Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2014, 11:14 PM
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
When you are away from your house are you 100 % sure its not on fire or being robbed ?
No, of course not but we don't live our lives in constant worry about that.
If a complete stranger came up to you while you were working and said "Your house is on fire", you might question this person to gauge how they know this or even how they know who you are or where you live. It is unlikely that you will react immediately to drive home and check.
Its even more unlikely that you will drive home to check if this hsppens every day.

You will want to verify his claim about your house before you believe him. The atheist stance is that you shouldn't believe a claim unless that claim is backed by evidence.

Your 100% certainty idea would have you driving to your house every day because you couldn't be 100% certain if the stranger was telling the truth or not.

There may very well be a god and while I'm away from home my house could be on fire but I'm not going to believe either claim unless there is some evidence.

If my brother calls and says "hate to tell you this but your house is on fire and fire fighters are putting out the blaze now. It looks like you lost everything. You can stay at my place until you find a new house.
Even with someone you trust you can still go to your house and verify that his words are true.

The thing is with religion, you never get to actually see the burnt house. You have to take it on faith that your house burnt down. You never can verify the story, so why believe it ?

It there any harm in believing purely on faith that you lost everything you own in a fire ?

Perhaps your brother knew you were so fucking gullible to believe anything without seeing any evidence that he could convince you to leave your house and go live somewhere else while he moved into your house and now has all your stuff.

If the claim has no supporting evidence, you shouldn't believe the claim. Its that simple.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
30-05-2014, 01:26 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 01:51 AM by John.)
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
(29-05-2014 09:51 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  I don't like the word 'believe' because it is typically used in a gnostic sense (unless you do not believe/lack belief which is different). I dislike this word because, as we pointed out, no one is 100% certain/gnostic. So... by someone using the word "believe" we're already off to a bad start, because they are claiming they have 100% certainty, which is a straight up lie. People can claim belief of anything. Just because you believe unicorns once existed doesn't make it true. And using the term 'believe' insinuates or means that you're close minded thus creating that brick wall. At least that's my experience. I hope you catch my drift.

Ok, if I imagine a politician saying something like, "I believe abortion is an atrocity and abomination to God." in a strong affirmitve manner, it means he has the strongest of convictions for what he's saying, and also that by implication he holds it to be true. I still don't understand though, why you'd associate belief with anything that has something to do with 100%. It's definitely not how I view the word.

(29-05-2014 09:51 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  You raise a good point saying most ALL knowledge is uncertain. I have not scientifically tested all of the knowledge I have, so I see where your at.

My point was that even the things we consider scientific knowledge are not '100% certain', because such a thing is unattainable. Just because for all we know gravity has always been attractive rather than repulsive, doesn't mean that it always has been or that things couldn't change any second. It would be ludicrous to expect that to happen, but we cannot rule it out, so in essence we're agnostics in regard to that too, if you wish to hold to the notion that knowledge has something to do with 100%, that is. I challenge you to come up with something that you think is worthy of the notion '100% certain knowledge.'

(29-05-2014 09:51 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  I think what we have ran into here is a difference of opinion on what believe means. To me believe means to accept as truth, at least that's what the online dictionary gave me. Agree/disagree?

Agree.

(29-05-2014 09:51 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  In my mind, in order to accept something as truth it needs to be proven (not just considered "probably true" as in your bus example).

This is were we depart. What is truth? It seems to me you wan't to hold 'truth' and 'probabilities' separate from each other as if the latter somehow tarnishes the former. I've tried to show you that these two are intrinsically affiliated, and that in practice, you go by as if things are true even when they might not be. That is to my mind 'accepting something as true' i.e. believe.

(29-05-2014 09:51 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  Therefore I cannot say with 100% certainty God does Not exist just like I cannot say with 100% certainty there is a God.

I agree. I don't think I can say anything with 100% certainty, which is why I throw the concept out of the window. Maybe I'm living in a matrix with my brain in a vat, or some other illusionary world. Are you 100% certain I'm a human being and not a bot? Without a second thought you probably go by the assumption that I'm a human, but you could be wrong. Is it likely I'm not a human? Probably not. In fact, it's unlikely to such a degree that I find it appropriate for you to say that you know I'm a human.

