the line between agnostic and atheist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » the line between agnostic and atheist » the line between agnostic and atheist

the line between agnostic and atheist
Its logical but is it practical?

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the line between agnostic and atheist

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 05/16/08 - 03:24 PM:	#111
Dranu wrote: True, but I am not claiming our speaking of 'two apples' entirely describes the totality of the situation, just that it actually describes something true of the situation regardless of us being there to recognize and divide the particular from it. In other words, the construct does not bring anything to the reality except experience and understanding (which I admit will not be there without a being to do so). The construct is something that our perceptual and conceptual systems create. They do not create it out of nothing, they use whatever it is that’s out there, but the experience created in us is a function not only of whatever it is that’s out there, but also of the particular way our perceptual and conceptual systems construct it into an experience. Our particular constructions select and include certain phenomena and ignore other phenomena and are entirely oblivious to yet other phenomena out there. Famously, red is not out there, red is an experience that is entirely constructed in certain kinds of perceptual systems in their interaction with whatever it is that’s out there. Light waves at a certain frequency and intensity in a certain context are constructed into the experience of red in our systems. Not all visual systems do this. Red can happen only because of what we bring to the interaction. Red is in us, not in the apple. The tart taste is in us, not in the apple. The cool smoothness is in us not in the apple. Well I think with reason we can remove ourselves from the equation. I would ask these two questions: 1.)Are you saying our experience actually changes what we are experiencing more than just in the mind? If we remove ourselves from the equation, then all we can say is that there’s something out there that if we were added to the equation would produce the experience of apperceiving two apples in us. Without us there are not two apples out there, there’s rather phenomena that we would construct into the experience and concept “two apples.” I am saying that our experience is something that we create out of whatever it is that’s out there. Our particular sensory-perceptual-conceptual systems process certain very limited ranges and amounts of whatever it is that’s out there into visual and auditory and tactile and taste and olfactory experiences. Except perhaps for color, it seems hardest to conceive of visual experiences as created in us. If we consider sound, though, the tone, loudness, frequency, blend, pitch, harmonies, rhythms, etc. of some instrument or voice or random noise is an experience that our particular processing systems create out of air pressures. All there are external to us are changing air pressures (and even this concept of changing air pressures is itself a cognitive construction.) 2.)Are you saying that the designation of the word 'two' or 'apple' only describes our mental construct but says nothing about the reality of what is being experienced? Our experience is the reality. I think that we can say that there is something external to us that reliably produces in us the experience of seeing, tasting, feeling, smelling, and even hearing (the crunch of) an apple. But every aspect of that experience is the way it is for us both because of whatever it is that’s out there AND because of what we bring to the encounter—namely, our particular sensory-perceptual-cognitive systems. And different systems would create an entirely different experience, an entirely different apperception of what the “reality” is. Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 2829

Posted 05/16/08 - 04:33 PM:	#112
The_Rational_Animal wrote: So either you are unaware of these two word's true meanings, or you are committing an obvious package-deal fallacy based on the connotations of the word in your culture. You may say "well, self-interest's definition doesn't say 'without regard for others'". So be it, but are you going to say "self-interest means 'a concern for one's own advantage and well-being with regard for others?" No. I think the definitions you provided affirm my usage of the terms. The notion of an excess suggests that the word may only be used in context of a limit to ones self-interest that is exceeded, and the notion of exclusion suggests that one is merely concerned with oneself. I can be against selfishness without being against self-interest in general, if I support that self-interest is checked. You mention the word "duty". What duty is that which I must follow? To be precise it is the duty to act by the maxim you can at the same time will to become universal law. “Duty” destroys man's values: it demands that one betray or sacrifice one’s highest values for the sake of an inexplicable command and it transforms values into a threat to one’s moral worth, since the experience of pleasure or desire casts doubt on the moral purity of one’s motives. What values are you speaking of and why are they the highest? What determines moral worth? How does doubt of the moral purity of one's motives affect ones moral worth, and experience of pleasure and desire cause the former? Interesting you bring up the word "choice" to defend duty. It is merely a matter of definition. A duty-centered theory of ethics confines moral principles to a list of prescribed “duties” and leaves the rest of man’s life without any moral guidance, cutting morality off from any application to the actual problems and concerns of man’s existence. Such matters as work, career, ambition, love, friendship, pleasure, happiness, values (insofar as they are not pursued as duties) are regarded by these theories as amoral, i.e., outside the province of morality. If so, then by what standard is a man to make his daily choices, or direct the course of his life? Duty ethics and virtue ethics have much more in common than you seem to think. Kant uses the notion of duty of virtue to denote ends that are also duties and is very much applicable to all the matters you mentioned. You claim being a human being, one must follow duty or behave like a self-interested animal. So what you are claiming is then that human beings are not unique because they are rational, but because they have moral duties. I do agree that rationality is what makes human beings unique but as another unique consequence we have duties. You say that the only self-interest which is possible is temptation and giving in to temptation. That's a misrepresentation.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 4098

