Ask an agnostic

[Mechanicalsalvation]

As I said, "trust me" is not the most convincing argument.

I never said "trust me", I have presented you with possibility and probable/logic idea and you just dismissed it on the ground that it "must be" fake, since the science has not confirmed it or people tend to be subject of illusion.

Parrotry. Nice. Thanks for the compliment.

Not a parroty but what is called an absolute rhyme. In any case I am just trying to funny you. I have complimented you before and I am happy to repeate it. I know you as a honest and correct man from around here.

And this is vision. A sense which is deemed to be so reliable that it sparked the phrase: "seeing is believing". Which is true insofar you believe you see the face towards you, even though you know this isn't so.

that actualy sort of supports what I am trying to say. we need better instruments than limited senses and mind. you obviously favor the way of science I am trying to purify my emotions ,clarify my mind and bring to the fore the psychic part.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never said "trust me", I have presented you with possibility and probable/logic idea and you just dismissed it on the ground that it "must be" fake, since the science has not confirmed it or people tend to be subject of illusion.

I did not say "must be" I said "most likely". And you do expect me to trust you, since you still haven't presented any sort of evidence of what you claim to be true.

You made an extra-ordinary claim. You claimed it is not only possible to know of God's existence, but also it's nature. You stated:

My view here is that it may not be beyond our capacity but beyond the capacities of senses/mind under ordinary condition. Thus Yogis/mystics who are controling their though flow or keeping mind calm or thougless are talking about higher layers of mind such as intuitive mind, overmind, supermind,... And with these "instruments", which are not subject to the same kind of laws as ordinary mind or even intelectual mind, can percive other realities and even this world of ours in totaly different light.

as a reaction to:

And if he/she can, this is still so beyond our capacities that we could never be able to appropriately say "God exists" or even worse "God is exactly this".

Now, show me how you presented anything else apart from your word so far that this is actually the case.

You are indeed asking us to trust you when you say this. Now lets turn the tables and let me make a similar statement (as an obvious fake, but for the argument this is not relevant. Imagine I'm for real):
Through mediation it has been revealed to me that God does not only exist, but walks amongst us ion the unlikely form of Stephen Fry.

Now, two questions:
1. Do you now think it's likely Stephen Fry is God, because I have told you that?
2. Why not?

that actualy sort of supports what I am trying to say. we need better instruments than limited senses and mind. you obviously favor the way of science I am trying to purify my emotions and clarify my mind.

Pray tell, what do you use to experience these pure emotions if not your senses, and how do you process them?

The advantage of using the Scientific Method is exactly that you don't have to trust me, you don't have to take my word for it, if you are doubtful, you can go and replicate the results. You don't need faith. You can be as skeptic as you like.

The disadvantage of meditation and purifying the mind and such is that results vary wildly and results differ per person or are missing altogether.

So, take to the stage and show me how you or anyone else could know about God's existence and nature, keeping in mind beforehand that I'll doubt your claims and will need to see evidence, if not proof for their credibility.

 

[timtofly]

I got the 1000th post in the "ask an atheist" thread!

I feel this is a sign from God I should open the next thread, even though I am an agnostic.

I just can't see any evidence for a supernatural being. I admit the possibility isn't impossible though (just very, very unlikely).

You could put in the title: (From the Athiest Thread)

Some may not want to read the first page to figure that out. In an ask a thread, most people want to ask a question, not really read the whole thread looking for answers. I may be wrong about that, but seems to me the pattern.

Although this could be just "ask the Agnostic" and someone else could start the Athiest thread II.

@ Ziggy

Is a human capable of trusting an "unknown"?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I did not say "must be" I said "most likely". And you do expect me to trust you, since you still haven't presented any sort of evidence of what you claim to be true.

Thx for correcting me. Trust me I do not want you to trust me. I want you to consider the possibility. Again I am not claiming something to be true but after weighing the options I have choosen something which I consider closest to truth and present it here as such.

You made an extra-ordinary claim. You claimed it is not only possible to know of God's existence, but also it's nature. You stated:

My view here is ....

I didnt make a claim I presented my wiew which I consider closest to truth so I do not need to prove it...

