Agnosticism.

[Dutchpower]

It seems that between the barriers of the Athiests and the world religions we Agnostics, we waiters
,we doubters are a few.

I never really considerd myself religious but i think calling myself a athiest a bit of hard word, i like to have allot of options open and i am really interrested in how things work and for that you need a open mind(that has taken some work and still does sometimes).

I believe it when i see it.

Any others out there?

[RZZZA]

Sure theres a handful of agnostics out there, I'm one, we have some in our group. Its mostly atheists though. I was thinking of starting a thread for atheists and agnostics, so we can get everyones opinions on the matter and pinpoint specifically why they choose to be atheist over agnostic.

[Shaun]

There already is a thread where that can be discussed. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...t=43481&page=1

[RZZZA]

lol shaun are you referring to me? If so, I dunno if discussing atheism vs agnosticism should be done in that thread, I think we'd need a whole new thread for that discussion. But I need to think it over a bit more. My intent was to find out why the majority of S.I.N.ers are atheist, if its a result of just not knowing the definitions of the words, or if its something else entirely, I happen to believe that pure atheism should be very rare, but if you look at the members list youll see its not rare at all. I wanted to find out why.

[Shaun]

Well make a thread about it then, but in reality only the people of SIN will answer, and the anti-religion thread could do with a bit of debating again, so might as well keep it in SIN.

[Darth Wong]

Not believing in God means that you think he doesn't exist (saying "I believe he doesn't exist" and saying "I don't believe he exists" are the same thing). Therefore, an agnostic, by virtue of refusing to come to a conclusion one way or another, must have at least some kind of belief in God or something similar, otherwise he would be an atheist.

As far as I can tell, agnostics tend to be people who believe there's "something out there" but they have rejected the specific dogmas of any particular religion. Either that or they're atheists but they know the word carries so many negative connotations in American society that they would rather call themselves agnostics.

[RZZZA]

Not believing in God means that you think he doesn't exist (saying "I believe he doesn't exist" and saying "I don't believe he exists" are the same thing). Therefore, an agnostic, by virtue of refusing to come to a conclusion one way or another, must have at least some kind of belief in God or something similar, otherwise he would be an atheist.

Pretty accurate I'd say, except when you say that agnostics"have at least some kind of belief in God", I think thats not always true. I think Agnostics dont want to come to a decisive conclusion either way, its not that they BELIEVE in god, its that they WANT TO believe in God, but everything about religion and its practices has pushed them away from becoming christians, or jews, or muslims, etc.

As far as I can tell, agnostics tend to be people who believe there's "something out there" but they have rejected the specific dogmas of any particular religion. Either that or they're atheists but they know the word carries so many negative connotations in American society that they would rather call themselves agnostics.

Again, pretty accurate, except that agnostics may not always believe that "something is out there", they simply remain nuetral until some convincing argument or happenign sway them one way or the other. Compare that to atheists, who are much more rigid in their beliefs and will deny the existence of God at most every turn. Agnostics are more "wishy washy", they tend to want to listen to both sides, they tend to want to believe in God, except that things like bad stigma, nonsensical dogma or doctrine, etc...tend to get in the way.

[Darth Wong]

Again, pretty accurate, except that agnostics may not always believe that "something is out there", they simply remain nuetral until some convincing argument or happenign sway them one way or the other.

Remaining neutral in the absence of evidence means that you believe. You may not be certain in your belief, the way a religious person is, but you still believe. If you didn't, you would place it on the same level as all of the other things that exist with no "convincing argument" to disprove them, like the flying spaghetti monster.

In fact, the flying spaghetti monster and Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" argument are tailored toward precisely the argument that agnostics make: that you can't come to a conclusion if there's "no evidence either way". In fact, only one side is required to produce evidence: the side which claims something exists. Non-existence does not require evidence; existence does. That's the logic principle of Occam's Razor, aka parsimony. It is also what the FSM was designed to illustrate.

[RZZZA]

Remaining neutral in the absence of evidence means that you believe. You may not be certain in your belief, the way a religious person is, but you still believe. If you didn't, you would place it on the same level as all of the other things that exist with no "convincing argument" to disprove them, like the flying spaghetti monster.

In fact, the flying spaghetti monster and Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" argument are tailored toward precisely the argument that agnostics make: that you can't come to a conclusion if there's "no evidence either way". In fact, only one side is required to produce evidence: the side which claims something exists. Non-existence does not require evidence; existence does. That's the logic principle of Occam's Razor, aka parsimony. It is also what the FSM was designed to illustrate.

