Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266265 - 02/05/06 01:26 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

the contradictions are in your understanding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266402 - 02/05/06 01:55 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266410 - 02/05/06 01:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266507 - 02/05/06 02:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Theism and atheism are both based on belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism are based on knowledge.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266521 - 02/05/06 02:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266552 - 02/05/06 02:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266579 - 02/05/06 03:03 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.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266676 - 02/05/06 03:47 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Oh, man; such a good post. I really have nothing to add.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266726 - 02/05/06 04:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266835 - 02/05/06 04:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)


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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266836 - 02/05/06 04:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.  :sun:

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.:sun:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266839 - 02/05/06 04:58 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCherk
Fashionable
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266864 - 02/05/06 05:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Enjoyed the post. :thumbup:  Maybe one day I'll be able to read your posts without a dictionary next to me  :tongue2:


--------------------
I have considered such matters.

SIKE


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266865 - 02/05/06 05:12 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
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.






i never really looked at it that way before.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5266876 - 02/05/06 05:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.

Essentially, you are asking how one can be objective in their thinking; attain objectivity. Put simply, it boils down to following and reasoning with facts. But for you to fully grasp how this all takes place, I'd recommend you learn about concept-formation, how it works, and how it can lead to truth or error, and then you would have the foundation to fully understand how humans can, by using logic and reason, reach conceptual truth that adheres to reality. The principle which logic provides to guide man's mental steps is the fundamental law of reality.
PM me for an excellent book, on this precise matter.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5266968 - 02/05/06 06:12 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Is it by Rand?


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: dblaney]
    #5266994 - 02/05/06 06:20 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Well, no, it's actually by Dr. Peikoff. But of course, if it weren't for Ayn Rand.. :heart:





--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5267158 - 02/05/06 07:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Yep, where would Leonard be without Ayn?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5267192 - 02/05/06 07:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

:cool: :thumbup:

"I distinguish between information, all that humans can check by experience, as distinct from noise, those "things" [or non-things, or nothings] that they can only make noises or chatter about.

Examples: {A} I can say "If you open that box on the table, you will find three chocolates inside." Going to the box and opening it, in the sensory-sensual continuum, will quickly confirm or refute my statement, because you will inevitably find [1] less than three chocolates, or perhaps none at all, [2] exactly three chocolates, or [3] more than three chocolates. Results [1] and [3] refute my statement; [2] confirms it.

But {B} I might also say "Opening God for similar investigation, you will find three persons inside," as in fact Romish Magick does say. No investigation of the sensory-sensual manifold can ever confirm or refute this. Scientific philosophers generally describe such statements [about things beyond conformation or refutation] as "meaningless". Following Korzybski, I call them noise, and I venture that we cannot fathom our situation in space-time if we habitually confuse ourselves by mixing type {A} statments, informaiton, with type {B} statements, noise. We may never achieve Total Clarity [short of infinity] but we should at least have the ability to distinguish between what humans can experience and what they can only blather about." -- Robert Anton Wilson


Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/05/06 07:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Redstorm]
    #5267202 - 02/05/06 08:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Lost. Utterly..lost, amongst much of us.  :shake:



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5267219 - 02/05/06 08:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

we should at least have the ability to distinguish between what humans can experience and what they can only blather about." -- Robert Anton Wilson

:thumbup:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5267326 - 02/05/06 08:31 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I understand concept formation.

Humans form concepts that adhere to the natural fabric of reality daily, we have to. I formed a business with a business concept that adhered , a home life with a concept of a home life that adhered yada yada we all do it, no rocket science involved.  I certainly was not invalidating the use of measuring tools. We could not craft the reality structures we all live within without them.

This is precisely what I was saying and I was applying it to the use of measuring systems like logic and ration that create adhesions to natural reality. Just because they can be made to adhere to the natural fabric of reality, doesn't mean, what they create is the objective natural fabric of reality.

Maybe up the road I will find different words, maybe someone else who understands what I am saying can put it a different way. Maybe it just takes the collapse of a reality structure one has made with them before one can see, there is more to natural non made reality beyond man made reality.

Like I said, you are a hu-man so the only way to collapse your reality structure would be to see things from beyond the human ego mind and from spirit, the observer, the silent witness.

People have had transcendental experiences and have seen a reality from the spirit mind. Those that only know a reality constructed from man made measures says what those others have seen can not be so because it doesn't fit within their man made structure. Then, those people get labeled delusional, irrational, and illogical to name a few. Of course they are if they are seeing a reality out side of the illusional structure ration and logic built.

If the original post is talking about a god that measures and judges humans, then that is a man made god in my book.

I am referring to those that make claim to being aware of a supreme being that exists, that is known as the nature of what just is BEFORE hu-man turns it into something else with measuring tools and systems. 

For example, there is what just is limestone, pebbles, sand , water until I manipulate those materials and craft what I decided to label a drive way. Now the driveway became a part of the what just is, however, it is a hu-man made part of what is, where the pebbles, sand, and water, were nature made. The man made part adheres to the natural fabric of reality quite well, yet a drive way is not a part of the true natural reality of existence.

One having a transcendental experience of the drive way would see, unmanipulated limestone, pebbles, sand and water and would be called crazy if they didn't see a concrete driveway like everyone else does.

Though man made structures adhere to the fabric of true objective reality, it doesn't mean they are true structures of nature itself by which to determine objective true reality with.

How can one determine the pure unadulterated truth through a measure meant to manipulate the nature?

perhaps the author of the article in the post understands this and so was referring to a belief in a judgmental man made God being.

I am speaking out in consideration of those who use the term God, as the supreme being of what is.

Thats why I put up a post in MRP a ways back called, "Whats do we do about the Schwartz?" Any reference to the supreme being of nature gets misunderstood to mean that hu-man made God in the Bible. Jesus said his God doesn't judge. I think he was referring to the supreme being of nature itself. Some man created a God made in its ego image and twisted his message.

Perhaps people wonder why some of us bother acknowledging this supreme beingness and thats what this post is about. Good question.
When I do, it humbles me and that feels good. When humble, I feel like, I am in some sort of real true natural place in existence that is NOT hu-man (ego) made. The ego is hu-man made but can be humbled by the supreme being. That makes it  quite a powerful force to be recognized-IMHO



:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5267513 - 02/05/06 09:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I completely agree.

Agnosticism seems unreliable to me. I doubt many people could live their life saying, "I don't know," without ever trying to decide between logic, science and reason or dying traditions, useless faith and unadultered bullshit. I always hope that they'll choose the former, but sadly, many don't seem to...


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5267578 - 02/05/06 09:17 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

This is precisely what I was saying and I was applying it to the use of measuring systems like logic and ration that create adhesions to natural reality.

Ration? Huh? From dictionary.com:
Quote:


1.) A fixed portion, especially an amount of food allotted to persons in military service or to civilians in times of scarcity.
2.) rations Food issued or available to members of a group.





From merriam-webster.com:
Quote:


1 a : a food allowance for one day b plural : FOOD, PROVISIONS
2 : a share especially as determined by supply





Surely, you must mean rationality, which has an entirely different definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rationality

Just because they can be made to adhere to the natural fabric of reality, doesn't mean, what they create is the objective natural fabric of reality.

