Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[kerikiwi]

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.

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?

 

[laca]

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.

Of course it doesn't. You just don't have any logical reason not to, given your other belief. If the babble was about a magical unicorn, you would be saying the same, but with reversed roles.

Also, to reiterate: when you say "possibility of God" instead of "possibility of a god", most of us think you're referring to YHWH. That makes the above argument even more silly: a unicorn is much more likely to exist than a self-contradictory being.

 

[Naive1000]

I detect a contradiction here: you say you bow your head out of respect etc, then that you would never bow your head if you didn't believe.
Which is it?

When I bow my head with friends and family it's in respect to the people not their religion. I'm respecting the traditions of their home, for them, and they know it. Everyone that knows me, knows I'm an atheist.

If I bow my head in church it's like I'm showing respect for the beliefs of the religion, which I wouldn't do. There in lies the difference.

 

[kerikiwi]

I simply cannot see how we have to prove in God's existence with our limited human capacities. The only honest answer I do see is that we just don't know.

Can you rephrase the first sentence? As it stands it doesn't quite make sense.
Saying we don't know is hugely different from saying we want to believe because it sounds like a nice idea.
And to say we don't know is not as honest as saying there is absolutely no evidence for any of the gods which religions claim, and every evidence that they don't exist.

 

[Trent Wray]

However, people should realize that acting in such a way is not going to attract people to your side.

And this is exactly the glory of reality ... it speaks for itself, and what is real or not real has nothing to do with popularity contests, or whether someone likes reality or not, or whether reality does a good job at marketing, flirting, appealing to emotions, "winning you over", etc and so forth.

The chair either exists in a practical sense or it doesn't. When it comes to "god" ... some are content to guess, while others want that god to speak for itself and they don't look at the believers to make up their minds for them.

Still others simply want to be able to walk into a shopping mall, and have the vendors convince them of why they should buy their products. If the vendors do a good job, they will buy their products. If they don't, they don't. In that case, the product is irrelevant ... and you might end up buying crap from a really attractive person, when you could buy something of value from a complete a$$h01e but you miss that opportunity because you value being "stroked" over being told the truth.

I find that what we value and the way we value it often determines what we believe. If your beliefs rest on others doing a good job of marketing and making you feel good, then what you value is linked to what appeals to you and whether or not others do a good job of convincing you and how you justify that. In other words, who can feed your need for attention and what kind of attention you desire However, if what you value is based on reality speaking for itself, then whether or not others are intelligent, stupid, falling at your feet to convince you or running from you with the prize will be irrelevant ... reality will speak for itself. You only need to accept what it's saying, so to speak.

 

[dafydd]

Sure it does. It deserves this serious response: The evidence is overwhelming that such super beings are imaginary. There is no evidence they are not.

Ok, there is one serious response.

 

[Piggy]

Well I don't know how you arrive at "cannot by any potential means be detected". Are you privy to future scientific developments?

It sounds like your referring to a gap god argument. Such discussions are machinations of the human mind, as such they fall into the category of "what humanity has to say on the issue".

Gods may exist or not irrespective of what humanity has to say about it. This also applies to ways in which they might interact with known existence.

I don't know where you're wandering off to here.

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

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

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.

So much for God.

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.

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.

The fundamental basis of existence is a mystery to humanity, including any gods involved.
The entirety of human knowledge and understanding describes things only as they appear to be and can be detected with tools(instruments).

Do you acknowledge humanity's short comings on this issue?

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.

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?

 

[Piggy]

Have you realised yet that there is no way of establishing their existence or not.

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.

 

[FattyCatty]

And this is exactly the glory of reality ... it speaks for itself, and what is real or not real has nothing to do with popularity contests, or whether someone likes reality or not, or whether reality does a good job at marketing, flirting, appealing to emotions, "winning you over", etc and so forth.

The chair either exists in a practical sense or it doesn't. When it comes to "god" ... some are content to guess, while others want that god to speak for itself and they don't look at the believers to make up their minds for them.

Still others simply want to be able to walk into a shopping mall, and have the vendors convince them of why they should buy their products. If the vendors do a good job, they will buy their products. If they don't, they don't. In that case, the product is irrelevant ... and you might end up buying crap from a really attractive person, when you could buy something of value from a complete a$$h01e but you miss that opportunity because you value being "stroked" over being told the truth.

I find that what we value and the way we value it often determines what we believe. If your beliefs rest on others doing a good job of marketing and making you feel good, then what you value is linked to what appeals to you and whether or not others do a good job of convincing you and how you justify that. In other words, who can feed your need for attention and what kind of attention you desire However, if what you value is based on reality speaking for itself, then whether or not others are intelligent, stupid, falling at your feet to convince you or running from you with the prize will be irrelevant ... reality will speak for itself. You only need to accept what it's saying, so to speak.

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.

 

[Hokulele]

What about the purpose of creating civilization, achieving unimagined goals (scientific and otherwise) and simply doing good things; for ourselves, fellow man and perhaps one day life on other planets. That hardly sounds useless to me.

If that is the case, once again I am relegated to a pawn's existence. Besides, this assumes that the higher intelligence uses the same definition of "good things" that I do.

