Many agnostics seem to be mislead about agnosticism and belief in God. - Page 10

SirArthur · 09-10-2007, 08:32 PM

If you notice all our developments came out of need. We found a need we try to fill it. At some point morality became a need to mankind and as so was invented. And yet, we are a "special animal" on many ways, despite we are part of World's Fauna. If we weren't we wouldn't be here chatting on the first place.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-10-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

I'll give it a shot. First off, I don't exactly know what you mean by a personal god

The broadest definition of this term is a God who is a personal being, i.e. a being with a personality.

The most restrictive interpretation of a personal God is a deity that is solely concerned with his worshippers, having pity at best and animosity at worst towards non-believers....

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

Quote:

In all of my experiences this god ends up being the more nebulous god or in other words just a god concept.

I agree. It is a nebulous god concept not based on evidence, empirics, or logic.

Quote:

Since I am agnostic to a god in general I am also agnostic to the concept of god expressed by the christians with whom I have had the displeasure of debating.

This is where I disagree. Why be open to the possibility of christian god? Where is the evidence? I could easily conceive of a god concept. That does not mean you have to be agnostic to it.

For example, my god is an intelligent life existing in the 12th dimension who devised a computer code that calculated the matrix for intelligent life. Unfortunately, this god is not cognizant that we exist, so our prayers go unanswered. Are you agnostic and open to the possibility of my god? It's just as, if not more, logical than the christian god.

Quote:

I can't think of any keystone ideas to christianity that could be used to disprove it.

How about the resurrection, a virgin birth, noah's ark, heaven, hell, miracles, prophecies, the Earth was created in 6 days, an anthropocentric god with a personality, and other superstitions?

Quote:

Below is a link to a discussion on youtube entitled "Strong atheism is wrong." by a weak agnostic. It might interest you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTRajdBCXk

I agree that some "strong atheism" is wrong and cannot be validated. As this person said, it depends on your concept of god. He is a strong atheist with respect to Zeus. I am a strong atheist with respect to all personal god and all gods based on religion texts. There is no evidence to support a belief.

His following argument is fallacious to the point of absurdity. I don't believe in fairies, but of course they could exist to the degree that they are intelligent and hide from humans. I found his argument absurd and it suffers from reverse scientific method.

It really boils down to your concept of god and how you define god. There is no evidence for a personal god, but I tend to be more open to the idea of Prime or unmoved mover. The prime mover suffers from infinite regression and the hypothesis cannot yet be tested; we cannot examine what happened before the Big Bang. The first cause does have metaphysical implications, but modern physics has weakened the prime mover and first cause argument. I am not a "strong atheist" with respect to the First Cause. The arguments against the first cause are based on our understanding of the universal laws, science, logic, and some speculation . While I have doubt of a Prime Mover, I cannot rule it out with 100% certainty.

Quote:

Below is a link to a strong agnostic on youtube. I think this guy illustrates that a lot of the perceived differences between strong and weak agnostics are purely semantical. He also touches on why agnostics don't necessarily like to call themselves atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkXQHMIkwXw

Anyway those are my views on it, my experiences with it and a few videos about it.

I am not sure if you watched this video. He stated that he is an atheist and does not believe in any of the gods that he has been exposed to. He is a strong atheist regarding all man made gods. He is skeptical of a transcendental being that possess the power to fabricate the universe. He thinks this concept is made up, but he admits that we don't know how to test for it. Essentially, under this condition he is not a strong atheist, but finds it a moot point.

An agnostic has to answer this question, "Do you actively believe in a deity?" Most agnostic will attempt to waffle, but they will have to admit "No". Therefore, they are a-theist... without belief. This does not rule out the possibility of a deity based on a change of knowledge. One can lack a belief in a deity while being open to the possibility.

Atheism is not an absolute like people think. If there is no evidence for a god, then there is no belief in a god. Of course this can change with our increased understanding of the world. There are some god concepts that we can definitely rule out while other god conceptions may deserve our provisional skepticism.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-10-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinterland

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin' In Tune

The onus is not on me. If someone makes the claim that a christian and muslim god exist, then the onus falls on them. I ask for proof of a christian and muslim god. These god concepts are based on ancient texts and hearsay. Again, I ask for evidence that these gods exists. The absence of evidence of a theological god does not shift the burden of proof onto me. Why do you insist that the onus is on me?

