04-27-05 10:11
r: I am quite willing to consider any reasonable arguement and would welcome any new information.
Well I've been discussing these issues literally for decades with theists and atheists. While there are reasonable people on both sides, there are definately unreasonable people on both sides and even the reasonable people have similarities to the manner in which they react to any examination of their close held beliefs/lack of beliefs.
My conclusion is that the the underlying nature of both atheists and theists being people is far more influencial than whether they happen to be theists or atheist. I.e. it is the fact that they have very closely held beliefs that determines zealotry and not what those beliefs happen to be.
While agnostics are not immune to this phenomena, the indeterminancy of the agnostic state does seem to act as a mitigating factor.
While it is true that atheists often attempt to maintain a sheen of rationality, being told I cannot examine the meaning of what it is to be atheist is not less dogmatic than being told I can't examine the nature of god. And when that restriction is placed with animosity as an indisputible, yet unsupported, point of fact I find no other more appropriate term than zealotry.
If you wish to now verify my theory create another avatar and discuss: atheism's parallels with religion, atheism as a belief system, definitions of atheism beyond what is commonly found in the dictionaries, weaknesses in any of the primary assumptions or means of argumentation, just to name a few and you will quickly see what I mean.
Its not like this is any great secret. Trolls all know the atheist touch points and you can just go back through the posts and find nice examples of zealotry without much effort, but it is nice to show that it goes beyond trolling by attempt to just have a reasonable discussion on a forbidden topic as an outsider.
R: There is no evidence that a God or gods exist, therefore I do not believe in God. This is not science per se, but it is a scientific attitude. No, this has nothing to do with science what so ever.
Science is an empirical endevor based on observation and analysis.
The scientific attitude would be there are no observable phenomena which support a claim for god. One can even go further and say that there is also no theoretical support for such an entity in our current understanding of the natural world. The conclution would be that it is unnecessary to posit any theories of god at this time and that any such thoeries which are posited are meaningless until there collaberating evidence to be shown.
That doesn't mean that there is or isn't a god or that one shouldn't design experiments to attempt to establish collaberating evidence for a god if one so desires. Though it does mean that such evidence and any god conclusions will most likely be met with a fair amount of skepticism.
This may seem a subtle distinction but the atheist and the scientist definately do not hold the same position.
The atheist is saying there is no god.
The scientist is saying the question is moot and it doesn't matter to science in the least at this time.
We are born ignorant.
Because we are ignorant, we come to cause suffering.
Because we suffer, we learn wisdom, morality and focus.
Because we learn wisdom, morality and focus, we choose to stop causing suffering.
Re: Defining agnostic
R: It seems to me that an agnostic is really just an atheist who is afraid to make up his mind. This is a common misconseption of what the essencial questions delt with by the atheist and the agnostic are. (FYI, I'm going to make some oversimplifications and broad generalizations to keep this from getting too long but I feel the gist of the core of each position is maintained.)
The atheist (and theist) has arrived at a conclusion concerning the question of a god's or gods' existence.
To wit, since no god or gods are presenting themselves directly and there is no reasonable evidence to establish such existence, the atheist rationally concludes that at the very least nothing supports any claim that there is a deity.
Many atheists take this a step further and say that due to the nature of the claims made, the perpoderance of evidence concerning how nature actually works, and other arguments beyond the scope of this post, it is reasonable to conclude that not only is the claim there is a deity false, such things as deities are in fact impossible all together and are therefore just misguided fantasy.
(Likewise on the same evidence the theist concludes that even though a god or gods are not presenting themselves directly, there is reasonable evidence to rationally conclude that thier particular deity exists, but of course all those other deities don't.)
There are essencially two kinds of agnostics. The first questions the sufficiency of the evidence for drawing a hard and fast conclution either way.
The second both questions the evidence and further questions the means being used (rationality) as being insufficient to the task of arriving at real knowledge of god(s).
(Possible critiques from the second position might be questions concerning the use of rational arguments to attempt to fully establish an existencial question, observations on the futility of natural evidence in establishing the nature and existence of supernatural beings and even doubts concerning the relevance of such debate.)
So while it seems to an atheist or theist that the agnostic is really just like them but unable to make up their mind, in fact the agnostic is saying it is an error to think you have the evidence and means to rationally make up you mind in this way on this question.
The agnostic is most definately not just a wishy-washy atheist or theist. While atheists and theists are oppsite each other concering the answer, agnostics are opposite both theists and atheists concerning the question and answering process altogether.
It is only by admitting that there can be no rational resolution to the issues in question that one turns from such trivial pursuits as arguing about the existence or non existence of some other being to wonder about the real questions of the nature and limits of one's own existence.
As for finishing the sentence, proof is irrelevant to existence.
Or as Descates should have said: I act because I am.
Thank you for putting it to words so eloquently Swarm. These are the sentiments I have been unsuccessful in communicating. You are a true wizard of language. - The Muse
Absolutely... great post.
My question to the atheists here is if they believe atheism is the lack of belief, then what's their definition of agnosticism?
I think Swarm's post nails the key issue here, it's the idea that there is an answer positive or negative that is the problem. To me the question of if there is or isn't a god is simply unanswerable, and there's only one logical thing to do, ignore the question. - Gentrified
04-26-05 2:65
To be real god would have to be bound by the very same natural laws as we.
Why? Because you say so?
Because the laws of nature actually do transcend any specific form. That is how it actually works as can be readily seen by it actually working that way. Open your eyes and look around. Try making things into different forms and see if this changes the nature of how gravity interacts with the object.
Because being bound by the natural laws is what it is to be real. Your imaginary friend can leap tall buildings in a single bound only beacuse none of it is real. Your friend isn't real, the bound isn't real and the buildings aren't real. Its all just your little fantasy of how things work.
Jay (Swarm) is out this week. Guest blogging = Shara.
Someone had mentioned that John of the Bible must have been on drugs.
Certain drugs such as psychedelics and entheogens provide a much more direct way to apprehend the divine than any method recommended within American xtianity.
Canukaho: My theory is that we are built with natural mental defenses against spiritual beings (fallen angels) that roam this earth. When you start playing around with drugs, no matter what drugs they are, you start to erode those defenses slowly or quickly, depending on which drugs you take. I think drugs open us up to the divine arificially and also to the wrong kind of 'divine' beings.
You must be taking the wrong drugs.
04-15-05 14:04
Jay said:
"Feel what you feel and express it appropriately with out wanting or rejecting the object. It may seem a subtle distinction, but it allows love to flow freely and easily without stirring up eddys of jealousy, pining, or envy."