I agree, being a good person isn't useless (however you define "good"), but to be forced to conform to someone/thing else's concept of good is, well, not good. I would much prefer to learn and evaluate what seems to be good for others on my own than to simply be told, "This is good, now shut up and do it."

Good doesn't require god(s).

 

[kerikiwi]

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.

Our subjectivity has no effect on reality. A rock is a rock is a rock, even if in your subjective opinion it is not. We are part of reality, not creators of reality. How we discuss reality also has no effect on reality. Being nice or being nasty makes no difference.
The point about people responding to rude or condescending arguments by looking for ways to argue or find errors in the argument is probably true, but that's not a bad thing.
Do we put on a polite face so people will agree with us because we are polite? And conversely do we refrain from rudeness in case people disagree with us?
I'd rather have people agree with me because I am right, or disagree with me because I am wrong.

 

[Tricky]

I appreciate your reply and everything that you said makes sense. I do realize that not all atheists are rude and condescending, just as not all theists are trying to brainwash people. However, people should realize that acting in such a way is not going to attract people to your side.

Many of us realize that. However, some here are not trying to attract people to their side. Some are just angry with religion, and often with some justification.

That being said, the feelings I'm having when reading this thread go beyond just a gut reaction to nasty remarks. The legitimate arguments for atheism just don't seem to be making much sense to me; I simply cannot see how we have to prove in God's existence with our limited human capacities. The only honest answer I do see is that we just don't know.

I understand your attitude, but the problem is that it opens a very large can of worms. There are an unlimited number of things, or even gods, that cannot be proved. Should one believe in them all just because they can't be proved? That's obviously silly. So the choice to believe in God must be based on something, would you agree? It might be a "gut feeling" or even a predisposition to believe in God, possibly based on religious conditioning that the person isn't consciously aware of. But there has to be a reason to believe, otherwise you would believe in every single unevidenced thing.

For me, I needed a clearer reason than "gut feeling". I consider that a poor way to evaluate the validity of a belief (mostly because I've seen it go wrong so many times). I find it more satisfying to have a set of criteria for a concept before I will acknowledge it as believable. I try to apply this method to everything, though being human and having my own indoctrinated beliefs that I am not consciously aware of, I realize that I am not perfect in the application of this method.

But when I exert myself, I can do a reasonably good job of separating things with evidence from things without evidence. Consistently I find that the things that have evidence for them are more reliable predictors and guides. I'm aware that I could be wrong, but in the absence of a better method, I choose to go with the one that works the best. And what I've found is that it makes more sense to believe in things with evidence than those without. Indeed, it is quite a waste of time, IMO, to wonder about things for which there is no evidence. There are too many of them and each is a dead end.

But then, I never could force myself to get interested in philosophy. It does nothing to solve real problems. "I think, therefore I am"? Yeah, I'm happy for you Immanuel. Don't forget to pick up some bread on the way home.

 

[Minoosh]

Most people see the colors of the rainbow. What if someone saw a color that wasn't there? And other people saw it too?

Together they could both look at paint chips and agree on which is the color smurple ... while to you it looked like, say, chartreuse.

And if you showed them the rainbow and they say no, smurple's not on there.

Could smurple exist?

 

[dlorde]

Most people see the colors of the rainbow. What if someone saw a color that wasn't there? And other people saw it too?
...
Could smurple exist?

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...

 

[Trent Wray]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[kerikiwi]

Most people see the colors of the rainbow. What if someone saw a color that wasn't there? And other people saw it too?

Together they could both look at paint chips and agree on which is the color smurple ... while to you it looked like, say, chartreuse.

And if you showed them the rainbow and they say no, smurple's not on there.

Could smurple exist?

I assume all the highlighted people are the same group throughout, who saw a previously unknown colour in the rainbow.
If they all agreed that they saw a colour in the rainbow and then agreed from the paint chips to call it smurple, they would not then look at the second rainbow and say smurple wasn't there, unless it's a rainbow which follows different rules from the first rainbow where a select group did see smurple.
In that case the second rainbow should not be called a rainbow since it follows different rules.

 

[Trent Wray]

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...

I heard this awhile back also ... it might explain how some women are more sensitive to the varying degrees of color and can differentiate between them verses some men who might tend to not see subtle differences. It's an actual difference in our physical ability.

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

"Hyperspectral trinocular color vision" just sounds cool

 

[dlorde]

... it might explain how some women are more sensitive to the varying degrees of color and can differentiate between them verses some men who might tend to not see subtle differences. It's an actual difference in our physical ability.

From the little I could find, it seems to be pretty rare.

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

"Hyperspectral trinocular color vision" just sounds cool

Tricky choice - mantis shrimp vision or mantis shrimp punch... I agree, the vision gets my vote. But how come one crustacean gets two awesome capabilities like that?

 

[Trent Wray]

Tricky choice - mantis shrimp vision or mantis shrimp punch... I agree, the vision gets my vote. But how come one crustacean gets two awesome capabilities like that?

Well, leveling the playing field ... they do taste like chicken

 

[Minoosh]

I assume all the highlighted people are the same group throughout, who saw a previously unknown colour in the rainbow.

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.