Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Minoosh]

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?

I think it was somewhere in between. What interested me was the ability to match "colors" based on gray-scale values.

Most of what I know about perception comes from reading Oliver Sachs. It's truly weird how much individual experiences vary.

 

[dlorde]

Most of what I know about perception comes from reading Oliver Sachs. It's truly weird how much individual experiences vary.

Yes, we're strange and complex creatures. It's a little comforting, but also a little disturbing, to realise there's no such thing as 'normal', and just how wide the variations are.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

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.

You wrote yet another extremely well thought out post.
The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not. Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.
The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d. Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.
Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative. In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

 

[Leumas]

You wrote yet another extremely well thought out post.
The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not. Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.
The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d. Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.
Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative. In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

 

[tsig]

You wrote yet another extremely well thought out post.
The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not. Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.
The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d. Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.
Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative. In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not. Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.
The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d. Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.

If you wish to explain the existence of the universe or the existence of a deeper love using God then I am afraid you would have to actually do that. If you don't, then all you have is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity, both giving you a nice illusion of knowing stuff. But as I said that is just an illusion.

In the end you know diddly squat, and you explain diddly squat. Call that "God" if you wish. I wouldn't. I would call it God of the Gaps.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

There is no purpose to any of this but it keeps us amused until we die.

We are the product of a few billion years of Evolution by Natural Selection. Our genes condition us to work with others. Endorphins provide the mechanism.

It is a cold, lonely and uncaring Universe.

 

[debunker of debunker]

I pray every night to the God I don't believe in that I am wrong.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You have a wonderful way of slicing thru the stallmuck.

Thank you.

And "stallmuck"? Odd word. Reeks partly German.

 

[Minoosh]

However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative.

Believe it or not, some of them are trying to help.

A popular belief being that human beings would be better off with no God beliefs.

Such atheists are sincere and the unforgiving tone of their posts may be aimed at shocking people out of complacency. Or, sometimes it is just being rude.

It's so sweet how you feel about your husband.

 

[the PC apeman]

The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief;

Condescending

they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not.

Incorrect. We treat atheism for what it is: being without theistic belief. Do you really want to understand atheists? Acting as though you know more about us than we do is a condescending approach.

Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.

You have a claim about the nature of a particular conception of a god. That's great. We've heard it. We've heard many other conceptions of a god. None of these claims have lead us to a theistic belief. We are without theistic beliefs. A-the-ists.

The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve?

What percentage of the Universe do you suppose is amenable to cellular life? It is incredibly minute. Be a reasonably intelligent person and ask yourself "Why?" (Don't like that tone? Don't use it yourself. Okay?)

Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d.

No, you're equivocating on faith again. As Pup pointed out and you choose to ignore, belief based on evidence and not the same as belief despite evidence. Your two possibilities do not end up in the same kind of faith. Again, you are being rude and since that has already been pointed out to you, it seems intentional on your part.

Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it?

Yes, love is a biological process. An organism with that bit of biology failing would not experience love.

Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.

Really? Please explain that logic.

Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative.

Are you open to criticism of your own behavior? It seems not? Do you expect others to be open to criticism from you?

In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

Oops, all this for naught it seems. Well, I don't believe your reasoning. I think you're hurt by the light of critical introspection and are too proud to discuss what you see.

Buh bye now

 

[Minoosh]

P.S., Nicole, the popularity of this thread could even be seen as a tribute. Your choice of title was brilliant, giving several levels through which the conversation could proceed.

Hang with it, your marriage is real life, this thread not so much.

 

[Leumas]

An Extirpative Cloyingness

It's so sweet how you feel about your husband.

Another DELUSION that I'd hate to shatter for Nicole or anyone in love....it is a great stupor when you are on it....but like any stupor...you eventually sober up and start fumbling for the next fix.

I suggest that anybody who is so naive about love to read the following books....the first one is GREAT:

• Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray
• Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love
• Falling in Love: Why We Choose the Lovers We Choose

Love Is An Extirpative Cloyingness
Love is an addiction! Seriously… love and sex and all that anathema is an ADDICTION.

• We crave it and actively seek it (e.g. singles bars)
• We do crazy things while under the influence of it (e.g. buying diamond rings)
• When divested of it we become miserable and depressed
• When we come down from one painfully baneful stupor we invariably start rummaging for the next one
• We are willing to squander well-hard-earned money in the pursuit of it
• We may even patronize seedy establishments and resort to illegal measures to satiate our squalid and unquenchable hankering for it
• We may contract terminal diseases because of it (e.g. high blood pressure and strokes)
• We may lose friends and family because of and over it (haplessly or intentionally)
• We may even be incarcerated because of it
• We are inexorably plagued by its side effects (e.g. marriage, in-laws and children)
• When abstaining from it there is always that execrably excruciating YEARNING for it
• While in the process of coming down from it, we (both genders) metamorphose into violent, vilipending viraginous harridans.
• And all the above is the LEAST of it.

