RE: Agnosticism

RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 2:36:23 AM)
Fair point SMM. It was remiss of me to single any one out when I appealed for consideration of the virtues of uncertainty. Please accept my apologies. It's often remarked that the only constant in change or that the only certainty is uncertainty. Yet it seems to me that many of us live our entire lives in denial of these constants. The virtues of uncertainty are many. Acknowledging uncertainty eliminates dogmatism, it diminishes the power element inherent in any statement of knowledge, it's inherently more democratic, more human. It's consistent with the proposition that, for any given phenomenon there are a potentially infinite number of correct explanations (a little detail routinely ignored by so many scientists). It does makes things a little less clear, a little messier - but life (and democracy) is messy isn't it? (I've mentioned only a few of the many virtues of uncertainty here - there are many many more.) Perhaps most appealingly, it is humbler. Rather than engage in a fruitless impossible attempt to resolve the 'knowability' of deities through knowledge, mightn't it be rewarding to explore the possibilities offered by all agreeing that none of us knows absolutely, none of us can know absolutely and given that, the many varieties of agnosticism might offer ways to cut through the logjam of conflicting un-knowable (and possibly wholly imaginary) 'certainties'? For those who hold strong religious convictions, it is possible to acknowledge that the existence of deities cannot be either proved nor disproved through rational methods. Equally for those who who strong convictions to the contrary, it is possible to acknowledge that deities may be accessed through other-than-rational methods (eg inner experience). Neither of these positions seems to me to compromise any one's basic position while creating a space where every one can live and let live while intellectual inquiry can prosper. Such are some of the virtues of uncertainty in practice.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 3:25:14 AM)
Tweakabelle, I appreciate your tone and I agree with some things you posted. 1. But let me still put my main objection this way. quote: It's often remarked that the only constant in change or that the only certainty is uncertainty. How can you be so certain of this? quote: The virtues of uncertainty are many. And of this? quote: Acknowledging uncertainty eliminates dogmatism And of this? quote: it diminishes the power element inherent in any statement of knowledge And of this? quote: it's inherently more democratic, more human And of this? quote: It's consistent with the proposition that, for any given phenomenon there are a potentially infinite number of correct explanations And of this? What I mean is: you make a huge number of propositions in your message. Why, if you are not certain? Maybe because even not being certain, you consider them valid and then you simply state them? Then, why on Earth should I not do the same with the existence of God? Why on Earth should I behave with the existence of God, in a different way as you behave about almost anything else, including the assertions on your last message? 2. quote: the existence of deities cannot be either proved nor disproved through rational methods This is plain wrong. It can be disproved. The problem is that even a rational proof is not a guaranteed absolute, definitive certain answer. But it can be disproved, please read my previous message in this thread (it is long, but I hope it is worth it). I can show you all three demonstrations of the inexistence of God i use and you can try to object them. 3. Please speak with Kirata. He insists that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. Maybe you should have talked with him about the advantages of uncertainty. Why don't you do it? Maybe, for some irrational reason, you are more disturbed about the uncertain but plain assert from me "God does not exist" as for the (pretended) certain and absolute assert 2+2=4 of Kirata? Then your problem is not with certainty, but an emotional issue with religious asserts, don't you think? As for me, I treat religious asserts about the universe as any other assert about the universe. But you seem to be at odds with this: you state plain asserts about many things without hesitation, and do not criticize people stating asserts as absolutely true, instead you criticize plain asserts even if they are as uncertain as yours or more. So... it is not uncertainty what you are defending. It is religion. 4. I really think that you mistake uncertainty with tolerance. I can be completely convinced of my truth, and at the same time hold a truth which compels me to be tolerant and give other opinions a space. I think you are wrong on this, and that the mistake is heavy, as this kind of confusion can easily lead to moral relativism - "let them mutilate the genitals of their children, who knows, maybe they are right and human rights are an imperialistic invention". No, thanks.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 6:00:38 AM)
When you say "Of course, "there is no God" implies no uncertainity. But also no certainity." You are making an erroneous assertion. For it is an assertion. It's not an assertion of "forever and ever" or an assertion that you will never change your mind, (unless you add these things to your assertion) But it is an assertion nonetheless. When you say there is no God, you are saying that you believe at this moment in time that there is no God. You have not left yourself any wriggle room in your assertion, therefore it is a positive assertion. Could you change your mind later? Certainly. Everyone does over certain things. Could you become less certain later and state instead, "I am not sure if there is a God"? Yes. In that case you would be implying uncertainty, rather than certainty. Your arguments regarding other universes that want us to always come up with the wrong answer on 2 plus 2 equals 4 are...silly at best, disingenuous, and incredible.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 6:44:45 AM)
Yes, if course it is an assertion. As 2+2=4, I have a nose, or Santa does not exist. But as any assertion I make, it is "until proven otherwise". And therefore, it does NOT imply certainty. Calling an argument "silly" or "incredible" or "disingenuous" is no argument at all. You simply lack any argument to refute it, and then you try to discard it by calling it so? Anyway, it is insulting, so stop bitching if you want me to read you, ok? Do we have some understanding? [sm=fingers.gif]

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 7:01:37 AM)
Wow, nice way to insist others respect you, then add that smiley.

