How is it possible to be agnostic?

[Mirdath]

Explain why you think this is to be the case, rather then make accusations.

It’s simple: you are ascribing uses to philosophy which are not the domain of philosophy or logic. Metaphysics deals with the supernatural and works within the assumption that it exists; philosophy does not. If you want to talk metaphysics, fine, let’s start another thread – this one is not the place.

What is more logical? I believe we can know certain truths with out verifying them empirically.

That is faith, is it not?

Though metaphysics may come up in my arguments, it does automatically follow that my idea’s are not logically based, and since you believe them to be otherwise, it is up to you to prove them otherwise; maybe you just like the idea of my arguments being false rather then proving them false?

They are not logically based – they are founded in metaphysics, and logic constructs on that base. To make any headway, you’ll have to back up that foundation.

I offer no proof. I don’t have any – that’s what my entire position is about. The problem is, neither do you, and nor does the atheist stance. And I can get away with mine because I don’t have anything to prove. You, however, do.

Have you ever read or listened to Peter kreeft?

I believe I read one article by him on the argument from first cause. I wasn’t impressed.

What does this have to do with the questions I pose you? Explain why God is not a rational explanation for the existents of the universe. If you think that atheists have just as Good and rational arguments about where the universe came from, id like to hear them.

I’ll let the atheists speak for themselves; it’s not my job.

Marcsman99:

Intrestingly scientist tell us that light behaves like a particle and a wave this is a paradox does this therefor mean that light does not exist?

That’s one of those things that actually makes sense once you know how it works. It’s simply a different state, not a contradiction in terms like ‘simultaneously entirely human and divine’.

I would be intrested how you parse your ignorance on the existance of God with the first class evidence of miracles in all ages and the evidence of the supernatural in the seance room.

The evidence isn’t ‘first class’ by any stretch. The sources we have for good miracles (those of greater magnitude than apparitions in toast and so forth) are ancient and, let’s face it, not that reliable considering they’re religious texts with a vested interest. There are more explanations for those miraculous events than simply ‘God did it’ – that we don’t necessarily know what caused them does not leave God as the only option.

As for seances, no, I don’t particularly buy into that either. Again, there’s a lack of respectable evidence, and even if one accepts that all it proves is that there is something else out there – not even necessarily supernatural at that, and if so, not necessarily a deity.

 

[Mirdath]

So…

Hello thread.

Specifically, hello Bennie. I’ve kept my word – I might have missed a day or so, but otherwise I’ve been praying once a day for three weeks.

I posted about it a few days after I started, saying I hadn’t experienced anything really out of the ordinary or that wouldn’t result from plain old meditation. That’s still true. And I still don’t have faith – of course, I neither expected nor asked for it.

 

[Theinvisibleman]

freesoulhope asked me this in another thread, but I felt it’d have a better home over here.

First, what is agnosticism? ‘Not knowing’, literally – that’s weak agnosticism. It’s kind of an intellectual sloth, at least on the subject of religion.

Strong agnosticism postulates that knowing is impossible. Not only don’t we know whether there is a deity or deities, we cannot know – it’s far beyond the limits of our perception. This is the position I subscribe to.

Philosophically, strong agnosticism is actually quite a defensible position – in fact, the most defensible (other than weak agnosticism, which generally wouldn’t bother to show up to the debate anyway) as it does not require Faith. Both theism and atheism are expressions of faith: one in the divine, the other in the lack of the divine. Neither side is able to prove itself right to the satisfaction of anyone else, because fundamentally they both require one to accept ‘God exists/does not exist’ as a statement of faith.

However, it’s quite easy to say ‘we cannot know whether the divine exists’: it’s unfalsifiable, because to make it untrue one has to accept that knowledge on faith. Certainly, there are many attempted logical proofs going in both directions – but I have yet to see one without at least one glaring flaw.

So that’s a start, at least – I’m not entirely sure if I answered the exact question freesoulhope asked. If not, or if anyone has other questions, fire away

I’m agnostic because I’m scientific. There isn’t any proof for a religion to prove its beliefs, but on the other end there isnt any way to disprove it either. Both sides actually require “faith”, a belief in something without proof. Agnosticism states that proof can’t ever be known, or just for the moment. I believe there is no proof at the moment , so I’m agnostic

 

[Everstruggling]

Just to jump back to the original question. It is the easiest thing in the world to be an agnostic.

The believer claims he knows, the agnostic knows he doesn’t. There is only one possible entity in or out of the universe that could know exactly what, if anything, god is or isn’t. I’m not that entity.

As far as I can see, it is impossible not to be an agnostic. The only difference between a person who claims not to be agnostic and a person who does is a matter of emphasis. The believer stresses his faith, the agnostic stresses his doubt.

I’m using “believer” in a generic sense. An atheist is as much a beliver as a theist the way I’m using it. They both have faith that they know the answer, but it reality they just believe they do. We all weigh the evidence and make a guess about what is going on in the universe. The agnostic just acknowledges that it is a guess.

 

[tomarin]

midrath,

it must be possible to be an agnostic, because i was one for much of my adult life. (although i agree with the poster who said that agnosticism is a milder form of atheism; i think i felt i was “hedging my bets” by claiming to be agnostic rather than atheistic.)

most of your argument centers on the unreliability of the truth-claims of believers (and by extension, i guess, of radical non-believers) but what about the moral dimension? why, in your view, do we have moral intuition and what is its source (if not God, thereby proving his existence)? isn’t the agnostic position on this question indistinguishable from the atheist’s?

tomarin

 

[tomarin]

I’m agnostic because I’m scientific.

catholics don’t believe science and faith are at odds. we believe that they both have a role to play in understanding the universe we are born into. maybe you meant to say you’re a scientific materialist?

 

[Theinvisibleman]

catholics don’t believe science and faith are at odds. we believe that they both have a role to play in understanding the universe we are born into. maybe you meant to say you’re a scientific materialist?

I dont know what a scientific materialist is in your sense, or any other.

I used scientific processes to determine my belief. Its unscientific to have faith. Okay, the odd scientist has the faith that his experiment trial will work, but in a broader scientific sense, science needs proof before comfirmation and neither athiesm or faith has any.Therefore, I cant put my belief into either side, and therefore I’m agnostic.

I cant put my belief in catholicism if it has no proof. Im not gonna embrace faith or even consider it.

 

[tomarin]

Its unscientific to have faith.

that’s a debatable point. what about einstein? he didn’t think embracing science meant rejecting faith. he believed in god. i’m with einstein.

a scientific materialist is someone who believes that science is the ultimate arbiter on what is real. if it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist.

this isn’t the same thing as being scientific, however. many scientists aren’t necessarily scientific materialists, such as my einstein example above. many are profoundly religious.

scientific materialism is a kind of philosophy about how the world works that appears to be scientific, but it actually goes beyond mere science to reject faith in god’s existence.

one reason i find catholicism more reasonable than say, evangelical protestantism with its biblical literalism, is because in the catholic view both science and faith come from god, so they cannot be incompatible. whereas evangelicals force you to choose between science and god, and thus invent pseudo-sciences such as creationism and intelligent design.

choosing between science and god is a false choice, and an unneccesary one.

 

[Theinvisibleman]

Dosent mean he couldnt sort out science for science sake lol and have the faith to his private life.

Me, my preferance is not to have faith. Im one of those scientific materialists your talking about. Allthough “materialist” seems to have something of a negative connatation to it.

 

[Mirdath]

it must be possible to be an agnostic, because i was one for much of my adult life. (although i agree with the poster who said that agnosticism is a milder form of atheism; i think i felt i was “hedging my bets” by claiming to be agnostic rather than atheistic.)

Strong agnosticism and so-called weak atheism are much the same thing, as I believe I said in an early post. The reason I say I’m agnostic is mostly for clarity, as I don’t believe in the absence of a deity either.

It’s certainly possible, that was just how the question that kicked this thread off was phrased to me

most of your argument centers on the unreliability of the truth-claims of believers (and by extension, i guess, of radical non-believers) but what about the moral dimension? why, in your view, do we have moral intuition and what is its source (if not God, thereby proving his existence)? isn’t the agnostic position on this question indistinguishable from the atheist’s?

Although I get constantly ragged on by proponents of a natural moral law for it, I still favor Hobbes-style contract theory. I do not believe in a universal moral law or intuition at all – merely that we limit ourselves in order to function as a group. Its source is only ourselves.

I should note that the social contract is hardly the only position on the foundation of ethics an atheist or an agnostic can take – though you’re certainly right that it’s compatible with both stances. Deontology (which has, perhaps, something in common with Hobbes), utilitarianism, even Objectivism are compatible with atheism and agnosticism, and some religions.

 

[tomarin]

I still favor Hobbes-style contract theory. I do not believe in a universal moral law or intuition at all – merely that we limit ourselves in order to function as a group. Its source is only ourselves.

the principle objection to this, from a theist point of view, is that by removing god from the picture and replacing him with some form of human authority, you inevitably weaken morality by opening it up to challenges from other humans. from a theist perspective it really is a zero-sum game, god or the nihilism of moral relativism.

when a palestinian suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowded restaurant in israel, isn’t that evil in a way that is independent of the “social contract” of both communities? when the israel army deliberately inflicts stinging punishment on civilian targets in lebanon in retaliation for militant attacks, isn’t that also evil?

on the contrary, if morality derives from a social contract for “getting along”, whose society determines what is good or evil? it seems to me the system breaks down as soon as groups come into conflict.

tomarin

 

[Mirdath]

when a palestinian suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowded restaurant in israel, isn’t that evil in a way that is independent of the “social contract” of both communities? when the israel army deliberately inflicts stinging punishment on civilian targets in lebanon in retaliation for militant attacks, isn’t that also evil?

Not independent. ‘We don’t want to get blown up’ is a pretty basic requirement – indeed, it’s why society establishes police and military: to keep the general public safe from internal and external violators.

on the contrary, if morality derives from a social contract for “getting along”, whose society determines what is good or evil? it seems to me the system breaks down as soon as groups come into conflict.

That’s more a problem with human nature than with the theory, isn’t it?

 

[tomarin]

i think you’re missing the point of my argument. you can substitute whatever you like for god when it comes to morality, but ultimately these are all phenomena rooted in human beings. and human beings cannot be the ultimate authority on anything because another group of human beings can always challenge their authority by saying “who says”. therefore you end up abolishing moral absolutes and substituting flimsy stand-ins.

do you really want to live in a universe not anchored in any sense of good and evil? didn’t the terrorist attacks of 9/11 seem evil to you? they did to me.

it seems to me that according to your reasoning, the holocaust would not have been evil had the Germans won the war. whereas i hold that the holocaust was evil in some universal sense that is independent of who won the war.

tomarin

 

[CCM08]

i think you’re missing the point of my argument. you can substitute whatever you like for god when it comes to morality, but ultimately these are all phenomena rooted in human beings. and human beings cannot be the ultimate authority on anything because another group of human beings can always challenge their authority by saying “who says”. therefore you end up abolishing moral absolutes and substituting flimsy stand-ins.

do you really want to live in a universe not anchored in any sense of good and evil? didn’t the terrorist attacks of 9/11 seem evil to you? they did to me.

it seems to me that according to your reasoning, the holocaust would not have been evil had the Germans won the war. whereas i hold that the holocaust was evil in some universal sense that is independent of who won the war.

tomarin

An athiest cannot be a moral person, atheism precludes the existence of any morality let alone moral absolutes. If human beings are the source of values there is no standard by which to judge one value system as superior to another. Morality is a theological concept, and it always has been. It cannot exist apart from a higher authority making moral decisions for lesser beings.

The illogical rantings about “near Christian” ethical systems simply make no sense. You cannot, when limited to natural and scientific means, prove that stealing is wrong. As a matter of natural law animals take from each other all the time. Equally so killing is a common means of survival. A tiger stalking its prey and a hitman would have be considered the same, killing a target to obtain resources to survive. In the end the only “morality” an atheist can subscribe to is “might makes right.” Which is exactly why when atheists come into power societies become rife with human rights violations, whether it’s the Nazi KZ system, the gulags, or Mao’s “revolutions.”

 

[LogosSokratikos]

An athiest cannot be a moral person, atheism precludes the existence of any morality let alone moral absolutes. If human beings are the source of values there is no standard by which to judge one value system as superior to another. Morality is a theological concept, and it always has been. It cannot exist apart from a higher authority making moral decisions for lesser beings.

The illogical rantings about “near Christian” ethical systems simply make no sense. You cannot, when limited to natural and scientific means, prove that stealing is wrong. As a matter of natural law animals take from each other all the time. Equally so killing is a common means of survival. A tiger stalking its prey and a hitman would have be considered the same, killing a target to obtain resources to survive. In the end the only “morality” an atheist can subscribe to is “might makes right.” Which is exactly why when atheists come into power societies become rife with human rights violations, whether it’s the Nazi KZ system, the gulags, or Mao’s “revolutions.”

How do you explain Sweden having millions of atheists, roughly 50% of the country, and being one of the countries with least corruption in the world? Scandinavia in general is pretty atheistic, and score very low on corruption. The countries with highest crime statistics are also among the highest on religiosity… so I must disagree with you… there is no correlation, objective measures do not support your view.
Furthermore Nazis were no athiests. I’m not going to go to the other extreme and say Naziism was a Christian thing, but one of the things that inspired Nazis was going against "those Communists / Jewish and athiest conspirators.

Please don’t support prejudice and hatred.

 

[freesoulhope]

Furthermore Nazis were no athiests.

There are plenty of Christians that are atheists, and there are plenty Christians who really dont give a dame about the faith they profess. In other words, a Christian by name, is not neccerally a Christian by nature.

I’m not going to go to the other extreme and say Naziism was a Christian thing,

Yes, that’s a good logical move.

Let me add this however:

Christianity has this principle and concept of striving for a moral way of life; if you are Christian, then it is your duty in life to strive for an objective moral perfection. Atheism on the other hand, is morally neutral as a way of life; you can be a rapist, murderer, baby molester, and it will not affect your status as an atheist. That’s the problem, and this is why I object to an atheistic materialist mentality ruling society, since I can see the fault; though I would never force anyone to believe in what I believe because I can clearly see this as immoral ---- and dare I say it, “un-Christian”. I can say this, and justify it, because I believe there is an objective moral value that we can appeal to in times of choas, and attempt to achieve as a person. In atheism however, there is no such thing; there can only be a subjective value system that nobody seems to want to agree on; in such a godless world, there can be no such thing as “right or wrong”; Just things we “like” and “dislike”. How can an atheist appeal to another atheists, who wants to kill you, sense of moral value if there is no such thing?

It’s impossible for a rapist to be truly Christian and go to heaven; but it’s not impossible for a rapist to be atheist.

Peace.

 

[Mirdath]

i think you’re missing the point of my argument. you can substitute whatever you like for god when it comes to morality, but ultimately these are all phenomena rooted in human beings. and human beings cannot be the ultimate authority on anything because another group of human beings can always challenge their authority by saying “who says”. therefore you end up abolishing moral absolutes and substituting flimsy stand-ins.

So can you propose a better authority than humanity itself, one that’s, if not tangible, at least agreeable to all? Barring belief in a deity, we’re all we’ve got – and you won’t be able to convince everyone God exists, let alone your particular view of God.

However, the concept that lack of God = lack of absolute morality is utterly false. I actually happen to be a moral absolutist (although my standards are rather minimal compared to most). There’s no lack of absolute ethical systems that do not presuppose a deity; do you think a social contract does not establish absolutes? It does. ‘Don’t kill each other, it’s bad for all of us’. ‘Don’t steal, it turns us from a civilization into a bunch of bandits’.

do you really want to live in a universe not anchored in any sense of good and evil? didn’t the terrorist attacks of 9/11 seem evil to you? they did to me.

They were. And, note that they violated the ‘don’t kill’ part: it’s hard to sustain a society when everyone’s murdering everyone else.

it seems to me that according to your reasoning, the holocaust would not have been evil had the Germans won the war. whereas i hold that the holocaust was evil in some universal sense that is independent of who won the war.

Again I agree. The Nazis were not the only part of society; they violated the contract with the rest of the world through war and genocide, and were justly punished for it.

Let’s go to a slightly less touchy subject, and one that actually happened instead of being a what-if: Aztec civilization. Their social contract included the sacrifice of prisoners. Was that a just contract? No, because it ignored those people’s function as a part of society.

You can have just contracts and unjust.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

There are plenty of Christians that are atheists, and there are plenty Christians who really dont give a dame about the faith they profess. In other words, a Christian by name, is not neccerally a Christian by nature.

Yes, that’s a good logical move.

Let me add this however:

Christianity has this principle and concept of striving for a moral way of life; if you are Christian, then it is your duty in life to strive for an objective moral perfection. Atheism on the other hand, is morally neutral as a way of life; you can be a rapist, murderer, baby molester, and it will not affect your status as an atheist. That’s the problem, and this is why I object to an atheistic materialist mentality ruling society, since I can see the fault; though I would never force anyone to believe in what I believe because I can clearly see this as immoral ---- and dare I say it, “un-Christian”. I can say this, and justify it, because I believe there is an objective moral value that we can appeal to in times of choas, and attempt to achieve as a person. In atheism however, there is no such thing; there can only be a subjective value system that nobody seems to want to agree on; in such a godless world, there can be no such thing as “right or wrong”; Just things we “like” and “dislike”. How can an atheist appeal to another atheists, who wants to kill you, sense of moral value if there is no such thing?

It’s impossible for a rapist to be truly Christian and go to heaven; but it’s not impossible for a rapist to be atheist.

Peace.

You can be a rapist, child molester, a hero or whatever, regardless of your religion. My links clearly show it. You can also see Wikipedia’s list of atheists and see many positive people, scientists, activists, etc. I for one am no rapist and I have commendable honesty. Yesterday I crashed someone’s parked car. There was no one around, so I left my phone number under one of this car’s windsheild wiper. That’s honesty that’s hard to see, and it’s going to be expensive for me, because I’m not in any advantageous financial position.
Atheism is as neutral as theism. Theism doesn’t mean much. Christians are theists, but that doesn’t mean “Christianity doesn’t mean much”. Just as me: I’m an atheist, and that doesn’t mean much at all… It’s the rest of one’s beliefs that makes the difference. I, for one, am a humanist. Look up the humanist manifestos on the web (there are three) and see the high moral standards.

Sure Stalin was an atheist and a bloody ruler… But remember this: Torquemada and scores of others were Catholics and bloodthirsty potentates too.

There is good and evil on both sides of the fence.

Oh, and about this:

It’s impossible for a rapist to be truly Christian and go to heaven; but it’s not impossible for a rapist to be atheist.

And it’s also impossible for one such as I, who is upright and moral to ever go to heaven, for I don’t believe in God and I think the biblical god, as a character, is a bloodthirsty, vengeful, sexist, homophobic, who, if true, lies if he states he is fair, if he sends people to eternal torment (since no endless torture is fair for limited transgressions)… words that would constitute blasphemies and make me extra hell-worthy, for the standards of the iron-age character’s standards.

Living up to the standards of a bully, albeit fictional, is no wonderful deal, having a clear conscience as an upright individual who helps and cares for his fellow human, whenever he can.

I’m a fine, generous, loving and honest, [and supposedly] hell-bound individual.

 

[freesoulhope]

You can be a rapist, child molester, a hero or whatever, regardless of your religion. My links clearly show it. You can also see Wikipedia’s list of atheists and see many positive people, scientists, activists, etc. I for one am no rapist and I have commendable honesty. Yesterday I crashed someone’s parked car. There was no one around, so I left my phone number under one of this car’s windsheild wiper. That’s honesty that’s hard to see, and it’s going to be expensive for me, because I’m not in any advantageous financial position.
Atheism is as neutral as theism. Theism doesn’t mean much. Christians are theists, but that doesn’t mean “Christianity doesn’t mean much”. Just as me: I’m an atheist, and that doesn’t mean much at all… It’s the rest of one’s beliefs that makes the difference. I, for one, am a humanist. Look up the humanist manifestos on the web (there are three) and see the high moral standards.
Sure Stalin was an atheist and a bloody ruler… But remember this: Torquemada and scores of others were Catholics and bloodthirsty potentates too.

You have totaly missed my point in favor of maitaining a perverted veiw of religion.

There is good and evil on both sides of the fence.

There is no morality in your world, only preference. The both of us would preffer not to be killed, but you cannot call somebody immoral for killing us. Animals are morally nuetral, there acts are not evil or good; they are just acting according to nature— we are animals. In a world with out an objective morally perfect Good God that we must strive towards for eternal happiness, evil is just an empty word that can only be used to express a dislike about somebodys action.

You say your upright; upright as apposed to what? There is no such thing as upright in your world, it just an invention of your mind; a snobish opinion about your self as opossed to the actions of other people you dont like.

Secondly, nobody has ever said that you cannot get to heaven; but if you do, its by the mercy and goodness of God; not by anything you can offer (that is not to say that you should not strive to be a moral being).

Also, It is the general rule that, the only way to heaven is through the Catholic Church; this doesn’t mean to say that Catholics are the only people in heaven. What it does mean is that, if you do get to heaven, it is through the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Catholic faith, that you get there. If the Catholic church is the true church, then obviously, your soul will be in a better off position for spirtual grouth; and you will have the armour to tackle the evils of this life time if your with a church of truth, rather then somebody who does not know the truth.

 

[freesoulhope]

I’m a fine, generous, loving and honest, [and supposedly] hell-bound individual.

This only means something to you; but in reality, it means nothing with out God, since you could not act upon good if it did not exist.