Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

I cannot see on what basis Piggy can say there is no god given my definition of god.

You haven't yet provided one that makes sense.

 

[Piggy]

I'm sorry to have to put words in the mouth of the strong atheist position but my take is simply that they use a more useful version of know. When we are debating god, you are using the definition of knowledge that includes everything that could ever be or has ever been. That definition is useless to us humans because we will never know everything and some things will have happened in the past and will be forever lost to us.

Now in the god case we have a definition for god. They are the definitions put up so far by the majority of the population. All those gods are bunk (a claim which you support I think). A strong atheist takes that and says....screw having to prove a negative. As far as we know or have seen there is no god. Period. Whatever it is out there will be something other than god if it exists.

An analogy would be big foot. I can say there is no big foot. Your counter claim will be there there could be a planet it some galaxy which has a big foot so it would be stupid of me to say there is no big foot. I hope you see the problem now. The big foot concept on earth is bunk. If there is a creature out there in the universe that is like a big foot it will be something else when we meet it (Wookie ) so I can comfortably say that there is no big foot.

What often happens though is that a concept is created and when it fails its scope is increased or moved outside our boundary. You are trying to do that with your god example. A big foot believer could do the same thing. Do we now have to accept every crackpot idea because there are things we don't know? Isn't that completely useless? Isn't it better to simply accept things on evidence?

This is essentially it, but specifically with this case, the claim "God exists" can only be asserted in ways that are contrary to fact, or de-define "God", or de-define "exists" -- either of these last 2 rendering the sentence meaningless -- or some combination of those.

The first part comes from debunking the mythological worldview, and the rest follows.

 

[Piggy]

Gravitons are mythological. If they really existed some proof of their existence would have been found by now.

That analogy doesn't work.

Gravitons are things which we're not surprised that we haven't found.

Gods are things which we would have found by now if they existed.

 

[punshhh]

You haven't yet provided one that makes sense.

Shortly AI will emerge out of nature.
This AI may persist for millenia and cause the emergence of other novel things from nature.

How would such things exist without an intelligent creator/manipulator?

 

[laca]

Shortly AI will emerge out of nature.

Out of nature or out of creation? You don't seem to have a coherent line of thought, as usual. I would also bet a fair amount of money you have no idea what AI means outside of science fiction.

This AI may persist for millenia and cause the emergence of other novel things from nature.

Again, if there was a creation to begin with, you don't get to bring up "from nature". In that case everything is "from creation". Get it?

How would such things exist without an intelligent creator/manipulator?

Just like us.

 

[Belz...]

Shortly AI will emerge out of nature.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That analogy doesn't work.

Gravitons are things which we're not surprised that we haven't found.

Gods are things which we would have found by now if they existed.

Not really, it depends on the nature of the God. Perhaps he finds it extremely funny to perform miracles millennia ago to competing cultures and then watch us argue about it.

There are many philosophical arguments of that form and similar which I subscribe to, on why not to believe in gods. However they're exceedingly poor for actually proving that there are no gods, given that God as traditionally defined typically exists outside that which is immediately accessible to us, and could probably keep himself so if he felt like it (unlike say, Unicorns, which would exist among animals and would have an estimable impact on their environment via Darwin). I find that the argument only really works if your opponent believes in some manner of inerrancy.

 

[abaddon]

Not really, it depends on the nature of the God. Perhaps he finds it extremely funny to perform miracles millennia ago to competing cultures and then watch us argue about it.

There are many philosophical arguments of that form and similar which I subscribe to, on why not to believe in gods. However they're exceedingly poor for actually proving that there are no gods, given that God as traditionally defined typically exists outside that which is immediately accessible to us, and could probably keep himself so if he felt like it (unlike say, Unicorns, which would exist among animals and would have an estimable impact on their environment via Darwin). I find that the argument only really works if your opponent believes in some manner of inerrancy.

Hmm, surely that is simply a rehash of the fact that you cannot prove a negative.

The null hypothesis must be that there are no gods and it is up to the claimant to provide evidence.

 

[Piggy]

Shortly AI will emerge out of nature.
This AI may persist for millenia and cause the emergence of other novel things from nature.

How would such things exist without an intelligent creator/manipulator?

That gap between those 2 paragraphs is infinite.

You're saying "People might one day invent intelligent robots... how could that be possible if the universe weren't created by an intelligent God?"

You might as well ask "Someday a new species of pine tree will evolve... how could that be possible if the universe weren't created by a pine tree?"

You're making the same mistake over and over again in different forms.

 

[Piggy]

God as traditionally defined typically exists outside that which is immediately accessible to us, and could probably keep himself so if he felt like it

You're omitting the fact that even gods which exist in heaven or the dreamtime or whatever also have interactions with the world.

The ones who don't... which are a product of demythologizing... can't be said to exist.

 

[Complexity]

As I've already stated several times, I have hope that there is some higher intelligence in the universe. Call it whatever you want. And ok if I didn't offend him, but to not take me seriously over how I spell a word seems trivial.

Not at all.

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me.

I want nothing to do with such people, unless they are remarkably good-looking guys or able to make me laugh. Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Not at all.

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me.

Well done. I was going to elaborate on your statement, but I think you were very clear.

 

[abaddon]

Not at all.

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me.

