Ask an agnostic...
- Thread starter Sidhe
- Start date
Xanikk999
History junkie
I think they were never agnostic to begin with. Or they are rather gullible, no offense civgeneral.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Why would you be skeptical about them?
Why would you say thoes things? I can tell you that I used to be an agnostic untill I rediscovered God a few years back. To be blunt, I used to be an agnostic and I was never gullible. Why are there such skepticism and negative views towards people who honestly discover God and join a religion (not nessicary Christianity)?Xanikk999 said:
Adamb0mb
Lawless
It not just former agnostics I'm skeptical of, I'm skeptical about anybody's claims of divine revelation. Thats the who of it, as to why:
I don't believe man (any man) has the ability to quantify god (in terms of none, one, many).
ThePhysicist
Warlord
Look, as it appears to me our argument boils down to a few specific issues:
1. How is God defined?
2. Is the inductive argument for scientific completeness sufficient?
3. Is the inductive argument that since religions have historically been inaccurate or appear to be demonstrably results of failures of human minds and society (and because this is the only place we get the concept of God), God in any sense probably does not exist. (This must be inductive, because a God that is in no way connected to humanity's visions of him is theoretically possible)*
I think this is the problem we are having. We are misunderstanding eachother over 1, I refuse to accept 2 as rigourous enough and because I percieve it as possibly countered by other inductive arguments, and 3 keeps being repeated as if it supports atheism straight out...but I'm pretty sure the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is "don't trust human religions." After all, there are some religious experiences that science cannot explain away (with the usual qualifier "yet," which leads us back to #2)
I just thought I'd clarify and verify so I can understand the differences here.
*I assume that this, or something similar to it, is what was meant in a couple of posts in rebuttle to me or another. I never addressed it so I'm not sure.
1. How is God defined?
2. Is the inductive argument for scientific completeness sufficient?
3. Is the inductive argument that since religions have historically been inaccurate or appear to be demonstrably results of failures of human minds and society (and because this is the only place we get the concept of God), God in any sense probably does not exist. (This must be inductive, because a God that is in no way connected to humanity's visions of him is theoretically possible)*
I think this is the problem we are having. We are misunderstanding eachother over 1, I refuse to accept 2 as rigourous enough and because I percieve it as possibly countered by other inductive arguments, and 3 keeps being repeated as if it supports atheism straight out...but I'm pretty sure the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is "don't trust human religions." After all, there are some religious experiences that science cannot explain away (with the usual qualifier "yet," which leads us back to #2)
I just thought I'd clarify and verify so I can understand the differences here.
*I assume that this, or something similar to it, is what was meant in a couple of posts in rebuttle to me or another. I never addressed it so I'm not sure.
I have been called an agnostic, on the grounds that I see belief in God as a subjective thing, and that human wisdom, logic, and understanding is incapable of arriving at an answer. So I guess that while most agnostics don't believe in God, some do . . .
As an agnostic, I think the existence or non existence of God cannot be proven.
If the Univers was created "as it is now" by God at once, then his powers are so far beyond our capabilities that trying to understand it is futile.
In the same way, if there is a God which is all powerfull and all knowing, the religions themselves are all false as a human can understand only a tiny part of God's Grand Scheme. So I don't see the Religions as following the will of God, but as way for humans of similar beliefs to recomfort each others in their faith.
I can accept that some people like Eran "encounter God". It could be a real experience, or it could be their own imagination. What is important to me is it never happened to me, so I have no way of believing God exists.
So I think it's more likely that there is no God, but I would be ready to believe in him if one day he reveled himself to me in a way I would not doubt.
If the Univers was created "as it is now" by God at once, then his powers are so far beyond our capabilities that trying to understand it is futile.
In the same way, if there is a God which is all powerfull and all knowing, the religions themselves are all false as a human can understand only a tiny part of God's Grand Scheme. So I don't see the Religions as following the will of God, but as way for humans of similar beliefs to recomfort each others in their faith.
I can accept that some people like Eran "encounter God". It could be a real experience, or it could be their own imagination. What is important to me is it never happened to me, so I have no way of believing God exists.
