Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Minoosh]

If I had a choice, I'd want the vision of the mantis shrimp .... :~)

Cool critter. Tanks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course the situation here is not you as an outsider in someone else's church respecting their traditions but rather Nicole 'respecting the traditions' of someone else's church in a completely different place unconnected with that church and where she is not surrounded by those who share that tradition and belief.

If you bow your head and faux pray in a church to fit in with everyone else then fine. If you come to my house and do the same then you're not doing it just to fit in, you obviously feel there is some importance to it.

OK, that's a reasonable point. I'm not sure you articulated that point well at first, but now that I get what you are saying, I'd ask it more clearly of Nicole. Perhaps you have been clear and only I missed it.

Nicole, do you write g-d because you think there could be a god who cares, because you think there could be people reading your posts who care, or for some other reason?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the problem; you're thinking that you're asking a legitimate question- basically saying that if I'm open to the possibility of God then I must be open to anything that we we cannot prove with science, be it unicorns or anything else. The reason I see this as a condescending remark is that it seems so illogical to me that you can even begin to compare the two. Unicorns are obviously man made inventions. As for God- maybe it is, but there is a chance it isn't. Because I believe in the possibility of a higher power or intelligence does not mean that I have to be open to the possibility of unicorns.

For those of us who conclude the evidence is that gods are fictional, there are many parallels between fictional unicorns and fictional gods. However, most people, including those who are more skeptical than not, selectively believe, whether it is their science based beliefs or one's evidence absent beliefs.

The conclusion, if you have one evidence absent belief you must believe in all evidence absent beliefs, is not supportable. It fails logic rules.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The question is legitimate. I am trying to establish why you are open to the possibility of a god. If a god, why not unicorns?

On what basis do you assert that unicorns are obviously man-made inventions? Would it not be more accurate to say maybe they are, but there is a chance they are not?
Why do you believe in the possiblity of a higher power, for which there is absolutely no evidence other than wishful thinking, but utterly reject the possibility of unicorns?

This is a legitimate question and quite different from the logic fail I noted above. I'm wondering if this is the question Nicole hears, or if she hears something else when asked.

if I'm open to the possibility of God then I must be open to anything that we we cannot prove with science, be it unicorns or anything else.

That is a different statement, Nicole. Kerikiwi is asking on what basis do you believe, because it is not clear why you buy one possibility and deny the other. What differs in your mind?

 

[Trent Wray]

Cool critter. Tanks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's possible - some women may have tetrachromatic vision, so they see more colours than other people. Quite what those colours might look like, it's hard to imagine...

Oooh, I want to work that into my NaNoWriMo story. Thanks.

 

[kerikiwi]

No, I meant if they saw a color that wasn't in the rainbow. That didn't fit in that spectrum, but that they perceived as a color.

That would be an hallucination. Seeing something which is not real.

 

[kerikiwi]

This is a legitimate question and quite different from the logic fail I noted above. I'm wondering if this is the question Nicole hears, or if she hears something else when asked.

I'm fairly sure she hears something else.

 

[Leumas]

The African unicorn was obviously a man made invention. Until it was discovered by Westerners in the 20th century.

That Okapi looks like a horse was playing around with a Zebra while confined in Noah's Ark.

 

[Trent Wray]

That Okapi looks like a horse was playing around with a Zebra while confined in Noah's Ark.

Noah's Ark After Dark

 

[laca]

For those of us who conclude the evidence is that gods are fictional, there are many parallels between fictional unicorns and fictional gods. However, most people, including those who are more skeptical than not, selectively believe, whether it is their science based beliefs or one's evidence absent beliefs.

The conclusion, if you have one evidence absent belief you must believe in all evidence absent beliefs, is not supportable. It fails logic rules.

Yep. But in that case there's no way to legitimize belief over non-belief. It's a ticking time-bomb, if you ask me. No wonder we see it too often that a believer in a woo is a believer in many more...

 

[Leumas]

Noah's Ark After Dark

 

[FattyCatty]

I disagree with you. Reality is always tinged with our subjectivity as human beings. So too is discussion about reality. We are human and subjective; it's only natural to listen more carefully and think about what someone says more carefully when they are speaking in a neutral or polite way. When they are antagonistic and attacking, you don't really hear their argument as well because of the interference from the rudeness and your own defensiveness.

And when someone is rude, snide, and/or condescending, it's not just a matter of you're "not going to attract people to your side." This kind of behavior actively drives people away from your arguments and point of view. They look for ways to argue against you and want to find errors in your arguments. Again, a perfectly normal reaction when you feel attacked or belittled.

