Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Awesome new avatar btw !

Thanks. It seemed appropriate for Thanksgiving.

Seriously ... if you really do not want to answer my question, just say that you don't want to. It's so easy to do. I am not going to accuse, or anything like that. What is irritating, is when you avoid it and try to take it elsewhere. Avoid it by saying, "I'm going to avoid it" or simply don't respond at all I have no problem with that whatsoever, I think it's more respectful actually

You don't have to quote posts that sounded like ridicule to you ... I am not debating, or putting anything on a judges stand. I didn't even consider the idea that your post addressed my posts specifically .... what drew me to your post was the curiosity of how someone with the post count you have on the JREF would actually be concerned with whether or not someone else was being ridiculed. I was curious as to your actual emotional, psychological, whatever reason for that concern. You specifically ....

There are so many false assumptions here it is hard to let them slide, but I will. I already clearly said my post did not address you personally.

Moving on:

And you still haven't answered that specific, personal question I asked. The other straw can burn in a Halloween pumpkin So again .... would you rather everyone sugar coat things, or just specific people whom you find to have ridiculed ... rather than go ahead and letting them hang themselves by their own ridiculing if they so desire ? IOW .... why did you personally take offense or have an issue with it ? I'm curious as to WHY you would stand up and essentially say, "come on guys ... that's enough" ... again, the personal reason is what I'm asking. If you don't want to answer it, just say you don't want to and don't. Or ignore this post. If you divert from answering it again with all this other stuff that I'm telling you quite clearly I don't even care about ... I probably will drop it and keep moving on myself, assuming you're simply going to dodge it because you either don't want to share the substance of it or there is no substance there to share anyway. Which is okay to do ... I'm just telling you i would prefer you be straight up is all

I didn't 'personally take offense'. I noticed some of the posts addressing Nicole's use of "G-d" instead of god were snarky (to use the forum term). Clearly she felt the same way as she posted a note of appreciation that I spoke up.

I am definitely a direct confronter and was not complaining about any direct confrontation. I find most sugar coating to be a waste of thread space. However, I've had to learn, myself, to be careful when directly confronting people because people often read all sorts of things into a post that are not there. Likewise, somethimes there are snarky things in posts that were not really intended but nonetheless are said.

I'm unclear why this is so important to you.

 

[Trent Wray]

Because there really is only two choices, either I am serving something else's purpose, or I am making my own. If its purpose is only to create me to go and do whatever I wish, then it becomes as meaningless to venerate it as it would be to venerate the mashed peas I ate as an infant

Why are there only two choices when it comes to purpose in this context ?

Suppose we are merely trapped in a probabilistic causality, but causality in and of itself has no "will". We could then be said to be serving something else's purpose in a limited fashion, as our choices are limited, which itself has no purpose (causality) and furthermore the idea of making our own choices is also limited and thus an illusion.

In other words, there is a third option: "both".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I'd rather be an atheist than believe in a God that would do that for no reason.

Think of this a different way: if you find the claim a god is "loving" and you see the hypocrisy both in the religious text and the practitioners of that religion, it is strong evidence that the claimed god does not really exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It doesn't fit well with being an agnostic.

Respect for someone else's tradition doesn't fit agnosticism?

 

[Trent Wray]

Thanks. It seemed appropriate for Thanksgiving.

:~)

(respectful snip) .... I'm unclear why this is so important to you.

I don't know why it was important to me either ... passing curiosity ? I didn't take anything you said personally ... I was curious as to WHY it mattered to you that some were ridiculing is all. You specifically. So I wasn't taking it personally, but I was directly asking you on a personal level however. I don't know why . I assumed if you answered my question then why I cared to ask it would become known to me upon introspection lol But since you didn't, and now my curiosity has passed ... I don't really even care to have it answered anymore lol As I've said elsewhere, I enjoy understanding the emotional/psychological reasonings people have for their actions, so I was trying to find out yours. And if you answering me depends on me first answering you, then we're at a standstill anyway because my answer is "i don't know ... I was waiting on you."

On a superficial and general level, you speaking up and feeling the need to basically say, "come on guys ... some of you are ridiculing" was interesting to me because it's analogous, in my mind, to a bunch of us going scuba diving and all of a sudden someone saying, "should we really go to a depth of 50 feet ? Lets stop at 49." when we could withstand a lot more and routinely go deeper anyway. IOW ... why ask certain others to stop diving deeper ?

