|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Atheism vs Agnosticism
#5266178 - 02/05/06 01:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Prior to such an assessment of these two partisans of philosophical stances, it is important to note that when discussing either of these two terms, it is not limited to the sense that applies to the question of god - it is in regards to all claims.
In presence of any such claims, it is emblematic of the Agnostic viewpoint to strike up such a response as, "Well, gee, I guess I can't prove these claims are wrong - nor can you as well - so I must conclude that: I don't know, nor does anyone else know, and none of us can know one way or another."
The Agnostic comes off as fair, impartial, balanced, and safe from scrutiny. Is there not many fallacies in this? As if arbitrary claims were proper to consider, discuss and evaluate, he allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition - and then he regretfully states, "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Moreover, the onus-of-proof issue: Not only does the agnostic demand proof of a negative [fallacy alert], he demands it in a context whereby there is no evidence for the positive in the first place.
He concludes, "It's up to you, to prove that bunnies have not flown out your ass, and that it is not a result of your previous incarnation where you have donned the Easter-Bunny suit and died from the toxic fumes of the polyurethane that held the suit together." As a corollary, he says, "Perhaps these things will be proved, some day." Translation: He asserts possibilities or hypotheses without a single iota of evidential basis.
The Agnostic miscalculates - he thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In actuality, he takes up a position that is more irrational than one who takes a definite, yet mistaken stance on a given issue. Why? Because the Agnostic actually treats the arbitrary as if it merited cognitive consideration; as if it warranted epistemological respect; as if the arbitrary were on par with the rationally and evidentially supported. The Agnostic mistakenly equates the groundless with the proved, and as such, he is an enemy and disintegrater of epistemology - he blindly throws away the philosophical work of our fellow human beings who have worked and studied their entire lives to raise us from the very depths of such primitive thinking.
Now let's address a common issue relevant to such stances: god; existence of.
I, for one, would like to know how it is reasonable for some to neither admit, nor deny the existence of god. There is no in between. Agnosticism is the most unreasonable of all beliefs - religious or otherwise. There is absolutely no god, period.
I can generate just about any random claim and back it up with, "We just don't have enough evidence one way or another, so we have to leave it open to the realm of possibility." What does such a statement do to anything that we do know, and can prove? It undercuts its validity by allowing any random assertion to have possible metaphysical significance - regardless of the amount of evidence involved. Reminder: it is always the responsibility of the individual making an assertion to prove the existence for such an assertion, not the one who questions such claims.
We are completely and logically justified, in not believing in something until it is proven to exist. We are, in fact, being objective by not believing in something until we have evidence that it exists.
And nor does any such evidence require that I actually "see" the thing which I am told exists. A person can prove that something exists by giving evidence for its existence. I have never seen $100,000 in hard, cold cash, all at once. Yet I have logical reason to expect its existence and those reasons go [this is important] beyond the fact that I may know someone who has seen that amount of money. Logically it makes sense for that amount of money to exist, for there are things which cost that amount of money, that others own. There are banks which conduct total transactions that exceed such amounts, on a daily basis, and so on and so forth.
Existence is all there is, this is the sum of reality. Nothing can exist outside of existence even to create it. Anything you might name as a cause for the existence of the universe would have to be something that exists, thus part of the universe, so would not answer the question.
Let's try another approach - what is this "god" which you are trying to decide whether to believe in, not believe in, or withhold judgment about? What's the meaning of the term "god"? What does it refer to? The very "magic" of religion is that it never directly answer this question. Think about that. We are told that "god" created the universe, that "god" is all powerful, that "god" is omniscient. These are all characteristics ascribed to . . . to what? The term itself is nonsensical.
Further some of the attributes used to describe "Him" are self-contradictory. Omnipotent? Who hasn't heard the famous question: Can god create a rock to heavy for him to lift? It illustrates that the concept of Omnipotence violates the law of identity. Such a thing cannot exist.
