Agnosticism: The most logical choice

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Never said anything about most correct or most wrong. Merely said most logical. Logic does not factuality make as logic is a man made construct. What is most logical is not always what is correct. Case in point, Quantum Mechanics.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by SaturnFX

You know...whenever I am asked what "religion" I am, I tell them agnostic. It is shocking how many people have no clue what that is. Not talking about the average idiot, but rather people in power that come from (one would think) a educated backround.

This stance has been around for some time now, and rightfully so...


"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

I feel it behooves me to define what I mean by logic.

Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: \ˈlä-jik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend
Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason

— lo·gi·cian \lō-ˈji-shən\ noun

SOURCE

reply to post by SaturnFX


I hear you. However, I think nature is a force like wind, gravity, etc. Would you say that the wind is alive?? I think life is dynamic. It can be defined in a multiplicity of ways. To start with I think life is information in that the very mechanisim of life (DNA) holds the correct information nessasary to duplicate life. DNA is a book and I think God wrote it. Second, I think life is organisation. Cells coming together to form organs and fingers and eyes. To me nature (rocks, wind, gravity) and Life (matabolism, speech, blood) are two seperate thing. So for instance, nature is in a state of constant degradation (falling apart) Life is extremely organized (coming together, self organizing). Based on this I would say that nature can never produce life.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


i dont agree that you can choose something by saying nothing, choice is always a positive objective perspective

so gnosis as you know mean spiritual determinism agnoticism is then your free spiritual state as true

it is simply of the perspective that objective reality is not determining all your awareness reality, by standing for yourself reality you are then right in perceving objective reality only of common sense with you, you dont care for what is not you as individual free as long as you care for all what individual free is through in objective reality one

reply to post by imans


The choice to "do nothing" is making a choice and is the default as if you weren't called upon to make a choice you would "do nothing".
For example:
Say I was standing at a bus stop waiting for a bus that was an half hour away. You walk up to me and punch me in the face. I could do one of three things *condensed for sake of argument*:
1) An agressive response. *IE punch you back*
2) Not respond and just stand there.
3) Run away or just walk away.
#2 is naturally the default as I would be just standing there if you did not walk up and punch me.


At least that is my response to what I think you said please correct me if I got it wrong..

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

nature is in a state of constant degradation (falling apart) Life is extremely organized (coming together, self organizing). Based on this I would say that nature can never produce life.

I see it as nature is on the same cycle as us.
Erosion to show decay, and volcanos to show rebirth...same as humanity.

Formation of stars, explosions of other stars that end up reforming other stars to begin with...all in a life and death cycle.

I would say that your correct, it can never produce life, but also I am correct, and that nature is life..the two are simply philosophical stands.

the entire universe bubble is a simple electron going around something unfathomably large also...

And then we start considering other dimensions and dimensional brains smacking against this dimension to create the foundings of life also (string theory dimensional membrane hypothesis)

Anyhow, I personally believe just blaming things on a God is a massive shortcut to truely seeking the answers to these mysterys...but if your comfortable with that, then great.

reply to post by SaturnFX


All that is purely theory though. Sure, you can minimise his stand to a simple "blame it on God" argument but that need not be the case. It is perfectly within the realm of possibility that something we could call a "Deity" created reality by manipulating and defining forces. To sum up my stance on this here's a quote :

Citizen G'Kar: "We all believe in something... greater than ourselves, even if it's just the blind forces of chance." -Babylon 5

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

All people, including theists, are atheists. That is, unless you follow each and every god that is purported to exist. The theist believes in one, or a set of gods, while denying or disbelieving in all of the others. That denial or disbelief is atheism.

In the absence of definitive proof either for or against the existence of god(s), all people must also therefore be agnostic. However, we are also technically about any unprovable claims. You must be agnostic about a claim that there is an invisible orange troll that lives on my left shoulder. While I cannot prove it to you, you cannot prove me wrong.

However, agnosticism represents a weak position: an avoidance or ignorance of the logic that points individuals towards theism or atheism. Extraordinary claims of invisible powers that create and/or interact with the universe does indeed require definitive, objective proof and to date there remains none. Should that definitive, objective proof exist, agnosticism and atheism would not be an option for anyone. In the absence of such evidence, atheism remains the only viable position for the thinking individual. Agnosticism exists for those unwilling to think the logic through. Despite the title which lists atheism as "presumptive", agnosticism proves more presumptive in the belief that the answer to The Big Question could go in either direction. Atheism is wholly definitive in its stance. Perhaps agnosticism appeals to those desiring to maintain what they believe is an "open mind" but functionally it amounts to an unwillingness to recognize the logic at work in the existence/nonexistence question.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Incorrect. That is rather like calling someone a coward for choosing not to get involved in a fight that has nothing to do with them. You speak of following logic through yet at the basis of both arguments for or against there is a fallacy. Thusly not logical.
And I am agnostic as to the existance of your invisible orange troll that lives on my left shoulder as I find it to be little more than a belittling abstraction to a larger question. So thusly nothing I will discuss at length. It's concieve that you do, but I find the conversation pro or con to be silly.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

But which "God"?, by God do we just mean creator? and who created the creator?

reply to post by woodwardjnr


A creator need not be created it's self.
Second line.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

A creator need not be created it's self.
Second line.

so something can come from nothing?
second line

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

All people, including theists, are atheists. That is, unless you follow each and every god that is purported to exist. The theist believes in one, or a set of gods, while denying or disbelieving in all of the others. That denial or disbelief is atheism.