gungadin09 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 7:23:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Calling an argument "silly" or "incredible" or "disingenuous" is no argument at all. You simply lack any argument to refute it, and then you try to discard it by calling it so? Anyway, it is insulting, so stop bitching if you want me to read you, ok? Do we have some understanding? [sm=fingers.gif] That's it. I'm hiding You. pam (That was a joke.)

rulemylife -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 7:27:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What you speak is Spanglish, because you think in Spanish and then transliterate your thoughts into a mangled syntax of English words. Not that the result is inadequate for communication, and I give you credit for learning the language as well as you have, but trying to give English lessons to a native speaker is beyond your competence. K.[/font][/size] A couple side questions Kirata, if you don't mind, because you've seen my posting progression and this topic has been coming up in my personal life lately. - Do you feel my English is better than his? - Do you think it's possible to become as fluent as a native speaker in a foreign language? (Which I know I'm not anywhere close to, I still have very weird things pop up sometimes.) - Do I still come across as if I'm translating from Dutch? On the last one, I don't anymore. In fact, I speak and write infrequently enough in Dutch nowadays that it takes me real effort to switch back. Somewhere in the past year or so, I also started dreaming in English. But despite my own perception of things, I'd be curious to hear the opinion of an objective bystander. I feel that currently my biggest weakness when it comes to writing in English is the same one that I have in Dutch: I'm often too lazy to proofread enough. [&:] I've read your profile and you are far more fluent in the language than many of those born here.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 8:30:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Yes, if course it is an assertion. As 2+2=4, I have a nose, or Santa does not exist. But as any assertion I make, it is "until proven otherwise". And therefore, it does NOT imply certainty. Calling an argument "silly" or "incredible" or "disingenuous" is no argument at all. You simply lack any argument to refute it, and then you try to discard it by calling it so? Anyway, it is insulting, so stop bitching if you want me to read you, ok? Do we have some understanding? [sm=fingers.gif] It is disingenuous to say that when you make a statement, it does not imply certainty unless you add qualifiers to it that change that certainty, such as "in my opinion" "as far as I know" and "until proven otherwise". If anyone is being insulting, sir, it is you. Re-read what you said and that smiley that is flipping me off, and re-think your debate strategy if you want to be taken seriously.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 9:27:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx It is disingenuous to say that when you make a statement, it does not imply certainty unless you add qualifiers to it that change that certainty, such as "in my opinion" "as far as I know" and "until proven otherwise". If anyone is being insulting, sir, it is you. Re-read what you said and that smiley that is flipping me off, and re-think your debate strategy if you want to be taken seriously. You insulted first ("silly"). It is not disingenuous, it is simply the truth, and other people here understood it perfectly well. I also said that ALL my statements are "until proven otherwise" and explained how annoying is to say it always, and gave an example. But apparently you are not reading what I write. And you did not provide any argument to object the possibility that 2+2 could be, after all, not 4. Nor do you direct your accusations to other people who say (as simply as I say "God does not exist") that they have a nose, or other things equally unprovable *with absolute certainity. Nor do you direct your accusations, for example to tweakabelle, who said ni the beginning of this page many things, including (for example) "for any given phenomenon there are a potentially infinite number of correct explanations". Was this said with "absolute certainity" as she did not ad add "in my opinion" or anything else? If yes, why don't you direct your attacks to her and the other 7 billion people who constantly say things in a plain way, as they are (according to your stupid theory) saying it all with absolute certainity? If not, why do you add in my statement something you do not add in hers or anybody's, why am I the only one implicitly speaking with "certainity"? You are just making a clown of yourself, not attending at all, not reading what I say, not presenting arguments, and insulting. And I just gave you a bit of your st back, that's all. In one single point you are right. I must re-think my debate strategy with you. So I do it now: goodbye*.