I think all it means is that I'd like to believe. Just like any human I also want to know that there is a greater purpose to our living and dying, I dont happen to accept common religious explanations like the various organized religions have about the purpose of our lives and what happens afterward. All it means is that I recognize that this life may not be the ultimate purpose, I recognize that there are vastly powerful forces at work in the universe and that some of them may be sentiant, maybe even omnipotent. Everything is maybe though, thats the way of the agnostic.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

Remaining neutral in the absence of evidence means that you believe. You may not be certain in your belief, the way a religious person is, but you still believe. If you didn't, you would place it on the same level as all of the other things that exist with no "convincing argument" to disprove them, like the flying spaghetti monster.

In fact, the flying spaghetti monster and Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" argument are tailored toward precisely the argument that agnostics make: that you can't come to a conclusion if there's "no evidence either way". In fact, only one side is required to produce evidence: the side which claims something exists. Non-existence does not require evidence; existence does. That's the logic principle of Occam's Razor, aka parsimony. It is also what the FSM was designed to illustrate.

a god or something of the like is the only explanation for existance. an agnostic recignizes that there is no proof of a specific god, but there is proof that there is a creator, becuase for somethign to exist it has to first be created.

[Darth Wong]

a god or something of the like is the only explanation for existance. an agnostic recignizes that there is no proof of a specific god, but there is proof that there is a creator, becuase for somethign to exist it has to first be created.

By that logic, something must have created God. The fact is that every belief system recognizes on some level that it's possible for something to simply exist from the beginning of time. Atheists say that the universe could be that primal object. Religious people say that it must be God. Either way, one must accept a primal object, but the difference between atheists and religious people is that we know our primal object definitely exists.

[IamthePope]

Another argument against Protestantism is that it seems to serve as an ideological catalyst for agnosticism. The idea that the metaphysical universe is subject to the individual's definition allows it to be reduced to relative terms rather than universal terms. the concept of "every man be his own preist" allows for the individual to define their own belief of the metaphysical universe. This opens the topic to debate and discourse among the lay people who can hardly be expected to understand such things. With a lack of understanding of religion, and a grasp of understanding for rational sciences, many young people might be tempted to question their faith. This could eventually lead to agnosticism and perhaps even atheism.

As far as I can tell, agnostics tend to be people who believe there's "something out there" but they have rejected the specific dogmas of any particular religion. Either that or they're atheists but they know the word carries so many negative connotations in American society that they would rather call themselves agnostics.

Perhaps Agnostics are simply too ill informed to come to a conclusion. Many people confuse todays humanistic values that are imposed upon them by society with the values of Christianity that they truly believe. These people cannot reconcile the opposing ideologies so they remain nuetral on a proffession of faith. It requires a rejection of conventional materialistic and physical values to truly embrace Christianity. Many people are not yet at this stage.

firstly just to get it out of the way, I dont serve god. I dont belive in a constant god. If there is a god, he is far away and death and blind from our world. I belive like I said that there is merely something that started things off, gave existance the jump start needed to start all the cycles, like the lightning bolt that hit frankenstien.

The Bible and the Church would differ with you.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

Another argument against Protestantism is that it seems to serve as an ideological catalyst for agnosticism. The idea that the metaphysical universe is subject to the individual's definition allows it to be reduced to relative terms rather than universal terms. the concept of "every man be his own preist" allows for the individual to define their own belief of the metaphysical universe. This opens the topic to debate and discourse among the lay people who can hardly be expected to understand such things. With a lack of understanding of religion, and a grasp of understanding for rational sciences, many young people might be tempted to question their faith. This could eventually lead to agnosticism and perhaps even atheism.

If the church had a better or more erasonable universal view wouldnt the protistants have no need to create thier own view? It was becuae of the churches rigid universal view that cuased so many of its belivers to start a new church. Many of the lay people you speak of are more educated that preists and by your logic have more of a right to form a universal view. And besides, you say that its becuase of people's lack of understanding of rational scince and riligion that cuases them to question their faith, isnt it the responsability of the church to teach them these things?

[the Eternal Cocoon]

I consider myself agnostic. I always thought the idea behind it is that we dont belive in any riligion, or any specific set of devine laws. I belive that there is, or was, a god that created, or is, matter. He is the thing that pushes time, that created dimensions. Howver, like BPT said, my mind is made up and if there ever comes any type of evidence to teh contrary ill change my outlook. But this way seems most logical to me. Something had to make the glob of energy explode in what we call the big bang. If there is a limited amount of matter and energy in teh universe ( and there is if it cant be created) then something had to make that limited amount.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

but god, unlike matter, is not made of anything, He is a matterless identity. But you are right, he still would have needed to of been created. I suppose the diffrence between the primal objects is that having there be some sort of god puts some sort of purpose into matter. Without a god, there is no purpose in matter and existance.

