Do you consider yourself agnostic or atheist? Why? [Open to all posters.] (Biblical, religions)

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I know and I addressed that. So why you feel the need to make a "note" out of it when it was the very core of the post you are pretending to be replying to, I do not know.

I'm sorry, but I don'[t see how the "core of your post" was related to the evolution of science and technology, as opposed to the idea of biological evolution.

I submit this was the core of your earlier post:

Firstly evolution does not work that way. It is not linear but conversationalist. And it will happily breed out attributes that are costly in terms of time and resources. If the masses of lower intelligence on this planet continue to massively out reproduce the intellectual, then we will tend towards a stupider species in ways that the movie Idiocracy made a caricature of. There is no reason to expect, even given a lot of time, evolution to produce super powerful and intelligent entities if the resources to do so are too costly."

I noticed lots of talk about breeding, reproduction of the intellect, and the movie Idiocracy, which lead me to believe your core was a bit different than you now claim. I believe you did use the word "technology" once in your post though, so maybe that's what your referring to.

Anyway, if the mis-communication was my fault, I apologize for trying to clarify my point. Reading your post in it's entirety, and in full context, led me to believe you were understandably talking about big E evolution only. If you now claim that you weren't meaning to discuss big E evolution, I'll accept that.

As above you appear to have hit REPLY on my post without actually reading it because I addressed this too. You can pretend and fantasize about exponential scientific evolution all you like but the fantasy will not become fact. Technology is so far subject to the limitations of the universe in which we reside and whether you add 300 years, 3000, or 3 million we currently have no reason to expect to overcome the limitations it puts upon us. Such as the speed of light barrier or the energy requirements.

I think you underestimate the power of human ingenuity and our ability to cheat the rules nature has given us.

To use your example, the speed of light: Do you know who Harold "Sonny" White is? He runs NASA's advanced propulsion program at Johnson Space Center (JSC). And he is leading the research on warp drives. Here's a quote from Popular Science about a presentation he gave on behalf of NASA recently:

Put plainly, warp drive would permit faster-than-light travel. It is, most assume, impossible, a clear violation of Einstein's theory of general relativity. White says otherwise. For half an hour at the symposium, he outlined the physics of a potential warp drive—walking attendees through things like Alcubierre bubbles and hyperspace oscillations. He explained how he'd recently computed theoretical results that could pave the way for an actual warp drive and that he was commencing physical tests in his NASA lab, which he calls Eagleworks.

And here's a few words from the head of NASA:
[QUOTE....]A few days after the 100 Year Starship gathering, the head of NASA, Charles Bolden, echoed White's remarks. "One of these days, we want to get to warp speed," he said. "We want to go faster than the speed of light, and we don't want to stop at Mars."[/quote]

And of course, NASA isn't the only place where there is conjecture that we may be able to achieve faster-than-light results while still respecting the rules of special relativity. As we have done in the past, science is working on ways for humans to cheat the rules of nature.

Does this guarantee that we will someday achieve faster-than-light speeds? No.

But it shows your pejorative claims that it is just fantasy is clearly wrong. Unless you believe the folks at NASA are dolts, and you believe you know quite a bit more about the subject then they do, maybe you should open up your mind to the idea that someday it may be possible.

It's not yet fact, but it's quite a bit more than fantasy.

Do you? Amazing how you can understand something of me I never said, espoused, or implied. Fantasy again. You use it a lot.

Here is what you actually said:

And when I discuss the concept of god on these forums I am discussing the concept of an entity that created the universe, not that was created by or within it after the fact.

So which is it, do you include Greek gods, which were entities believed to have been created within this universe, or do you not include Greek gods because as you stated previously you are only talking about gods not created within this universe?

You can't have it both ways, and you can't keep accusing people of fantasy's just because you can't keep track of what you are claiming.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I submit this was the core of your earlier post:

Perhaps you would do better to listen to me telling you what my points are, rather than sit there and presume to tell me what they are. You said you were talking about "The evolution of science and technology" and given a large portion of my post was about that very thing, it still seems like you hit "reply" without actually reading what you were replying to.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I believe you did use the word "technology" once in your post though, so maybe that's what your referring to.

No I am referring to the entire third and fourth paragraph of the post in question. Not just one word in it. Again try reading posts before you reply rather than skim them for a few keywords and then assuming you know what the post is about.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I think you underestimate the power of human ingenuity and our ability to cheat the rules nature has given us.

We have not, to my knowledge, ever cheated a single rule of nature. We are subject to them and their constraints and we work within them and at their behest and mercy. We have not "cheated" one ever. Once.

