Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[zooterkin]

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

1) Fundamentalism is, by definition, not agnostic.

Most Christians, outside the US, anyway, are not fundamentalist.

 

[zooterkin]

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

For special values of 'exist'.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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?

And I may be splitting hairs too finely, but for what it's worth:

1) I cannot find a requirement in fundamentalism that one's belief in God must be gnostic. Belief in God (and a bunch of other things) is required, and expressions of doubt are discouraged, but a fundamentalist could put the 'odds of God' at, say, 95%, and still be safely fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does.

2) This is more personal opinion on my part. You don't need faith if you have knowledge. Those who say God's existence is obvious or self-evident or proved by some argument may be factually incorrect, but they are not believing by faith, they are believing based on what they think is evidence and reason. They don't have faith, they think they know. They have certainty.

 

[Piggy]

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

Oh, in that case, please provide examples or definitions so we know what you're talking about.

 

[Piggy]

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

No, it cannot be, because (1) if it were, we wouldn't be talking about it, and (2) god is an ancient idea.

 

[Piggy]

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

I made a very long post which explains this. I don't intend to repeat it.

In short, our improved (and verified) understanding of the world has replaced the failed mythological view.

The one has replaced the other just as surely as oxygen has replaced the non-existent phlogiston which some folks once thought was needed for combustion.

The new paradigm cannot exist alongside the old one. It must replace it.

 

[Piggy]

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

Nor do we need to.

For instance, we don't have to probe the cosmic microwave background to know that pterodactyls are extinct.

We only have to know the qualities of the thing we're looking for, and do sufficient looking to establish whether it exists or not.

 

[Piggy]

Yohuns of course, even squircles.

You're not giving this any serious thought.

Yohuns may or may not need to be considered, depending on what they are.

And circles with corners don't need to be considered because anything with corners isn't a circle.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Neither do I.

 

[tsig]

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

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

Where?

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



I suspect gods are more likely to emerge than squircles

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

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

Yohuns of course, even squircles.

Since gods are invented mythological things, I agree.

 

[FattyCatty]

I made a very long post which explains this. I don't intend to repeat it.

In short, our improved (and verified) understanding of the world has replaced the failed mythological view.

Bullpucky. Your "failed mythological view," in which you seem to refer to belief in God or god(s) or a supreme being or whatever you want to call it (except god belief, as that is an ugly, abominable use of language) is merely you saying "I don't believe that so it can't be true or valid."

Our "improved and verified understanding of the world" tells us nothing about gods. It can't, as those kinds of things are not in the purview of science. And any new understanding from philosophy has only sparked argument, not replaced any specific "mythological" (i.e., religious or theistic) view.

The one has replaced the other just as surely as oxygen has replaced the non-existent phlogiston which some folks once thought was needed for combustion.

You are confusing a natural fact, which can be scientifically investigated, with a belief (faith) in something that cannot be scientifically investigated. The former can change when new evidence appears; the latter can have no evidence, only belief.

The new paradigm cannot exist alongside the old one. It must replace it.

Your "new paradigm" is just your belief (faith) in how things are. The "old one" is not one, but many; also just beliefs. I reject yours (as in I don't believe it; you certainly have the right to believe it but not to require that anyone else believe it), as you reject all those of others.

Nor do we need to.

For instance, we don't have to probe the cosmic microwave background to know that pterodactyls are extinct.

We only have to know the qualities of the thing we're looking for, and do sufficient looking to establish whether it exists or not.

Sufficient looking implies an ability to look everywhere. That is not possible. There are areas outside the realm of science. Nor is it likely you will know all the qualities of what you seek. You may know some, but to know all is a different matter.

You assume pterodactyls are extinct. You don't know it. They could exist on another planet, having been taken to a zoo there by aliens (not that I believe in this scenario, but it exists as a possibility). Your belief that pterodactyls are extinct becomes more likely if you limit it to Earth. However, if there are still undiscovered parts of the world, and if you haven't investigated every part of the discovered world, then again extinction is just a belief, not a certainty. Remember the Coelacanths.

Neither do I.

And yet, that is exactly what you do.

 

[tsig]

For special values of 'exist'.

Subject to redefinition of 'exist' or denying that the word 'exist' exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Intelligent creators in nature such as ourselves do not come first. They evolve from non-intelligent non-creator lifeforms. Your argument has a big flaw.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

That's because you are not looking.

 

[kerikiwi]

Sufficient looking implies an ability to look everywhere.