This isn't what I was saying, nor implying. Our cognitive method -properly employed- of condensing data into concepts, conforms at each step to facts. Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to a cognitive need.
Much like with our percpetions of color, such qualities are a product of a metaphysical union between man's consciousness and reality external to our senses.

What you said in that statement may apply to one who subscribes to the Primacy of Consciousness school of thought, but that sure as hell ain't me. Anyone who read the original post in it's entirety would know this by now.

Like I said, you are a hu-man so the only way to collapse your reality structure would be to see things from beyond the human ego mind and from spirit, the observer, the silent witness.

I don't see how I would ever "escape" a human perspective on things, ultimately. To do so, would mean to escape man's distinctive form of consciousness. If you mean to say that we can see things outside of certain perspectives, then that's a different story, and I agree. I, for one, have had many paradigm shifts.

After trying to sort out what exactly you are trying to say in the rest of your post, I can strike up an assumption of what, exactly, you are trying to say. Basically you are saying that nature is seperate from man. Then you say that god is "the supreme being of what is". First of all, man is not seperate from nature - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Secondly, if you assert that god is the "supreme being of what is", then you must carry the corollary that man is god as well. And depending on what qualities you assign to your god, you would have to carry other corollaries as well - some of which I, thoroughly went over in the original post. -- I'm going to have to cut this a bit short, for I must leave immediately.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5267801 - 02/05/06 10:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Yes, I sure did mean mean rationality according to Websters. I'll watch my semantics better.  :wink: Substitute where I wrote ration with rationality. :smile:


Quote:

This isn't what I was saying, nor implying. Our cognitive method -properly employed- of condensing data into concepts, conforms at each step to facts. Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to a cognitive need.
Much like with our percpetions of color, such qualities are a product of a metaphysical union between man's consciousness and reality external to our senses.

What you said in that statement may apply to one who subscribes to the Primacy of Consciousness school of thought, but that sure as hell ain't me. Anyone who read the original post in it's entirety would know this by now.




Exactly, you are talking about forming concepts to fit facts. Hu-mans make up facts. Scientists studying natural laws don't work with facts as absolutes, the scientists here tell me. Smart of them not too. So concepts formed to fit something human made, have what to do with true objective natural reality?

Perhaps you meant to say "concepts that are formed that adhere to the laws of nature". If some people know God to be the supreme being of natural laws itself and have held witness to it and respect it and are humbled by it, then what is everyones problem with that supreme being of reverence?

Gravity humbles my ass after a clumsy fall and I sure respect it and am aware of it. :lol:



Quote:

I don't see how I would ever "escape" a human perspective on things, ultimately. To do so, would mean to escape man's distinctive form of consciousness. If you mean to say that we can see things outside of certain perspectives, then that's a different story, and I agree. I, for one, have had many paradigm shifts.




I remember the stuff you use to write and share here and have no doubt you have had them. Weather they allowed you to completely transcend ego separation for a while, I don't know what you have experienced in regards to that.


Quote:

Basically you are saying that nature is separate from man.




I was saying that the ego of the human has learned how to manipulate nature to such an extent, it lost site of what is and is not of pure nature. I agree that humans are not separate from nature. They are created from it. Just because they are doesn't mean they are not free and able to manipulate it either. Just because they can, doesn't means their manipulations of it are just as real and true. If they are then they ALL are or none of them are.

I was critiquing those who manipulate it with tools, forms and systems and then start selectively choosing whose manipulations are true and whose aren't. They all are made up if they were hu-man made.

Quote:

Then you must carry the corollary that man is god as well. And depending on what qualities you assign to your god, you would have to carry other corollaries as well - some of which I, thoroughly went over in the original post. -- I'm going to have to cut this a bit short, for I must leave immediately.




I don't have a God. I have been witness to the supreme being of natural law though and I respect it, am aware of it and am made humble by it quite often. Every time I try to challenge it and over take it, I get kicked in the ass. The best one can do is to work with it. Work against it and , you are in risky zones and it may slap you hard, eventually, it surely will. May take minutes or eons to catch up with you though.

Though I assign no qualities to it other then what I have witnessed and experienced of it, yes, many were in the original post and I think the post was mostly referring to that God some people have that measures and judges us. I only know of humans doing that to each other.

What about those of us who acknowledge the supreme being and power and governance of natural laws? What do we call it without being misunderstood and or labeled delusional, irrational, illogical, etc.?

On one hand, gravity is a force outside of me that effects me. Yet, I can be a force of gravity and draw things unto myself as well. So when you said that I am saying we are this supreme being, I can only clarify by saying, it is a part of us and we are a part of it.

Where separation come into play is when the ego mind, manipulates its own self natural truth, and that of the world beyond the self to beleive it is not an interconnected part of this force all comes from. 

Only the ego can believe it is separate from this natural supreme force of being and only the ego works to manipulate it to its advantage over it, and even against it.

When ego takes you there, be prepared for an ass whoopin if you can't muster the counter force to overcome natural law. People seem to be able to pull it off for a time at times. Humans can only do so much before man made structures crafted to manipulate IT and to work against it, collapse under its force if its going another way you are not.

This is what some have come to call Divine will. This is why some distinguish its will from human "ego" will. This is why some seek to align themselves with divine will. This is where free will comes into play. You can choose to work in harmony with it and be aligned with its will, or to work against in in accordance with the will of the ego. One only makes such choices when they believe they are separate from it.

I've been putting it to the test and challenge and have made many attempts to manipulate it take advantage of it and work against it and they all fail in due time.

Its like building a sand castle (human made structure) next to the waters edge during low tide. You think you have something really there so it must be true. Then high tide comes and ashes it away. You fight to keep it real and true so you build it up again and next time, you put walls up around it. High tide comes again and you saved it. Ahhhhh now you think you beat it. Then a cat 5 hurricane comes and smashes both the human made structures into oblivion.

I see ration and logic as tools to craft human made structures and realities with. And I see the supreme being of force smash them into oblivion, time and time again when it serves it's will to do so.

I am witness of it, I experience it, I respect it, and it humbles me, whatever IT is, I know that IT is, call it whatever you want or pretend IT's not there. :shrug:

Maybe all of that does fit in with the original post. I jumped in here when I saw the part where you said, "time is human made". It caught my attention and inspired my first reply here.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5267921 - 02/05/06 11:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Skorp cracks me up. Though he might be intercepting my brainwaves - psyjacking. hehe


Paradigm, I know where you think you were going with the atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism points... though the latter isn't very accurate as Gnosticism has a system of beliefs, whereas
Agnosticism is a purely epistemological position. In other words, Gnosticism and Agnosticism aren't polar opposites.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5267935 - 02/05/06 11:07 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I still haven't figured out the difference between divine and human.

Then again, I'm no dualist.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5267942 - 02/05/06 11:08 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
Skorp cracks me up. Though he might be intercepting my brainwaves - psyjacking. hehe


Paradigm, I know where you think you were going with the atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism points... though the latter isn't very accurate as Gnosticism has a system of beliefs, whereas
Agnosticism is a purely epistemological position. In other words, Gnosticism and Agnosticism aren't polar opposites.



