What do believers mean when they say, "God gave us a choice to believe or not?" (Isaiah, Biblical)
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.
You know it is not a question of atheist, agnostic or theist. (A)theism is a belief position. (A)gnosticism is a knowledge position. So they are not even part of a continuum of choices. There is overlap.
Like Nozz, I happen to not believe in any deities which makes me an atheist, but it is a consequence of what I am, more than an actual identity. I cannot believe the unsubstantiated, particularly when experienced reality does not agree with the claims of the religion. And one of the consequences, given that no personal interventionist deity is substantiated, is that I do not believe.
In addition I don't make a knowledge claim that there are nor aren't any deities so I fit both Huxley's definition of agnostic with respect to deities (isn't knowable, at least at this time) and the more common modern definition (I simply don't know at this time). Unlike Nozz I think Huxley's definition is fine, because most god beliefs are so constructed that there is no way to examine them. How to you determine if an invisible being that is outside of nature, exists? It's inherently unfalsifiable. Unless the god-claims change I see it as inherently impossible to (dis)prove. Scientific advances won't really help here.
You would be a gnostic theist because you make a claim that you KNOW there is a god, not just that you believe. That is nearly inherent if you're claiming a "personal relationship" to the deity. Most conservative Christians and Muslims are gnostic theists. Most atheists, if they have thought through their position at all, are agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists who will defend an actual knowledge claim are exceedingly rare.
You know it is not a question of atheist, agnostic or theist. (A)theism is a belief position. (A)gnosticism is a knowledge position. So they are not even part of a continuum of choices. There is overlap.
Like Nozz, I happen to not believe in any deities which makes me an atheist, but it is a consequence of what I am, more than an actual identity. I cannot believe the unsubstantiated, particularly when experienced reality does not agree with the claims of the religion. And one of the consequences, given that no personal interventionist deity is substantiated, is that I do not believe.
In addition I don't make a knowledge claim that there are nor aren't any deities so I fit both Huxley's definition of agnostic with respect to deities (isn't knowable, at least at this time) and the more common modern definition (I simply don't know at this time). Unlike Nozz I think Huxley's definition is fine, because most god beliefs are so constructed that there is no way to examine them. How to you determine if an invisible being that is outside of nature, exists? It's inherently unfalsifiable. Unless the god-claims change I see it as inherently impossible to (dis)prove. Scientific advances won't really help here.
You would be a gnostic theist because you make a claim that you KNOW there is a god, not just that you believe. That is nearly inherent if you're claiming a "personal relationship" to the deity. Most conservative Christians and Muslims are gnostic theists. Most atheists, if they have thought through their position at all, are agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists who will defend an actual knowledge claim are exceedingly rare.
All of this tap dancing is designed to mask a belief that our reality is a dead, unconscious materialism that somehow miraculously "emerged" life and consciousness. Whereas, theists accept that our reality is alive and conscious - hence God. All the folderol is over the BELIEFS ABOUT God.
You really do seem almost fetidly DESPERATE to discuss terms, to dodge discussing anything I actually said. This is alas a very common feature in human discourse, especially in religion and politics..... where people move to discuss, or even attack, terms in lieu of responding to anything someone actually said. In politics for example I VERY often make a direct point on a subject only to have my interlocutor dodge and retreat behind a comment similar to "Oh that thinking is very liberal.... and the trouble with liberals is........" before going off on some random attack on liberalism that literally has NOTHING to do with the point I made.
So your linguistic canard in this regard (wow you could almost rap that) is not going unnoticed.... lest you think it is.
That said however the above is also a word I do not identify myself with. But I define the word the way the person who CREATED it (Huxley) meant it. Which is that agnosticism is the belief that something is "unkowable". Not unknown. UnknowABLE.
And I am not arrogant enough to take that stance because I only comment on the data we have NOW. I do not pretend to know what data and knowledge we might have in the future. But to declare something unknowable is to do just that. It is to go beyond saying "I do not know that now" to saying "I, nor anyone else, will EVER know that. It can not be known. By anyone. Ever.".
I can not see the future. Nor can you I warrant. So I do not recommend either of us take on a stance that requires, or pretends, that we do. And so no, I will not be identifying myself with a label that to me does that very thing.
Man, what's wrong with you?
I am asking you a simple question. And I want a simple answer to proceed further in an attempt to understand each other's ideas.
If I am asked, "Do you believe in God?" (A simple straight question)
I will answer, "Yes, I do". (A simple straight answer)
Did I make a claim? No!
I simply answered a question.
So we move forward with the discussion.
On the contrary, if I ask you "Do you believe in God?" (A simple straight question).
You start acting like a confused professor.
Man, what's wrong with you? I am asking you a simple question. And I want a simple answer to proceed further in an attempt to understand each other's ideas.
IF you go into a conversation wanting to hear only the answers YOU want to hear, then it is not ME that there is something wrong with or that I am the "confused" one. It is you.
If you ask me a question, then I will answer it in the way I think is correct. Not in the way YOU want to hear the answer.
You claim to want to "further understand" my ideas and positions? Well you are not going to achieve that by scanning my posts waiting to hear the trigger words or phrases YOU want to hear. The only way to understand the position of another is not to dictate what answers they MUST give.... but read and process the answers they DID give. Try it sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Which one is it?