But like I said ... I don't really care anymore. That was "yesterday" so to speak

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Righteous idignation aside, I'm trying to understand why it makes her uncomfortable. I think it's very much on-topic since she brought it up in the first place, if memory serves. I also don't see how it's an ad hom, but since the term is often misused here, I'm not surprised.

I've been in hundreds of cathedrals. I respect believers' rituals when I am in such places. I went to my neighbor's funeral. He was a deacon in his church. I certainly didn't mention my atheism to his widow. I sat through a bizarre Pentecostal service once with people crawling in the isles and speaking in tongues. I did not laugh out loud.

Because I respect other peoples' beliefs, does that mean my atheism is disingenuous?

 

[kerikiwi]

What are you talking about ? It seems your post is disconnected from the context of mine.

You asked why a lower intelligence is not enough.
I pointed out that if a higher intelligence were reuired, there must be another intelligence even higher, and then one higher than that..
So instead of turtles all the way down, it becomes brains all the way up...

 

[Hokulele]

Why are there only two choices when it comes to purpose in this context ?

Suppose we are merely trapped in a probabilistic causality, but causality in and of itself has no "will". We could then be said to be serving something else's purpose in a limited fashion, as our choices are limited, which itself has no purpose (causality) and furthermore the idea of making our own choices is also limited and thus an illusion.

In other words, there is a third option: "both".

Because purpose implies intent, and probabilistic causality has no intention. At least, that is how I understood Nicole's use of "higher intelligence" and "purpose". So to say that I serve the purpose of probabilistic causality is a meaningless as saying I serve the purpose of the grilled tri-tip I had for dinner last night.

 

[Trent Wray]

You asked why a lower intelligence is not enough.
I pointed out that if a higher intelligence were reuired, there must be another intelligence even higher, and then one higher than that..
So instead of turtles all the way down, it becomes brains all the way up...

A phallic brain erection ?

ETA: (sorry ... I just envisioned turtles extending all the way down, and brains extending all the way, and I asked myself "maybe it's about erection envy" )

 

[Naive1000]

If he believes in it he's not an agnostic ! Please get your definitions right.

I think you need to check your definition I said he believes but he never claimed to know there was a god. He accepts the fact that their is a possibility that their is no god. That makes him an agnostic. His reasoning for belief is his need to understand the start of the universe.

His uncertainty and willingness to question makes him agnostic. This fits many peoples definition of agnostic. And, as it's a self label, I respect that that is what he is.

 

[Trent Wray]

Because purpose implies intent, and probabilistic causality has no intention. At least, that is how I understood Nicole's use of "higher intelligence" and "purpose". So to say that I serve the purpose of probabilistic causality is a meaningless as saying I serve the purpose of the grilled tri-tip I had for dinner last night.

Yes ... but there is still the matter of you either serving something else's purpose, or choosing your own ... as you phrased it.

So far we've knocked out that saying you are serving the purpose of the grilled tri-tip is meaningless. Isn't it also meaningless to say that you served your own purpose, if you are merely the result of a causality ? Saying you served your own purpose is saying that the illusion of choice/free will is real. It's still ascribing purpose to something that has no purpose .... your choice to eat tri-tip steak. Because even in a probabilistic causality, you're not completely choosing on your own what to do. It's limited. So saying you are serving yourself isn't completely a meaningful statement either.

 

[Naive1000]

I really must answer your questions with some questions of my own. Why would knowing that God doesn't exist not change anything for you? It would change everything for me. No it wouldn't change my clothes or hobbies but wouldn't knowing that we weren't alive by random chance but for some greater purpose supercede all of that anyhow? Obviously we should live each day as if it were our last regardless of whether or not God exists, and of course we can make our own purpose in life. However, I simply cannot compare the two. And how would I know that I'm deluding myself when I'm not sure? Simply because I like many others want to believe in a God, does that somehow prove God doesn't exist? (And yes, I'm typing "God"- quite frankly I'm sick and tired of all of the whining on here over what to me is a trivial point about how I choose to spell or not spell God.) Finally, a question to everyone on this thread. Let's suppose that science prove God does not exist. What do you think will happen? Will the world become a better place? Will wars cease to exist? Or will people lose hope and become depressed and angry?

Hell no, it would make the world much worse. Peoples belief in religion is much more powerful than their belief in science. They would try to shut down all science, make it illegal, and create a whole new version of the dark ages. Just look at the evolution debate and abortion. While those are extremists, I never hear any religious people speak out against those extremists. The flow would inevitably pull believers into the mentality that science is evil in itself. That's why I think it's good for science to stick with more terrestrial topics and leave philosophy to the philosophers. At least until we evolve a little more. Just my thoughts.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes ... but there is still the matter of you either serving something else's purpose, or choosing your own ... as you phrased it.