Not at all. Sufficient looking is dependent on the definition of the thing sought.
In order to establish whether or not there is a dragon which lives in my garage, I need only search the garage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bullpucky. Your "failed mythological view," in which you seem to refer to belief in God or god(s) or a supreme being or whatever you want to call it (except god belief, as that is an ugly, abominable use of language) is merely you saying "I don't believe that so it can't be true or valid."

Our "improved and verified understanding of the world" tells us nothing about gods. It can't, as those kinds of things are not in the purview of science. And any new understanding from philosophy has only sparked argument, not replaced any specific "mythological" (i.e., religious or theistic) view.


You are confusing a natural fact, which can be scientifically investigated, with a belief (faith) in something that cannot be scientifically investigated. The former can change when new evidence appears; the latter can have no evidence, only belief.


Your "new paradigm" is just your belief (faith) in how things are. The "old one" is not one, but many; also just beliefs. I reject yours (as in I don't believe it; you certainly have the right to believe it but not to require that anyone else believe it), as you reject all those of others.


Sufficient looking implies an ability to look everywhere. That is not possible. There are areas outside the realm of science. Nor is it likely you will know all the qualities of what you seek. You may know some, but to know all is a different matter.

You assume pterodactyls are extinct. You don't know it. They could exist on another planet, having been taken to a zoo there by aliens (not that I believe in this scenario, but it exists as a possibility). Your belief that pterodactyls are extinct becomes more likely if you limit it to Earth. However, if there are still undiscovered parts of the world, and if you haven't investigated every part of the discovered world, then again extinction is just a belief, not a certainty. Remember the Coelacanths.


And yet, that is exactly what you do.

Goodness!

I apologize as I have a half finished post replying to another one of yours. I need to get back to that one. But in the meantime, are you aware of some god myths? Zeus, Thor, Pele' perhaps?

How many of these myths are you aware of?

Have you chosen one god belief you don't think is a myth?

If so, how does it differ?

 

[Minoosh]

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

Interesting. So, I imagine folks can see where this is going. What if group A saw only in gray scale and B in color? Wouldn't it be impossible for the B people to convey the concept of color to the A group?

I say this partly because I believe a person's tendency toward God-belief may be partly biological. My mom and I usually think the same baseball players are cute, and we also have similar vague theological beliefs though our upbringings were completely different. I'm thinking, it's possible that certain people experience things differently, in ways they will never be able to explain to other people.

Here's something odd, I've heard of colorblind people being able to match colors exactly even though they see the color only in gray scale. That's anecdotal and maybe a question for the science thread.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Bullpucky. Your "failed mythological view," in which you seem to refer to belief in God or god(s) or a supreme being or whatever you want to call it (except god belief, as that is an ugly, abominable use of language) is merely you saying "I don't believe that so it can't be true or valid."

No, it's 'That can't be true or valid so I don't believe it'

Our "improved and verified understanding of the world" tells us nothing about gods. It can't, as those kinds of things are not in the purview of science. And any new understanding from philosophy has only sparked argument, not replaced any specific "mythological" (i.e., religious or theistic) view.

How have you arrived at the conclusion that our understanding of the world tells us nothing about gods or that they are outside the purview of science. These are simply assertions on your part. Do you honestly believe that we have nor learned enough to dismiss the existence of Thor or Zeus?

You are confusing a natural fact, which can be scientifically investigated, with a belief (faith) in something that cannot be scientifically investigated. The former can change when new evidence appears; the latter can have no evidence, only belief.

Again, you are asserting that God cannot be scientifically tested. Evidence?

Sufficient looking implies an ability to look everywhere.

No, it requires only looking where necessary. In the case of something that cannot exist there is no need to look anywhere.

There are areas outside the realm of science.

Are there? Evidence?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Our "improved and verified understanding of the world" tells us nothing about gods. It can't, as those kinds of things are not in the purview of science.

I hope you realize that this statement destroys the teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of god(s). Both of these arguments depend on our view of the world telling us something about god(s).

I'm not sure you want to argue that point, at least the way you have worded it.

 

[dlorde]

Here's something odd, I've heard of colorblind people being able to match colors exactly even though they see the color only in gray scale. That's anecdotal and maybe a question for the science thread.

Total colour blindness (achromatopsia) is very rare (less than 1 in 33,000). Colour blindness involving minor defects in colour perception is common (~1 in 10). Perhaps the colour blind people in question weren't completely colour blind?