Perhaps I should have used the term "gnosis" rather than Gnosticism.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5267980 - 02/05/06 11:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Quote:

Sclorch said:
Skorp cracks me up. Though he might be intercepting my brainwaves - psyjacking. hehe


Paradigm, I know where you think you were going with the atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism points... though the latter isn't very accurate as Gnosticism has a system of beliefs, whereas
Agnosticism is a purely epistemological position. In other words, Gnosticism and Agnosticism aren't polar opposites.



Perhaps I should have used the term "gnosis" rather than Gnosticism.



That's even more inaccurate. Gnosis is merely the Greek word for knowledge.

Agnosticism doesn't really have a polar opposite. It's sort of perpendicular to the atheism/theism argument.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5267993 - 02/05/06 11:21 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Agnosticism = I don't know if God exists

Gnosis = I know God


Close enough, IMO.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5268002 - 02/05/06 11:23 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

More like this:
Agnosticism
Gnosis


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5268412 - 02/06/06 02:52 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
I still haven't figured out the difference between divine and human.

Then again, I'm no dualist.




The closest I have come to figuring out the difference between the two has to do with experimenting with the false egos creations and being out of an ego mind and in the heart of the one.

That is the only difference I have experienced thus far between the human "ego" and the divine. If your just talking about the human being and the divine, I'd call humans divine beings. Its the false ego that works against its own divine nature of being.

Its when the ego mind plays the separation game and the enforcement of its will against the natural flow that oppositional forces are experienced.

When you take the path of least resistance, you are going with the flow of divine will/nature, and with the force. Thats why Buddhist talk about taking the path of least resistance or others talk about aligning with divine will. 

Say someone is struggling to make money. They are in some ego mind that says, they are not worth it or deserving of it and are working against the natural flow of abundance. When the ego mind aligns itself with the divine mind, struggle turns into ease of way.

Understanding the difference between the will of a separatists ego  important for understanding why some people fell out of a belief in such a thing. They prayed for this or that and didn't get it so God must not exist they reason. Divine laws were set up to fulfill the self through creation. Going against them only leads to lack, which leads to fear, which leads to hell. 


It doesn't interfere with our freedom to choose. It does have its own will which is played out through a never ending string series of cause and effect actions governed by natural laws. Thats why some call it the Law, not to be confused with any that are man made.

Its not easy to transcend the lower human nature and to move up into the higher nature of the divine mind. Even if you get there for glimpses and peeks, its not easy to stay there because of personal gravity (the weight of a self absorbed ego) that keeps pulling you back down.

Its only when you become of service to others that such a weight starts to lift and you start to align with it more easily and the big picture and divine plan starts to make sense.

Some people complain, "what the heck good is free will if you choose to go against divine will and end up bitch slapped by its natural laws? Is that really having a fair choice they ask? All the more they get pissed off with this supreme being that is suppose to be fair and just and quit believing in it.

Cause effect naturally justifies everything on its own. Thats what some people call karma. It doesn't mean if you kick someone, you will get kicked in return by someone else. It means, when you kick someone believing they are separate from you, you think you just got away with something. Up the road when you get out of the ego separatist mind, you will realize, you kicked a part of your own self and it will hurt you to feel that realization. Thats karma.

We are allowed to choose to go against the divine will and to deny it and we are forgiven of what choices we make. The natural laws of cause and effect take care of punishments when you choose poorly, thats all. If choices bring fulfilling rewards then you chose in accordance with its plan and you chose wisely.

Here is the beauty of it. We can choose to be the cause (causative force) itself and work within the laws of nature. How many people refuse to accept the responsibility of such awesome power?  They'd rather think they are separate and make poor choices, experience poor results and blame something else as the cause and cry victim.

Once you start accepting the responsibility of being first cause, you begin to feel its power and flow and what it can do through you when you work with it and against it. We have the freedom to choose our cause. That is AWESOME. It is because with the freedom to chose our cause, we are free to choose desired effects. Its all forgiven.

There's only One not two. The true One and the false One. If you choose to go against the true one, you are choosing to go against the self and sooner or latter you'll realize that was a mistake. You never have to fear going up against the False One, it has no power. It all smoke and mirrors that can be blown away and shattered quite easily unless you believe in the false images of the smoke and the reflection in those mirrors and they scare you. Its all you at that point, the True One believing in its own false ego.

The supreme divine being is no dummy. It knows its shit and chooses to buff itself out Royale. The lower human being is well, not to bright yet and tends to hurt itself a lot and put itself into some lousy places to be. Until it learns without fail through cause and effect recognition that it has been the cause of its effects all along, it makes poor choices and feels the victim of external forces separate from it, when all along, it was the victim of the false ego self.


Know yourself as cause, the causative force of natural law and as the true one that just is all that is. We've been doing it all along believing false things about the self and making poor choices from the false ego self. Just realize, it was your ego will doing things against the divine self when things go bad and make new choices again to turn things around.

Some people say, "why would I cause myself to get cancer or robbed etc?" They are victims of an external force working against them, they will insist. They are indeed the victims but of an internal force of self cause working against their own selves.

The same guy never realized he made a choice to dwell in resenting another for having more them him. He never bother to feel how toxic that emotion of resentment was in his system. He never bothered to connect it with the effect of toxic cancer cells growing in body, eating him alive just like his resentful thoughts are consuming him.

He is the same guy, keeping his son from taking ballet and forcing him to play football instead due to ego pride. He is robbing his son of realizing his fulfillment and in turn, gets robbed of realizing a fulfilled and happy son and life as a Father. He feels robbed and cheated by life and that his son and he are the victim of misery imposed upon him by some unseen force. He never makes the cause and effect connection to his damned ego pride. He worked against the what naturally is and he is paying for it.

He has the power to realize health and the power to realize a happy and fulfilled child and life as a parent. First, he has to realize himself as the power of the causative force of nature and work within its laws.

This is why denying the supreme beings existence or externalizing it is a poor choice. Its ironic how many people understand the physics of cause and effect and evolution in a scientific manor and never apply it to the subtle bodies and relationship of mind over matter when they find themselves in the shitz.

The difference between a human being and a divine being I think is just one of not realizing who and what you are in truth. The ego will tell you that you are superior and more deserving or inferior and less deserving then others and it will cause you to make poor choices working against the true self -which just is the One, the all that is.

When you realize yourself as the one and only of all, and love it without condition, accept it as is and will it well and good and act in accordance with that feeling and knowing, there is no reason to manipulate and nothing to go against. You are out of false ego and in the flow of what is true and real and its will is divine to realize................

I'm still working at figuring more of it out for myself. Its an interesting topic to me as I have been testing it out consciously for over a decade now through trial and error.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5268996 - 02/06/06 10:57 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. So much for subtlety.
There is no difference between human and divine.
"A difference that makes no difference is no different." - Jesus


What I don't understand is all the gobbledy gook.
Is it really necessary to adopt all that hoohah just tear down the wall built to protect one's insecurities?
I can answer that. No.
Eat some mushrooms, find a comfortable seat, ask yourself why you built those walls in the first place, and then just let them fall away.