[Darth Wong]

but god, unlike matter, is not made of anything, He is a matterless identity. But you are right, he still would have needed to of been created. I suppose the diffrence between the primal objects is that having there be some sort of god puts some sort of purpose into matter. Without a god, there is no purpose for matter existing. With god there is, even if we dont know it.

OK, so what is the purpose of God?

All of these types of arguments can be defeated by simply applying their logic one step up.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

hmm? I said there was purpose in matter not god. A primal object cant really have purpose as it wasent created. As we are matter, if matter is the primal object than we have no realy purpose. If a god is the primal object than he has no purpose but the matter he creates does. I dont really see what we are arguing about, I agreed that you were right in my last post...

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough, but why do you assume that we must have a purpose?

[the Eternal Cocoon]

Human nature is designed for function. We evolved from much to become the most powerful race on the planet because mentally we set objectives and find ways to achieve them. Our greatest advantage over animals in this was our power to think. Unlike any other animal we can reason, interpret, think, consider. Animals do have some basic logistic powers, they can understand and do. And this power to reason and think, to create, led us to where we are now. This power however is double edged. The power to think gives us the power for intersection. If you look at the intellectual progress of humanity since the reformation it has grown increasingly skeptical ultimately culminating in nihilism when people began to doubt the existence of anything outside their own mind. This doubt leads to an erosion of the basic function of humanity; to achieve, to win. What purpose is there in achieving or winning? If all that we are is matter, then what purpose is there in 'living' as a human does? Humans, with this power to think that I talked about earlier are the only beings that actually live. All other animals don't have the mental powers to interpret their world. They perceive and they react, but they can’t interpret. What’s the difference between the reactions of a cell and a dog except for the complexity of the reaction? If you put a food molecule on a few protein receptors on cells anterior, it will move that way in reaction. A dog's reactions are much the same way. Its senses aren’t emotions, but chemical signals. They can’t feel this world as much they can simply react to it. Humans on the other hand actually feel. Happiness isn’t simply a chemical message that tells our brain success, it’s an actual emotion. But if there is no purpose, then why feel? Why not pass to the next stage and go back to simply being part of the tapestry of the universe as matter?

I suppose some say that we make our own purpose, where an artist has purpose in his own work, but most people don’t seem to find that type of purpose. I don’t know how it was before the age of skepticism but nowadays most people seem to live their life searching for the purpose of living their lives, which someone like yourself would point out, is illogical and perhaps even self answering. This is the purpose of religion. As much as I can’t accept religion I respect its idea. Religion unites people under a single purpose of god. Religion is how early civilization was made, it gave a people with no purpose a common purpose, and with that came unity.
Ultimately, I think you’re most likely right in that there is no purpose in our lives and we are no more than matter, but in that case there is little reason in living life the way any of us do. If we are purposeless, then the only purpose in our life, as I defined life earlier, is to manipulate and expand that 'feeling' of the universe as much as we can while we are still something a little bit more than matter live like jainists (a old Indian cult based around sensuality and feeling, a little bit like the church of Satan I believe).

Anyways to try and organize my ramblings, we need purpose for purpose. Religion as I said earlier was the center piece of civilization, Now that religion is declining that center piece is gone. You use to live the life you do appease god. Why should I get a job now? For food? Why eat? Ill die anyways, wheatear it’s from starvation or not. Religion provided the reason to have a job and work and produce. That’s gone and nothing replaces it now. So either its god, feeling, or death.

PS: if I can make an example, people are like caged animals. We are designed to fight, to survive. We achieved that. That impulse is why we created society. But we were and are too effective. If you are born into a society, it’s hard to die. If you’ve ever seen a wild animal in a zoo, its goes into depression, and simply sleeps all day, because its powers are no longer needed. Feeding a predator makes the predator obsolete. We are survivors with nothing to survive from. Painters with no light to paint with. Sculptors with no rock to sculpt with, musicians with no sound.

We need purpose to escape futility.

[Darth Wong]

We need purpose to escape futility.

Why does this purpose have to be supernatural? Why can't it be something like simply surviving, prospering, having a good time, and contributing to the survival and prosperity of the human race?

Seriously, what kind of a purpose is "serving God?"