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 9:31:29 AM)
Ah so you are of the "two wrongs make it perfectly right" theory. Nice. Sounds more like you are into petty tit for tat.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 11:04:00 AM)
1 + 1 = 0 any assertion I make, it is "until proven otherwise". + It is impossible to exclude every possible scenario where our data may be wrong, or our deductions may be wrong. = It is impossible to prove him wrong no matter what he says. K.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 11:25:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster dumb asses who try to convince us that when we say "there is no God" we are implicitly saying "... and I know this will be the absolute truth forever, for I have seen the Light and will never change my mind no matter what". They try to "refute" our sentence "there is no God" using this extension we never added. Dumb asses like Kirata, who, of course, you can't quote saying anything remotely like that... quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Kirata's pretention that "There is no God" is automatically "I am dogmatically sure, that there is no God, that this is an absolute/universal truth, and that I will never even change my opinion on this, and I cannot possibly be wrong in any possible scenario... - God forbid!" is just a stawman. The thing is, though, since you're lying about Kirata's position, that makes your claim here the straw man, and you the dumb ass for thinking that people on CM are either stupid enough that you can get away with this kind of shit, or corrupt enough not to care. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 8:18:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Kirata's pretention that "There is no God" is automatically "I am dogmatically sure, that there is no God, that this is an absolute/universal truth, and that I will never even change my opinion on this, and I cannot possibly be wrong in any possible scenario - God forbid!" is just a stawman, Yeah I figured. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster About 2+2=4 : Just use enough imagination. Seriously. I follow you that you're not claiming absolute certainty when it comes 2+2=4 where you lose me is when you equate it to you're confidence that God doesn't exist. I can't even make the statement that there are 8 planets in our solar system with the same level of certainty.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 8:30:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Kirata's pretention that "There is no God" is automatically "I am dogmatically sure, that there is no God, that this is an absolute/universal truth, and that I will never even change my opinion on this, and I cannot possibly be wrong in any possible scenario - God forbid!" is just a stawman, Yeah I figured. So let's see... there's what I actually say, and then there's what some lying fool claims I "mean" by it, and you choose to go with the latter. Well that certainly saves you a lot of trouble, doesn't it. [:D] K.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 2:47:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I follow you that you're not claiming absolute certainty when it comes 2+2=4 where you lose me is when you equate it to you're confidence that God doesn't exist. I can't even make the statement that there are 8 planets in our solar system with the same level of certainty. Ok, I will try. You speak about "the same level of certainty". How do you measure such level? Can you make a serious calculation which shows that LevelOf("2+2=4") > LevelOf("8 planets"), for example? My bet is that you can't. If you have to take in account *all possible scenarios*, from the most weird and ridiculous to the most serious... all possible scenarios... then you can't. But you can try, really. I read.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 5:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I just keep seeing a pattern of some rather bizarre interpretations of what "god doesn't exist" means by non-atheists. Sometimes it even seems like people are really trying not to get it. I'm not accusing you of mocking anyone and like I said I'm not trying to defend SpanishMat, I haven't read much of the on-topic portion of the thread and have no interest in trying to sort out his mess. I weighed in not on account of the particulars between you and SpanishMat but because of a few statements which raised red flags on what I perceive to be that misconception. I can understand that. Normally, I tend to agree with positions held by atheists in regards to freedom from religion and their overall opposition to the excesses of religion. I favor science over religion, and I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State. So, it's actually rare that I would disagree with an atheist over something, except when it comes to statements like "god doesn't exist" or "there is no god." Regardless of how one interprets the statement, I would wonder why would one make such a statement to begin with. quote: In the modern legends of Santa Claus he has magic powers and doesn't want to be found. As such how could we ever discredit to the degree of 100% certainty every conspiracy theory whereby Santa undertakes some incredibly elaborate magical scheme which results in absolutely no measurable effect? If we can't are you still willing to accept the statement "Santa Claus doesn't exist"? Well, I try to separate the interconnecting ideas related to the concept and just