Or you can do it the hard way:
The Hokey Pokey
You put your right foot in.
You put your right foot out.
You put your right foot in and you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself around.
That's what it's all about.
*clap clap*


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLeonardo_R
Stranger
Registered: 02/06/06
Posts: 4
Last seen: 17 years, 11 months
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5269041 - 02/06/06 11:12 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Athiesm is one who does not have the answer and an Agnostic is one who believes he has the answers. Believing is saying that he knows all. When in fact he is just like the Athiest where in front of people he does not know the answer.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Leonardo_R]
    #5269087 - 02/06/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Leonardo_R said:
Athiesm is one who does not have the answer and an Agnostic is one who believes he has the answers. Believing is saying that he knows all. When in fact he is just like the Athiest where in front of people he does not know the answer.



You've got that backwards.  :wink:


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5269161 - 02/06/06 11:47 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Thats what I was talking about sclorch.

In essence, its all divine.

It's when the human starts putting labels on things that the walls the separate go up.

Just like how we have woods, metals, natural fiber materials, synthetic fibers, stones, dirt clay, etc. They don't appear to be the same thing but, and we believe they are different and treat them differently and give them different values and uses. You can also strip away the apparent differences to makes and take them all back to a common element of star dust, or atoms, or quarks or materialized aether where its all the same material in essence.

The difference is perceptual and experiential and based on practical and functional values given.

Do you eat aluminum? Is there a difference to you in what you label edible or not?

Do you wash your hair with grape jelly? Is there a difference with what you consider shampoo or not?

Jelly and aluminum may be divine things in essence, but how you use them makes an experiential difference.

Like the difference between eating aluminum or a banana splits and the difference between washing your hair with mud or shampoo.

If you can teach people to believe there is no practical, functional difference in how we experience and perceive the value and uses for things of material matter, good luck with that.

Same with people. They may all be divine beings but we sure don't experience everyone in the same light. If we did, everyone would be exactly the same as you.

You already found a difference between how you see it and I see it.

I can't make a baby with another female, I need a male to do that. There is a practical difference, as divine as both men and women may be. 

If you don't see practical or experiential differences then I suspect you will be eating aluminum for lunch, washing your hair with grape jelly and trying to start a family with lobster and find it all to be divine, yes?

I say calling everything the same in the realm of physical matter sounds like garbly gook. Motor oil for tooth paste! :tongue:

Yes, Jesus was a bright man. He said a difference that makes no different is no different. makes sense to me and I agree with that. What about when something makes a difference in the world of matter? I find shampoo makes a clean difference when I use it to wash my hair and that my car runs better when there is gasoline in the tank and that my cat is healthier when I feed her and play with her.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5269314 - 02/06/06 12:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I'm not even going to comment on this thread :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5269327 - 02/06/06 12:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If it's all divine, then "divine" is a useless term.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: dr0mni]
    #5269331 - 02/06/06 12:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
I'm not even going to comment on this thread :rolleyes:



Too late.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5269692 - 02/06/06 02:36 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
If it's all divine, then "divine" is a useless term.




In essence it all is. Maybe people use it to remind ourselves of that; the essence of matter that isn't always experienced as being divine. That essense is God to some people.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5270057 - 02/06/06 04:02 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Exactly, you are talking about forming concepts to fit facts. Hu-mans make up facts.


Humans "make up" linguistic devices that refer to what is objectively the case - in this sense, humans indeed create facts - but these creations are mutually contingent upon reality. Water does not boil at -2 degrees Fahrenheit - this article of knowledge; read: fact, would not exist if there were no such existent in the first place. "Hu-mans" discover facts.

So concepts formed to fit something human made, have what to do with true objective natural reality?

Saying "concepts formed to fit something human made" is an unnecessary redundancy. [Human] concepts are human made, and that which they are based in, is reality.
Say I form the concept that would refer to existents which can be described as "things which have four legs, are furry, with a long tail and pointy ears". This concept may be named "cat". What does this have to do with a true, objective, natural existent in the form described as above? It would have to do with everything involving the metaphysical union between such entities.
Facts are not "intrinsic" to external reality nor are they merely "subjective". They are determined by the nature of reality, and are to be discovered by man's mind.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5270302 - 02/06/06 05:02 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Okay, use that argument and apply it to people discovering God/Supreme being/ the All That Is/ Source/Creator Whatever, in the fabric of reality. Some will tell you its a fact of their lives. You ask for proof and they say, "Look at the life around you. Evidence is everywhere to be seen and found."

Like sclorch was saying, there ultimately is no difference, its all the same thing-Divine.

Motor oil for tooth paste and grape jelly for a hair cleanser just is what it is-Divine. He's right, You're right. We all see in our own light. :sun:

I'm going to fall sideways out of this one now. Thanks for the discussion guys.  :cool: :thumbup:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5271717 - 02/06/06 10:26 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Like sclorch was saying, there ultimately is no difference, its all the same thing-Divine.

Motor oil for tooth paste and grape jelly for a hair cleanser just is what it is-Divine. He's right, You're right. We all see in our own light.



Yep, you lost me.
I was suggesting throwing out the concept of "divine" altogether.  It's all HUMAN.
So you can stop brushing your teeth with 10W-30.  No, really... it's unbecoming.  :wink:


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5271824 - 02/06/06 10:58 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"Divine" is a description of the mysterious nature of existence. In a way, it's not so much that everything is individually divine. It is existence itself which is divine.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5271934 - 02/06/06 11:29 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I can go with that.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5272179 - 02/07/06 01:26 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. ... The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
-Hanegraaff


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Ravus]
    #5272368 - 02/07/06 06:08 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
I completely agree.

Agnosticism seems unreliable to me. I doubt many people could live their life saying, "I don't know," without ever trying to decide between logic, science and reason or dying traditions, useless faith and unadultered bullshit. I always hope that they'll choose the former, but sadly, many don't seem to...




Does logic, science and reason prove the existence (or no existence) of god ?
The biggest bullshit is believing the tools of reason will give you absolute answers regarding this kind of existentialist universal questions, but the TRUTH is and the FACT is they never did. Will they ever do it ? The answer to this question will be always speculative, and speculation is as "right" as any belief system ...

Many people don't need to make such "decision", i mean, can you give me a objective reason to as why such decision has to be made ?  :confused:    In fact, regarding agnostics, the decision as been made already: if no absolute answer can be achieved, be it through science or through belief, then why bother asking such absolute question ? Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate we keep searching ...

IMHO what's unreliable, is achieving such conclusions without absolute proof. This statement can be applied either to theists, and to atheists as well. Why not choosing a humble position, and with respect to others, to their beliefs or logic, try to work in a common ground, instead of instantly dismissing any kind of opposing knowledge ?  ... Fundamentalists reside where there's no common ground ...

