechanics and its wiley methodology. It has been referenced in literature and poetry back to the earliest writings. What you are claiming as something that has yet to be understood cannot be love, because love is understood.

You are obviously talking about something else.

I am talking about the physiological nature of human emotion. In other words, the only objectively testable aspect of our subjective emotional experiences.

What we may or may not choose to do as a result of our subjective emotional experiences is quite different from the emotions themselves.

The term/concept of love has existed for quite some time, of course, but this does not remotely equate to us understanding "love" in full. Humankind was probably aware of the Sun from pretty much the get-go, but that doesn't mean we understood what the Sun is or how it works. We might understand some of the impact that the Sun has on our lives, and we might have a great deal of knowledge about the behavior of the Sun, but this doesn't mean our understanding is complete.

I don't think there is a single human being who has ever fully understood love, even though I think most human beings will experience it at one point or another.


Oh, well see? there you go, you *are* talking about something else. You're talking about chemical stimulants that generate emotions and inspire us to feelings. You're talking about finding a particular stimulant that invokes a particular feeling. You are not talking about love.
Love is an emotion. Like all human emotions, it is the result of signaling cascades in our central nervous system (and possibly some cool stuff going on in our peripheral NS). It is highly unlikely that there is a single chemical or signal that results in the complex experience of the emotion "love," just as there is not a single chemical or signal responsible for "anger" or "happiness."

The main problem is that "love" is so broad a term that it verges on meaninglessness. It is far more helpful to specify particular elements of love-emotion, and to identify the many different ways that they may combine to form different experiences. These different experiences are all often lumped under the heading of "love," even though they may be radically different from one another.

For instance, the "love" one feels for a high school sweetheart may be profoundly different from the "love" one feels toward one's child. There may be shared elements as well as different elements. I find it most helpful to examine these similarities and differences, to better understand the whole.

Tasters are not halucinating when they report a bitter taste, nor are non-tasters halucinating when they do not. Both may consume the same piece of fruit, but have very different experiences of that fruit.

I don't think that God-believers are actually encountering fundamentally different stimuli than myself. They live in the same world as I, and experience the same fundamental reality. However, their subjective perceptions of that reality appear to be extremely different from my own.

I still think the apple analogy is better. Because once you taste an apple, there's an automatic deduction that an apple, or something made from apples, is in your mouth, and if you don't, there isn't. A 'taster' may find grapefruit less enjoyable, but he dosen't argue that it isn't a grapefruit, or that there's 6-n-propathiouracil in it. Indeed, the last bit took a scientist to figure out, which is what I would say religion needs too if it wants to be taken seriously. When people have a religious feeling, that is, by definition, a feeling that leads to the conclusion that a God exists. Whether you have such a feeling or not doesn't matter; if you don't buy that conclusion, then you're still an atheist.

You can explain what is happening in your brain during these sensations, and show that "this much x makes you feel F, and this much D makes you feel like E", but we can't explain what the nature of these sensations actually are and there isn't anything truly physical that we can test, as emotions are not objective objects.

Emotions are functions of the body. Anything that is "of the body" can be broken down to constituent parts (as far as we are able to obeserve), cataloged and defined.

Love is a concept, a relationship between subject and object. It is not "of the body" but "of the mind". Therein is where your argument should lie.

The conscious feeling of emotion.



Yeah it was a typo (see edit), emotions exist but are not physical and therefor cannot be analysed.

Yet they occour because of phyiscal objective happings and so must be analyisable?

Emotions are functions of the body. Anything that is "of the body" can be broken down to constituent parts (as far as we are able to obeserve), cataloged and defined.

Love is a concept, a relationship between subject and object. It is not "of the body" but "of the mind". Therein is where your argument should lie.

Heh we are not talking of Love per se, but of the principle love does exist, despite it's lack of objective proof.

Emotions are functions of the body. Anything that is "of the body" can be broken down to constituent parts (as far as we are able to obeserve), cataloged and defined.

Love is a concept, a relationship between subject and object. It is not "of the body" but "of the mind". Therein is where your argument should lie.

I would say the actual feeling of emotion itself is "of the mind" rather then the body. The functions of the body create this feeling, but are not "the feeling", if you know what I mean.

Ahhhh well as always it has been fun, but now I am orf ome!

