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.
Sometimes I generalize too much. I didn't mean everyone in particular I just meant the "mood" I feel at the Religion and Philosophy section. (Not this particular thread alone) Still I guess I should try to remember this is a collection of disparate individuals not any kind of group and that generalized statements could seem to imply a group. Most of you don't know each other, etc.
I just get frustrated because it sometimes seems like if you say things about a religion it's a seen as an argument for or against a religion. I think sometimes people can just describe or discuss things without meaning "now go be this or that religion" or "go leave this or that religion."
Noz made an unsupported claim and I called him on it a bit too forcefully. I've tried to correct some factual errors I may have seemed to imply. I feel bad if you felt insulted and I likely should have been less involved in this thread. Although I think some of the information I listed can be interesting, etc.
I think your approach is refreshing and shows a welcome line of challenging us on various statements which many theists might allow to pass while preferring to chuck a line of Exodus or Corinthians 2 at us. Feelings of miff or insult are never lasting and we can all think back of what we learned even from someone who was a pretty bitter opponent (thinking of C34 here)
I think your approach is refreshing and shows a welcome line of challenging us on various statements which many theists might allow to pass while preferring to chuck a line of Exodus or Corinthians 2 at us. Feelings of miff or insult are never lasting and we can all think back of what we learned even from someone who was a pretty bitter opponent (thinking of C34 here)
I agree, Thomas' style is quite refreshing and I don't see where anything he has said would be insulting, it's just hard to convey meaning sometimes.
Why would a God be even the second-worst explanation? All it does is replace an impossibly complicated question (How did this AMAZINGlY complex universe come to be?) with an even more complicated question (How did something so complex that it could create a universe come to be?). God is an answer to the biggest question that only creates about a billion more questions. IMO, it is almost certainly not the answer, for this reason alone.
Ok, then how do you explain it? Remember I think the big bang theory is even more ridiculous, so I won't buy that explanation. What's YOUR take on the whole "how did the universe come to be"??
Well, if you don't know the answer to something, why can't your answer simply be "I don't know?" Why resort to the god of the gaps explanation for those things that have yet to be explained? Why does anyone NEED an answer to this question? None of us were there, so why does anyone think we ever could really have an answer anyway. It doesn't affect my life in any way, not knowing. Do I know for sure what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? No. Sure, there are many theories, but do I need to pick some kind of "answer" just to be able to get on with my life? No! Sure, it would be interesting to find out what happened, but is it something that I just HAVE to know? No. The same goes for the "creation" of the universe. Even though I don't "know" how the universe came to be, I obviously don't believe a god created it, because I have not been convinced that a god even exists to have done anything. Prove god exists first, and then I'll give consideration to the claim that "he" created the universe.
You're not derailing the thread Boxcar, it's a pretty important thing to discuss in relation to my agnosticism. I'll admit I have no evidence for a God, and that there appears to be some evidence that "something" like a big bang happened but like you said, the cause of it is still a pretty big mystery. God IS that mystery. I'm ok with knowing I don't have the answers, I just believe in a God because it's what makes more sense to me personally. I'm not saying anyone else has to believe it. And I don't get upset with atheists who don't believe in a God, I just happen to believe it for now.
How do you jump from having no explanation for something (yet) "the cause of the universe is a mystery", to I'll "just believe" in god because it makes more sense, when you don't even have any evidence for a god in the first place?
I agree with sanspeur. Ilene, if you believe in a god, you're a deist or theist, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not believe one way or the other about the existence or nonexistence of god/gods.