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5272377 - 02/07/06 06:21 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. ... The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
-Hanegraaff




There is a difference between an absence of a belief, and the rejectance of a belief - and there is a difference between volitionally withholding any beliefs in absence of evidence and disbelieving in something in spite of objective evidence for it, just as there is a difference between simply not being a theist and being antitheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

We are all born a-theists, a-gremlinists. . .



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273013 - 02/07/06 11:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

There are far too many notions of god in existence to simply claim that none exist. I'm sure you don't even know the premises of thousands upon thousands of notions of god.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5273038 - 02/07/06 11:31 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

use that argument and apply it to people discovering God/Supreme being/ the All That Is/ Source/Creator Whatever, in the fabric of reality. Some will tell you its a fact of their lives. You ask for proof and they say, "Look at the life around you. Evidence is everywhere to be seen and found."

Someone who claims to have discovered "a supreme being" which he or she refers to as God, with zero evidential or rational basis, is not equivalent to one who has discovered an actual existent or characteristic of, by necessity, reason or principle.
One who has made the claim that he or she is omniscient [while on a shroom trip] is not one who has discovered a fact - although, it can be said it is a fact that he or she made the claim.

What exactly is the purpose of the belief in God - defined as a supreme being or entity?

In all honesty, I must admit I can think of no other purpose than to fill the gap of nescience, plain and simple. Many do not like to think in a vacuum, nor are comfortable with grasping the reality that they don't know anything beyond what we can and do know. Beyond that, and aside from intellectual onanism, there is no other purpose it can serve, because there is no substantial basis for such a belief.

If we are talking about God - defined as the higher archetype of the human being, whereby one has gained an heightened intrapersonal perspective, then it serves a useful purpose. It has great usefulness in solving many problems relating to inter-personal matters - this is because there are many things in reality to which it corresponds.

If such any such notion serves that purpose, then it has valid meaning - only it is not a concept of metaphysics, but of a method pertinent to psychology - however amateur or archaic it may be.

If we are talking about the impersonal version of God - defined merely as "all-that-is", then like Sclorch pointed out: Why all the gobbledygook? Why build up such walls in the first place? What's wrong with "Nature"? "Reality"? "Existence"?

When in doubt about the classification or nature of a concept, always refer ultimately to reality. What gives rise to that concept? Does it correspond to what is objectively the case? What is the purpose of the concept? Does it achieve anything real? Or is it just somebody's arbitrary theory.


I'm going to fall sideways out of this one now. Thanks for the discussion guys.

I predict you will return. Watch. -=pushes the button=-



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273071 - 02/07/06 11:42 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Premises don't matter. You cannot rationalize something into existence. What matters is evidence.

Unfortunately, God appears to be something 'beyond' this universe and, consequentially, no empiric evidence can ever be gathered to support his existence. If something cannot be verified or refuted through the use of our senses, why make a claim that it even exists? Agnostics will often say its possible that such a being exists, but what is that possibility based on? What does the possibility matter if it can never be verified or refuted?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273152 - 02/07/06 12:01 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Apparently I need to rethink my definition of Agnostic...I have considered myself Agnostic for years with leanings towards Buddhism. I always assumed that being Agnostic implied that I do believe in a God or higher power...but do not believe in organized religion.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273192 - 02/07/06 12:12 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
We are all born a-theists, a-gremlinists. . .



and a-moneyists, a-beerists, etc. Basically, you know nothing of the world when you come out of the womb. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, this hilights the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is indeed an absence of belief, but strong atheism is a rejection of belief. I fail to see how strong atheism could be considered entirely rational.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5273214 - 02/07/06 12:15 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Agnostics will often say its possible that such a being exists, but what is that possibility based on?




answer:

Quote:

no empiric evidence can ever be gathered to support his existence.




... or non existence.

Here's where you commit a fallacy and invalidate your argument.
Quote:

If something cannot be verified or refuted through the use of our senses, why make a claim that it even exists?




Denial of the antecedent. Such implication is invalid because something can exist whether is verified or not. Example: Pluto was found in 1914, but it has existed prior to your knowledge about it.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5273247 - 02/07/06 12:23 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Many notions of god can be proven. Earlier, Skorpivo admitted that a notion of god=myself is in fact rational. That is one notion. Another logical, rational notion of god is Baruch Spinoza's god (coined Spinoza's God). It also happens to be that Einstein believed in this same notion of god.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5273252 - 02/07/06 12:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I fail to see how strong atheism could be considered entirely rational.

Context, context, context. In the first post, I have displayed exactly how dismissing an arbitrary concept or belief is completely rational, logical and objective. Context: Absence of any evidential basis and extremely questionable terms/concepts involved.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273254 - 02/07/06 12:25 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I guess Einstein must have been irrational and illogical then! What a shame he didn't know you, you could of Enlightened as so!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273271 - 02/07/06 12:29 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If you say that the version of God which Einstein believed in was indeed rational and logical, then please point out to me where I have dissected such a belief.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273281 - 02/07/06 12:33 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I never said you have dissected such a belief, none-the-less, it is a completely competent, coherent, rational belief.

"I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals Himself in orderly harmony that exists, not a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."

-Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
    #5273285 - 02/07/06 12:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Well since NOONE can aswer why, then it is only logical that the answer must be none of the above. Perhaps the answer is that the prophets were shown things that no man at the time could comprehend and what is written is simply their best explanation of what they saw. What they wrote is neither right or wrong, just the best they could do with limited consciousness. I have a thread similar to this trying to explain how science (big bang and evolution) and religion can coexist. The simple answer is that neither side has any clue what really happened since the people who wrote those books are long dead. Science and religion insist they know the real answer, but both sides are so full of holes that there must be alot of data missing from both sides of the dispute, else it would have been resolved. Neither side can explain anything that can't be seen, touched or smelled. Any side that claims to know the real answer is wrong, simply because they are assumptions. For either side to have the answer they must prove their answers. Neither can.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273297 - 02/07/06 12:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Oh, and you do realize that all it takes is ONE notion of god to hold true, and Atheism is then, by definition, false.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273299 - 02/07/06 12:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

none-the-less, it is a completely competent, coherent, rational belief.


And which, as you seem to have implied, if I'm not mistaken, wouldn't stand under my scrutiny? Surely something must have gotten lost in translation here, because it ain't making sense.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273301 - 02/07/06 12:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Oh, and you do realize that all it takes is ONE notion of god to hold true, and Atheism is then, by definition, false.

Read the very first sentence of the original post, my friend.

And let's not forget, the G-word will ultimately remain a nebulous, multi-defined term - thus, context -once again- remains important to keep in mind.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Rono]
    #5273383 - 02/07/06 12:53 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Rono said:
Apparently I need to rethink my definition of Agnostic...I have considered myself Agnostic for years with leanings towards Buddhism. I always assumed that being Agnostic implied that I do believe in a God or higher power...but do not believe in organized religion.




... but you are agnostic, a theist agnostic. Both definitions (atheism/agnosticism) reside in different planes but can be used together in most situations. Agnosticism is a concept, a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence.