I disagree...I would say I'm agnostic about every other "god". Or they are all the same mistake made by different cultures in an attempt to describe that they all have faith that there is something higher out there.

I'm also agnostic about your little troll...yes...I truly am. I'm agnostic about most things in life unless I'm working with mathematics, physics (most of it) or writing a computer program...then I can work in absolutes and logic (notice I left out most sciences, for example chemistry and biology). But out in the real world...there is little that is absolute or logical.

In the absence of such evidence, atheism remains the only viable position for the thinking individual.

I think you mean for the arrogant individual there is no other viable position...right? If you are being honest with yourself, you must see the arrogance in that statement. YOU are right...others are wrong...end of story. Sounds a lot like a religious fundamentalist. They use a similar argument, "In the absence of such evidence to DISPROVE God, theism remains the only viable position for the thinking individual". How much the two groups, atheists and fundamentals, have in common...and how little they see of it. On a spectrum...atheists and fundamentals are the end points or "extremes". I tend to stay away from the extremes...because there is usually more emotion then there is thinking in those groups.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


*shrugs* I don't pretend to know. All I said is that a creator need not be created. Any number of possibilities comes to mind in which there would be a creator that did not need "creating". None of which I am advocating just merely pointing out they exist.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I personally see the whole system as the deity, no single aspect, nor even a conscious understanding of the parts in the system, but rather the system as a whole.

The universe within a bloodcell in my body cannot possibly understand that they are within me and part of me...they may believe in a certain aspect from what they see and may have a little creation myth about the great cell they live in and its creation..but as far as them fully understanding the entire entity that is me, they would fall very short.

I also would not understand them...even though they are a part of me, and I simply do not care for them individually...however I do care about my body as a whole...That, I think, is the closest thing to a diety we have...something so incredibly grand that we would never know it, and it would never know us beyond the fact that we need each other overall.

Meanwhile, everything that exists in our understandable universe only appears chaotic, but on the wider scale, there is no chaos.

reply to post by SaturnFX


And that is a respectable opinion to have IMHO. But I don't think it is self evident thus my disagreement. But, I take very little if anything at all as self evident which is most likely a failing of mine.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


if i punch you and you do nothing it wont do anything, the only fact would be existing there is that one punch life that reached to put you down

stop insisting that nothing is a choice it is not, people that dont do anything are the majority that existence ignore totally

truth is positive existence certainty flows intelligence facts and exponential absolute realities life, so doing nothing is actually negative choice and is an evil one

the best choice is stay where you are and evolve everyday to the awareness of your stable positive reality point so you could master yourself free life as a positive true source to your absolute reality one

...agnostic is the only logical choice?... ahahahaaa - alrighty then - glad we got THAT cleared up... the fence-riders win!... yippy skippy doo dah!...


...remember erich von daniken?... chariots of the gods?... i dont agree with everything he believes in but i do see validity in his explanation of why people believe in gods...(sort of goes like this) people of a less-evolved society will view people of a more-evolved society (and especially their modes of transportation / weapons) and perceive them to be gods because they have no other concepts to explain the technology...

...someone posted that what was required was a definition of proof... i think whats required FIRST is a definition of what folks are trying to define and, in this case, that'd be "whats a god?" - because - theres many different concepts of god(s) - and - really, how can we define atheist (no belief in deities) or agnostic (fence-rider, lol) or even theist unless we define "god"?...

...when god is defined as the greek gods, the aztec/inca/mayan gods, the hawaiian gods (etc), i'm an atheist (dont believe in the existence of their gods) and take the von daniken approach (sorta kinda)... its understandable that primitive people would develop a concept to explain things they cant otherwise define (lightening, thunder, the moon, sun, stars or seasons)...

...when it comes to the judeo/christian/islam god - i'm an atheist (dont believe in the existence of their god) but, additionally, view the religions as extremely dangerous political institutions...

...when god is defined as the unknown mystery that caused us to be here, i'm a believer - because - in this case, god is just a word for a concept that has no shape, no intent, no police, no dogma, no human made crap to muck it up...

...but i'm NOT an agnostic - because - i dont like splinters in my buns... (thats a joke, sorta kinda)...

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Any reasonable atheist should admit that the existence of God is not wholly unsupported – there are at least some arguments for it.

Although some very poor arguments I might add by thiests.

So even if the theist fails to establish his case, at best that simply leaves the reasonable man with agnosticism, and to infer atheism from this would be to commit the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Athiesm is just the lack of belief or disbelief. Since agnostics also lack this belief because it's either unknown or unknowable, they are also an athiest as well as agnostic.

Some athiests are also agnostic because they may think it's unknowable. Some athiests will say god definitely doesn't exist, and others will say god probably doesn't exist (and possibly that we wouldn't know even if he did).

So really all agnostics are also athiests, and some athiests can also be agnostic.

But a thiest can be neither of these.

Athiests may have other beliefs, or opinions about our existence and origins, but are happy enough to keep it to themselves or accept that it's speculative when discussing it and realise that it isn't to be confused with evidence-based science.

But what if someone were an implicit athiest and had never considered any existence of a god and dismissed any mention of one, much like we wouldn't think about spaghetti monsters flying round the solar system and would dismiss it instantly? Agnosticism would be completely irrelevant to them, but that doesn't mean they would dismiss evidence of a god if one did happen to show up. Most athiests would accept it, if it were proven.

So that leaves us with the irrelevance of agnositicism, and the pointless nature of the logical fallacy *ad ignorantiam* in the context given in the OP.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by john124]