Posted 05/17/08 - 03:51 AM:	#113
Kingt2 wrote: My point is that the Agnostic stance: 1)I do not know enough information to make a decision at the moment You're ignoring the comparative implications of both options. Any thinking person can surmise that a "nonexistent god" requires far fewer inexplicable ad hoc assumptions than an "existent god", and thus, with the latter being so much more problematic with respect to all else that's reliably, rigorously known about reality (e.g. "uniformity of nature" which is contradicted by the unwarranted notion of "the supernatural" ...) than the former, that it is more reasonable than not to make the operable assumption that, in every factual (and practical) sense, "god does not exist". You simply ignore what you must already know -- assuming (without evidence from your posts so far on this thread), of course, that you're philosophically, scientifically and historically literate by 21st century, Western standards ... 2)Nobody knows enough information to make a decision at the moment Incorrect. You do ... 3)Nobody knows HOW to get the information to make a decision at the moment Incorrect. You've been shown ... 4)Nobody knows WHAT information to get to make a decision at the moment. Incorrect. You've not been paying attention ... Therefore: To make a decision is impossible since the information to make a logical decision is, at this point, unattainable. Incorrect. The decision is not only logically sound but empirically consistent. Now click your heels three times, Dorothy, and you'll wake up again in Kansas -- I promise. Are you familiar with M-theory? Parallel universes? Simply because some of us cannot conceive of something existing outside of our “realm” of existence does not mean that nothing CAN exist outside our realm of existence. Okay. You got me. My assumption that you are philosophically and scientifically literate is completely mistaken. I don’t know what facts you hold against theism, though I would like to hear them… That theism is devoid of facts is what I hold against it. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Intellectual integrity, as well as a modicum of sanity, recommend as much, otherwise we'd have to entertain all sorts of assinine hokum from "baby-talk" in the nursery to the "bullshit" trumpeted from every rubber-room, rostrum, and altar that props up some howling imbecile. Tell me which is more implausible: (A) earning the priviledge of endlessly deflowering three score and a dozen happily, willing prepubscent girls by committing mass-murder in the name of god or (B) "catastrophes" in nature and "deformities" in living creatures and the human, all-too-human "fear of death" is just what one must reasonably expect in the absence of an unifying, cosmic intelligence (that's usually attributed with both infinite benevolence and infinite power)? *Now please explain why the more plausible scenario does not, at least provisionally,* prevail, Mr. Agnostic. And lastly, Christianities faults do not undermine the fact that a god CAN exist differently to how the bible describes. Define a god that CAN exist in any way you please.** I'll gladly disabuse you of it just as surely as if it was "the god of abraham". Benkei wrote: But how is that more rational? There is no rational decision making process that can lead you to that. I agree it is intuitive ... You're saying that it is only rational to trust our senses. Only if a thing has been perceived is it relatively more merited as to belief in its existence but I find it more rational to say that if we cannot perceive a thing we cannot hold an opinion of it. This is the very reason that any form of deduction is circumspect ... "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends . . . you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
if X = -X, then -X. "existence" entails specifiable conditions (e.g. evidence, sound argument, search parameters, etc.) void, or perfect symmetry (i.e. no where/when/thing), necessarily is perfectly unstable. THAT there is something at all (i.e. broken symmetry e.g. quantum fluctuations) is "random"; however, WHAT that something becomes (e.g. universes) is not.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2057