I absolutely hear what you're saying ... and this type of "life tool" .... subjective based lenses .... is something we all use in various areas. I use it when deciding who I'm attracted to or not, or who I want to spend time with or not depending on my mood. I use it when I'm in casual conversation with strangers maybe, and I'd rather form an interesting bond than glean information from them I'm going to take seriously. Sometimes I want to be stroked, pandered to, catered to, get an ego boost, find a complete douche to lash out against, make fun of, whatever .... all based on subjective aspects. If someone is rude, or condescending, depending on how much I care about the topic .... I might be driven away myself, or drive them away, or not give them the time of day. It's circumstantial with me, as it is for a lot of people.

It's also a complete and total LUXURY. And I still can say that reality is independent of our subjective desires and whether or not we are nice or not .... because when you remove the luxury of what you like or don't like, you are left with reality speaking for itself.

Yet we each perceive reality similarly but differently; it may "speak for itself" but it is heard by each one of us in a slightly different way. My blue is not exactly your blue; I don't hear the same Mozart concerto that you do; pickles taste differently to me than to you. So what is the true reality of blue and that concerto and pickles? Can it be absolute when it depends on subjective perception? And isn't discussion of reality therefore always subjective? And aren't our feelings subjective? If reality is perceived subjectively, and discussion about reality is subjective, and our feelings are subjective, then feelings must be as valid as reality and discussions of reality.

Case in point, based off some movie I saw the other day flipping through the channels:

You're hungry, and I have lobster cooking on my oven. You think I'm a prick, but I offer you the lobster anyway. You refuse. You know you can get it somewhere else, or maybe your appetite will change. Whatever. It's a luxury you have, and why not use it. You don't have to eat my lobster, because you find me to be a prick, and that's completely okay. No one is forcing you.

Now .... out of the blue, you and I are drugged and kidnapped. We are taken to some holding cell, where we are locked up without any access to the outside world. All we are given to eat, is that lobster I was making earlier. My attitude doesn't change ... I'm still the same person you viewed as a prick. You don't eat the lobster. For whatever your reasons.

Four days pass .... and we aren't given any food to eat. A cup of water here and there and that's it by our captors. That lobster is still on that floor. It's even spoiled some now.

You are tempted to eat it ... because your hunger is getting the best of you, and that lobster is the only choice you have. Either that, or starve. Spoiled lobster.

Do you eat it ? Do you starve yourself out of spite ? Because you think I'm a prick ? "The principle" ?

The reality, is that you're hungry and you need to eat. The luxury of subjectively choosing your own reality has been taken away from you .... reality is what it is. We can argue philosophy and semantics all day long .... but it's not practical any longer. The only practical thing is eat or die. If you choose to not eat, I'll eat.

Well, again, reality is perceived differently by each person, making it subjective. My reality was that I could kill you and eat you; there would be lots more food than a lobster would provide, and I wouldn't be locked up with a prick.

So you can say whatever you want about reality .... it doesn't matter in an applicable and practical sense. Eat or die. Your hunger shows you need to eat. It's why taking all the things said in conversations on this forum too seriously, for example, is only so "practical". Reality is what it is. Unicorns are what they are. God is what God is. We need what we need to survive. Etc and so forth. Arguing about how we feel about it is a luxury. One that isn't "bad" .... but it's a luxury. It's not the point.

You are correct that arguing about how we feel about "it" is a luxury. This forum is a luxury. Having Internet access is a luxury. Having a computer is a luxury. Having a house to keep a computer is a luxury. Etc., etc. I'm not sure what your point is.

Some of us are capable of recognizing subjectivity from objectivity, and what we'd like reality to be verses what it is.

Again, your reality and mine are not the same in all respects.

I personally find it to be more practical and truthfully based. Not only that, but it puts things into perspective that otherwise might confuse me, or cause me to take certain things for granted. Now, on the surface .... when we're both sitting on the beach looking nice in our swimsuits, enjoying the sun .... on the surface, why I get along with you or not and why you get along with me or not might actually matter, and it might matter to us personally. It will determine a lot of our choices. But when the tsunami hits us unexpectedly, are you going to care if I help save your life ?

So you're talking about your reality. But in my reality, would you have helped save my life if you didn't get along with me?

Reality speaks for itself, regardless of what we think about it. And it sounds cliched but I find it to be true ... people tend to take for granted that the world of convenience, entertainment, marketing, buffet style choice, memes, trends, fashions, popularity, and comfort does not "exist" on the same rules that a lion eating a gazelle, two humans producing babies or dealing with disease, whether or not the earth orbits the sun, and whether or not some of "life's big philosophical questions" are even relevant. Luxury and necessity aren't the same. Truth and falsehood aren't the same. And the world doesn't revolve around YOU or me.

Well, I completely agree with your last sentence.