Omniscient? Knowledge is a quality of mortal humans - we seek knowledge in order to preserve and enhance our lives. What would knowledge mean in the context of an immortal?
Further, "god" is considered to have all kinds of wants for his little human creations. But how is "want" possible to an immortal being?
Then there is the question of creation. If "god" created existence, where was he standing? In order to "create" something, the creator must already exist. Existence itself cannot be created. But to exist is to have identity - a specific, finite, nature which determines what actions are possible to an entity. That doesn't sound like "god" to me . . .
In sum, the concept of "god" is undefined and the descriptions of "Him" are riddled with contradictions.
So what is it exactly that the Agnostic considers a possibility and why? The Agnostic is in the position of saying: "Perhaps logic and reason are wrong." How open minded! But it isn't rational . . .
The claim that a god exists is self-contradictory. To claim that god exists, you must both assume the truth of the primacy of existence and deny it at the same time. When you say "x exists" (where 'x' is some entity, attribute or relationship), you are assuming that it exists independently of consciousness, which means: You imply the primacy of existence principle. But when you say what exists is a form of consciousness which creates existence, then you assume explicitly the primacy of consciousness principle, which contradicts the principle of the primacy of existence. In this way, the claim that god exists must be rejected as a falsehood. Either way, existence exists, and your god is out of a job.
Still insist that [your] god exists - or that your Agnosticism is reasonable? So where did god come from [who created god?etc...]? ... and the argument goes into infinity.
In philosophy this is called the prime mover argument... Many Agnostics should look up on it a little bit because its already been talked about [for hundreds of years even...].
One main problem [besides the "where did god come from?" question] is the assumption that the prime mover had to be intelligent. You are taking something that is not 100% understood yet, and turning it into an argument for a god - this is very popular for religious people to do - but ignorance is no argument.
When you consider how young most of the sciences are today - don't you think it is a little weird to say because we don't know so-and-so that this is an argument for a god?
This is akin to a bunch of cave men sitting around a fire, and because they only know two things - Jack and Shit - about about the fire or what really causes it - it must be the fire god!
There is also another argument, which predicates that god is the omniscient, omnipotent cosmic energy that is the ultimate power of our existence. What would this mean for us?
Try to imagine, if you will, "an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values (that which one acts to gain and/or keep); it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals." [Ayn Rand, 'The Virtue of Selfishness' 1964]
By claiming god as this ultimate power of our existence, then one is equating god to this Indestructible Robot. However, this doesn't answer the question, "What does this mean for us?" It means for us that we have no affect or effect on god. There is nothing we can do to please god or displease god. Therefore, working for/against or acting for/against god is an act of irrationality. To act rationally, all one must do is act as if god did not exist, a.k.a, be objective.
I rest my case.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/05/06 03:59 PM)
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
the contradictions are in your understanding.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Deviate]
#5266354 - 02/05/06 01:44 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You are free to explain how any contradictions revealed in my understanding, which stems from concordance with nature [as opposed to an attempt to re-write reality to conform to my own arbitrary desires and wishes], are not contradictory in existence - according to your own understanding.
In short: please elaborate.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Further, "god" is considered to have all kinds of wants for his little human creations. But how is "want" possible to an immortal being?
I agree, the personification of God is rather irrational, and it was probably done in an early effort of control.
Then there is the question of creation. If "god" created existence, where was he standing? In order to "create" something, the creator must already exist. Existence itself cannot be created.
How would a singularity fit into your metaphysical worldview?
I believe Something can come about from Nothing. You are living, breathing proof of this. What was there before the Big Bang? Nothing. Now we are Something. Or, are we?
From another POV, what if we're one universe in a multiverse, and the Big Bang was a result of a collision of two membrances? This is a very serious possibility, but we don't have the technology to currently prove it. That doesn't render the possibility moot, it merely means that one cannot KNOW.
But to exist is to have identity - a specific, finite, nature which determines what actions are possible to an entity. That doesn't sound like "god" to me . . .
