U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2013, 05:32 AM
 
39,070 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5086

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz View Post
This is more a commentary on the nature of paradox and the limitations of human knowledge than anything else. If you're incapable of acknowledging your limitations (and the implications of such an acknowledgement), then so be it, but...at least understand what you're dealing with here. And I'm still not religious, if it must be known...yet ultimately there's no reasoning for my irreligion. If .0001% are philosophical materialists...well, congratulations, you're correct about how this universe works. Doesn't mean you're correct about how what lies beyond works. Obviously this has no impact on this universe...but it could have an impact on "theological" (meaningless term) matters.

Until all hypothetical quantum states can be explained, you'll have to deal with my posts. Because I'm not content to deal with uncertainties...except to maniacally rephrase the nature of their uncertainties. Just to make me feel better.

Till then, we're all in the same boat--ignorant. Think of all the people who die in that state. You might die like that tomorrow...I might die like that tomorrow. Or in a false sense of knowledge. Extrapolate from that...or don't, because you might draw the wrong conclusion.

Nothing can be known, ultimately. Correlation never equals causation. NEVER.
We are well aware of our ignorance and of what might out there or what might happen after we die, but the fact is that this applies to everyone and those who choose to believe in or at least credit a particular possibility out of all the possibilities is, frankly, trying to make a personal delusion look like it has some particular credibility.

I'm not saying that you are doing that. I can quite see that you may feel (and you are not alone in this) that whatever is out there in respect to cosmic causation, in particular, must be something that corresponds with our idea of 'God'.

I am with you on that. The only difference between us (so far as I can see) is that I cannot on the basis of the evidence so much rule out that unthinking and unplanning natural forces behind cosmic causation that I must lean towards the 'God' theory. Until I do, then reserving belief (atheism) is the only logical and rational belief -position for me.

Even if I was persuaded, perhaps by Mystic's eloquent arguments for a thinking cosmos, a needed 'will' to start the cosmic process and the link between human consciousness and 'God' (and they are good arguments) to go over the line from atheist agnostic to theist agnostic (for good reasons, rather than bad - and there are a host of 'bad' reasons for agnostic theism) I would still be irreligious (as you seem to be yourself) because this 'God'; Deist, cosmic Mind or god or Einstein/god of cosmic order, is nothing to do with any of the man - made religions, personal gods or Holy Books and their contents. That incidentally deals with the relationship between sortagod and theology. There is (reasonably) none.

I say this because the non -belief position I hold as an agnostic is not because I want to reject religion. I could still do that, even as an agnostic theist. It is because on the basis of present knowledge (and you seem to admit this yourself) I cannot (as yet) logically see a compelling reason to believe in the credible probability of anything I am willing to call 'God'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2013, 07:54 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,704,957 times
Reputation: 3108
Just a comment on this issue which I find fascinating.

One assumes I think that logic (and I see much of that is here) provides a road to clarity. Perhaps but from the looks of it I'd say it can also suggest obfuscation. Just to explain.

Eons ago men looked up at the heavens and tried to makes sense of it under their current intellectual limits. There was no way at all that they could comprehend and know that the stars and galaxies they saw in the night sky were the product of the 'Big Bang'. We, of course, did get to the latter knowledge after the course of time wended its way through humanity. The fact is our intellectual life to comprehend the world around us grew exponentially from that time. We philosophically speaking continue on the journey both in a physical as well as a 'spiritual' sense. Of course it is presumptious of me to say where man will be 10000 centuries hence but generally speaking I think we'll be definitely coursing in different realms. There will be more 'discoveries' of things that align with insights to creation and theistic/atheistic philosophy. But as it has been said here, "Nothing can be known, ultimately'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 08:10 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
17,248 posts, read 19,545,740 times
Reputation: 13007
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Eons ago men looked up at the heavens and tried to makes sense of it under their current intellectual limits. There was no way at all that they could comprehend and know that the stars and galaxies they saw in the night sky were the product of the 'Big Bang'. We, of course, did get to the latter knowledge after the course of time wended its way through humanity. The fact is our intellectual life to comprehend the world around us grew exponentially from that time. We philosophically speaking continue on the journey both in a physical as well as a 'spiritual' sense. Of course it is presumptious of me to say where man will be 10000 centuries hence but generally speaking I think we'll be definitely coursing in different realms. There will be more 'discoveries' of things that align with insights to creation and theistic/atheistic philosophy. But as it has been said here, "Nothing can be known, ultimately'.
It is crucial to point out, however, that practically all "knowledge" in the past which allegedly pointed to the existence of God has been systematically proven to be false as real evidence has replaced it over the course of time.