I have briefly read the rules of formal debates and I understand that it the person who has made the assertion to substantiate it (postive or negative). For example, "Pink elephents don't exist." Now it would be up to me to attempt to prov e that since I made the assertion. Then the second party would rebut. You acknowledge you have no evidence of God, therefore how can you make a logical assertion concerning God's existance that requires evidence?

I do not believe in a personal god based on religion. I am open to the possibility of an impersonal god, but I have yet to find a satisfactory concept. Trust me, I have tried and do not rule out future attempts on my part.

It is not up to you to prove "that pink elephants do not exist". If the forum rules say otherwise, then they are wrong. We are not going to look into every far reaching corner of the universe to prove or disprove your statement "that pink elephants do not exist". This is a logical and rational deduction. We are still struggling to calculate the possibility of extraterrestrial life, never mind the possibility of intelligent life.

It is up to people who believe in god to prove their statement. They originally made the assertion. Not me. We do not begin with an infinite possibility of god concept and then try to disprove every one of them. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for the existence of a personal, theological god. That is why I say they do not exist.

I do not understand why god has to have a personality similar to humans, judge men, interfere in their lives, create a heaven and hell, resurrect his dead son after three days, made a virgin birth feasible, listens to everyone's prayers, knows whether they accepted jesus as their savior, knows when people repent, created a massive flood, etc.

It is not up to me to prove this. I never made these claims. If someone cannot provide evidence for their personal god, then I refuse to believe them. If their god concept is not even based on rational assumptions, then I will deny that their god even exists.

I think I am being perfectly reasonable.

**George** · 09-11-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin' In Tune

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

It's actually quite simple really. First I reject evidence that there is no God.

Why do you reject this evidence?

Quote:

Bottom line and an undeniable fact is this..... if there truly were evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that God didn't exist there would be no argument and in fact there would be no religion.

Any religion and the gods that they are based on can be debunked beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin' In Tune

Sometimes agnostics will claim that god is inherently unknowable. This statement is wrong. How can you have knowledge of something that is unknown?

Exactly....

How does one make the claim that god is unknowable? You are basically saying that you know something about nothing. Can you tell me how you know something about nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin' In Tune

In reality all you've truly done with this statement is solidified your own beliefs as an atheist. Not disproven agnosticism. You basically said agnostics are lost but once they start to look around (or see the light) they cant draw any other conclusion but to become atheists...

I am atheist with respect to theism and personal gods. I am not out to disprove agnosticism, but to refine the definition. Can any agnostic provide me with good evidence on why they are still open to the possibility of a personal god, such as an Abrahamic god or any countless gods created by humanity throughout history?

Quote:

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Sounds a bit like the way theists look at us as well... Getting the picture now?

Theism is a suspension of logic and reason. It requires a leap of faith. They made the claim and they need to support it with evidence, a positive proof, or logical arguments. I have yet to hear convincing evidence of a personal god. Have you? Atheism is different than theism. Theism requires faith, atheism does not rely on faith to describe the world.

Quote:

Let me better explain.... The problem with atheism is that it is too much like the sith in star wars.... it deals in absolutes. There are too many things in the universe that are unknown to us for us to have the audacity to feel we know absolutely every side of an equation.

I think you are misled about atheism. There is as much evidence for a personal god, as there is evidence for a teapot orbiting mars. That is a safe absolute. I openly admit that there is a plethora of unknown knowledge in the universe. I take an agnostic stance regarding unknown, but I do not plug god into the gaps. I don't see middle ground in believing or disbelieving in a personal god. Where is the evidence that suspends an agnostics judgment? If there is no evidence to support your suspension of a personal god, then you are relying on faith.

Quote:

You see God could be anything. A person, an entity, an intelligent life form we've yet to meet. You may claim there is evidence there is no God all you like but to claim that you absolutely know the true origin of life itself is a bit delusional.

God suffers from theological noncognitivism. It depends how someone defines god. God can be defined as a personal, anthropocentric god that has morality, that intervenes in human affairs, that judges man based on an ethical system outline in a historical text. God could also be described as a pantheist god or an intelligent life that we have not met or the true origins of life. It really depends on how one defines god.

I can say that god is a 3 headed goat living somewhere in the 26th dimension that has an IQ of 361, likes to watch Oprah, and eats cheese curls dipped in ketchup. Are you still agnostic and open to this possibility of my god?

Quote:

Just because you can discredit every syllable in the bible doesn't mean the bible wasn't wrong and the true God is something we've yet to discover. That my friend is what agnosticism is all about. Being open to the possibilities

I advocate to being open about reasonable possibilities. The bible makes extraordinary claims, that requires extraordinary evidence. It has yet to provide evidence to those claims in the last two thousands years.