Regarding this gnostic/agnostic definition, well, it can be simplistic, very simplistic in some situations. The word "gnosis/a-gnosis" - "to know/to not know", can be more than the reverse of its own opposite, linguistically speaking that is. I'll explain: i reflect on the fact that there are at least two aspects of me: a sort of ?agnostic? aspect that is dominated by ?reason,? and a sort of ?gnostic? aspect that is dominated by transcendent ?life experience.?

Now, i absolutely do not subscribe to any one creed, and i tend to think of Truth as probably (almost certainly!) bigger than my intellect can grasp all at one time. My ?agnostic? self realizes that such ?certainty? is beyond the scope of my human experience. On the other hand ? and herein lies my argument ? this fact does NOT suggest to me that i must therefore reduce my own human experience of transcendence to nothing. I think transcendent, even mystical experience, can inform my search for meaning just as my reason can. I understand that BOTH can become reductionist in ones search UNLESS a proper balance is achieved, or if one ?boils? everything down to certitude.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273401 - 02/07/06 12:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
none-the-less, it is a completely competent, coherent, rational belief.


And which, as you seem to have implied, if I'm not mistaken, wouldn't stand under my scrutiny? Surely something must have gotten lost in translation here, because it ain't making sense.






No, it would stand under your scrutiny. The earlier misinterpretation was due to my attempt at humor, though I miserably failed  :wink:

So it is then, a notion of god is rational, thus Atheism fails.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273411 - 02/07/06 01:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

So it is then, a notion of god is rational, thus Atheism fails.


And in other contexts, the reverse is true as well.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
    #5273426 - 02/07/06 01:02 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

It is important to keep in mind that someone who experiences gnosis and Gnostics are too things not the same. For example, Hermeticism was a non-Christian school of Gnosis, while Gnosticism is heavily tied with Christianity.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273430 - 02/07/06 01:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If "God" is a big bearded man in the sky, then I am certainly an atheist as well. But I do believe in what might be called The Source, The Great Mystery, The Transcendent Self. We are all atheists according to someone's definition of God.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273436 - 02/07/06 01:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
It is important to keep in mind that someone who experiences gnosis and Gnostics are too things not the same. For example, Hermeticism was a non-Christian school of Gnosis, while Gnosticism is heavily tied with Christianity.



Actually, this book I've been reading refers to both Pagan and Christian Gnosticism, implying that Gnosticism is not unique to Christianity.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273454 - 02/07/06 01:10 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Context, context, context.

I have just demonstrated a very reasonable, popular context inhabited by great minds such as Spinoza and Einstein, as well as many others. And within this context, atheism does fail.

You remind me of a guy I once met several years back in a philosophy class. He was convinced that psychological egoism held true. Though, at the same time, he claimed his Grandma did a completely selfless act of compassion. To him, she was the only who did so, and because of the enormity of his sample context, he wanted to believe that psychological egoism still held true. Unfortunately, due to the kind, selfless nature of his Grandma, she alone had the power to make physiological egoism unsound.

You can create any sort of context you want to make yourself believe that your position is sound, but I'm sorry to inform you my friend, it isn't.

You can't dismiss notions of god as part of another "context", simply because they contradict your reasoning.

Spinoza's God IS a notion of god.
Spinoza's God IS rational/logical.
Atheism is then, NOT rational/logical.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5273465 - 02/07/06 01:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Odd, what I've read, the author is hesitant to call any form of Paganism as Gnostic. He only reserves that for Gnostic Christianity. I guess it's just bias of the writers...? I figured this might be so, hence my saying "heavily tied with Christianity" and not "uniquely tied with Christianity".

Which text do you refer to?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273480 - 02/07/06 01:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The book is Jesus and the Lost Goddess, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. They also have a chapter in the book where they refer to Gnostic Islam. In any case, wikipedia seems to agree with their definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5273515 - 02/07/06 01:28 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Ah, I've been reading Stephan Hoeller, who seems to be a pretty big name in the whole scene.

I've also received my definition from www.gnosis.org , who I believe tend to associate Gnosticism with Christianity, in a historical sense.

Thanks for the heads up!  :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273540 - 02/07/06 01:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Context, context, context.

I have just demonstrated a very reasonable, popular context inhabited by great minds such as Spinoza and Einstein, as well as many others. And within this context, atheism does fail.


No claim was made to the contrary - I agree.

You can create any sort of context you want to make yourself believe that your position is sound, but I'm sorry to inform you my friend, it isn't.

No, my friend - you are incorrect. As long as there are different definitions of the word, there will therefore be differing contexts. Hence, any assessment of Agnosticism or Atheism, is contingent upon the subject at hand, and the relevant context. It must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

You can't dismiss notions of god as part of another "context", simply because they contradict your reasoning.

Absent any negation of my personal assessment of your intelligence, I fail to grasp how you think you can deem Atheism as invalid, on ALL accounts - regardless of differing premises, differing definitions, differing contexts and so forth. It makes zero sense.

The fact stands: As there is no one universally accepted definition of God, no such universal assessment of Atheism can be made. Again, case by case.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5273564 - 02/07/06 01:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Theists claim only that their notion of god is sound. Atheists claim that all notions of god are unsound. As you can see, the burden is on the atheist. When you say "God" with a capital "G", you are greatly narrowing your spectrum and uniquely discussing the Judeo-Christian God, for it is one of the few which capitalize the G.

Atheists do not only function within a certain context or paradigm, you can't be an atheist when it comes to Judeo-Christianity but a theist when it comes to Spinoza. I am a theist but I too do not believe in the orthodox Judeo-Christian conception of god.

Atheists do not believe in ANY gods of ANY context. That is the philosophical definition of atheism, one who does not believe in any deities/gods.

I have demonstrated a god which is in fact TRUE and VALID, this contradicts atheism, atheism fails.


Edited by spud (02/07/06 02:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5273702 - 02/07/06 02:26 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The burden is on the atheist? I've got nothing in my hand... will you accept that as evidence that there is no god?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5273730 - 02/07/06 02:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

hah!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5274287 - 02/07/06 05:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
It is important to keep in mind that someone who experiences gnosis and Gnostics are too things not the same. For example, Hermeticism was a non-Christian school of Gnosis, while Gnosticism is heavily tied with Christianity.




  :smile::thumbup: Yeap, thanks for reminding me about this.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5274309 - 02/07/06 05:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
The burden is on the atheist? I've got nothing in my hand... will you accept that as evidence that there is no god?




god is in the air ... just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
    #5274353 - 02/07/06 05:55 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:

god is in the air ... just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

MAIA




I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there.
Gospel of Thomas Saying 77


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
    #5274410 - 02/07/06 06:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Denial of the antecedent. Such implication is invalid because something can exist whether is verified or not. Example: Pluto was found in 1914, but it has existed prior to your knowledge about it.

Yes, but we're talking about something which cannot be verified empirically, not something which hasn't yet been verified. The existence Pluto falls within the realm of our senses and can be verified or refuted. God can't.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5274453 - 02/07/06 06:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I have demonstrated a god which is in fact TRUE and VALID, this contradicts atheism, atheism fails.