I want nothing to do with such people, unless they are remarkably good-looking guys or able to make me laugh. Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'.

I would go further.

Someone who uses 'g-d' does so out of fear that 'g-d' is watching. In other words only a believer would do so.

 

[FattyCatty]

Not at all.

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me.

I want nothing to do with such people, unless they are remarkably good-looking guys or able to make me laugh. Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'

What a pretentious, arrogant post.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

What a pretentious, arrogant post.

Why? The original question posed was "Are agnostics welcome here?" He gave his personal opinion. If his honest opinion wasn't being sought, what was the OP's purpose in posing the question in the first place?

Or should he be more interested in not offending your particular sensibilities?

I think you are at least as arrogant in responding to him the way you did. His viewpoint was sought, while you were simply showing your obvious bias towards his outlook. You could have simply stayed on topic and defended her agnostic views, and her right to express them (just like everyone else here has) but instead you chose to specifically attack him.

Of course agnostics are welcome here. Respecting them as people is not the same as respecting a viewpoint that some of us find downright silly.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

To clarify, I don't think agnosticism is silly.

I think claiming to be agnostic while obviously having some belief, repeating common, worn-out arguments for the existence of God, and using "G-d" as a "safe" alternative is silly and disingenuous.

Writing "G-d" is not being "open-minded." It is giving in to superstition and fear.

 

[FattyCatty]

Why? The original question posed was "Are agnostics welcome here?" He gave his personal opinion. If his honest opinion wasn't being sought, what was the OP's purpose in posing the question in the first place?

Complexity didn't respond to the question in the OP. He had done that in his previous post, where he also focused on the spelling choice "g-d":

Reading through many of the threads on this forum, I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe.
For the record, I consider myself to be a very rational thinker. I cannot commit myself to saying that G-d exists 100% because I have no tangible proof. However, I refuse to say that G-d does not exist for the same reason. Also, I honestly hope that there is some intelligent, good force in this universe; I admit my unscientific bias but even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this... which leads me back to my thread topic "Are agnostics welcome here?"

I don't take people who type 'G-d' seriously.

I don't cotton to what you describe as "hopeful agnostics", only "atheists-in-all-but-name-and-absolute-certainty agnostics".

Or should he be more interested in not offending your particular sensibilities?

No, he doesn't need to consider my sensibilities any more than he considers anyone else's. Nor do I need to consider his sensibilities when I find his post pretentious and arrogant. Nor do I care if my beliefs are not "acceptable" to him.

I think you are at least as arrogant in responding to him the way you did. His viewpoint was sought, while you were simply showing your obvious bias towards his outlook.

You are entitled to your opinion, and also entitled to perpetuate the chain of considering someone else arrogant, which you seemed to find objectionable before. I can only guess that you are upset because I am not jumping on the bandwagon of attacking the assumed indication of theism exhibited by the spelling choice "g-d."

Nicole Friedman sought opinions on whether agnostics were welcome, not on whether Complexity considers members to be without "interesting intelligence and/or integrity" because of how they choose to spell god.

Not at all.

Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me.

I want nothing to do with such people, unless they are remarkably good-looking guys or able to make me laugh. Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'.

I also find interesting the fact that you assume it's ok for Complexity and others to show bias when it's anti-anything smacking of theism but not ok for me to show bias against that bias.

You could have simply stayed on topic and defended her agnostic views, and her right to express them (just like everyone else here has) but instead you chose to specifically attack him.

I responded to a post in the thread, as you are doing. The post I "attack[ed]" was not "on topic" but was an attack on the OP because of a spelling choice. Neither this post nor his previous post "defended her agnostic views, and "her right to express them," so your statement that "everyone else here has" is incorrect.

Of course agnostics are welcome here. Respecting them as people is not the same as respecting a viewpoint that some of us find downright silly.

There's no "of course" about it. Some people welcome them, some don't. And I hardly call it "[r]especting them as people" to say of them, "I don't cotton to what you describe as "hopeful agnostics", only "atheists-in-all-but-name-and-absolute-certainty agnostics"" or "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'."

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I was defending his right to an opinion, which I still believe was directly related to the original post. You didn't even attempt to address his argument; he was simply "pretentious and arrogant."

Also, I do think you can respect a person and their right to an opinion, while at the same time honestly saying that you find that opinion illogical or inconsistent. My main point was that her words don't seem to jibe with her professed belief in agnosticism, and casts doubt on the sincerity of that claim.

That doesn't mean that I don't welcome her viewpoint. Expressing my opposition to her viewpoint is not disrespect, in my opinion. You seem to find it arrogant. To me, that seems to represent an intolerance for differing opinions, even while you angrily defend hers. This cognitive dissonance is the only reason I called you arrogant as well, because you didn't seem to see that you were exhibiting the very traits for which you criticized him.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Also, when I said that she was "of course" welcome here, I didn't mean that everyone would automatically welcome her opinions. But those people who attack her simply for her beliefs don't speak for everyone, and in any case her right to be here and speak her mind isn't conditional on our acceptance. If anyone becomes abusive to her, there is a system in place to deal with that. If you think anyone has violated forum rules, engaging in the same behavior is not going to win people to your side.

 

[tsig]

What a pretentious, arrogant post.

I agree, this is a pretentious, arrogant post.