Posted 05/17/08 - 05:09 AM:	#114
That theism is devoid of facts is what I hold against it. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Intellectual integrity, as well as a modicum of sanity, recommend as much, otherwise we'd have to entertain all sorts of assinine hokum from "baby-talk" in the nursery to the "bullshit" trumpeted from every rubber-room, rostrum, and altar that props up some howling imbecile. Tell me which is more implausible: (A) earning the priviledge of endlessly deflowering three score and a dozen happily, willing prepubscent girls by committing mass-murder in the name of god or (B) "catastrophes" in nature and "deformities" in living creatures and the human, all-too-human "fear of death" is just what one must reasonably expect in the absence of an unifying, cosmic intelligence (that's usually attributed with both infinite benevolence and infinite power)? *Now please explain why the more plausible scenario does not, at least provisionally,* prevail, Mr. Agnostic. Right, and of course we have to choose** between A and B because those are the only options and of course A has so much direct bearing on whether God exists. It's a false choice you offer. Furthermore, claiming "God" has certain attributes is equally illogical as claiming it exists or doesn't. No apodeictic statement about God are possible, which is why organized religion as a whole can be debunked as a big farce. It still says nothing about the possibility of a God, who might or might not be intelligent, or benevolent etc. "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends . . . you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." I have no idea what your point is.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 2829

Posted 05/17/08 - 06:56 AM:	#115
Dranu wrote: Perhaps the idea that ‘knowledge’ can hurt morality comes from the idea that it makes the self-interest more certain? I would respond that the evidence that backs up the positing of God in your system is evidence given by reason on what needs to be for a certain end to be reasonable. However, I see that being the exact same thing as a system that accepts an ontological proof. It still comes down to faith, and evidence only can come after an act of faith is made in something. Furthermore, I do not see how any ‘evidence’ removes morality, for evidence is based on a foundation of faith, and as such does not bring us anywhere closer to certainty at all. Even after reading Plato, it is much harder for me to understand most of what you said, so I can only respond to this, at least for now. The actual reason is that ought implies can. You cannot be blamed for something nor praised (morally) for something you didn't choose to do of your own free will. Now knowledge or evidence in general is not in conflict with morality but is most often in its servitude. I was speaking of particular type of knowledge, namely that of knowing the result of your actions, in so far they impact on your general happiness, directly or indirectly. The moral proof Kant provides is not an objective proof, in that it does not prove the existence of God, merely subjectively as a postulate, so it is in essence merely a proof of its necessity for a rational being (therefore any) to act morally, consequently it does not accertain or produce knowledge of the direct or indirect effects of my actions upon my general happiness, but it accertains the rationality of my action, that it may be a moral thing to do.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 4098

Posted 05/17/08 - 11:56 AM:	#116
Benkei wrote: I have no idea what your point is. Likewise ...
if X = -X, then -X. "existence" entails specifiable conditions (e.g. evidence, sound argument, search parameters, etc.) void, or perfect symmetry (i.e. no where/when/thing), necessarily is perfectly unstable. THAT there is something at all (i.e. broken symmetry e.g. quantum fluctuations) is "random"; however, WHAT that something becomes (e.g. universes) is not.