Now lets turn the tables and let me make a similar statement (as an obvious fake, but for the argument this is not relevant. Imagine I'm for real):
Through mediation it has been revealed to me that God does not only exist, but walks amongst us ion the unlikely form of Stephen Fry.

Now, two questions:
1. Do you now think it's likely Stephen Fry is God, because I have told you that?
2. Why not?

Simple answer: No I do not consider you an authorithy in spiritual field, so your statment stays what it is- nice try

Pray tell, what do you use to experience these pure emotions if not your senses, and how do you process them?

You arent suggesting that we experience jealousy, insecurity, joy or love through the five senses? In yoga its called emotional/vital being which is superior to physical and makes physical do what mind decides and support physical lifes functions.

The advantage of using the Scientific Method is exactly that you don't have to trust me, you don't have to take my word for it, if you are doubtful, you can go and replicate the results. You don't need faith. You can be as skeptic as you like.
The disadvantage of meditation and purifying the mind and such is that results vary wildly and results differ per person or are missing altogether.

Well thats what I do. I trust scientist only to see them to disaproof of their former knowledge quite often even dramaticaly...
Its a fact that meditation results may vary greatly but it can be seen as an advatage as well. Here you are not bounded by need to proof something but what matters is you personal growth and satisfaction.
Here you see that doubt and fear is actualy something limiting your existence instead of helping your discrimination and faith is natural state of mind rather than rusty cane supporting fragile mental constructions.

So, take to the stage and show me how you or anyone else could know about God's existence and nature, keeping in mind beforehand that I'll doubt your claims and will need to see evidence, if not proof for their credibility.

I can only repeat that I am sharing my point of wiew...
Edit: but I have answered this before; you need strict spiritual or inner discipline to do that, science and intelectual reasoning is not realy helpful here...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thx for correcting me. Trust me I do not want you to trust me. I want you to consider the possibility. Again I am not claiming something to be true but after weighing the options I have choosen something which I consider closest to truth and present it here as such.

I have considered the possibility. And since this is Ask an Agnostic, I was tunnelling towards the knowledge angle. I have no issues with the way you present your point of view here, since this time it comes with the disclaimer that this is your belief. Belief does not take reproducible evidence.

The issue I have is with those who claim to know the truth, not with those who believe in them, or what they consider the truth. It may seem a little nitpicky but I do think the difference between objective and subjective is essential given the topic.

Simple answer: No I do not consider you an authorithy in spiritual field, so your statment stays what it is- nice try

Welcome to my world

You arent suggesting that we experience jealousy, insecurity, joy or love through the five senses? In yoga its called emotional/vital being which is superior to physical and makes physical do what mind decides and support physical lifes functions.

Oh, but there are way more than 5 senses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

Lets look at for instance Jealousy. It can manifest without an actual cause besides imagination. The same goes for insecurity. And there is scientific research how all kinds of non-physicallity (which seem to not be a word) can influence the way our senses perceive things. Famous is the example where subjects have to keep their hands in ice water as long as possible and can do so longer when they're allowed to curse.

Here you see that doubt and fear is actualy something limiting your existence instead of helping your discrimination and faith is natural state of mind rather than rusty cane supporting fragile mental constructions.

Fear? I beg your pardon? Doubt is essential to the enrichment of one's life. Doubt fuels progress. I do realise that having unwavering faith can be a strong thing. But being a strong emotion does not make the reasons for that emotions be real. All the emotions you named, jealousy, insecurity, love, joy, can manifest themselves in overwhelming fashion, but the strength of those emotions do not make the emotion justified. One can be jealous or be insecure for no reason, or maybe there is a reason. One can think he feels love when it may be fear of being alone. No, I don't think of them as "fragile mental constructions". I have seen enough evidence to convince me of the power of the brain.

But I have to take issue with your claim: "faith is natural state of mind", providing you mean faith in something religious or a deity. I feel it's more likely (there we go again) that humans can't stand not knowing as evidenced by our untameable curiosity. This is what I believe is at the heart of both science and religion.

Edit: but I have answered this before; you need strict spiritual or inner discipline to do that, science and intelectual reasoning is not realy helpful here...