You can sit and fantasize about what technologies we MIGHT get in the future but that is... once again... your usual modus operandi of walking out of the realm of reality and putting two feet firmly in the realm of fantasy.

I repeat, whether you add 300 years, 3000, or 3 billion.... we can expect some technological superiority but not at the levels that your fantasy requires. We are still subject to the limitations of the universe with no expectation to over come them.

Again you simply seem to want to hold on to the word "god" so badly that you need to fantasize about a species so advanced as to appear godlike to us. Again, not only do I not think this fantasy likely to be true.... it still would not be "gods" but just another species created within our universe and subject to the limitations of it just like us. This linguistic fetishism people have for the word "god" is just making you look ridiculous at this point.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

But it shows your pejorative claims that it is just fantasy is clearly wrong.

Quite the contrary. It shows you to be clearly wrong. The fact that at this time all they are doing is fantasizing about it directly supports my point that at this time it is fantasy. You are quoting people saying the kind of things they want to happen or be discovered. I am commenting on the things we currently know to be true or have discovered. It is clear which one of us is in reality and which in fantasy la la land.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

maybe you should open up your mind to the idea that someday it may be possible.

Maybe.... yet AGAIN..... you should open up your mind to actually reading what people write instead of pretending they wrote something else. Because I never once suggested these things are not possible or that I do not think they are. Stop misrepresenting me to attempt to score points, because it does the exact opposite and just makes you look desperate.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

You can't have it both ways, and you can't keep accusing people of fantasy's just because you can't keep track of what you are claiming.

The only person here unable to keep track of what I am claiming, is you. Given how wantonly and often you have misrepresented what I have said, or just plain invented things I never said to suit yourself. Once again I merely request you stop doing this and actually read what I write before pretending to reply to it.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Perhaps you would do better to listen to me telling you what my points are, rather than sit there and presume to tell me what they are. You said you were talking about "The evolution of science and technology" and given a large portion of my post was about that very thing, it still seems like you hit "reply" without actually reading what you were replying to.



No I am referring to the entire third and fourth paragraph of the post in question. Not just one word in it. Again try reading posts before you reply rather than skim them for a few keywords and then assuming you know what the post is about.



We have not, to my knowledge, ever cheated a single rule of nature. We are subject to them and their constraints and we work within them and at their behest and mercy. We have not "cheated" one ever. Once.

You can sit and fantasize about what technologies we MIGHT get in the future but that is... once again... your usual modus operandi of walking out of the realm of reality and putting two feet firmly in the realm of fantasy.

I repeat, whether you add 300 years, 3000, or 3 billion.... we can expect some technological superiority but not at the levels that your fantasy requires. We are still subject to the limitations of the universe with no expectation to over come them.

Again you simply seem to want to hold on to the word "god" so badly that you need to fantasize about a species so advanced as to appear godlike to us. Again, not only do I not think this fantasy likely to be true.... it still would not be "gods" but just another species created within our universe and subject to the limitations of it just like us. This linguistic fetishism people have for the word "god" is just making you look ridiculous at this point.



Quite the contrary. It shows you to be clearly wrong. The fact that at this time all they are doing is fantasizing about it directly supports my point that at this time it is fantasy. You are quoting people saying the kind of things they want to happen or be discovered. I am commenting on the things we currently know to be true or have discovered. It is clear which one of us is in reality and which in fantasy la la land.



Maybe.... yet AGAIN..... you should open up your mind to actually reading what people write instead of pretending they wrote something else. Because I never once suggested these things are not possible or that I do not think they are. Stop misrepresenting me to attempt to score points, because it does the exact opposite and just makes you look desperate.



The only person here unable to keep track of what I am claiming, is you. Given how wantonly and often you have misrepresented what I have said, or just plain invented things I never said to suit yourself. Once again I merely request you stop doing this and actually read what I write before pretending to reply to it.

Okay, I see what you're saying now.

You're saying, "even though Boxcar has proven me completely and wholly wrong, I'm going to refuse to acknowledge that and pretend it didn't happen."

So I think that ends our conversation. But I'll let you have the last word, which given your history, I assume will be "fantasy."

[TRANSPONDER]

Boxcar, I love you like a brother, but you must see that 'fantasy' is what it is. Yes, I concede that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine, and Sagan (I almost said "himself" like he was some atheist saint ) thought that, statistically, some advanced alien race was on the cards and, given that we hadn't looked anywhere in the universe let alone everywhere, absence of evidence was not evidence of absence, unlike in places where we have looked like in Egypt and Sinai and absence of evidence of the Exodus IS evidence of absence.