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 606

Posted 05/19/08 - 01:39 PM:	#117
You God bashes carry on in such a condescendingly self-assured and prejudice tone. Let us say one has an experience that at bottom all existence seems inexplicable and rather stupefying (mysterious). Some sort of explanation for what can never be explained, can't even be assessed, must exist (those that are the most learned, it is known, often are the ones most impressed with the tremendous inexplicability and incomprehensible nature of the existence, are aware of human ignorance in a pronounced way). What affect does this have on us in a practical manner, this belief in an explanation or not, well, it certainly helps me socially relate to much of the world population that concretizes their imaginings that transcend our physical experience. What is most annoying about some of the atheists here is that they carry on in a tone that is almost aristocratic and, similarly, moraly superior. I would argue their lack of an ability to differentiate between what is good (useful) and bad in religious institinions is the primary problem with them.. Atheists are the mirror image of the mistake theists make, they approuch the problem not with intellectual and rational rigor but with presumptions and the zealous conviction of their ability to see the matter so much more clearly than everyone who disagrees with them. Humans creatively invent stories and imaginings that clue into the necessity of an explanation (however poetic the explanation may be). I suspect such creative imaginings are psychologically advantageous as well as rational (they are useful in capturing our relationship to existence). Certainly I am critical of dogma that emphatically and conclusively attempts to demonstrates knowledge claims that answer the question, why is anything existing. But I don't dismiss those attempts as foolhardy trivial nothings that the world would be better off without. Words are symbols, the same symbol has vastly different emotional and rational meanings and associations depending upon the person (despite any similarity). Atheists like to narrow the God claim down to something specific and concrete (which the religious do), I find the Jewish sentiment of being unwilling to even say the word God a worthy indicator of how we should consider the matter more humbly. Asserting triviality (trivial to you) to this human relationship (how did all this come to be?), trivializing our emotive, imaginative, and real-time interrelationship with existence entire, is far from convincing tack. We live in the present moments fleeting by before us. That these moments progress forward in our perception is of ultimate uncritical mystery (deny that). Simply because it is hard to talk about something doesn't mean it isn't important. What is interesting about atheists is that they seem to take what is awesome and mysterious about all existence (in some ways I consider the mythopoetic exercise the most fundamental and cherished aspects of my experience, tying into everything I value and find meaningful) and our poetic imaginings (that many imagine are a known and a reality. or at least they believe in what they ahve not seen) and dismiss it as some impractical fluff. OK, Lets go fix our cars and build a house, why don't we, lets not reflect on the wonder of a moment and realize how that reflection is life invigorating and immensely practical. I feel most poetic creator or transcendent mental imaginings are more in the realm of art (an expression of emotion, relationship, need, want, attraction, disgust, etc) and fulfill of a very necessary function of human well-being. Are atheists imagining their emotions do not warrant the attention? Having a spiritualistic inclination translates to me as attempting to maintain emotional, physical, and mental health. I am not a theist. I am not an atheist. I am not even an agnostic. I find all that terminology too simplistic and shortsighted. I am part theist, part atheist, part agnostic...when it really comes down to it. You go and figure that one out (an then try and explain it).
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 4098

Posted 05/19/08 - 04:06 PM:	#118
loveofsophia wrote: Let us say one has an experience that at bottom all existence seems inexplicable and rather stupefying (mysterious). Sounds like such an experience is merely "inexplicable and stupefying" to the one having it. This "experience", however, says nothing about "existence". Some sort of explanation for what can never be explained, can't even be assessed, must exist ... How is "X cannot be explained" not in itself an (attempted) "explanation"? Or , if you prefer, in what way does an "inexplicable X" explain anything (e.g. "an inexplicable creator explains the origin of the universe ...")? Why do you think an "inexplicable X" is anything but a mental placeholder (like "zero")? What is interesting about atheists is that they seem to take what is awesome and mysterious about all existence (in some ways I consider the mythopoetic exercise the most fundamental and cherished aspects of my experience, tying into everything I value and find meaningful) and our poetic imaginings (that many imagine are a known and a reality. or at least they believe in what they ahve not seen) and dismiss it as some impractical fluff. Are you suggesting that apprehending reality with wonder and awe requires upholding inexplicable, incoherent and/or false ideas about reality? Are atheists imagining their emotions do not warrant the attention? Are you claiming that in either the sciences or arts "emotion" is sufficient for truth-seeking and truth-telling? Edited by 180 Proof on 05/20/08 - 02:03 AM. Reason: "Wonder and awe" @ (your) oxymorons ...
if X = -X, then -X. "existence" entails specifiable conditions (e.g. evidence, sound argument, search parameters, etc.) void, or perfect symmetry (i.e. no where/when/thing), necessarily is perfectly unstable. THAT there is something at all (i.e. broken symmetry e.g. quantum fluctuations) is "random"; however, WHAT that something becomes (e.g. universes) is not.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7930