 

[zooterkin]

No, I meant if they saw a color that wasn't in the rainbow. That didn't fit in that spectrum, but that they perceived as a color.

Well, it's not that strange, such colours do exist, and purple is one of them.

 

[Belz...]

It's worth bearing in mind that there's no contradiction between being an agnostic and being a fundamentalist or creationist. The only thing that would make them 'not an agnostic' is believing it's possible to know if God exists or being certain that God does or does not exist without any doubt. The deception is in identifying as agnostic when there's such a strong connotation of not having a serious committment to a particular religion. It's as possible to be an agnostic theist as it is to be an agnostic atheist; and by extension one could be an agnostic Baptist or somesuch. In fact, you have to be agnostic to believe in God by faith.

I disagree. Yes, it's possible to be an agnostic theist, in principle. But:

1) Fundamentalism is, by definition, not agnostic.
2) All belief in God is faith, so you are saying that all theists are agnostics?

 

[Belz...]

Again, your reality and mine are not the same in all respects.

Philosophical nonsense. Objectively, your reality and his are the same.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Here's the problem; you're thinking that you're asking a legitimate question- basically saying that if I'm open to the possibility of God then I must be open to anything that we we cannot prove with science, be it unicorns or anything else. The reason I see this as a condescending remark is that it seems so illogical to me that you can even begin to compare the two. Unicorns are obviously man made inventions. As for God- maybe it is, but there is a chance it isn't. Because I believe in the possibility of a higher power or intelligence does not mean that I have to be open to the possibility of unicorns.

Nicole, while you complain about others being condescending I find your answers to be so. You dismiss people's legitimate questions or give glib answers that lack depth. We are here to have a discussion and you'll find that most discussions here happen at a level that goes beyond what you mind typically elsewhere.

Simply asserting that we know unicorns are man made inventions and yet we don't know that gods are and therefore that argument is illogical is not in the spirit of this forum. A forum where I've had long discussions about what the word 'exists' actually means.

Don't take this as a personal attack as it's not meant to be but if you post things like the above people will want to dig deeper into it. If you aren't comfortable with that then fine but you can't just evade it by saying people are being rude.

So the above said, can you elaborate on how you know unicorns are man made inventions but you cannot say the same about God?

 

[punshhh]

Have you realized that once you recognize god beliefs are all based on fiction there is no need to ask if gods are real? Do you equally wonder or speculate if Harry Potter's world is real?

I understand your point of view on this issue, however I am considering the existence or not of an intelligent creator. There is evidence of intelligent creators evolving naturally in nature. Indeed one naturally occurring intelligent creator will shortly create another intelligent creator, which is likely to in turn create more kinds of intelligent creators.

Myths in the minds of men/women are only relevant to beliefs in the minds of men/women, not to naturally occurring creators.

 

[punshhh]

The problem w/ the unfalsifiable gods is precisely that they cannot be detected by any potential means.

I am not referring to unfalsifiable gods, I am referring to gods which may or may not actually exist.

On the other hand, if you're trying to say that God is something nobody has ever thought of, then you're wrong, because if that were true we wouldn't be having this conversation.

God may be something that no one has thought of so far.

God is indeed something that folks have some idea about, and we've looked for it, and it ain't there.

Where?

Not only that, but we have a workable replacement that's confirmed every minute of every day.

And not only that, but this new and proven framework also explains why belief in gods should persist despite their non-existence.

How do you know they don't exist in spite of scientific understanding of nature.

But if you're saying I need to suspend judgment because someone might come up with a new definition that does describe something real, I'll have to ask you if you're holding out for someone to re-define "circle with corners" in a way that describes something real? I dunno, maybe someone will open up a disco and call it that.

I suspect gods are more likely to emerge than squircles

Everything that exists, exists regardless of what we have to say about it.

But that doesn't make the earth flat. And it doesn't make unicorns grant wishes. And it doesn't turn mythic beings into real ones.

Again we do not know everything or every kind of thing that exists.

Yeah, there's quite a chunk we don't know, but that doesn't mean that Tolkein might have written history, or that Chuck E. Cheese lives and breathes.

Yes I realise that invented mythological things are unlikely to exist.

And what about this:

"The fundamental basis of existence is a mystery to humanity, including any yohuns involved."

Do you think that's true of yohuns?

Yohuns of course, even squircles.

 

[punshhh]

What do you mean "realised"?

It's a proposition I have heard proposed quite a bit, and it's one I gave many years' thought to, but it turned out in the end not to be true.

As I've explained, if you propose that "God exists" then your choices are to propose something contrary to fact, or use a Humpty-Dumpty definition of God, or de-define "God" or "exists" making the claim into a non-claim.

You have no other choices.

I am not making any claims about the existence or not of gods, only that I see no justification for assuming they don't exist.