break it down to the bare bones of what the question is asking. Did such a person ever exist as a regular human being without magical powers? Was the legend based on an actual historical figure? That's what I would look at first when considering the question. We can look at the legend of Santa Claus in art and literature and trace back its origins. That would at least tell us what does exist and how our modern legends of Santa Claus came about, and that would probably give us more information than simply saying "Santa Claus doesn't exist." I view it somewhat the same regarding questions about the possibility of god's existence. I view "god" as a concept which can be interpreted in any number of ways. Some might view "god" as merely the sum total of all physical laws in the universe, without necessarily anthropomorphizing it as some kind of actual "being." So, it would really depend on how one defines "god" and "existence" in general. In my opinion, it would be up the one claiming that god doesn't exist to define one's own terms, since it can be (mis)interpreted in any number of ways based on differing interpretations of "god." It would also be necessary to show the logical progression of thought which takes one to the conclusion that "god doesn't exist." If it's based on questionable aspects of the Bible, then that may not be enough. For example, if someone said, "It's not possible for Moses to have parted the Red Sea, therefore God doesn't exist," I wouldn't accept that as a logical conclusion.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 5:57:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that 2+2 are 4. I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that Santa does not exist. I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that I have a nose. I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that God does not exist. I think this is where the problems in our miscommunication have come into play. One can easily prove that 2+2=4. I have two bottle caps on one side of the table and two bottle caps on the other side of the table. I count them all together and reach the total of four. It's very simple and easily proven by the current methods we have available to us. With Santa Claus, it's the same deal. We've had expeditions to the North Pole and none have found Santa's workshop. Zoologists with an expertise in reindeer would tell us that reindeer can't fly, nor have they found any with glowing red noses. No one has ever seen an elf either. We can at least prove that the modern legend of Santa Claus is just that - a legend. No one is at the North Pole, and anyone expecting presents from Santa is going to have a long wait. There might have been an actual historical figure upon which the legend of Santa Claus is based, so it might not be entirely correct to state that "Santa Claus doesn't exist." Likewise, one can easily prove that one has a nose, using the same scientific methods we have available to us. But can you prove that god doesn't exist? No, because we don't have the technology yet to do that. We can't check and explore other planets as we can check the North Pole. It's not a straightforward question like counting bottle caps on the table. As I mentioned in my previous post, even concepts of "god" are different, as some might interpret "god" as being the sum total of all physical laws in the universe. So, by saying "god doesn't exist," you're as much as saying that "the physical laws of the universe do not exist." Is that what you meant? If not, then perhaps you might considering thinking more carefully before making such grandiose claims.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 6:27:04 AM)
Zonie: "grandiose"? Fuck you. I have shown how you cannot claim with absolute certainty that 2+2=4 and why. A good resume was already in the posting you quoted, but you decided to argue against the conclusions without showing any step or premise being false or invalid. I can show you scenarios where Santa Claus exists and you could not disprove it without Occam's Razor. You can imagine them yourself, if for a change you decided that you want to think a bit. "Nobody has ever seen an elf"? Fuck you. Nobody has ever seen God. Since when was that a prove of inexistence? Or is it only when you like it? I have shown you how you cannot claim with absolute certainty that you have a nose - and you accepted it, but you change your claims like a leave on the Autum wind. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 There is not enough information to determine whether or not I actually have a nose. You've precluded the possibility of me being able to trust my own eyes when I look in the mirror and see that I have a nose. Post #203 in the game. This was the moment in which you were more near the truth. Sad, that you decided to withdraw. I have shown you the difference between a simple claim and a claim of absolute certainty. But you decide to ignore it. And I can prove that God does not exist, in three different ways. I don't need technology for that, only reason, the definitions and a clear mind. Of course, as all my assertions, it is with no claim of absolute certainty. But beyond reasonable doubt. However you are so certain that I can, t that you have not even asked me about them, you simply suppose that demostration you don't know are wrong and insult me on that basis. Fuck you. If you do not have the guts to return to the game, this conversation is over. Bye. You may have the last word if you are so fond of it as Kirata.