Hey Bottle,

I speak of course only from my laymans understanding of such stuff. Feel free to correct me anytime.

I know a little bit about brain chemistry, tell me all of the chemicals you mention above are present in the brain anyway yes?

Yes and no. These chemicals are naturally occuring in the brain, and can be produced at times when the person is not feeling love. However, it is possible to measure relative concentrations and to identify particular regions where concentrations spike or decline.


And it is true that any experiments done so far can only tell us that certian parts of the brain are doing something, and that certian chemicals are present at certian levels? Yet we still do not know how this works?
I think it's a bit odd to say that we can "only" tell us that certain brain areas are active and using particular chemicals during particular activities. That's kind of a big deal! We can get a whole lot of information that way.

Behavioral neuroscience methods have come up with some amazing ways to see how different substances and stimuli impact emotional state and emotional responses. We can inject a particular substance into a very specific area of the brain, and watch an experimental animal's mood and behavior change. There are even limited experiments doing this with human beings (though, obviously, ethical issues are more serious with human subjects).

There are also some really cool studies done with people who undergo brain surgery. You can stimulate particular regions of the brain and get amazingly specific responses. Because the brain itself does not have pain receptors, it is often possible to have a patient fully conscious and lucid while you stimulate their brain directly! You can, in effect, poke a particular spot and ask them how they feel. I read about a fellow who described feeling an intense craving for roast beef when a certain area of his brain was stimulated. Cool stuff.

Love is a concept, a relationship between subject and object. It is not "of the body" but "of the mind". Therein is where your argument should lie.
Ah. Well, that's where we disagree. I believe love is an emotion experienced by one individual, directed at another individual (or object, or concept, etc).

Love is a concept, a relationship between subject and object. It is not "of the body" but "of the mind". Therein is where your argument should lie.

I'm not sure you can really make that division. After all, the mind is only our description of the incredibly complex physical interactions in our brain that create a thinking machine with a sense of self.

Or let's say that a brain scientist came up with a way to scan your brain and predict who you would fall in love with. I would venture that most people don't know why they fall in love with the people they do; therefore this would represent an advance in understanding.

I disagree that love has yet to be understood. I say we already understand love, in its entirety; we have since the beginning of mankind. We understand its function, its sources, its effects, and its meaning; we know its non-verbal mechanics and its wiley methodology. It has been referenced in literature and poetry back to the earliest writings. What you are claiming as something that has yet to be understood cannot be love, because love is understood.
Understood by whom? By you?

If you understand love's "non-verbal mechanics", then you can explain them to me. If you can't explain them, then you don't understand.

I am talking about the physiological nature of human emotion. In other words, the only objectively testable aspect of our subjective emotional experiences.
Right; but your opponent wasn't. You are talking about two different things (he just doesn't know it).

The term/concept of love has existed for quite some time, of course, but this does not remotely equate to us understanding "love" in full. Humankind was probably aware of the Sun from pretty much the get-go, but that doesn't mean we understood what the Sun is or how it works.
But love is not material like the Sun, and it is not the physiological responses that are its result. We *do* understand love in its entirety, and utilize it everyday in every way.

I don't think there is a single human being who has ever fully understood love, even though I think most human beings will experience it at one point or another.
There are you mistaken, for in experiencing it we understand it.

Love is an emotion. Like all human emotions, it is the result of signaling cascades in our central nervous system (and possibly some cool stuff going on in our peripheral NS). It is highly unlikely that there is a single chemical or signal that results in the complex experience of the emotion "love," just as there is not a single chemical or signal responsible for "anger" or "happiness."
Love is a relationship between subject and object. It inspires emotions, and feelings too, as it inspires further relationships. With your last sentence, I can agree.

The main problem is that "love" is so broad a term that it verges on meaninglessness. It is far more helpful to specify particular elements of love-emotion, and to identify the many different ways that they may combine to form different experiences. These different experiences are all often lumped under the heading of "love," even though they may be radically different from one another.

For instance, the "love" one feels for a high school sweetheart may be profoundly different from the "love" one feels toward one's child. There may be shared elements as well as different elements. I find it most helpful to examine these similarities and differences, to better understand the whole.
Love is not meaningless, it is not vague, and it is only misunderstood when it is mistaken for something it is not; or worse, when it is taken out of its context as a concept and some attempt made to squeeze it into a totally materialistic view of the world.