We also understand the idea about such an advanced race getting to the stage where the technology is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic. Indeed Star Trek regularly produces magical beings that are as near gods as makes no difference but who used to be ordinary bods but have 'evolved' to being a race of gods (much to the annoyance of the real gods where were born that way).

I also understand that you consider the idea of one of other of these possibilities being true is statistically so likely that you must consider that you believe there is a 'god' out there. Thus you can no longer call yourself a-theist.

We all understand that (or I hope we do) and respect it (or I hope we shall). But like Mystics very plausible and well-worked out hypothesis, plausible hypothesis is the best it can be.

Without anything we would call a shred of sound evidence of it, we have to reserve belief and thus remain a-theist. We have to ask you to see that our position on this is logically sound.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Boxcar, I love you like a brother, but you must see that 'fantasy' is what it is. Yes, I concede that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine, and Sagan (I almost said "himself" like he was some atheist saint ) thought that, statistically, some advanced alien race was on the cards and, given that we hadn't looked anywhere in the universe let alone everywhere, absence of evidence was not evidence of absence, unlike in places where we have looked like in Egypt and Sinai and absence of evidence of the Exodus IS evidence of absence.

We also understand the idea about such an advanced race getting to the stage where the technology is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic. Indeed Star Trek regularly produces magical beings that are as near gods as makes no difference but who used to be ordinary bods but have 'evolved' to being a race of gods (much to the annoyance of the real gods where were born that way).

I also understand that you consider the idea of one of other of these possibilities being true is statistically so likely that you must consider that you believe there is a 'god' out there. Thus you can no longer call yourself a-theist.

We all understand that (or I hope we do) and respect it (or I hope we shall). But like Mystics very plausible and well-worked out hypothesis, plausible hypothesis is the best it can be.

Without anything we would call a shred of sound evidence of it, we have to reserve belief and thus remain a-theist. We have to ask you to see that our position on this is logically sound.

First, I appreciate the courtesy in which you responded.

But "drawing the logical inferences from the information we have" is completely different than "Without anything we would call a shred of sound evidence of it."

We share 98.8 percent of our DNA with a simple Chimpanzee. But that 1.2% differences makes all the difference in the world. Our ability to think abstractly, communicate at an advanced level, understand much more complicated math, art, music, etc. is huge. The difference in reasoning between our humans and chimps is profound, yet, we are only 1.2% different than a chimp.

If an alien life form exist, why would we assume we are smater then them, or even in the same ball park. If their DNA is a mere 1.2% more advanced than ours we are but chimps to them. What if it is 5% more advanced than ours? We are but cockroaches or ants in comparison. The way we understand math, language and reasoning would be nothing to compared to a being with just 5% improved DNA.

Maybe aliens don't come to earth for the same reason we don't inspect every ant pile in the country. Ant's are irreverent and plentiful, and we just don't care about them. Similarly, an alien advanced enough to make it to earth may be so advanced to have no interest in coming here. There are plenty of other ant piles scattered around the universe for them to avoid.


I think the distinction between "fantasy" and an "inference drawn on the evidence" is profound. We can't imagine a species a million years more advanced than us, or with 10% improved DNA (or both). But given the billions and billions of opportunities for them to exist, it is pure hubris on our part to assume we are the most advanced species in the universe, and there's nothing out that is millions of years ahead of us, or that makes our DNA look like that of an ant.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Apathizer

Agnosticism could also be define as believing that it's impossible to know if god exists. This is different from being convinced that god does not exist. Err, think anyway.

This is the type of meta-thinking I was hoping to entice.

And this is exactly my position. I define myself as an agnostic because the limitations of my physical senses make it impossible for me to even address the question of believing in any gods. Many people who define themselves as atheists are highly-antagonistic to this position. For them, this is a yes/no question--you either believe in a god or you don't.

I find the very question of god-belief to be irrational. Agnosticism, as I define it, never pursues an answer to that question because any such answers lie beyond the sensory capabilities of a human being. Should a god reveal itself to me, I may develop a position on the question.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

You're saying, "even though Boxcar has proven me completely and wholly wrong, I'm going to refuse to acknowledge that and pretend it didn't happen."

If you want to cop out and retreat by inventing words and sticking them in my mouth then so be it. I reckon that says a lot more about you than me though.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

If their DNA is a mere 1.2% more advanced than ours we are but chimps to them. What if it is 5% more advanced than ours?