As I said you do not get to ask me a question and then dictate which answers I can give. You asked the question, I gave you MY answer. Not your answer(s). Mine.
If you do not like my answer I can not help you with that.
If you do not UNDERSTAND my answer I am happy to take further questions or elaborate on any specific point you are not getting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Don't be scared. I am not going to snap on you.
You are the LAST person on this forum or planet that can illicit any fear or concern in me, I can assure you.
Man, what's wrong with you?
I am asking you a simple question. And I want a simple answer to proceed further in an attempt to understand each other's ideas.
If I am asked, "Do you believe in God?" (A simple straight question)
I will answer, "Yes, I do". (A simple straight answer)
Did I make a claim? No!
I simply answered a question.
So we move forward with the discussion.
On the contrary, if I ask you "Do you believe in God?" (A simple straight question).
You start acting like a confused professor.
Two simple straight answers should be,
1- "No, I don't"
2 - "I don't know"
Which one is it?
Don't be scared. I am not going to snap on you.
not really. Nozz did the same thing to me a while back ... yes/no or black and white. He wanted 'no-omni god' and is anti religion so he only wanted anti-religion answers. That doesn't work in most cases for people.
What if, we think "something" is there but we also think that you guys have many of its traits wrong?
Like looking at words on a page with no readers on? if you are younger, that would be a page that is very blurry and you can see that there is words and even make out some words, though you can't see the letters.
Most of us think you guys have many of the words wrong. But the words are there.
Except you just made all that up and my position is the exact opposite of just "black and white" but is actually open to every possibility while simply acknowledging WHICH of those possibilities is currently unsubstantiated. Nothing about that EVER established the filter you entirely invented where I will only seek, want or accept "anti religion answers". You just pulled that out of nowhere.
Of course there is "something" there. We exist and there is SOME explanation for that. We simply do not know what it is. What we DO know is that the idea that this explanation lies in a non-human intelligent and intentional agency of some kind........ is a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis at this time.
What part of that you actually disagree with is entirely unclear to me as you keep typing in the tone of disagreement, without actually doing so in any substantive way.
Except you just made all that up and my position is the exact opposite of just "black and white" but is actually open to every possibility while simply acknowledging WHICH of those possibilities is currently unsubstantiated. Nothing about that EVER established the filter you entirely invented where I will only seek, want or accept "anti religion answers". You just pulled that out of nowhere.
Of course there is "something" there. We exist and there is SOME explanation for that. We simply do not know what it is. What we DO know is that the idea that this explanation lies in a non-human intelligent and intentional agency of some kind........ is a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis at this time.
What part of that you actually disagree with is entirely unclear to me as you keep typing in the tone of disagreement, without actually doing so in any substantive way.
So you are saying "something" is out there but we don't know what it is?
But yes what I am saying is that there likely is SOME explanation for why this universe, and we, exist. We simply do not know what that explanation is.
What I do know is I have not been shown, least of all by YOU, a shred of argument to suggest that explanation is an intelligent intentional agency.
All of this tap dancing is designed to mask a belief that our reality is a dead, unconscious materialism that somehow miraculously "emerged" life and consciousness. Whereas, theists accept that our reality is alive and conscious - hence God. All the folderol is over the BELIEFS ABOUT God.
It is a nuanced position, one that is apparently uncomfortable for you. But it is my position and I'll thank you not to accuse me of being disingenuous.
I have openly stated many many times that I am a materialist and do not believe consciousness is a property of reality itself. I don't have to mask it. And if I wanted to mask it, I fail to see how an entirely unrelated discussion of the differences and relations between belief claims and knowledge claims would be a way to do it.
But yes what I am saying is that there likely is SOME explanation for why this universe, and we, exist. We simply do not know what that explanation is.
How hard was it to say this earlier?
See how easy it gets to take it off your chest when you take a deep breath and relax yourself, and let it to go to finally (and bravely) stand with what you really think?
Quote:
What I do know is I have not been shown, least of all by YOU, a shred of argument to suggest that explanation is an intelligent intentional agency.
This is EXACTLY where we disagree (and we can talk about it to better understand each other's thought process)
No sir, this is not how it works, in my opinion.
The horse goes to the water.
What you are asking is that water is brought to you when you know that you are not thirsty.
If someone thinks that "there is something out there" then it's totally up to him to start his own quest in an attempt to know more. And that's only if YOU want to find out more.
Otherwise, no one will be able to convince you. Its like shoving the water down the throat of the horse that is not thirsty.
Matter of fact, you and I have this is as our common ground.
We both started with thinking that "there is something out there". I was thirsty to find more about it so I went on and started my journey to know more about it.
You may not be thirsty, yet you want someone to bring the water to you. It won't happen.
Am I asking you to start this journey and try to find more about that "something" that is out there? Absolutely not!
You surely have a choice to ignore "whatever is out there" and live your life the way you want. This is perhaps a form of free will.
And in the end we will be responsible for our choices made with free will.
Last edited by GoCardinals; 12-02-2016 at 07:26 PM..
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.
