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.
Personally I would love to see all wilful ignorance and superstition abolished. There is no place for it in today's world. That it is allowed free reign and expression is, I feel, one reason that we are getting blown to pieces on our streets.
But that is talking about taking away freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Only if it were done through coercion. It is tempting to want views one endorses imposed, but that is wrong as you say, and doesn't seem to work. And in the case of rationalist humanism would be self -defeating.
It can only work rather the way the round earth has prevailed. That it taken as a global belief is based on persuasive evidence. The flat earth side had a chance to prove their case, but all they could do was produce alternative interpretations that just raised more questions. In fact space photos drew a line under the debate (though are still denialists) and if this is global indoctrination, it is based on evidence. Reason in fact just ensures the evidence in interpreted correctly.
This is exactly how evolution should be and is going. The 'Flat Earthists' or Creationism have been defeated time and again, because (Ham -Nye) their interpretation is inadequate, and (Dover) it is not science. So, like the round earth, it is right that evolution should be 'indoctrinated' through education, because it has made its' case and Creationism has failed repeatedly to do so.
This is not abrogating free will or free speech. Anyone is welcome to challenge established beliefs (I'll come back to that later ) but they have to prove their case first, have the research done and checked and then a revision or new theory appears. Teaching the controversy in the classroom is NOT the right way to do it, and was clearly just another ploy for smuggling Genesis into the science class.
Thus, even though there is a lot of ignorance and denial (and - as the video will show about a third of western muslims fall into that category (1) the global basis of science in education rather than religious denial of it, humanism in society and politics, even if lip -service is given to it. For example, Raffs would probably prefer to see affirmation the norm in the courtroom and you can ASK to swear by this or that God.
This is just removing privilege, and giving secularism the place it has earned and deserves. But it can't be imposed - yet. It has to be supported by the free will of the majority of the people, and they will vote in the people who will agree to do it.
Then the religious screams will be silenced (assuming you have the army on your side - violence may be the last resort of the incompetent, but it is the last resort, so you need to be sure it is on your side) by letting them put their case, and they will be shown that they are not being silenced, persecuted or ignored. They are being allowed to make their case and everyone can see it is invalid, illogical and claiming privilege that it is used to, believes it deserves, but does not. and never did.
Perhaps, but either way, whatever analogy, the effort is to point out the difference between an agnostic and an atheist...
Sure seems to me the agnostic is not an atheist, because they are not able to render the verdict there is no supernatural supreme being, no Intelligent Design, essentially because there is not the evidence or ability to prove there are no such things.
The atheist, on the other hand, can conclude there is no supernatural supreme being, no Intelligent Design, because there is significant lack of evidence to prove such things exist and/or a preponderance of evidence pointing to alternative explanations, ultimately our universal truths that are beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, I'm not at all sure the agnostic is "of the same mind" as the atheist in these regards, or the agnostic would view a supreme being just as absurd as a pet unicorn.
Or maybe I'm confused. Are we talking about someone who poisons a unicorn or someone who steals a unicorn? Two very different things...
My point exactly! An agnostic is not an atheist. You incorrectly assume that an agnostic is "unable" to render a verdict, as opposed to being unwilling to participate in the very process of rendering a verdict---an unwillingness that is informed by the absolute absurdity of the very question at hand.
If you "conclude" the nonexistence of deities, you are staking-out a position on the axis of belief: thus, you are expressing an ideology (the assertion I made in my first post to this thread). The agnostic concludes nothing other than the inability to perceive answers to questions which lie beyond the realm of human sensory perception.
Specific theological positions pertaining to the existence of deities (morality arguments, design arguments, ontological arguments, et.al.) are relatively easy to dissemble by the use of common sense and rational assessment. However, an argument from infinite regression, or the “Unmoved Mover”, to use Aristotle’s term, is simply not falsifiable.
Like the atheist, the agnostic requires empirical evidence before accepting supernatural assertions. Like the atheist, the agnostic fights against the insertion of religious dogma into government and civil politics. Like the atheist, the agnostic in a courtroom will consider evidence based upon its verifiability and probability, and reject assertions that are based on mere conjecture.
Unlike the atheist (or the theist), both of whom reach conclusions on issues of which they cannot possibly have knowledge, the agnostic will not attempt to render an opinion on matters which are rationally unfalsifiable.
I take your point, but I said Gods, rather "God": one particular one. That includes the gods of India, and that also inclides the gods of Thailand, Japan, and China. The Thais believe in gods all right, but they are not required to provide salvation for the buddhist, though they can assist, as they did Buddha himself, Vishnu for example appearing and explaining the middle way, not the extremes of luxury or fasting to excess, was the right way.
The point I was making is the belief in some sort of god or gods is so general in human societies and histories that it can be taken as a human Universal belief -inclination. But that doesn't mean it is a true one
Muddying the waters I think...
All the various notions about God, albeit perhaps a God -- one God -- are nevertheless in no way universally agreed upon as universal truth like the examples of universal truth I have provided in contrast.
Though you are again correct about the nuances of religion, in Thailand for example, obviously the teachings of the Buddha they worship (as if the Buddha WERE a god) are very different than in Mexico where Christians are focused on Jesus and teachings of a different sort, from a different book.
These sorts of divergings, variations and downright differences are not generally agreed upon universal truths like those taught and learned all over the word by way of science.
Our universal truths are those we all generally agree upon all over the world, whether we are believers, agnostic or atheists. Christians, Buddhists or Muslim. We all agree and understand our planet revolves around the Sun, for example. Simply because a belief in a god is somewhat common all over the planet as well does not mean that a god is a shared universal truth as confirmed/determined by science.
Perhaps I should add that last part in bold to my definition of what are universal truths.