pleasantorture -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 6:50:49 AM)
I have entered into this debate/conversation very late and I am not going to go back and read every single post- but I did browse through and my opinion was stirred. So i thought I should share my views, for those who want to know them- I don't believe opinions and truth are well-related for the most part, because of the idea of truth and how it is so undetermined and subjective- therefore, I do not expect many people to "agree" with me. I don't think that our belief system is meant to be an advertising campaign to attract more partakers. However, I do feel this... The existence of any fact or thing perceivable now in this lifetime exits merely by the reflects you as a person, through your senses manifest. I have stooped to classify myself as agnostic, i would rather not be classified at all- i do acknowledge a higher power, but absolutely have no affiliation to religious practice or religion in general. Religion is what misguides the soul from reaching a true form of communication to a higher power, it is what implants dogma in our minds, fear and a complete miscalculation and misunderstanding of what existence and living obtains and the purpose of it all- which ultimately HAS NO PURPOSE. beyond ideas and theories of right and wrong, beyond what science can prove, what formulae has been established, what rules and values exist- religion, god and right-and-wrong do not have much to do with one another. To exist, to embrace existence, to center yourself in a web of connectivity and acknowledge that beyond your exterior shell and beyond what your human mind can comprehend, there is a SOMETHING existing in the NOTHING. and it is not the answers we need that are significant, it is in the questions we ask. Ultimately, we will never know "god." because the idea and false pretense of what God is is so awfully misleading and two-dimensional. There are a million reasons for every why, a million theories for every fact, a million ways in which the world began/ended- but when you accept that nothing is set in stone and everything is relative, then you are one step closer to understanding that "being one with spirituality" is not a destination one can reach but rather is a route on which one must travel in their daily life, constantly, in an informed and personal manner. You will never be enlightened, and you will never know God because God is birthed from us, and all around us- not the other way around. Let me sum up what I am saying. Everything around us, everything we believe and know to be true is only perceived as reality through our senses- which belong to the cage of our body. There is no tomorrow, no yesterday, and even right now is made indistinguishable by the idea that time does not exist and we experience our realities simultaneously, without our senses we would not be able to understand or experience this circumstantial existence. living is only one form of "perception," your soul exceeds and transcends this. some who do not believe in a higher power or a deeper spirituality may question this and disregard the fact that humans do have souls or spirits, and that nothing but science is relevant or proven. The truth is that we are only able to use a small portion of our brain, everything around us is just matter, there are no colours- it what our eye and what light tells us to believe that we believe... some things are not understandable to the Human, it is intangible and it is in the absence of reason and formulae and rules that we can even begin to wonder about "god." to me, the idea of what God was intended to mean has been completely mascaraed and vandalized by mass stupidity and religion. When will humanity realize that dogmatic and hypocritical "traditions" and customs do not influence a person to be good/bad. Because, as i mentioned before, neither exist- they depend on one another for truth and it is in that very balance that all things are amplified. spirituality, science, fact, fiction, reality, fantasy. When you lose consciousness you will lose all these restrictions and preconceived beliefs which are programmed into us- you will have nothing, and you will not be aware of it, there will be no you. there will be no cage to store the contents of your soul and no eyes, no ears, no lips, no senses to elaborate on what is "happening." i think people feel too insecure and bewildered to start thinking such existential things, but I think what I am aiming to convey is that religion and God are completely separate. Religion was created as a way for some to access and understand a "higher power" more superficially, practically and "literally." BUT we must not forget that religion is just the training-wheels on the bicycle. When you ride the bicycle, you are experiencing spirituality and connectivity and empowerment of a divinity, but it is not necessarily a need to use the training-wheels at all. Some may find the training wheels to completely destroy the feeling of moving, the actual riding of that bicycle. Religion was created in the "image" of God, (which is already problematic as god has no image what so ever) and not the other way around.

MadAxeman -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 8:56:47 AM)
A warm welcome to Matman's sock. 120 (ish) posts ago, this thread began with these 5 words... This thread is partly inspired... I'd say that's unproven.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625