What about time? Do you think it exists? Is it finite or infinite, and do you have any proof?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
the whole god thing is simply a matter of being consciouss of the self as god. when you see yourself as seperate from god, there is no explanation that will suffice, no philosophy can be brought forth that will appear completely free of contradictions. there is no way to have an intellectually complete understanding. however when you are conciouss of the self as god, none of these questions even arise.
Edited by Deviate (02/05/06 01:58 PM)
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Deviate]
#5266486 - 02/05/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
dblaney writes:
How would a singularity fit into your metaphysical worldview?
I'm not sure - I don't know what you mean by singularity.
I believe Something can come about from Nothing.
Nothing doesn't exist [aside from a relational concept]. How can something which does not exist, give birth to something, if it doesn't exist in the first place?
What was there before the Big Bang? Nothing. Now we are Something. Or, are we?
Nothing - that we know of? Correct. Something caused the Big Bang - and if something caused it, then something exists.
What about time? Do you think it exists? Is it finite or infinite, and do you have any proof?
Time is a concept of measurement developed by humans.. The duration of existence to which such chronometry refers to, is contingent upon existence itself. It is as finite as existence - it does not exist anywhere outside of existence, for such is an natural impossibility, is it not?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Theism and atheism are both based on belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism are based on knowledge.
--------------------
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Time is a concept of measurement developed by humans.. The duration of existence to which such chronometry refers to, is contingent upon existence itself. It is as finite as existence - it does not exist anywhere outside of existence, for such is an natural impossibility, is it not?
Something caused the Big Bang - and if something caused it, then something exists.
Okay, then existence is infinite/eternal. Before the Bang there was Something. And if Something exists now, then as you say, Something could not come about as a result of Nothing. Therefore, there was never nothing, and there was always Something. Thus Something is eternal/infinite.
Something cannot exist without something to contrast it with. For instance, we would not be able to perceive starlight without the darkness around it. We would not be able to observe a tree if there wasn't space around it. Light depends on dark, form depends on space/emptiness, Something depends on Nothing. This is the ultimate duality of Reality.
My conception of God is not a sentient being or force, rather the very fabric of the Something, and non-fabric of the Nothing.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
the whole god thing is simply a matter of being consciouss of the self as god. when you see yourself as seperate from god, there is no explanation that will suffice, no philosophy can be brought forth that will appear completely free of contradictions. there is no way to have an intellectually complete understanding. however when you are conciouss of the self as god, none of these questions even arise.
In other words: When you recognize an arbitrary concept that has no rational or evidential basis, there is no explanation that will suffice nor any philosophy that can be brought forth, which presents such a concept in a way that is free from contradictions. There is no way to have a compete, intellectual and rational understanding of such.
When you are conscious of the self as god - none of these questions arise.
So I can replace the word "god" in your statement with "self", and the premise would be essentially be unchanged.
This is because there is no difference in me saying "When I am conscious of the self as X, [where X is defined by the lack of definitions - or incoherently defined as "anything and everything"], I am conscious of myself" and simply taking a shortcut and saying "I am conscious of my self" - without introducing any such arbitrary concept. It is merely a form of redundancy with a slight ego-boosting twist at the end, based on a subjective term to which too many people already have differing opinions and definitions of.
Try looking up 'god' in the dictionary. You'll notice it's not even a proper definition because it's completely subjective. The definition of god is defined by non-essentials.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
"God" is the archetype of the true self - the great Mystery. That is why gnosis is about self-knowledge, because by knowing yourself, you come to know God.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
#5266613 - 02/05/06 03:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Theism and atheism are both based on belief.