Agnosticism is not some kind of third choice in between belief and non-belief. Agnosticism does not even address "belief", it addresses "knowledge". On the spectrum of belief, there are only 2 choices. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. There is no such thing as fence sitting regarding whether or not you have a belief. Agnosticism does not say "I don't know if I believe in a god." It says "I believe that god cannot be known". All agnostics still either have a belief in god or not despite their understanding that gods cannot be known. Agnostic theists/deists believe in god despite acknowledging that gods cannot be known. That is why they call it “faithâ€. Whereas, agnostic atheists acknowledge that gods cannot be known and therefore withhold belief in any until such time as they are presented with any convincing evidence which would make them believe in one.
mythunderstood is biased against our Agnostic faith. When you understand true Agnosticism, you understand that there is NO KNOWLEDGE only belief. So then Agnosticism IS a faith also... unless you are simply stating it as a fact of your current mind state, and not a universal principle for sentient beings.
Its true that this world is "define or be defined"
sheesh, Mythunderstood, how can you even pretend to understand our story?
This is what I don't like about some gossipy people. They think they can define Agnosticism and other believe systems and philosophies better than the followers of those...
I am an Agnostic Agnostic, and if you fail to understand that, its unlucky for you... One should try to understand other things beside myths.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).
I don't see anything about faith in there, or it being a faith. I am an agnostic atheist, by the way.
I don't see anything about faith in there, or it being a faith. I am an agnostic atheist, by the way.
Exactly, so you are biased against us true believers.
Atheism is what APPEARS to be true within Empirical Philosophies and Physicalism
various Philosophy sites contain the deep sea version of the view a large fraction of us true Agnostics hold: that belief claims are ultimately invalid to the truth-value of situations.
We true agnostics try to draw a line to separate ourselves as non-atheist and non-theist. This is simply the truth of our current state of mind... we hold no reason to believe that gods exist somewhere nor reason to believe that they don't exist anywhere. We simply don't see valuable reason to proclaim any non-secular belief as most likely true... But on the less specific god-concerned side, my Agnosticism is concerned with the ultimate reality of every sense-able thing and idea. Agnostic Atheists are sometimes alright, but I am not one of them. Agnostic Theists and Deists are sometimes just as cool, but I am neither of them either. Some true Agnostics are so because of an "equal likelihood" idea (with such conceptual ideas as the 11 dimensions) similar to the 50/50 argument against atheism and god-beliefs.
You atheists trying to define us out of existence are simply trying desperately to remain atheist... comparable to forcing people to profess either that the dinosaurs died because of a comet strike or that they died because of an asteroid strike instead, when the real truth is simply that they seem to no longer be around, the rest are just stories to try to give current existence a good narrative. More than the 50/50 argument, some of us hold that God belief dualism (either exists or doesn't) could be invalid.
To many of us, Agnosticism is TRUTH while theism and atheism are mere story-lines, which can change if our exposure to the evidence changes.
Sorry to you and those of like-mind, but we don't have to proclaim atheism nor theism as beliefs if we hold neither.
Now, we could go onto a straw-man about how such people as ourselves (true Agnostics) don't proclaim Agnosticism about leprechauns and elves and such... well buddy, elves and leprechauns aren't spiritual creatures.
The next straw-man we could move in is FSMs and IPUs... But the reason that such rebuttal concepts work for atheists is that I am also Agnostic about all spiritual creatures which are beyond Empiricalism. To many Agnostics, somewhere out there could be a race of elves living in an invisible city. We don't see much reason to stand up against claims of having found it... we can either belief, or disbelief, or remain agnostic.
The following is a very extensive forum entry that might educate us all:
A crater has been located off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, which is considered to be an artifact of what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms (the Cretaceous Extinction, 64.8 million years ago). It is about 160 miles in diameter, thought to have been caused by an asteroid 5-7 miles in diameter (a comet isn't that massive). There is also a stratum rich in iridium, an element which is rare on Earth but more common in space, which dates to the same time.
I think of 'agnostic' as an adjective, as in agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. Either one believes in a god or he doesn't, and either one believes that knowledge on the matter is available (gnostic) or blieves it is not (agnostic). So, no, I'm not trying to eliminate the term, but I am in favor of its being considered a different part of language.
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.