So I think it's more likely that there is no God, but I would be ready to believe in him if one day he reveled himself to me in a way I would not doubt.
What is the way to differentiate between a "real religious experience" and "imagination"?
Both are mental experiences; their differences are not in being part of one's mental world, but in their particular characteristics and the way in which they influenced the one experiencing them.
"God" is just another term which is being used supposedly to communicate something relatively specific, without this being the case at all though since it is a word that can be attributed by different people to widely different "emotions" and groups of emotions, and/or to partly specific objects in their own imagination.
Both are mental experiences; their differences are not in being part of one's mental world, but in their particular characteristics and the way in which they influenced the one experiencing them.
"God" is just another term which is being used supposedly to communicate something relatively specific, without this being the case at all though since it is a word that can be attributed by different people to widely different "emotions" and groups of emotions, and/or to partly specific objects in their own imagination.
MamboJoel
Cool.
Admiting there is an epsilon probability that a God exists makes you an agnostic - at least in my church 
Now the fact that considering it too little chance to even bother has nothing to do with beeing agnostic or not.
Beeing agnostic or atheist isn't about time consuming by the way, or maybe should I suspect @Perfection of traveling around the globe to de-evangelize the believers
Now the fact that considering it too little chance to even bother has nothing to do with beeing agnostic or not.
Beeing agnostic or atheist isn't about time consuming by the way, or maybe should I suspect @Perfection of traveling around the globe to de-evangelize the believers
Perfection
The Great Head.
Because you're conclusions appear to stem from completely irrational thinking.
Is the average agnostic aware of the phrase
"agnosticism is the bisexuality of religions"?
"agnosticism is the bisexuality of religions"?
Perfection
The Great Head.
I suppose then atheists are abstinent?
ThePhysicist
Warlord
I don't get it. That would seem to say that agnostics try to have some of both. The way I see it, they take neither.
?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I disagree. They may appear irrational to you. But they are rational to me.
Moving on...
...Do you hope that you would find the answers to God?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Don't you argue completely on faith? The exact opposite of rationality?
What exactly are " the answers to God"?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
This is ask an agnostic, not ask a theist thread. I dont always argue completely on faith and I disagree with you that faith is opposite of rationality since I see faith complementing rationality. If you wish to continue this debate, create a new thread cause I am not going to be threadjacking this thread.
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
Small point. I would argue that the theist is more misguided if only because he allows his beliefs to control his day to day life whereas the atheist does not.
I consider myself an atheist only because, based on my life experience, I would guess that there are no gods. I do not presume to be right. If I encountered evidence to the contrary this position might change.
If you had to guess, one way or the other, which position would you choose?
Underseer
King
Who's faith is more misguided? Person A for his faith that the Easter Bunny isn't real, or person B for his faith that the Easter Bunny is real?
Outstanding claims require outstanding proof. Outstanding claims without a single shred of empirical evidence don't need to be taken seriously at all.
ThePhysicist
Warlord
But that's my point. Analogies with the easter bunny or santa are wrong. Niether the existence of God nor science currently provide an acceptable version of the universe. Claiming that God exists is no more outrageous than claiming everything can be explained in natural terms. Why? Because we have no proof for either one of them.
And again, I'm defining God in vague terms, but I think that's fair. As long as he (it?) remains supernatural in some respect, I'd say that it's still "God" even though it may not resemble any of the fanciful Gods human minds have invented.
As a side note, there are many ways to counter an inductive argument in favor of scientific completeness that I didn't list earlier. Godel's Incompleteness theorem sets a precedent for limits, there may be more. Or, perhaps there is no single perfect description of the world...only increasingly accurate models ad infinitum. We don't know and have no way of knowing. So I assert that even a willingness to rely on inductive arguments do not provide a way to truly disprove God. Pure deduction can't do it, occums razor's no help, and even induction isn't enough. What's left? Nothing that I know of.
I don't know of any agnostics who pray or attend worship services "just in case", so as near as I can tell the only practical difference between an agnostic and an atheist is whether one plays offense or defense in these sorts of "prove God doesn't exist" debate threads.
Similar threads