I can only repeat that agnosticism is a knowledge position. "We don't know whether there is a god (or gods) or not. Logicaly that should reuire a belief -position to be taken - believe or not. Thus you get agnostic believers and agnostic non -believers. None know for sure (though gnostic theists believe they do) and atheists say they do not beleive until we do know.
"Agnostics" (apart from those who do NOT believe but either are wary of the 'atheist" label, ore have been taught that atheists have an unjustified claim of knowing there are no gods) are rather (so I have gleaned from their posting) that they believe there is a god, but know they could be wrong, or are believers in a god but not is 'Human religions". So they are really irreligious theists, rather than "Agnostics" - which everyone is, when it comes down to it.
Of course people use terms in their own ways some of the time, but it seems to be that is the way the thinking and logic falls out.
Hard not to repeat ourselves I suppose...
As I have come to understand the difference between being an agnostic and being an atheist, I eventually stopped claiming I was agnostic and began to describe myself as atheist instead. If/when asked why, I essentially repeat the difference between the two as I have explained them here, and/or as I understand those differences to be. Seems to work well and well apply when I'm discussing these differences with someone who calls themselves agnostic in any case...
Personally I would love to see all wilful ignorance and superstition abolished. There is no place for it in today's world. That it is allowed free reign and expression is, I feel, one reason that we are getting blown to pieces on our streets.
Ahh! If only we could "outlaw" or rid ourselves of ignorance, what I have often pinned as our number one problem on the planet. Might as well be hoping to rid ourselves of all disease, but I don't think I'll see either occur in my lifetime anyway...
I have personally experienced the harm of religion. My ex wife chose God over me. She also felt a guilt for being sexually attracted to me! She was likely damaged by her parents fundamentalism. Well, I am pretty certain of it.
That's what you get for being sexually attractive! Big problem for me too, but so far my wife has stuck with me anyway...
But that is talking about taking away freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
You can only mitigate ignorance with education, much like you can only mitigate disease with medical attention. These are not problems or issues that can be outlawed, mandated or legislated away...
My point exactly! An agnostic is not an atheist. You incorrectly assume that an agnostic is "unable" to render a verdict, as opposed to being unwilling to participate in the very process of rendering a verdict---an unwillingness that is informed by the absolute absurdity of the very question at hand.
If you "conclude" the nonexistence of deities, you are staking-out a position on the axis of belief: thus, you are expressing an ideology (the assertion I made in my first post to this thread). The agnostic concludes nothing other than the inability to perceive answers to questions which lie beyond the realm of human sensory perception.
Specific theological positions pertaining to the existence of deities (morality arguments, design arguments, ontological arguments, et.al.) are relatively easy to dissemble by the use of common sense and rational assessment. However, an argument from infinite regression, or the “Unmoved Mover”, to use Aristotle’s term, is simply not falsifiable.
Like the atheist, the agnostic requires empirical evidence before accepting supernatural assertions. Like the atheist, the agnostic fights against the insertion of religious dogma into government and civil politics. Like the atheist, the agnostic in a courtroom will consider evidence based upon its verifiability and probability, and reject assertions that are based on mere conjecture.
Unlike the atheist (or the theist), both of whom reach conclusions on issues of which they cannot possibly have knowledge, the agnostic will not attempt to render an opinion on matters which are rationally unfalsifiable.
Are you suggesting that based on what I know, I must be an agnostic?
I don't agree that requiring proof that something exists before I believe something exists is "staking-out a position on the axis of belief." Truth to me is simply that which we can universally agree upon as already explained in more ways than one. I do not believe anything is our universal truth until proven so. I do not believe unicorns exist in the same way. Not sure I understand the problem here, unless you are trying to tell me I should/must be an agnostic rather than an atheist.
As I have come to understand the difference between being an agnostic and being an atheist, I eventually stopped claiming I was agnostic and began to describe myself as atheist instead. If/when asked why, I essentially repeat the difference between the two as I have explained them here, and/or as I understand those differences to be. Seems to work well and well apply when I'm discussing these differences with someone who calls themselves agnostic in any case...
It's ok, if one explains what they mean by these terms. To repeat myself again, it would not be a problem, if Theists did not use the terms to try to debunk atheism by saying that agnostics are reasonable in having doubts about gods while atheists are not because they "claim to know". That's when we have to explain that atheism (non -belief) is based on agnosticism Inot knowing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Muddying the waters I think...
All the various notions about God, albeit perhaps a God -- one God -- are nevertheless in no way universally agreed upon as universal truth like the examples of universal truth I have provided in contrast.
Though you are again correct about the nuances of religion, in Thailand for example, obviously the teachings of the Buddha they worship (as if the Buddha WERE a god) are very different than in Mexico where Christians are focused on Jesus and teachings of a different sort, from a different book.
These sorts of divergings, variations and downright differences are not generally agreed upon universal truths like those taught and learned all over the word by way of science.
Our universal truths are those we all generally agree upon all over the world, whether we are believers, agnostic or atheists. Christians, Buddhists or Muslim. We all agree and understand our planet revolves around the Sun, for example. Simply because a belief in a god is somewhat common all over the planet as well does not mean that a god is a shared universal truth as confirmed/determined by science.
Perhaps I should add that last part in bold to my definition of what are universal truths.
You are right of course. Universal truths are what exists in reality. Science can only present the evidence used to try to construct theoretical models that approach the reality -as best we can.
Generally accepted beliefs that are not supported by science should not perhaps be called 'universals'. But widely accepted beliefs.
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.
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.
) but they have to prove their case first, have the research done and checked and then a revision or new theory appears. Teaching the controversy in the classroom is NOT the right way to do it, and was clearly just another ploy for smuggling Genesis into the science class.