So if someone comes up to me and says "Pink elephants fly out my ass", and I ask: "Really? As in, real, live gargantuan sized ones, with trunks, floppy ears and all?" And the other says, "Yes!" And thus, I conclude - "Well, I have no reason to believe in it until proven otherwise." How is this not based on knowledge? The facts: 1.) I have never seen pink elephants - aside from cartoons. 2.) I have never heard of, nor known of pink elephants existing, not from any one else, or from any other myriad of sources in today's world. 3.) I have never seen elephants fly out any human being's ass. 4.) I have never heard of, nor known of elephants to fly out of a human being's ass, not from any one else, or from any other myriad of sources in today's world. 5.) I am not aware of how an elephant can manage to fit in one's body, let alone fly out of it without destroying one's body.
These are all facts, read: knowledge. On the basis of such knowledge, I am completely and logically justified in not believing in such an oddity until it is proven to exist.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
#5266651 - 02/05/06 03:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"God" is the archetype of the true self - the great Mystery. That is why gnosis is about self-knowledge, because by knowing yourself, you come to know God.
So then [according to you] "God" is really just YOU - with a heightened intrapersonal insight. This is one particular definition of God that is unassailable, and one that I cannot - nor have any desire to - persecute. It does not violate any laws of nature, it does not contain any contradictions. It is safe, valid and free from rational scrutiny.
As such, it is unfortunate that most folks "out there" do not share such reasonable definitions.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
|
Oh, man; such a good post. I really have nothing to add.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: Theism and atheism are both based on belief.
So if someone comes up to me and says "Pink elephants fly out my ass", and I ask: "Really? As in, real, live gargantuan sized ones, with trunks, floppy ears and all?" And the other says, "Yes!" And thus, I conclude - "Well, I have no reason to believe in it until proven otherwise." How is this not based on knowledge? The facts: 1.) I have never seen pink elephants - aside from cartoons. 2.) I have never heard of, nor known of pink elephants existing, not from any one else, or from any other myriad of sources in today's world. 3.) I have never seen elephants fly out any human being's ass. 4.) I have never heard of, nor known of elephants to fly out of a human being's ass, not from any one else, or from any other myriad of sources in today's world. 5.) I am not aware of how an elephant can manage to fit in one's body, let alone fly out of it without destroying one's body.
These are all facts, read: knowledge. On the basis of such knowledge, I am completely and logically justified in not believing in such an oddity until it is proven to exist.
Pink elephants, or any other material object, are hardly relevant to the discussion of something which transcends matter.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
#5266781 - 02/05/06 04:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, gee, that was a nice dodge at the point of the analogy. But if it makes you feel any better, feel free to replace "pink elephants" with "incorporeal pink elephants". The bottom line remains: The rational atheist bases his conclusions not on beliefs [which you suggested] but, by knowledge, read: facts.
Is knowledge a transcendent of matter?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
So then [according to you] "God" is really just YOU - with a heightened intrapersonal insight. This is one particular definition of God that is unassailable, and one that I cannot - nor have any desire to - persecute. It does not violate any laws of nature, it does not contain any contradictions. It is safe, valid and free from rational scrutiny.
As such, it is unfortunate that most folks "out there" do not share such reasonable definitions.
its not free from scrutiny, many people deny the existence of said heightened intrapersonal insight. as far as i'm concerned there is no way to intellectually prove whether or not such an insight exists, the only way to know for sure is to have the insight. that is why i said there is no philosophy that be brought forth that is free from contradictions. simply talking about heightened intrapersonal insights may be free from contradications. however, if you were to attempt to describe the insight to someone who hadn't had it, they could never arrive at a full understanding because to fully understand it requies that one has the insight. therefore, if they so desired, they could always find some type of contradiction in your description or some reason to reject it.
Edited by Deviate (02/05/06 05:01 PM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Time is a concept of measurement developed by humans..
That line caught my attention. Time is a measurement tool system developed by humans. Measuring tools are very useful when we make things up, like batches of cookie dough (measure in volume), tuxedos for formals (measure in L,W,H), your property, my property, etc (measure ownership values), who's crazy who's sane (measurement of thinking) etc.