The issue is that this is a big "if". Because Evolution simply does not work that way. It does not invest in adaptions that are costly in terms of resources and time and energy if the gain does not pay for the cost. Look at the cost of our "mere 1.2% difference". Child birth has become, to accommodate our larger and more complex brains, incredibly painful and dangerous and before the advent of human medicine a depressingly large number of children and/or their mothers simply died in child birth.

The failure in your thesis therefore is this assumption you appear to have that to attain that "1.2%" advancement, or 5% or 10% or whatever number you are arbitrarily picking off the number tree today..... all you have to do is add time.

Your posts are simply peppered with ifs and maybes. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Imagination is great, we love it and need it and we owe most of our civilization, culture, and technology to it. But we are always as a species one quick step from realizing that ifs and maybes are all they are.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

First, I appreciate the courtesy in which you responded.

But "drawing the logical inferences from the information we have" is completely different than "Without anything we would call a shred of sound evidence of it."

We share 98.8 percent of our DNA with a simple Chimpanzee. But that 1.2% differences makes all the difference in the world. Our ability to think abstractly, communicate at an advanced level, understand much more complicated math, art, music, etc. is huge. The difference in reasoning between our humans and chimps is profound, yet, we are only 1.2% different than a chimp.

If an alien life form exist, why would we assume we are smarter then them, or even in the same ball park. If their DNA is a mere 1.2% more advanced than ours we are but chimps to them. What if it is 5% more advanced than ours? We are but cockroaches or ants in comparison. The way we understand math, language and reasoning would be nothing to compared to a being with just 5% improved DNA.

Maybe aliens don't come to earth for the same reason we don't inspect every ant pile in the country. Ant's are irreverent and plentiful, and we just don't care about them. Similarly, an alien advanced enough to make it to earth may be so advanced to have no interest in coming here. There are plenty of other ant piles scattered around the universe for them to avoid.


I think the distinction between "fantasy" and an "inference drawn on the evidence" is profound. We can't imagine a species a million years more advanced than us, or with 10% improved DNA (or both). But given the billions and billions of opportunities for them to exist, it is pure hubris on our part to assume we are the most advanced species in the universe, and there's nothing out that is millions of years ahead of us, or that makes our DNA look like that of an ant.

I appreciate the spirit in which you responded.

You argument re 'shred of sound (because of course any kind of irrelevant or worthless data can be presented as 'evidence' so 'sound' data is what we are talking about here) evidence is...

Well, an objection to the word 'fantasy' rather than 'logical inferences from the information we have'.

The inferences you make about aliens being smarter than us is reasonable. In my experience, we tend to think that alien races are going to be much smarter than we are (1) I am fine with your argument that there are many good reasons why an alien race would not come here. I can also relate to your argument that on pure statistics, other life, perhaps intelligent life, possibly very advanced intelligent life is highly probable.

But, like string theory and the Higgs-boson, until we know it is there, belief in it as fact is illogical. And in fact it seems to me that the statistical probability for advanced aliens falls rather short of the circumstantial hard evidence we had for the Higgs-Boson, and that we have for string -theory and abiogenesis- neither of which can be claimed as fact, though they are expected.

But you go even further and argue that such advanced races have become Gods. Even if I would have to say that I was a Saganist in thinking that advanced races somewhere in the universe is where I would side rather than their not being there (2) I could not say that I believed them as a fact. Regarding them as gods is adding another level of doubt to that and so I would have to slip to the 'on the wire agnostic' position or even the denialist.
Mainly because I would not be at all sure what I was talking about or whether it was something I could comfortably call a god.

Unless you can find some more persuasive evidence than statistical probability and the semantics of the word 'god', I shall have to stay agnostic reserving belief.

I gather that you cannot reserve belief on this, and I understand that. I really find it hard to reserve belief on abiogenesis, though I know that, logically, I must. And I understand that this is a technical or academic belief (I presume that you don't go so far as thinking they came here and made us,so you are not Deist nor yet a personal god theist in that you think they are still here communicating with us or managing our affairs and they have to be placated through religion (rather like scientology). So this theism of yours is not really a problem for me except in the claim that it is logically sound, based on the evidence.

The is rather establishing a false rationale, and so I have to say why I can't let it pass, even out of consideration for you.

(1) and there is an interesting thread - 'Why do we believe that alien races are either going to be philosopher -angels that patronize us with loving but pitying superiority, or coldly pitiless technocratic geniuses that regard us as either slaves, food or vermin?

(2) this of course reflecting the tilt towards agnostic theist or atheist according to the probability one assigns to the existence of a god.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I appreciate the spirit in which you responded.