There are you mistaken, for in experiencing it we understand it.

No, to experience =/= to understand. It is perfectly possible to not understand what you are experiencing.

Ah. Well, that's where we disagree. I believe love is an emotion experienced by one individual, directed at another individual (or object, or concept, etc).

The word "emotion" is related to the idea of "motif." It recognized patterns and gives them particular labels to identify the patterns: love, hate, anger, whatever. Emotion is defined as "mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes." Emotion is not the physiological changes themselves, but the pattern of feeling that inspired by them. That places it as something conceptual, and "by one individual, directed at another" is the very meaning of "between subject and object."

So we are *trying* to talk about the same thing after all. ;)

I'm not sure you can really make that division. After all, the mind is only our description of the incredibly complex physical interactions in our brain that create a thinking machine with a sense of self.
Which division do you refer to?

Or let's say that a brain scientist came up with a way to scan your brain and predict who you would fall in love with. I would venture that most people don't know why they fall in love with the people they do; therefore this would represent an advance in understanding.
You lost me on the "brain scientist" bit, but what follows points to a very astute question: must we know why we fall in love to understand what being in love is? And is it not two distinct things we are talking about: effect, and cause?

There are way too many people who are admittedly not agnostic trying to explain what agnostics believe. These people should politely be silent and let the agnostics speak for themselves instead of confusing the issue.

From what I've read, it sounds like every agnostic believes his/her own beliefs for his/her own reasons. So, trying to debate what the true agnostic believes is going to be difficult.

Understood by whom? By you?
It only takes one. But many a writer, poet and artist have expressed love, and in doing so demonstrated that my understanding of it is not unique.

If you understand love's "non-verbal mechanics", then you can explain them to me. If you can't explain them, then you don't understand.
Verbally? How do we explain something non-verbal verbally? (yes, this question has an answer)

No, to experience =/= to understand. It is perfectly possible to not understand what you are experiencing.

Even when what you experience is understanding?

Even when what you experience is understanding?

I don't see how emotion is "understanding".

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.

Hmm what are people, who accualy believe that there is some kinda after live, and even some higher being, but refuse to let any religion or spiritualism affect him, or refuse to tolerate the religious interferences in science(speaking about the stem cell subject).

Verbally? How do we explain something non-verbal verbally? (yes, this question has an answer)
If you can't explain it, how do you know you understand it?

Hmm what are people, who accualy believe that there is some kinda after live, and even some higher being, but refuse to let any religion or spiritualism affect him, or refuse to tolerate the religious interferences in science(speaking about the stem cell subject).
Those are people who don't piss me off because they blend into the framework of society, all while confusing the shit out of other people who are attempting to understand them.

If you want to claim love exists, we can test for this (theoretically). We can ask people "do you feel love right now?" and check their brain chemistry.
The great thing about this is it is also a test for the supernatural. Brilliant! And the paranormal! In fact, it's a test for everything that a person observes!

If we do this enough we can generally come up with the chemicals and neural responses we believe are associated with this feeling called "love".
Then that is what you're testing are revealing: physiological responses associated with love, not love itself.

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.


My reply was to help Neesika understand the agnostic mindset a bit better. Not to debate the existence of love or God.

How could someone believe in love if they have never felt it? I imagine that it is because they want to believe in it because they desire to feel it. Others who havent felt love personally may believe in it because they see so many people who show classic examples of being in love, and not because of the desire to actually experience it. Still others may be lovegnostic because love sounds like something that could possibly exist and they aren't going to discount it right away simply because they never had direct experiece with it.

I personally wasn't able to believe in God until I had what I felt was an intense spiritual experience. It was beyond words just as the love I feel for my wife is beyond words.

I can understand, though, how someone who hasnt had such an experience would not only assert that what I felt was anything more than some chemical reaction in my brain. I can understand how someone who hasnt had a similar experience would believe in God because of a desire to do so.

Does it take too much empathy for the average atheist to understand these things? It sems to be that many atheists are often acting like the holier than thou'ers when it comes to the battle between science/religion/spirituality.