This is very telling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 09:10 AM
 
7,378 posts, read 6,731,664 times
Reputation: 1252
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
It is crucial to point out, however, that practically all "knowledge" in the past which allegedly pointed to the existence of God has been systematically proven to be false as real evidence has replaced it over the course of time.

This is very telling.
Exactly. As many outspoken atheists claim, there is not a single instance where a scientific hypothesis has been replaced by a theist solution. But, the opposite has occurred many times and will many times in the future as we learn more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 09:35 AM
 
39,070 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5086
Yep. It's like this - in the future we may well be of a totally different worldview where we spend all our days in permanent communion with the Mind of the Universe. On the othe hand we may look back at our religious beliefs and shake our heads in disbelief.

What we will NOT be doing, assuming we do not go back to believing in a flat earth and geocentric cosmos, is seeing the claims of the Holy books of the various religions as holding any credibility whatsoever.

I don't have a crystal ball or time machine, but I do have on overall view of the progress of knowledge and where we stand now, and I can make a pretty good guess where it is going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 10:24 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,704,957 times
Reputation: 3108
[quote]I don't have a crystal ball or time machine, but I do have on overall view of the progress of knowledge and where we stand now, and I can make a pretty good guess where it is going.

Well in the hard science instance I figure we'll have some new names for things on much much deeper levels than quarks and bosons and leptons though really how far can science go and explain. Like Chubby Checker in limbo, 'how low can you go?'....;-)...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 10:34 AM
 
39,070 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5086
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Quote:
Arq saithed...I don't have a crystal ball or time machine, but I do have on overall view of the progress of knowledge and where we stand now, and I can make a pretty good guess where it is going.
Well in the hard science instance I figure we'll have some new names for things on much much deeper levels than quarks and bosons and leptons though really how far can science go and explain. Like Chubby Checker in limbo, 'how low can you go?'....;-)...
I imagine that we'll use the same names as we still do for Pluto, although it was decided that it wsn't a planet anymore. Never mind, how many we got now? A dozen?

And how low? How deep, how high, how far? No limit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 06:21 PM
 
1,114 posts, read 1,025,641 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz View Post
I meant what I said, which is that there is no rational means by which to decide between the false dichotomy of theism and atheism. Given epistemic agnosticism (which you all profess to acknowledge), then there is nothing that remains. I outlined this rationale in the post--did you understand it? I explained why there is no reason to either have a belief or not have a belief. Hence exploding the myth of the dichotomous oh-so-convenient choice (for those who would like to be known as rational)

I am a disenchanted, disillusioned humanist-turned-misanthrope, and I'd rather see man fail than their invented concept of god fail

let both fail, please

anyway, I'll merely reiterate what I said before: if you claim that you can't know about god, then you can't profess either a belief or disbelief in god. Given your dual axis definitions. I'm only dealing with the prevailing terms herein.

Let's look at the following claims:

Claim A: gods exist

Claim B: gods do not exist.

I do not accept either claim until I am provided with sufficient evidence to believe them. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim A makes me by definition, an atheist. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim B still leaves me an atheist since I still do not actively believe in any particular god, but I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe we can have "knowledge" of gods to claim the positive (gnostic) position that gods do not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 07:06 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,058,072 times
Reputation: 1059
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythunderstood View Post
Let's look at the following claims:

Claim A: gods exist

Claim B: gods do not exist.

I do not accept either claim until I am provided with sufficient evidence to believe them. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim A makes me by definition, an atheist. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim B still leaves me an atheist since I still do not actively believe in any particular god, but I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe we can have "knowledge" of gods to claim the positive (gnostic) position that gods do not exist.
In the lack of any proof, and since you cannot prove a negative, only A is a realistic answer

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2013, 09:08 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 39,770,900 times
Reputation: 16146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
In the lack of any proof, and since you cannot prove a negative, only A is a realistic answer

Posted with TapaTalk
I'm guessing you wouldn't apply that "logic" to anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top