Posted 05/19/08 - 09:16 PM:	#119
loveofsophia wrote: You God bashes carry on in such a condescendingly self-assured and prejudice tone. It's pretty hard for me not to read this phrase and interpret it as uttered in a condescendingly self-assured and prejudice tone. Could it be that the problem isn't with the way you are reading "God bashers" (which strikes me as a wholly disrespectful, stereotyping comment). You would agree, I'm sure, that how you personally interpret my (or whichever "God basher's" you might have been referering to) tone has very little to do with the value or validity of those claims. We've always managed to have fairly polite discussion, but I find phrases like "God bashers" insulting... much like if I were to refer to theists as "holy rollers" or agnostics as "those who can't shit or get off the pot" (the latter being more metaphor than sweeping prejorative). Let us say one has an experience that at bottom all existence seems inexplicable and rather stupefying (mysterious). That's an odd way to use thge word "experience". What specifically is one experiencing? Or do you mean one feels or intuits that "all existence seems imexplicable and rather stupefying (mysterious)? I feel and intuit all kinds of things, but I don't treat those feelings and intuitions as if they were facts or somehow infallible. Some sort of explanation for what can never be explained Okay, that's a contradiction, right? How is one supposed to interpret that? can't even be assessed If it can't be assessed, then how do you even know what your talking about? Or do you? The trouble with talking about "the mysterious" as if it had any properies apart from being mysterious, is that by definition you don't have a clue what you are talkking about. must exist (those that are the most learned, it is known, often are the ones most impressed with the tremendous inexplicability and incomprehensible nature of the existence, are aware of human ignorance in a pronounced way). Being aware of human ignorance has nothing to do with making descisions based on what information we do have. Given the information that we have, the notion of God is ridiculous if one is to approach the problem from any angle other than faith or a respect for some particular church as an authority of higher merit than a more rigourous and open approach. What affect does this have on us in a practical manner, this belief in an explanation or not, well, it certainly helps me socially relate to much of the world population that concretizes their imaginings that transcend our physical experience. And in doing so, you are tacitly condoning nonsensical claims and people's rights to publically and socially behave in accordance with that nonsense. I am compassionate towards theists, I used to be one, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them enough to tell them that I think they are wrong. I don't pretend to believe what they do simply to make social situations easier. The easy road is usually not the one that leads you anywhere good. What is most annoying about some of the atheists here is that they carry on in a tone that is almost aristocratic and, similarly, moraly superior. Please get over this "tone" thing, unless you can be a little more specific. Otherwise, who knows which one oof us atheists you are denegrating? If you have a specific and important ctriticism, make it. Stop beating around the bush. I would argue their lack of an ability to differentiate between what is good (useful) and bad in religious institinions is the primary problem with them. And where is this lack of ability presented? Who in this thread has shown themselves to lack this ability, and what claims are evidence of it? Atheists are the mirror image of the mistake theists make, they approuch the problem not with intellectual and rational rigor but with presumptions and the zealous conviction of their ability to see the matter so much more clearly than everyone who disagrees with them. I have seen theists approach discussions with intellectual rigour, as I have seen atheists. I don't see much rigour in your criticisms, as they seem to be aimed nowhere. Are you just making up a strawman to beat the hell out of, or did you want to addresss someone's specific comments. Geeze, did an atheist pee in your cornflakes this morning? Humans creatively invent stories and imaginings that clue into the necessity of an explanation (however poetic the explanation may be). Surely we don't need to stretch far to figure out how having good and predictive explanations would have some evolutionary value (if we can predict what happens, we can stay out of bad situations and better find good ones). We can even figure out how personifying natural events has value (infering intent incorrectly a hundred times has a small downside, but failing to interpret intent when it it there, from say a predator, once could be fatal). That doesn't mean it leads to correct conclusions. I suspect such creative imaginings are psychologically advantageous as well as rational (they are useful in capturing our relationship to existence). Our relationship to existence? What does that mean? Is "existence" supposed to mean "all things"? If so, then our relationship with existence is far to complex to fathom in its entirety. How are such "creative imaginings" supposed capture such a relationship? Certainly I am critical of dogma that emphatically and conclusively attempts to demonstrates knowledge claims that answer the question, why is anything existing. Anything existing? As opposed to what? Not existing? Then it wouldn't be anything. If it is a thing, then it exists. That's the way language works. Asking why things exist is like asking why contradictions are illogical, why false statements aren't true and why unmarried men are bachelors. It's because that's what the words mean. The relationship of words doesn't tell us anything about the real world though (excepting how people use language). But I don't dismiss those attempts as foolhardy trivial nothings that the world would be better off without. Attempts to answer questions are not the same as the public treatment of unjustified claims as if they were justified. I'm the first on board when the mothership lands, but until then I think that ralians are wrong and that there beliefs (although not necessarilyl themselves) are lunatic.Same goes with those beliefs in magic jews, magic trees, godheads, voodoo and any number of other lunatic ideas. If judged by the standards we would approach any unusual non-religious claims (pyramid hats, alien abductions, etc), they (the beliefs) would be considered lunatic. Words are symbols, the same symbol has vastly different emotional and rational meanings and associations depending upon the person (despite any similarity). People speak both literally and metaphorically, and most who speak of God are speaking literally. I don't think atheists are against the use of the word "God" metaphorically. I say things like "God help me" to denote that I don't have a good chance to succeed at something. Don't get the metaphoric use of the term "God" confused with theism. They aren't the same thing, and neither is atheism the criticism of the metaphoric use of the word "God" (although there is some merit in the ciriticism in some situations, in my opinion) Atheists like to narrow the God claim down to something specific and concrete (which the religious do), I find the Jewish sentiment of being unwilling to even say the word God a worthy indicator of how we should consider the matter more humbly. Perhaps it is you that needs a little humility? You simply prolcaim that we shouldn't discuss God specifically, offer no concrete reason (no reason at all, actually), and a a couched implication of arrogance if one doesn't. Where do you get off? If we can't specifiy what God is, then we shoudn't ever discuss him at all. That would make life a hell of a lot better for most. No churches, no