You haven't provided any empirical support for this claim. Baseless reason doesn't demonstrate anything.

the burden is on the atheist

All an atheist has to do is point out the total absence of evidence supporting the God hypothesis. You cannot research non-existence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5274469 - 02/07/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

You haven't provided any empirical support for this claim. Baseless reason doesn't demonstrate anything.




That didn't even make sense, god is an abstract notion. You can't empirically prove it, just like how you can't empirically prove love. Abstracts are proven through logic, rational, etc; the tools of philosophy. Skorpivo already admitted to Spinoza's God being completely rational and logical, and he was the one who I was debating with. If you beg to differ, please illustrate how Spinoza's God is not logical. I'd really love to hear this; start:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5274575 - 02/07/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I agree! God exists only in the mind and is considered apart from existence. Hence, is non-existent.

just like how you can't empirically prove love

Love can be put into operational terms which can be supported or refuted.


Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/07/06 08:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5274596 - 02/07/06 06:41 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
I agree! God exists only in the mind and is considered apart from existence. Hence, is non-existent.





Whoa, how the hell did you jump to that conclusion??? Explain to me how the mind is considered apart from existence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5274665 - 02/07/06 06:53 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Theists claim only that their notion of god is sound. Atheists claim that all notions of god are unsound.

False. You are misrepresenting Atheism. Implicit in your statement is that Atheists are incapable of differentiating between rational atheism and irrational atheism - which certainly does not apply to myself, as evidenced in this thread.
If we are discussing a variant of god that is defined as the higher human archetype, or any other definition of god that has zero contradictions, is consistent and logical, free from rational scrutiny, then indeed it would be irrational atheism to reject such a notion.
Likewise, there is rational skepticism and irrational skepticism.

Atheists do not only function within a certain context or paradigm, you can't be aa atheist when it comes to Judeo-Christianity but a theist when it comes to Spinoza. I am a theist but I too do not believe in the orthodox Judeo-Christian conception of god.

Double-standard. You do not believe in the Ortho-Judeo Christian concept of god [which classifies you as an Atheist in that respect], and assert your belief in a different form of theism, and in the same breath you claim that Atheists cannot do precisely what you are doing.

At best, to your diaphanous defense, you will find a general definition which suggests that atheism is the disbelief in God or gods. Just like the third definition of Skepticism, from dictionary.com
"Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets."
I, along with you, and many others in here, are skeptics - in varying contexts. Certainly, it would make no sense to say that we disbelief and/or doubt ALL religious tenets, now would it?
If you look up the wiki-article on atheism, you will even see that there are three different types of atheism more specifically, and only one of which you could be talking about.
If you read the article in its entirety, you will see that the word atheism is still a rather loosely defined term, where even writers have disagreements or divergents of it - hey, sorta like that g-word. :wink:

As you can see, the burden is on the atheist.

Not quite so. The one who makes the claim, is the one who must back it up with evidence. Absent any evidence, the other is free to reserve their belief, until shown otherwise. In the face of evidence, the other is free to irrationally disbelieve in the premise - but they are by no means, not to be close-mindedly grouped amongst the rational minded who would accept the premise as true. Case in point: Skorpivo. Provide me with a definition of god that isn't irrational, illogical, contradictory and arbitrary, and I will have zero problem accepting that particular premise. If the opposite occurs, then I will hold an atheist position, plain and simple. There is a difference between irrational atheism and rational atheism.

Skorpivo already admitted to Spinoza's God being completely rational and logical

For the record: You were the one who declared the Spinoza's god to be such - I merely took your word for it, and clarified that such a version would in fact, be free from rational and logical scrutiny. I don't actually know about Spinoza's god - I hadn't heard of it [if memory serves correct] before you told me about it today. I trusted that you were accurate in your assessment.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5274689 - 02/07/06 07:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
I agree! God exists only in the mind and is considered apart from existence. Hence, is non-existent.





Whoa, how the hell did you jump to that conclusion??? Explain to me how the mind is considered apart from existence.




Aww, man. Not the St. Thomas Aquinas argument...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5274699 - 02/07/06 07:01 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.

Well presented  :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5274985 - 02/07/06 08:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Eh?

God is apart from existence. (See: Abstract)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5275195 - 02/07/06 08:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.



You just got a gold star!  :thumbup:


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5275207 - 02/07/06 09:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
Quote:

spud said:
Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.



You just got a gold star!  :thumbup:




Actually, yeah.  :thumbup:  It is quite a noble gesture when someone admits to being wrong in the Philosophy forum.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5275227 - 02/07/06 09:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Slight tangent...

Skorpivo has made me reconsider my self-categorization as an Athiest-leaning Agnostic. But I will think about this more before posting anything. Until then...


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5275247 - 02/07/06 09:06 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5275255 - 02/07/06 09:08 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Heh, I have no problem admitting when I'm mistaken. My objective is the pursuit of the truth, arrogance and pride just get in the way and slow the process.

Skorpivo is a smart guy, I knew something had to be fishy about either how I or he was defining our terms, I couldn't imagine him committing such a logical fallacy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedNucleus
Causal Observer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5276068 - 02/08/06 01:13 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I would like to say that I suspect you are agnostic, because we interpret the word differently. You and I both conclude that there is no credible evidence of a god. Yet it would be unscientific to claim that there is no god. Even if, hypothetically, the universe had its own consciousness, yet could not carry out any action willingly, this could fit a definition of a god. There would be no way for humans to test for this.

you said, "I am completely and logically justified in not believing in such an oddity [god] until it is proven to exist."
You don't believe in god, but I bet you would not claim to know with 100% certainty that god does not exist. I'm sure you don't feel you are 100% sure that there is absolutely no life anywhere in the universe besides planet earth. How could you be 100% sure? Isn't god the same situation? The term for this state of mind is "agnostic". I suspect there is no god of any sort, but I do not claim to have proof of my suspicion.


--------------------
Namaste


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
    #5276605 - 02/08/06 09:06 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.

Well presented  :thumbup:




Not quite.

Theism and Atheism exist as fundamentalist opposites under a religious scope. It has to do with belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism, on the other hand, exist as a philosophical stance about the knowable god. It has to do with knowledge. Both definitions reside in different planes, agnosticism does not represent some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. Not only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes being either an atheist or a theist.

Limiting oneself to discussing agnosticism as an isolated position fails to do it justice. Agnosticism is a skeptical challenge to the notion that any religious conclusion can really be "known" in the first place. How such can be "a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness" ?

One of the problems with your new achieved conception of agnosticism as lack of ?commitment? is that it relies upon a mistaken understanding of belief. Indeed, it arguably relies upon a very christian understanding of belief because it seems to assume that being either a theist or an atheist requires a person to ?commit? to some proposition through an act of will which carries ethical implications. This makes atheism and theism acts of will for which you can be held accountable ? thus the supposedly superior morality of this non-committal agnosticism.

Belief is not, however simply a matter of commitment. A person can certainly commit to a cause, an ideal, or an agenda, but beliefs are a bit different. In order to believe something, you don?t have to make any sort of commitment. If you believe a proposition, all this says is that your mind accepts that proposition as true. If you do not currently accept that proposition as true, then it necessarily follows that you do not believe it. This doesn?t mean that you accept that the proposition is false, either ? that?s a different question.

The point is, however, that while an agnostic might justifiably refuse to commit to any theistic or atheistic agendas, that isn?t the same as a refusal to ?commit? to atheism or theism. This means, then, that agnosticism cannot be reasonably regarded as an alternative to atheism or theism in this manner. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of commitment ? agnostics still either have a belief in the existence of at least one god or they lack any positive belief in the existence of any gods. The first would make them an agnostic theist while the latter would make them an agnostic atheist.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
    #5276689 - 02/08/06 09:34 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Isn't that the long version of what I posted earlier?

Quote:

Agnosticism is a purely epistemological position. In other words, Gnosticism and Agnosticism aren't polar opposites.



Quote:

Agnosticism doesn't really have a polar opposite. It's sort of perpendicular to the atheism/theism argument.




--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5276723 - 02/08/06 09:48 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
Isn't that the long version of what I posted earlier?





Part of it, yes. Well, i guess i developed this concept because it helps to explain my argument a bit better.
Back on topic, what are your thoughts about it ?

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
    #5276773 - 02/08/06 10:11 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Well, Skorpivo says that Agnosticism (be it a perpendicular to the atheism/theism debate) is irrational. I would have to agree to a certain extent. However, he then concludes that Agnosticism is a copout of sorts (I'm paraphrasing). This is where I take slight issue.

I don't believe in God, but I don't know if there is one and I'm not sure if I can ever know that there isn't one. Maybe it is slightly irrational to leave the door open to a possibility. But what's the point of shutting it if it doesn't change anything for you? It doesn't bother me to live with a few uncertainties... in fact, I've grown fond of loose ends and remainders.

I don't know where my thoughts on this fit. It's not strong atheism and it's not weak atheism. So I've just called it Atheist-leaning Agnosticism. Is there a better term?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5276790 - 02/08/06 10:17 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
I don't believe in God, but I don't know if there is one and I'm not sure if I can ever know that there isn't one. Maybe it is slightly irrational to leave the door open to a possibility. But what's the point of shutting it if it doesn't change anything for you? It doesn't bother me to live with a few uncertainties... in fact, I've grown fond of loose ends and remainders.




In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 2 hours
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
    #5276954 - 02/08/06 11:00 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Well, Skorpivo says that Agnosticism (be it a perpendicular to the atheism/theism debate) is irrational. I would have to agree to a certain extent. However, he then concludes that Agnosticism is a copout of sorts (I'm paraphrasing). This is where I take slight issue.




If you take the term "irrational" as the concept addressed by rationalism, then neither atheism nor agnosticism are "rational". From wiki:

>"Atheism, a disbelief or lack of belief in God, can be on any basis, or none at all, so it doesn't require rationalism. Furthermore, rationalism does not, in itself, affirm or deny atheism, although it does reject any belief based on faith alone. Historically, many rationalists were not atheists. Presumably, people who are rationalists today generally do not believe that theism can be rationally justified, because modern-day rationalism is strongly correlated with atheism."<

Quote:

I don't know where my thoughts on this fit. It's not strong atheism and it's not weak atheism. So I've just called it Atheist-leaning Agnosticism. Is there a better term?




Since we conclude atheism and agnosticism are perpendicular concepts, we can coordinate both to achieve a proper definition. I'd say you're an agnostic-atheist.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5276985 - 02/08/06 11:08 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.



And why not?
In the vastness of space, over the millenniums of times, before and after human existence, there could, very well, be just about anything.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Ekstaza]
    #5277957 - 02/08/06 03:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ekstaza said:
Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.



And why not?
In the vastness of space, over the millenniums of times, before and after human existence, there could, very well, be just about anything.




If you reread my post, you'll notice that I specified that I was referring to the Western conception of God, which is a being seperate from reality (a notion which is utterly untestable). Sure, we don't know what lies beyond the far reaches of space, but this is exactly why we shouldn't be throwing out blind speculations until we develop the tools to explore further and gather evidence of the truth.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5279869 - 02/08/06 10:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
Quote:

Sclorch said:
I don't believe in God, but I don't know if there is one and I'm not sure if I can ever know that there isn't one. Maybe it is slightly irrational to leave the door open to a possibility. But what's the point of shutting it if it doesn't change anything for you? It doesn't bother me to live with a few uncertainties... in fact, I've grown fond of loose ends and remainders.




In order to avoid double standards, if you were to say that God (in the Western sense of the word), whom there is no evidence for, might exist, you'd have to apply that same logic to anything. "Though it seems completely illogical and all visible evidence points strongly against it, ____________ might exist, so I'm not going to totally discount the idea." Insert anything you wish.



Yeah, I know... I work with loose ends. It's not so bad, really. It's a bootstrapping philosophy.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5281431 - 02/09/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
If you reread my post, you'll notice that I specified that I was referring to the Western conception of God, which is a being seperate from reality (a notion which is utterly untestable).



Any concept of god in western society describes it a real entity. Therefore it must exist on some real plane of existence. Or in short, it must be part of our reality. If god created existence and man to live in it, then god is intimately a part of our existence and therefore intimately a part of our reality. Whether we have the proper knowledge at this time to observe and measure this phenomena is irrelevant to the discussion.


Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
Sure, we don't know what lies beyond the far reaches of space, but this is exactly why we shouldn't be throwing out blind speculations until we develop the tools to explore further and gather evidence of the truth.



As an agnostic atheist, I couldn't have said it better.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Ekstaza]
    #5282704 - 02/09/06 05:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ekstaza said:
Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
If you reread my post, you'll notice that I specified that I was referring to the Western conception of God, which is a being seperate from reality (a notion which is utterly untestable).



Any concept of god in western society describes it a real entity. Therefore it must exist on some real plane of existence. Or in short, it must be part of our reality. If god created existence and man to live in it, then god is intimately a part of our existence and therefore intimately a part of our reality.




True. I should've used the phrase "independent of" rather than "seperate from."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5285524 - 02/10/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Hehe, yes.

G*d as independent of reality is hard to 'believe', if reality is dependent of/on g*d :lol:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Thoughts on Atheism, and Nolabelism Amnesiac 852 6 05/13/03 11:58 PM
by Amnesiac
* Agnostics and atheists will you succumb just before the end?
( 1 2 all )
Scarfmeister 3,645 25 04/23/03 06:18 PM
by CeeEssGee
* assumptions in agnostic"ism" kaiowas 897 8 11/08/04 11:27 PM
by kbilly
* Atheism and Theism are not Polar Opposites.
( 1 2 all )
Evolving 3,535 35 02/16/04 11:07 PM
by Sclorch
* . dr_gonz 1,186 16 06/02/05 01:19 PM
by SneezingPenis
* Atheism
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
rogue_pixie 4,671 83 01/17/06 09:53 PM
by Gratos
* atheist vs agnostic vs deist looner2 1,952 14 10/29/05 10:48 AM
by Deviate
* Isn't Atheism just another belief system?
( 1 2 3 all )
FreakQlibrium 4,019 56 12/08/04 01:37 PM
by Fucknuckle

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,434 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.058 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.