Yeah, I have heard this one before. My biggest problem with this is that you have to accept it beforehand, and it will be proven to you after you already have accepted it, which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you convince yourself the cake I baked for you is the most delicious cake in the world, you will find the cake is the most delicious cake in the world. If you taste the cake without these preconceived notions, II doubt you'll find it the most delicious cake in the world.


edit: Disclaimer. Don't think for a second that when I say how people can be easily deluded, I am limiting this to religious or theist believes. Politics and advertising have made it a very successful core business, and we're all prone to it. I'm not claiming superiority here.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

Lets look at for instance Jealousy. It can manifest without an actual cause besides imagination. The same goes for insecurity. And there is scientific research how all kinds of non-physicallity (which seem to not be a word) can influence the way our senses perceive things. Famous is the example where subjects have to keep their hands in ice water as long as possible and can do so longer when they're allowed to curse..

When it comes to emotions, senses and mind sex impulse is perhaps the best example here. Through observing this I would rather condescend about emotions having their respective "field to play" such as the vital being rather then just being an aspect of mind or product of senses or brains chemistry. However I do think there are emotions more conected with physical and mind or what is caled the psychic emotions as well.

Fear? I beg your pardon? Doubt is essential to the enrichment of one's life. Doubt fuels progress.

Thx for correcting me onece more. Suspicion and not the fear is the proper quality of course.
Doubt in the process of intelectual thought may have some use and perhaps can be very important in scientific process but when it comes to everyday life or spiritual life its realy one of the worst an most destructive maladies of human mind.

But I have to take issue with your claim: "faith is natural state of mind", providing you mean faith in something religious or a deity. I feel it's more likely (there we go again) that humans can't stand not knowing as evidenced by our untameable curiosity. This is what I believe is at the heart of both science and religion.

I meant that under certain conditions faith can be rather spontaneous feeling natural to ones consciesness as opposed to faith which is based in intelectual thought constantly attacted by current of doubts so typical to the thought process.
I may be a little exception but I have accepted not knowing as fact which I am determined to change into its opposite by patiently trying to develop sagacity in the "slow and steady wins the race" fassion.

Yeah, I have heard this one before. My biggest problem with this is that you have to accept it beforehand, and it will be proven to you after you already have accepted it, which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No I do not think you have to accept anything beforehand. All one needs to do is give something a try. If you follow any spiritual method for, say, two months you will be able to tell if its your cup of tea or if it makes any sense at all. But if one doesnt have curiosity or inner urge about it most likely one never gives it a try anyway..

If you convince yourself the cake I baked for you is the most delicious cake in the world, you will find the cake is the most delicious cake in the world. If you taste the cake without these preconceived notions, II doubt you'll find it the most delicious cake in the world.

Why should I try convince myself about your cake being delicious in the first place? I mean I can imagine certain situation where people can do such things or play that sort of games without it being entirely stupid or it my actualy be an act of wisdom at times but I am quite skeptic by nature and I am looking for truth so it wouldnt make much sense. I have got things from meditation which I have never felt before though I do not think them to be spiritualy very high (for description of Nirvana you may want to check out my last post in "nothingness thread") so how could I make myself feel of those beforehand? I judge those things (by introspection) to be real and solid experiences simply becouse they have strong impact on my life and the life of those around me as well. I do not need other proof and I am quite "agnostic" about science and intelect having the ability to bring good results in this field in foreseeable future.

 

[Antilogic]

So, by suggesting that God is in fact knowable to humanity or at least some fraction of it at some time, aren't you actually some kind of gnostic?

When he/her/it does that, we can chat.

And before anyone gets ahead of themselves with name-calling, we should lay out the definitions. (God is interchangeable with divinity)

Atheist: Lacks belief in God - "Do you believe in God?"
Agnostic: Does not know if God exists - "Do you know if there is a God?"