People of all stripes take such strong stances against people who think differently than themselves in so many cases, no matter the subject. It's kinda distressing that we are such an intelligent species and have a huge capacity for understanding abstract concepts, yet when our worldview is clallenged, we become defensive and often in teh process, offensive for no good reason other than to seemingly uplift our ego to reassure ourselves that we are indeed correct and that other person is beneath us in some way.

I am not saying that people should not be curious about those with different beliefs and make an attempt to understand thee whys of how someone thinks about any particular thing. I am merely saying that people suck in general. :p

I don't see how emotion is "understanding".

It isn't, feeling is. But what I said was that love is.

You said it yourself: ...the conscious feeling of emotion.

Emotion is something that happens in the body immediately interpreted in the mind. Feeling is the mind's faculty to interpret that and give it an "image" that makes it identified and recallable, which then resides in our imagination. Feeling is a type of knowing, a knowledge of sensations that the body experiences. Awareness of things gives them an identity. Application of an identity is a fundamental understanding of that thing.

You don't have to know everything there is to know about a thing to understand it. You don't even need words, really. All you have to do is be able to "stand under" it and think, "Hey, I know that thing!"

We have feelings about lots of things, but not all of them are awareness of sensations in the body. Emotions are of the body; we feel them. Other feelings, such as prediction, intuition and omen are feelings that stem from awarenss of things in the mind.

I would say the actual feeling of emotion itself is "of the mind" rather then the body. The functions of the body create this feeling, but are not "the feeling", if you know what I mean.
Just so. But feeling requires an object of feeling.

If you can't explain it, how do you know you understand it?

If it cannot be verbally communicated (only non-verbally) then we can only know it when we recognize a bit of ourselves in what others transmit (in their writing, poetry, dance, sculpture, etc). That is art.

Understanding it doesn't require that others have set a definition for it in words.

Sorry Vittos, I find you wrong, there are many pragmatic and liberal minded reliigious individuals, because you have met none is no indication that they don't exists, have you never heard of the UUA?

I am not referring to whether or not religious individuals are tolerant of other religions, I am most certain that many religious individuals are so.

I am referring to whether religious individuals lend equal truth to opposing religions as they do to their own. The idea that atheists are set apart because they find more truth in their own beliefs is idiotic, as the religious adherent who advocates universal religious truth is at worst self-contradictory and at best almost non-existant.

If it cannot be verbally communicated (only non-verbally) then we can only know it when we recognize a bit of ourselves in what others transmit (in their writing, poetry, dance, sculpture, etc). That is art.
But how do you know when you've done that? You're not giving me any information at all.
Understanding it doesn't require that others have set a definition for it in words.
But it does require that you do.

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.

The fact that there is an unlimited possible forms for a god is one extremely good reason to be an agnostic.

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.

The Problem of Evil firstly only attacks those religions that hold a benevolent and omnipotent god. That leaves still an incalculable number of concievable gods (since the existence of a god need not be bound by our conception, even this is a insignificant subset).

Even if for those religions it addresses, it can be easily explained away as a failing of our understanding and reason, not a failing of the religion's god.

This, of course, should not be confused as an argument for god.


As for the rest of those arguments, they seem to all provide counter statements.

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.

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.
First of all, love does exist physically- it's a series of chemical reactions in the brain and their afteraffects. The emotion is the chemical reactions, you can't separate them. Therefore, love as you defined it exists. In fact, the same thing goes for all other emotions, because the arguement applies to all of them. Technically atoms are still a concept - in other words, an idea - but they have been proven to exist.

I can't point to something and say "that is love".
If you meen pointing towards something you can see and feel, you can't because it isn't there. Can you point to carbon monoxide? Does that mean it isn't there? In truth, you can point to it, but you have to stick your fingers inside your skull, and I imagine that must not be a very pleasant experience.

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.

Basically, we have to live with the slightest possibility that one day we will wake up and catch the sock gnomes in the act. Being open to that tiny, tiny possibility is the difference between Atheists and Agnostics.

Atheists have basically descided that they know how the world works. So Atheists could still be proven wrong.

But how do you know when you've done that? You're not giving me any information at all.
You don't know when you recognized yourself? :eek:

But it does require that you do.
What is a word?

I'd go with apathetic agnosticism
"don't know and don't care"

I'd go with apathetic agnosticism
"don't know and don't care"

that works.