I can sum the multiple responses I'd have for this into one response really.

I'm not saying there is a God. I'm just saying it's possible. No matter how many times we go around in circles on this, in the end I'm sure we'd both have to agree that it is possible simply because neither of us has all the answers.

The same way I can admit that it's possible that you are right as well.

But if you'd like to keep going around in circles by all means continue. I'll put on my track shoes

Vinterland · 09-11-2007, 11:24 AM

If you will allow me to add the M&W definition of belief to weak (a)theists, and this definition to strong (a)theists, then an agnostic can be both a theist and atheist.

And finally, if the definition of belief describes beliefs as something held as true due to personal observation, but does not have to be true, an agnostic can be a theist.

GIT, you are describing an anthropomorphic god, and a personal God doesnot have to have some of the properties you are attributing to it.

harleylove · 09-11-2007, 11:36 AM

[quote=George;17217][quote=Gettin' In Tune;17162][quote=George;17160]

Quote:

I'm not saying there is a God. I'm just saying it's possible. No matter how many times we go around in circles on this, in the end I'm sure we'd both have to agree that it is possible simply because neither of us has all the answers.

The same way I can admit that it's possible that you are right as well.

Out of curiousity, do you feel if someone feels this way it ultimately makes them an agnostic and kinda wipes out any other beliefs that they may have about the existence of God?

pseudonous · 09-11-2007, 12:07 PM

Gettin' In Tune,

I am not sure what your position really is on proofs for god. I have selected two quotes from your reply to shop the source of my confusion. In the first quote it appears you want me to give proof of the possibility of a christian (personal) god.

Quote:

This is where I disagree. Why be open to the possibility of christian god? Where is the evidence?...

In the second quote you seem to admit being open to the idea of a prime mover sense you have no evidence to disprove it.

Quote:

It really boils down to your concept of god and how you define god. There is no evidence for a personal god, but I tend to be more open to the idea of Prime or unmoved mover...While I have doubt of a Prime Mover, I cannot rule it out with 100% certainty.

This seems like a double standard to me.

Also, to some extent it seemed like you were asking why take a christian seriously instead of why be open to the possibility of a christian god. So I just want make a possible clarification, I do not take christian arguments seriously. This is the same opinion expressed in both the strong and weak agnostic videos I linked. Perhaps the words are different but it is the same message.

I am open to the possibility only because I can not prove it. This is a very scientific viewpoint. Never, make any unnecessary prejudgments. This is what distinguishes the agnostics from the rest of the atheists.

Of course, I would change my mind if you can provide me with proof that a personal god can not exist. Otherwise, I don't plan on giving it further thought. I don't entertain the idea that would be mindless speculation.

Jesse · 09-11-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

I am open to the possibility only because I can not prove it. This is a very scientific viewpoint. Never, make any unnecessary prejudgments. This is what distinguishes the agnostics from the rest of the atheists.

Not really. Noncognitivists are atheists and agnosticism isn't distinct from noncognitivism because I think they'd both hold that one shouldn't make any unnecessary prejudgments. Also, some atheists, such as myself, see no reason to think that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of god is impossible for them to obtain. That's not to say that they think it can be obtained, though they could think that, but that "knowledge on the matter is impossible to obtain" isn't accepted as true in their minds. I don't think these atheists would qualify as agnostics though they would probably also agree that that one shouldn't make any unnecessary prejudgements. (I agree.) If you said "strong atheists" rather than 'the rest of the atheists" I would've agreed with your statement because it does distinguish between the two groups.

(Some people try to categorize noncognitivism as a form of strong atheism but that doesn't make much sense to me. I consider it a form of a weak atheism.)

pseudonous · 09-11-2007, 12:46 PM

Ok, I'll take your word for it and restrict my comment to strong atheism.

**George** · 09-11-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleylove

Out of curiousity, do you feel if someone feels this way it ultimately makes them an agnostic and kinda wipes out any other beliefs that they may have about the existence of God?

I feel you are what you believe you are. There really is no need to force a label upon yourself unless you're looking to further your self exploration through speaking with like-minded or similarly minded people (like you are right now

), at which point it helps to outwardly define yourself.

However comma,.... If you feel or believe what I described in the reply you quoted then others will gladly apply that label for you. So yes if you accept that you don't have all of the answers and that you just don't know, most would consider you to be an agnostic.