You argument re 'shred of sound (because of course any kind of irrelevant or worthless data can be presented as 'evidence' so 'sound' data is what we are talking about here) evidence is...

Well, an objection to the word 'fantasy' rather than 'logical inferences from the information we have'.

The inferences you make about aliens being smarter than us is reasonable. In my experience, we tend to think that alien races are going to be much smarter than we are (1) I am fine with your argument that there are many good reasons why an alien race would not come here. I can also relate to your argument that on pure statistics, other life, perhaps intelligent life, possibly very advanced intelligent life is highly probable.

But, like string theory and the Higgs-boson, until we know it is there, belief in it as fact is illogical. And in fact it seems to me that the statistical probability for advanced aliens falls rather short of the circumstantial hard evidence we had for the Higgs-Boson, and that we have for string -theory and abiogenesis- neither of which can be claimed as fact, though they are expected.

But you go even further and argue that such advanced races have become Gods. Even if I would have to say that I was a Saganist in thinking that advanced races somewhere in the universe is where I would side rather than their not being there (2) I could not say that I believed them as a fact. Regarding them as gods is adding another level of doubt to that and so I would have to slip to the 'on the wire agnostic' position or even the denialist.
Mainly because I would not be at all sure what I was talking about or whether it was something I could comfortably call a god.

Unless you can find some more persuasive evidence than statistical probability and the semantics of the word 'god', I shall have to stay agnostic reserving belief.

I gather that you cannot reserve belief on this, and I understand that. I really find it hard to reserve belief on abiogenesis, though I know that, logically, I must. And I understand that this is a technical or academic belief (I presume that you don't go so far as thinking they came here and made us,so you are not Deist nor yet a personal god theist in that you think they are still here communicating with us or managing our affairs and they have to be placated through religion (rather like scientology). So this theism of yours is not really a problem for me except in the claim that it is logically sound, based on the evidence.

The is rather establishing a false rationale, and so I have to say why I can't let it pass, even out of consideration for you.

(1) and there is an interesting thread - 'Why do we believe that alien races are either going to be philosopher -angels that patronize us with loving but pitying superiority, or coldly pitiless technocratic geniuses that regard us as either slaves, food or vermin?

(2) this of course reflecting the tilt towards agnostic theist or atheist according to the probability one assigns to the existence of a god.

My argument is really no more complicated than this:


--------
1. If there are billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy, life has likely developed on some of them just as it did on earth.

2. The life forms on some of those planets will likely be much less advanced than ours. Perhaps they are only in their bacterial stage of development, or it's equivalent.

3. On the other hand, the life forms on some of those planets will likely be much more advanced than ours, such that we are only in our bacterial stage of development relative to their level of advancement.

4. A life form that is so much further advanced than us that we are but like bacteria in comparison to them would be god-like by our estimation. Because I deny the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, a being that is god-like should rightfully be called a god in my opinion.
-------



If one can accept that some planets will be in their bacterial stage of advancement compared to us, then one should also be able to accept that our planet will be in the bacterial stage of development compared to the advancement of some other planets out there.


My evidence for this is evolution, the discovery of multiple other habitable planets, and the rest is just the logical inferences drawn from both of those facts. That is simply inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is commonly used to create hypothesis and in coming to conclusions about life that we call "facts."

Beyond that, inductive reasoning is used in all sorts of valid methods of learning the truth (facts) that aren't part of the scientific method. For example, most historical research is based on inductive reasoning.

I do not think it is illogical to believe in string theory or higgs boson. Just because something isn't a scientific hypothesis, that doesn't mean it can't have strong evidence to support it via inductive reasoning. It only means it's not a theory that's testable by deductive reasoning. That doesn't make it any more illogical than believing that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because historical inductive evidence suggests it is true.

It is completely legitimate and normal to believe things if they are the natural inferences drawn from the evidence we have. I won't withhold belief that some of the potential life forms in the universe are far more advanced than us simply because it is supported by inductive reasoning.

By your last two paragraphs, one might come to the conclusion that you withhold belief in anything not supported by deductive reasoning. If that is true, you withhold belief in almost every event in human history, because those are almost entirely established by drawing logical inferences from the evidence we have - inductive reasoning.

Edit: I may have misread your post a bit. Your are making a distinction on the word "fact" and what "facts" are, if I'm correct. I think that is a false distinction, for two reasons:
(1) We commonly call a proposition a "fact" if we have strong inductive and inferential evidence to support the proposition.
(2) More importantly, we believe things that are probably true, even if they are not facts. We don't need to establish a metaphysical certitude to establish a legitimate belief. A preponderance of the evidence will generally do.