religious disageement or religious wars. You'd actually have to come up with some other line of bullshit to justify a war to your people (like nationalism, nearty the same as religion in that manner, but at least it can be more concretely criticized). Asserting triviality (trivial to you) to this human relationship (how did all this come to be?), trivializing our emotive, imaginative, and real-time interrelationship with existence entire, is far from convincing tack. We live in the present moments fleeting by before us. That these moments progress forward in our perception is of ultimate uncritical mystery (deny that). Who said that human emotions were tirivial? God propositions often are (as I said before). If you want to criticize something I said, specificaly criticize what I actually said, and do it directly. Simply because it is hard to talk about something doesn't mean it isn't important. Agreed, but if it is hard to make a proposition clear, that would indicate to me that there is a high likelihood (not a given) that the proposition and the thought behind it aren't very clear. I know that the clearer I am on my thought on a subject, the easier it becomes to speak on that subject. I just state clearly what I mean. Anyways, who said that speaking about this subject wasn't important? What is interesting about atheists is that they seem to take what is awesome and mysterious about all existence (in some ways I consider the mythopoetic exercise the most fundamental and cherished aspects of my experience, tying into everything I value and find meaningful) and our poetic imaginings (that many imagine are a known and a reality. or at least they believe in what they ahve not seen) and dismiss it as some impractical fluff. What is interesting about blacks is that they are good at basketball. What is interesting about jews in that they are good with money. What is interesting about theists is that they are bible thumping maniacs. Don't you think it might be nice if we could talk about the claims and beliefs instead of making sweeping characterizations of people? You really have no idea how bigoted you are, do you? Do you have any idea how annoying it is to share your fascination with mythopoetics and understand how important such things can be, and to have you disamiss me in one fell swoop, simply because I think that God myths are myth, not reality. That's why it's mythopoetic... because it's myth. But of course all atheists are emotionaless people, who lack imagination and...what else? Oh yeah, they paint all theist with one swath and fail to recognize the difference between "good" theist and "bad" theists. Most atheists I have read on this forum don't comment on theists, they comment on theism and theistic propositions. I can't say the same for you and that should shame you. OK, Lets go fix our cars and build a house, why don't we, lets not reflect on the wonder of a moment and realize how that reflection is life invigorating and immensely practical. More bullshit sterotyping. Atheists can't reflect on the wonder of the moment? This is really offensive and bigoted. I feel most poetic creator or transcendent mental imaginings are more in the realm of art (an expression of emotion, relationship, need, want, attraction, disgust, etc) and fulfill of a very necessary function of human well-being. I agree. Art is metaphor and make-believe, and it is immensly important. It is also different than literal truth. Are atheists imagining their emotions do not warrant the attention? Well, you are sitting here belittling and entire swath of people based on one specific belief, and making inferences that have nothing to do with that specific belief. Do you imagine that our feelings aren't important? Of course any vaguely emotionally normal person, theist or atheist, thinks that emotions warrant attention. Which atheist argued that they didn't? Or is this just your imaginary athiest? Do you actualy imagine him/her to be made of straw? Having a spiritualistic inclination translates to me as attempting to maintain emotional, physical, and mental health. Then you are speaking a language other than english, or are trying to co-opt other terms into "spirituality:" that don't fit there through common languiage use in order to protect your emotional attachment to the word "spirituality". I daresay that people who know me would agree that I spend a great deal of my consious effort in life maintining emotional, physical and mental health, and yet no one who knows me even a little would call me "spiritual". You know why? I don't believe in magic, except if by magic you mean "clever illusion". Theater is magic, but when you are the magician you get a different perpective. So once again, stop painting atheists as being X or Y, unless X or Y is "person who doesn't believe in God". That is all atheists are. The only other generalizations that I am aware of that are supportable by facts are that statistically as a group we are better educated and have more prize winning scientists (according to studies done). We might be better at basketball or good with money too, but I haven't read those studies. Have you read any, or are you just making more sweeping generalizations that have little to no basis in fact, speaking falsely and demeaning the character of people on the basis of a single belief? Is that a noble thing to do? Are you proud of yourself? I am not a theist. I am not an atheist. I am not even an agnostic. I find all that terminology too simplistic and shortsighted. It's also very convenient that you, who seems to so gladly pigeon-hole people and make sweeping generalizations on them based on a simple label, is also hesitant to label himself. The question isn't all that complicated. Is there a God or not? Yes, no, or I don't know? Sure, there is ambiguities everywhere, but if you spend your life hiding from speaking for fear of a possible ambiguity, then you never have anything to say. Or do you prefer to exploit ambiguities by claiming no label? You are really good at saying what you're not (label-wise), but everytime I have heard you speak on the subject I have never heard you explain what you really believe. Really believe, as in you would risk your life for it. I believe in gravity, so I would risk my life on the proposition that I won't go floating away from the earth without something propelling me. Pretty much everything I would risk my life on aren't really risks, because they are simple empirical facts that (pretty much) everyone believes. I just don't add anything about God, andthose who risk their life on such a thing are not only poor fools, but are dangerous. All the rest aren't beliefs in the same sense, they are habits, traditions, intuitions, and things that you were taught as a child by caring and credible people who were conned into the same things. So are your real beliefs different from mine? Would you risk your life for them? Or are they intellectual musings, opinions and feelings, melded together into something that makes you feel good, but that doesn't change any part of your life except that you condescend to theists by pretending to believe what they do, and in this process you fool youself into thinking that because there are similarities, that you actually believe the same things? I am part theist, part atheist, part agnostic...when it really comes down to it. You go and figure that one out (an then try and explain it). Anyone can speak cryptically and callenge another to figure it out. Mystics and con men have been doing it for years and it works wonders. It makes you sound smart and makes it sound like you are saying something important, without the annoying part of actually having to know what the hell you are talking about. Ask L. Ron Hubbard. If you have something to say, for crying out loud come out and say it. Edited by Reformed Nihilist on 05/19/08 - 09:50 PM
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Evanx
Human Being