I have no aversion to the word 'believe' just because it can in some contexts mean 'to have an unshakeble conviction about something', I myself don't use it that way, in fact, I find it good practice to compare how strongly I believe something when confusion could arise, hence I don't believe God exist anymore than I believe Santa Claus exists. (Depending on company I might avoid that one since it can obviously be interpreted as facetious, but here the comparison is useful.) And I don't find it necessary to consider myself an agnostic towards Santa, I know he doesn't exist, in the way that 'knowing' is usefully applied in everyday usage.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 02:19 AM
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
(29-05-2014 02:57 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  Ok so then I'm an agnostic atheist then? Again my bad I'm new. I'm not trying to offend ne one

Got it chas thanks everyone Smile

Chas-tized. Tongue

Don't mind him, he's a crotchety ol' fuck. As a prophet and a gnostic atheist - Big Grin - lemme lay it out for ya: the believers have built a ladder to heaven to describe their respective gods. Over the course of time, every rung in these ladders has been disproven or shown to have rational, naturalistic explanations. Furthermore, the theistic tendency to adapt modern philosophy to their archaic theology is straight bullshit and should be discouraged. Take, for instance, Q. If a Q-like being appeared, all the religious would smugly turn our way and proclaim, "see, we told you God exists!" But it is bullshit. Q is not god, love is not god, the Big Bang is not fucking god.

Then of course there is Gwyneth Paltrow, who is obviously god. It has been revealed! But you're not gonna get that, these peeps ain't gonna get that, heck, peeps that spend copious amounts of time around me regularly declare - I don't get it. Which is to say the divine presence is intensely personal and beyond expression.

All of which simplifies to this gnostic atheist position, not that god does not exist, but rather, no god exists outside the self.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
31-05-2014, 06:37 PM
Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
When presented with a new perspective any logical person has to right to change their mind. Now that I've thought about it, I'm going to say you can accept something as truth without scientifically testing it yourself. Almost all knowledge is inherently unknown.

Obviously it should be recognized that you can only have 100% certainty if you have tested that knowledge yourself, which also means things you accept as truth that haven't been personally tested can very well be false.

Accepting something as truth can be/most times is, different from being 100% certain.

All in all, gnostics are nut jobs lol


One more question if you don't mind... I'll post a new thread "where are Gnostics coming from"?"

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 07:12 PM
Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
(29-05-2014 11:39 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 11:32 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  However religions can be disproved. All of them can.

Not 100%.

Only portions.

Disproving something requires for all parts to be empirically disproved. Same with proving something.

The Adam and Eve story is impossible, as noted by the evangelical Christian founder of the Human Genome Project.

Without Adam and Eve there's no original sin.

Without original sin, there's no need for a messiah.

Without a messiah, Christianity doesn't make sense.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 07:21 PM
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
(31-05-2014 07:12 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 11:39 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Not 100%.

Only portions.

Disproving something requires for all parts to be empirically disproved. Same with proving something.

The Adam and Eve story is impossible, as noted by the evangelical Christian founder of the Human Genome Project.

Without Adam and Eve there's no original sin.

Without original sin, there's no need for a messiah.

Without a messiah, Christianity doesn't make sense.

Nuh-uh, 'cause it's, like, totally metaphorical, man.

And obviously I know this because my (culturally conditioned) subjective personal experience shifts and affirms (and cognitive biases maintain) these bits of wholly falsifiable and indeed falsified millennia-old mythology into a highly selective post-hoc non-literal and conveniently unfalsifiable re-interpretation.

Duh. QED.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
31-05-2014, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2014 07:58 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
No one has to prove there is no god. That's not how we come to knowledge.

(29-05-2014 11:31 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Neither side is provable. It's just a matter of rounding up.

No. Saying "Neither side is provable" implies both sides are equal or have a similar burden and they do not. One side is not provable and the other has no burden to prove anything. You can not prove your case so as far as I'm concerned in my day to day life, functionally, it's a false claim and I treat it as such.

There is no substantive and demonstrable difference between an unprovable claim and a false one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
31-05-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
(31-05-2014 07:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 07:12 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The Adam and Eve story is impossible, as noted by the evangelical Christian founder of the Human Genome Project.

Without Adam and Eve there's no original sin.

Without original sin, there's no need for a messiah.

Without a messiah, Christianity doesn't make sense.

Nuh-uh, 'cause it's, like, totally metaphorical, man.

And obviously I know this because my (culturally conditioned) subjective personal experience shifts and affirms (and cognitive biases maintain) these bits of wholly falsifiable and indeed falsified millennia-old mythology into a highly selective post-hoc non-literal and conveniently unfalsifiable re-interpretation.

Duh. QED.

Bah, you only have to do that because you took it out of context. Sad

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-06-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
(31-05-2014 06:37 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  All in all, gnostics are nut jobs lol

I can testify to that. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 11:12 PM
RE: Agnostic-Theism-Atheist
I ran into a problem with hobbitgirl's chart. If anyone is interested I made a new thread Click here for the thread

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: