Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Trent Wray]

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. *bolding mine*

I bolded what I find to be the key to your position.

I think what you're doing, is making an assumption ... that how we experience the world is really all that matters, since it's only us experiencing it anyway. So in this way, there is a rich diversity to where you experience blue one way, and I experience it another. You taste a pickle one way, I taste it another. It makes variety glorious and unique ... and the idea that blue is roughly 440-490 nm in wavelength, that a Mozart concerto is governed by an arrangement of tones that can be duplicated, etc and so forth ... that all has it's place, and is "real" ... but it's just as real as the fact that you feel and hear something in a way different than I do, and the next guy does, etc and so forth. And so, there is no break in reality .... between your feelings, and the wavelength of blue. It's all connected, seamless, etc and so forth.

At first glance, this would seem to be a very beneficial way of looking at reality. And once I understood that we all felt things differently, and experienced things in variation ... then we could accept each other more, and have more understanding towards each other, etc and so forth. We would be more civil, because we could then "relate" to each other. No need to judge one another for our feelings, and differences.

But while it seems to encompass and take into account the differences in people on it's surface .... it unfortunately is completely self centered and basically treats the world as though it revolves around you, the one experiencing and feeling in "your reality" .... and the end result is that you will think everything is "your" reality, when that's not the case when you apply the subjective lenses that you are applying. We are both in the same reality ... a common ground .... it is the subjective aspect that is different.

It doesn't make it worthless, or stupid, or pointless ... it just means that it's not the end all. You can have subjective experience and objective facts that are independent of our subjective nature ... again, it's called "reality" and this is the reality that we are both a part of.

You and I are enjoying a carrot together. I like the taste. So do you. All of a sudden, you think the carrot is a knife, and I'm a demon come to take you to hell. You begin to lash out at me ... attacking me. You also start crying and going into a rage uncontrollably, and you begin to scratch yourself, and bite yourself, and even try to bite and scratch me. You also begin to defecate on yourself and rub the feces all over yourself.

This behavior would not be abnormal for someone with dementia, and especially when the sun goes down and they have a prolonged stay in the hospital. I've seen it a hundred times. During the daylight hours they are lucid and aware, and then the sun goes down and they lose their ability to perceive reality.

Now, in their minds, they are experiencing the carrot, and me, and their hospital stay in a very real way. "Their reality". In my mind, I'm experiencing it very differently as well. Whose to say what is right or wrong, right ? Hell ... for all I know I am a demon that is going to take her to hell, right ? That carrot is a weapon .... and perhaps I need to be bitten and scratched and have feces rubbed all over myself as well, yes ?

But that patient was there with cardiac issues, and the excitement from their reactions are causing them to be irate and their heart rate to elevate and they might go back into a detrimental arrhythmia .... so do you want to discuss philosophy and spiritual context right now ? Do we want to determine what is "real" or not ?

Let's ask the granddaughter who loves their grandmother what she thinks. Should we try to control the patient, for their own health and welfare, so that they don't decrease into some lethal rhythm and go into a code situation ? Should we ask the neighbor of the woman whether they want to discuss philosophical realities ? Should we ask the patient who thinks I'm the devil what she wants, while I let her spread her feces on me and bite me ? How about this ... how about I play along with her illusion just a bit until she calms down, so that we don't exacerbate the situation. Then, in the morning, after she's been neutralized, we can explain to her what has happened ... because she's going to ask why there is feces under her nailbeds, and bite marks on her arms. She's going to be upset, humiliated ... and instead of making her feel like crap, I'm going to tell her it's allright, it happens to people, and try to help her out to keep her from further injury and harm and from those who still love her and need her from having to suffer the consequences of what she is going through (because the world doesn't revolve around what grandma is experiencing, nor what I am experiencing, but what the data is telling us ... her cardiac monitoring, her vital signs, and what we know of the human body and how it reacts in certain situations). Then we can talk all the philosophical points of view on "reality" that you'd like. The philosophy is a luxury. It's not "necessary". It's an aspect we can experience in our own ways. And if we assumed that her feelings were "reality" then we would have let her go out of control and hurt others and possibly even die.

So now you can look at yourself, and say, "well ... I don't have dementia. I can discern blue from the devil, and Mozart's concerto from attacking aliens, and the pickle from a gun. I'm not stupid, nor mentally challenged, nor suffering from brain damage or some other ailment. I know the differences"

Exactly. So to does everyone. And the opposite reaction is NOT .... "well then, if I can't even trust my own feelings, thoughts, or observations and interpretations .... then what can I trust ? It's myself or nothing .... " and that's not entirely true either. It's why we have objectivity. And a perfect example of how a normally "rational" person loses that but can regain it, is in an argument. Last analogy: suppose you and your husband get in a fight over a can of tuna. You get all upset. The feelings are real. The memories and baggage and buttons that get poked are real or based on reality ... a history between the two of you, or areas of your life you are sensitive to being emotionally hurt. Yet, when the argument is over, you both look at each other and say, "we just went through all of that over a can of tuna ?"

Exactly. It's not saying your individual subjective experience doesn't have it's use, value, or isn't really effecting you .... but it's just a can of tuna. Two people with a can of tuna. Is it worth getting upset over ? Some enjoy letting everything effect them emotionally and subjectively ... while others like having some control over their life to where a can of tuna doesn't send them reeling. Or flying planes into buildings and killing your fiancee because of "their reality".

 

[dlorde]

But was our universe really so random, when every little thing works so perfectly well and in tandem that allowed for us to evolve?

Fine-tuning argument? argument from incredulity?

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.

There is a choice: well-understood, well-evidenced evolution, or vague, undefined, unevidenced supernatural being. Which is the rational choice?

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

Please explain that logic.

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.

What evidence? My scales are waiting...

 

[devnull]

You should stick around here Nicole. You really will learn something.

Similar arguments to yours have been made, dissected, and discarded multiple times here. If you really do have an open mind and really do care about what is true, you could do worse than hanging in here and reading a lot of old threads.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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.

This is the sort of “Science Is Religion” and “Skepticism Is Faith” type response that so many people get worked up about from an original post like yours. Atheism, and especially agnostic atheism, is not just some faith-based “belief” as you suggest, and you know it. That has been what much of this thread has been about.

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.

I usually just like to explore people’s ideas about God, but if you want to get to the nitty gritty, fine. Start here: Define God.

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.

And then, what is God? The thing that created something from nothing before the big bang? Miniscule quantum fluctuations? Can you believe in a constant God of the gaps? If God is simply the thing that set everything in motion, what do we know about God that isn’t explored by science?

I asked you a number of questions here which you refused to answer. Those questions answer your questions. You don’t need to provide your answers to me or anybody else. But you need to provide those answers to yourself.

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.

Emotion, not logic, tells you that. Humans are social and emotional beings. We are not logical robots. We are many times illogical. It is our illogic that creates emotion. It is our illogic that creates love. It is our illogic that creates God. We can embrace our illogic. But we must remember that it is illogic. It is not truth. At least not necessarily. We can embrace it as part of ourselves, and as part of our lives, and as part of our society. There is no reason to believe that there was any God in the production of these things. The reason we are this way is because evolved to be this way. And why not? It makes sense from a survival standpoint. And any other standpoint. We SHOULD be creatures who feel love and emotion and we SHOULD be creatures who invent Gods and stories and art and other abstract thoughts about what is real or what could be or what can be or desires of wants and hesitations of fear and complex associations of beliefs.

That is who we are. Illogical, emotional, social beings. But we can use logic. The illogical, emotional, social beings create stories of God. Logic tells us God is false, and that the idea of God was created by illogical, emotional, social beings for some very good reasons.

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)

I’m not sure who the “many more” are. I’ve seen a few posters be a bit disrespectful. Frankly, I would say that Piggy catches more heck for being a strong atheist, even in this thread, than you have for being a fence-sitter agnostic.

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.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of “I’m a skeptic but…” type post that everybody was afraid of. Perhaps I missed something, but I haven’t seen much (with a few exceptions) other than questioning your belief in God.

I asked you some difficult questions that could lead to the resolution of which side of the fence you will be on. I’m certainly willing to have a reasonable, logical debate. I certainly don’t think that anyone who believes in G-d is a moron. I weigh evidence with an open mind. I asked question to get evidence to weigh, but you don’t provide any. Running away with God in your hat is not reasonable, or, unfortunately, unexpected.

If you wish to discuss this further, whether you answer my questions or not, I’d be happy to carry on the discussion.

 

[punshhh]

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

Essentially all humanity can say about a god which might actually exist is how it might be an expression or manifestation of a principle or phenomena in nature which we can observe, and yes observe scientifically.

I have observed intelligent creators arising naturally in nature and proceeding to create things. This is my evidence from which I consider it quite reasonable to consider it might happen somewhere else in nature.

 

[punshhh]

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

So god can only be something we can talk about

 

[punshhh]

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.

Has it occured to you that I am not referring to the mythological Gods?

 

[punshhh]

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.

So what is this quintessence of dust we are all made from?

Or specifically what should we be looking for which led to existence as we know it?

 

[punshhh]

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.

It is you who is not giving it any serious thought.

I enjoy your approach and style and am quite happy to continue to the bitter end. But quite frankly your on a sticky wicket.

 

[punshhh]

Neither do I.

So on balance you regard gods as not existing?

 

[punshhh]

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.

AI will soon emerge from nature, will it have evolved naturally?

 

[punshhh]

That's because you are not looking.

I am

 

[punshhh]

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.

I sympathize with your view on the forum. Hang on in though, you will see all sides expressed.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Has it occured to you that I am not referring to the mythological Gods?

What are you referring to? And more importantly, why are you uncertain about its existentce?

 

[Belz...]

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

How is that relevant ? Did you read the post I was responding to ?

 

[Belz...]

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

For the reasons already mentioned to you. You know, the ones you didn't read.

 

[dlorde]

I have observed intelligent creators arising naturally in nature and proceeding to create things. This is my evidence from which I consider it quite reasonable to consider it might happen somewhere else in nature.

So you're talking about an intelligent creator that arose naturally in nature, as did the ones you have observed (i.e. us)?

Assuming we are the intelligent creators you have observed (who else?), then you're describing an intelligent alien, are you not? For an intelligent creator to arise, like us, naturally in nature, you first need nature, then the intelligent creator can arise (evolve?) naturally.

I doubt many here would argue with the possibility of such intelligent creators arising naturally elsewhere in the universe.

 

[dlorde]

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.

AI will soon emerge from nature, will it have evolved naturally?

Assuming that we produce an AI that is an intelligent creator, then firstly, it will not be an intelligent creator such as ourselves; secondly, it will have been created by us, so it will be the product of an intelligence that evolved naturally.

Have you got a point to make?

 

[Piggy]

So on balance you regard gods as not existing?

No. My meaning should have been clear from the highlighting. Like you, I disagree with simply assuming they don't exist.

 

[Piggy]

Essentially all humanity can say about a god which might actually exist is how it might be an expression or manifestation of a principle or phenomena in nature which we can observe, and yes observe scientifically.

I have observed intelligent creators arising naturally in nature and proceeding to create things. This is my evidence from which I consider it quite reasonable to consider it might happen somewhere else in nature.

I literally have no idea what that means.