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Location: The third planet
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 05/19/08 - 10:36 PM: Subject: An Agnostic Proposition	#120
I see there are many interesting Philosophical concepts and Ontological arguments pertaining to our existence, but essentially one must come to the understanding that there are really just two possibilities either matter has existed for eternity or infinitely, or that matter is causal in nature, meaning that there was “nothing” an empty void, then a cause (i.e. Either natural or divine in nature) occurred bring matter into existence and hence our own physical existence. Logically a person must belong to one and only one of these 3 mutually exclusive categories: 1. You believe the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims; particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of god, gods, deities, or ultimate reality, can be known. 2. You don't believe the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims can be known. 3. You have doubts about the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims can be known. At this point in our evolution or history we don’t know exactly how we came to existence, or if a god or gods exist or does not exist, there are many well written scientific theories, theological, and philosophical arguments that claim support for a variety of concepts in how we came into being but there is no hard evidence or facts that directly support any one of these positions. Metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, or ultimate reality are inherently unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything other than our subjective experience or the subjective experience perceived by another individual. For thousands of years we humans have explored the question of our existence with little progress. All we really do know is that we are here now, we exist and the physical universe exists, although some would even argue this point. Yet there is little doubt that life does exist on this planet, in this solar system, and we know there’s a least one planet in the universe with intelligent life. Intelligent being an optional word, based on our primitive behaviors, but still here we are. It seems almost pointless that we should even argue about it any longer, I would contend that any meaningful statements about Divinity or existence in general are always qualified by some degree of doubt. The fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition. (eg. all triangles have three angles). It clearly is just a matter of choice or faith in what one wishs to believe in, as it is unknowable either way for certain.
Live free, choose wisely.

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.