So far we've knocked out that saying you are serving the purpose of the grilled tri-tip is meaningless. Isn't it also meaningless to say that you served your own purpose, if you are merely the result of a causality ? Saying you served your own purpose is saying that the illusion of choice/free will is real. It's still ascribing purpose to something that has no purpose .... your choice to eat tri-tip steak. Because even in a probabilistic causality, you're not completely choosing on your own what to do. It's limited. So saying you are serving yourself isn't completely a meaningful statement either.

It may be limited, but it is still influenced by my intention. You note this yourself in your choice of wording here where you use the terms "probabilistic causality" and "not completely choosing". (My bolding.) Granted, I am of the opinion that "free will" is an illusion, albeit a useful one, but I am also of the opinion that determinism can only be discussed in terms of probabilities, not in terms of absolutes.

 

[Belz...]

You asked why a lower intelligence is not enough.
I pointed out that if a higher intelligence were reuired, there must be another intelligence even higher, and then one higher than that..
So instead of turtles all the way down, it becomes brains all the way up...

Ah, gotcha. I didn't get that the first time around. I guess I need a higher intelligence.

 

[Belz...]

Because I respect other peoples' beliefs, does that mean my atheism is disingenuous?

No. Did I imply that ?

 

[Belz...]

His uncertainty and willingness to question makes him agnostic.

The first part, yes. The second part, no.

 

[Trent Wray]

It may be limited, but it is still influenced by my intention. You note this yourself in your choice of wording here where you use the terms "probabilistic causality" and "not completely choosing". (My bolding.) Granted, I am of the opinion that "free will" is an illusion, albeit a useful one, but I am also of the opinion that determinism can only be discussed in terms of probabilities, not in terms of absolutes.

And what is the origin of "intention". Where did your intention begin ?

All I'm saying, is that I don't see it as either/or .... that we are either serving the purpose of something, else, or our own purpose. I see it as "both". The "third option". I think probabilistic causality highlights that and is somewhat supportive of that idea, and thus why I referenced it lol. The limitations are somewhat dependent upon themselves, but when isolated and picked apart, become meaningless or illusionary. Albeit useful ones. That's why I don't think they are mutually exclusive, they are more codependent upon each other. I *think* you are now basically saying the same thing as I am ... that the answer is a mixture. I *think* lol

 

[Hokulele]

And what is the origin of "intention". Where did your intention begin ?

All I'm saying, is that I don't see it as either/or .... we are either serving the purpose of something, else, or our own purpose. I see it as "both". The "third option". The limitations are somewhat dependent upon themselves, but when isolated and picked apart, become meaningless or illusionary. Albeit useful ones. That's why I don't think they are mutually exclusive, they are more codependent upon each other. I *think* you are now basically saying the same thing as I am ... that the answer is a mixture. I *think* lol

Nah, to use your terms to frame my either/or, either determinism is probablistic, or it is absolute. In other words, either everything is laid out ahead of time, or there is room for variability, and thus the illusion of choice. Please note, I never claimed that my choices are unconstrained. Also note that Nicole's original claim was that life must have a purpose, and that purpose is supplied at the moment of creation by an external source ("higher intelligence"). This to me sounds like absolute determinism.

If, as Nicole later argued, its intention is simply to allow me to make up my own purpose(s), can it really be argued that my life has any external purpose other than basic existence?

 

[Trent Wray]

Nah, to use your terms to frame my either/or, either determinism is probablistic, or it is absolute. In other words, either everything is laid out ahead of time, or there is room for variability, and thus the illusion of choice. Please note, I never claimed that my choices are unconstrained. Also note that Nicole's original claim was that life must have a purpose, and that purpose is supplied at the moment of creation by an external source ("higher intelligence"). This to me sounds like absolute determinism.

If, as Nicole later argued, its intention is simply to allow me to make up my own purpose(s), can it really be argued that my life has any external purpose other than basic existence?

When you said, "I am also of the opinion that determinism can only be discussed in terms of probabilities, not in terms of absolutes," is the "option three" I was putting out there It's why I said you are now basically saying the same thing as I am ... absolutes aren't the "only option" IOW.

 

[laca]

So you assume that it is only possible to seriously entertain the existence of gods by having a belief in their existence.

I repeat I hold no beliefs in anything.

You just said you're 75% certain there is at least one god. What do you think that means? Anything higher than 50% is a shade of belief. Anything lower is a gradient of disbelief. So, I ask again, which is it? Belief or no belief?