Weak Atheist: Does not believe in God (because there is insufficient proof or evidence). "There isn't any proof of God that I've seen to posit that there exists a God." - An atheist, position by itself has no direct agnostic claim (though usually an agnostic)
Strong Atheist: Believes there is no God (because there is no proof or evidence). "Since there is no proof of God, we are forced to conclude that there is no God." - An atheist, not an agnostic
Weak Agnostic: Does not know if there is a God (because there is insufficient proof or evidence). "I don't know if there's a God, I haven't seen anything to convince me." - An atheist, an agnostic
Strong Agnostic: Believes God is unknowable (by virtue of the proof or evidence required being impossible to be comprehended or accepted). "Nobody (truly) knows if there is a God, nobody can make any comment on the divine." - An atheist, an agnostic

Note: the positions are stand-alone. You could say that a strong atheist is also a weak atheist, but that would be a misapplication of definitions. The strong atheist's claim is more firm and robust than the weak atheist claim, such that you should only call a strong atheist as such. Likewise, I, as a strong agnostic, could be called an "atheist" or an "agnostic" and so on, but that would be like calling a Catholic "Christian", when calling them "Catholic" yields so much more information and breadth to the exact degree of their beliefs.

There is a great deal of interchangeability between these terms, and usually somebody is not hard-set into any particular one of them. For example, a weak atheist is usually also a weak agnostic; if you don't believe in a God then you usually don't know if there is a God. If you poke and prod a strong atheist hard enough, he'll probably give in that there is actually some possibility of a God existing, giving him some weak agnostic characteristics.

Of course, strong agnostic is the correct religious belief for anyone and everyone.

That makes me a strong agnostic then! Yay! (feels intellectual muscles)

EDIT: Maybe not, proof would be knowable, if god is as all powerful as they say.

I am quoting this string because I'm still not following ParadigmShifter's argument. I think, based on our conversation, you are in the weak agnostic category, since you allot for the possibility that some divinity can be known by humans if the divinity reveals itself.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

My argument is fuelled by beer, the drink of the gods.

 

[erez87]

I got a question to an Agnostic:

What is the difference between an Agonist and a theist, and between an agnostic and an atheist?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Depends on the agnostic.

 

[Defiant47]

I got a question to an Agnostic:

What is the difference between an Agonist and a theist, and between an agnostic and an atheist?

I don't know what "Agonist" means (I'm presuming you didn't mean "agnostic" because you also capitalized it), theist means believing in God or a divinity (though you should probably ask a theist the exact stance of their beliefs), and I explained agnostic and atheist here.

 

[Theov]

But why, seriously now, don't you believe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster? (sauce be upon him)
I mean, there is a website, a Gospel and millions of believers.
[edit]oops[/edit]

 

[ParadigmShifter]

*sauce be upon him

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I got the 1000th post in the "ask an atheist" thread!

I feel this is a sign from God I should open the next thread, even though I am an agnostic.

I just can't see any evidence for a supernatural being. I admit the possibility isn't impossible though (just very, very unlikely).

Define "supernatural (being)". Define "God". IOW, what exactly do you think is possible?

 

[erez87]

I did mean agnostic, I just misspelled it and added capitalization.

Anyway. I read your definitions. So everyone is agnostic according to them (or at the least should be). So what is the point of stating you are agnostic if everyone are?

I assume most agnostics are are atheists as well, correct?

 

[Defiant47]

I did mean agnostic, I just misspelled it and added capitalization.

Anyway. I read your definitions. So everyone is agnostic according to them (or at the least should be). So what is the point of stating you are agnostic if everyone are?

I assume most agnostics are are atheists as well, correct?

I'm pretty sure most religious people know if there is a God or not.

Christians know that God exists, because God is Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost.
Muslims know that God exists, etc...

An agnostic is usually an atheist, yes, because if you don't know if God exists, then you probably aren't going to believe in God.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Well, they don't actually know that god exists. It is something that must be taken on faith.

 

[erez87]

They claim to know, which makes them dishonest.

Anyway - why call this the ask the agnostic page if it's really a ask the atheist page? Why even state you are agnostic, when it is simply obvious you are just like everyone else?

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

They claim to know, which makes them dishonest.

Not necessarily dishonest. If you hold up 3 fingers and some moron tells you it's 4, he's not lying, he really believes it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Anyway - why call this the ask the agnostic page if it's really a ask the atheist page? Why even state you are agnostic, when it is simply obvious you are just like everyone else?

It's fun to mess with the heads of people who believe there's a sliding scale from atheist, via agnostic to theists. People who claim, I'm neither an atheist or theist, I am an agnostic.

I'm guessing.