Therefore, without any tendentious intentions….. I declare that love is a cloyingness at best and more often than not, a ruinous delusion.

 

[Leumas]

I think you're hurt by the light of critical introspection and are too proud to discuss what you see.

It is called Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Of course they're in the purview of science.

They have qualities and they interact with the world and with people. Therefore, we can go look for them and see if they exist.

The supposed solution of removing all qualities and behaviors from them simply makes the claim that they exist nonsensical.

You're merely repeating an old saw which has no validity to it and never did.

 

[Piggy]

Your "new paradigm" is just your belief (faith) in how things are.

No, it's not.

The fact that we're having this conversation via computer is proof that it's not just a "belief".

The new paradigm works.

The old one has been proven wrong.

 

[laca]

You wrote yet another extremely well thought out post.
The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not. Whereas many theists or agnostics (myself included) admit that the idea of G-d cannot be proven scientifically, at least with our limited means as they are now, nor with our human senses.
The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d. Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.
Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative. In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum. (This is including people I've known who thought that only 100,000 people are getting into heaven- something I fervently disagree with but somehow they were able to discuss religion without hurling insults) For that reason this will be the last time I post in the religion forum. It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

 

[Piggy]

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.

More of the same nonsense.

We don't have to look everywhere, and we don't have to know everything.

Not all of the qualities are unknown, and if they were, we wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.

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.

I was limiting it to earth, but didn't think I had to mention that. My fault.

As for the coelacanths, they're a different matter.

We know pterodactyls are extinct, but for other creatures -- such as aquatic animals, or little burrowing mammals that live in deep in the forest -- we can't make such a determination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You wrote yet another extremely well thought out post.
The fact of the matter is that many atheists apparently do not want to admit that atheism is a belief; they treat their atheism as if it were scientific fact when it is not.

When one frames their conclusions on the evidence, you are free to evaluate that same evidence for its merits. For the record, Nicole, I have an open mind. When people don't reach the same conclusions you reach, that is not evidence they have not evaluated the evidence with an open mind.

Rather than dismissing my and Piggy's conclusions as not open minded, as faith, as a belief or just a different religious view, how about addressing the evidence? Let me ask you what I asked Catty:
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? Or in your case, what makes you think one god belief might not be a myth when all the others are myths?
If so, how does it differ?

...The reason that I am leaning more towards believing in G-d comes down to several things. First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?" Quantum physics has given a possible answer, that there are random fluctuations in a void, and perhaps one of those fluctuations led to a big bang. But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d.

The essence of this argument is simply to say adding a god layer satisfies you. But it adds nothing really if you cannot explain where god came from.

..Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.

Biology explains love and other emotions for that matter. The fact certain kinds of brain damage predictably affects all those things people can't believe are biologically based is evidence they are biologically based. If brain damage affects your morality, that morality was biological. If brain damage makes you cry all the time (some stroke patients do that) it's biological.

..Some of the atheists on this site are very thoughtful and respectful of others' beliefs, which is much appreciated. However, there are many more on here who do not seem to care at all about being rude, condescending or just plain angry and negative.

You can chose to ignore them. I do.

..In all of my 31 years, when discussing religion and faith, I've never encountered such hostility; and this is including people from the entire religious spectrum.

Whatever you do, don't visit the politics forum.

 

[Daald]

First off, the very fact that we exist, that a universe exists as opposed to nothing should make any reasonably intelligent person at least ask themselves "Why?"

Just because we might not know the answer, you can't make something up and put it in front of our (human kind) ignorance. That is an argument from ignorance and a very bad argument.

But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve? Comparing the 2 possibilities; it seems that one would have to have faith in the possibility that we are here due to randomness just as much if not more than the possibility that there is a G-d.

This is bad reasoning as well. 1. Our universe doesn't seem to be designed for life since most of it is very hostile to our form of life. So if what you say is true, the universe if it was designed by god, then was not designed for us. Secondly, the process which gave rise to us (Evolution through natural selection) is NOT a random process. Read up on it.

Secondly, if you have ever really loved anyone in your life, do you really believe that the love you have is due simply to biology or is it something deeper? Once you get brain damage and you are incapable of the emotion of love anymore, is that it? Logic tells me that there is more to the story than just neurons and electrical pulses.

Then you are misusing logic since you just reached a conclusion not supported by facts. That makes it wishful thinking.

It's a waste of my time to try to have a reasonable, logical debate with people whose main argument is that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron.
I urge all of you to actually do what this website is supposed to be about. Weigh evidence but do it with an open mind.

I might agree that some people are a bit harsh but you have to realize that what you are saying is not new or unique. Most of the arguments you make have been taken care of a long time ago some by people living centuries ago.

If you want a formal debate then pick 1 subject and I'm sure someone will stick to it and debate you more formally. Until then you have to make due with the current state.