Outside of human made measurement systems, there is what just is-nature, what you call the true objective reality. Nature itself doesn't have such measuring systems, it just is.
So when you go to measure correct thinking from incorrect thinking, how can you be coming from a place of true objective reality if you are using man made measures? You can only be making things up in subjective or tangible realities when you are using man made measurements or value systems.
It's all made up when we come down to the true reality of nature, which is what just is. That nature of what just is, is what some people call God, or the supreme being etc.
Cookies are only real because we make them up to be real things by using measurements and manipulating ingredients. They are not of true reality from nature as they do not grow on trees. They come from human nature.
Tuxedos are only real because we make them up to be using measurements, and manipulations of materials. They are not of the true objective reality from nature as they do not fall down from the clouds. They come from human nature.
Property ownership is only real because we make it up using measurements and manipulating tiles laws and rules to enforce them. Ownership is not of true objective reality as deeds enforced by natural law do not come with our birthday suits. They come from human nature.
Same goes with calling people irrational, delusion, illogical ect. Those are measurements of the mind made up by humans using classifications and labels to manipulate them. They are not a part of true objective reality from natures POV.
You can put up dozens of posts year after year on ration, logic, correct thinking and your personal belief of the nonexistence of a supreme beingness based on those man made measures, claiming its objective fiction, all you want to.
Those labels are just measurements made up by humans, to be used as tools for crafting things to be made real by the subject in the tangible. They don't help us determine what is really true of the objective nature of reality.
Sure, one can argue that we are a part of nature and it is our nature to make things up figuratively and literally, so those things must come from true natural reality as well, and there for must be objectively true.
If thats the case, logic, ration, and correct thinking which you hold to be measure of truth are just as much of a measure for truth as would be illogical, irrational and incorrect thinking, that also came from nature.
Man made measures come from the human ego mind. The spirit mind just sees what is, no better no worse, no more right or wrong then anything else because it does not use value measurement systems like the human ego mind does. That non judgmental mind of nature is what some people call God and what some people believe they experience when in spirit and out of their ego mind.
Its a no wonder people say that those who believe they have experienced God, the Supreme Being are crazy out of their minds. Indeed they were out of their ego minds and in spirit when it happens. Call them crazy, insane, wrong, illogical, irrational, delusional whatever. Those are just subjectively crafted and made up labels from personally crafted and made up measuring systems called logic and ration. 
Based on what I have just shared, any god that uses measures to judge us better or worse, right or wrong, is a human made up being. That doesn't mean a supreme being others refer to and claim witness to experiencing its objective existence are not having transcendental experiences where they were aligned with it when in spirit.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
The point is that pink elephants coming out your ass violates the laws of physics, which gives good reason not to believe it. Now, I admit some conceptions of God also go against the physical laws of the universe as we know them. However, there are some conceptions, what I would consider to be more mature conceptions of God, which are not in conflict wiht the scientific worldview, and might even be thought of as complementary.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Deviate]
#5266859 - 02/05/06 05:08 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
its not free from scrutiny, many people deny the existence of said heightened intrapersonal insight. as far as i'm concerned there is no way to intellectually prove whether or not such an insight exists, the only way to know for sure is to have the insight.
I said: rational scrutiny. Many people irrationally deny the existence of an objective reality, for example - and some may irrationally insist on the existence of something which is arbitrary. So what? Do not burden yourself too much with such folks - question them for a little, if you must, to gauge their intelligence on the given matter. If you find your efforts are futile or wasted, life goes on, and so must you.
You say there is no intellectual way to prove whether such an insight exists? If this were true, there wouldn't be Gnosticism. Do not fall under the incoherent fallacy that you must be able to prove something to EVERYBODY in order to prove it to SOMEONE.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Cherk
Fashionable


Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Enjoyed the post. Maybe one day I'll be able to read your posts without a dictionary next to me
--------------------
I have considered such matters. SIKE
|
|