I am agnostic
Offline We ended up here somehow, right? That leads me to believe there must be some superior being. Not necessarily a "god" and most certainly not the Christian God. However, if there is something, it is way beyond human intelligence. We're merely mammals, and like cats and dogs cannot comprehend rational thought, we cannot comprehend something as infinite as a god. As humans, we are obviously the most intelligent species on the planet, but that doesn't mean we are capable of knowing eveything. Any rational thinker knows that our brain capacity is just not that great. So why would people waste their time in having faith in something, worshipping something, and even basing their whole life around something that is impossible to discern? Brainwashing I tell ya. The Bible, though it contains some historical fact, is a load of holy crap. (Get it? Holy crap? Hah!)
It upsets me that people don't seem to understand this, including my parents.
Anyway, that is basically why I consider myself agnostic and not atheist. Anyone else feel this way? I know most of you are probably atheist, and I'd love to hear your thoughts!
I myself am Agnostic, and I think you have some very good points :-).
Agnosticism isn't a position between theism and atheism. You're making a mistake by asserting that as being a possibility.
Gnosticism has to do with knowledge. Theism has to do with belief. Christians are theists, because they believe in a god. They do not know there is a god, because there is no proof for that.
Most people, including yourself by your description, that call themselves agnostics are actually atheists, but for some reason fool themselves into thinking that agnosticism is a position in between and that is what they are. Since gnosticism and theism are two totally different things, gnosticism becomes a descriptor.
If you do not believe in a god, you are an atheist. If you do not know whether or not there is a god, you are an agnostic. Therefore, you are most likely an agnostic atheist, which is what I am as well.
This is also what The Rational Response Squad is as well.
I hope that helps clear up the issue for you, so that you both can be comfortable in your atheism.
Supplemental reading:
Am I agnostic or atheist?
Agnosticism and it's many misconceptions by RRS co-founder Rook Hawkins
The definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary
What is an atheist? (video from asktheatheist.com)
Have you (cbenard) read The Case Against God by George Smith? There's a huge section on Agnosticism that has a lot to do with what you said. Sounds good.
keasbynights241, no, I've never read that. I have some Dawkins reading on which I have to catch up, and then Carrier's new book. I was just trying to clear up the difference in the terms. Some people feel that because they cannot prove there is no god that they can't be atheists. People like Ray Comfort love to spread those kinds of lies.
The fact is, if you do not believe in a god, then you're an atheist. It has nothing to do with knowledge.
Cbenard makes a good point. We're ALL agnostic. You must either be a theist or an atheist. If you think there's a God, you're theist. If you think there is, you're atheist.
Your argument is an argument from ignorance, and there is many things wrong with it.
1. You say that in order for anything to be here something must have created or started it off. But then, what created that? And what created that? You're position repeats unto infinity and therefore makes no sense... You are creating far harder questions than you are attempting to solve.
2. I have no idea why you think there must be some intelligence higher than ourselves. There doesn't have to be at all. Things progressed naturally by evolution. Why do you think there has to be an intelligence? Yes, we are not capable of knowing everything. That's actually a point against you. "We don't know everything." so why would something else know everything? You aren't making sense at all.
www.myspace.com/nickpoling
cbernard--wow, I didn't know that! I guess that makes me an agnostic athiest. Thanks for clearing that up.
nick_poling- you made some good points, but it still doesn't make sense that everything happened naturally from evolution. I do support evolution, but how can it just randomly start on its own? You're right though, if a higher intelligence created it, something had to have created that, and so on. Eeek..it's mind-boggling.
Big Bang Theory
"To build my own religion. No Gods. No Laws"-Otep
www.myspace.com/xxfailurexbyxdesignxx
Yes but, what is impossible to determine is how all that matter was formed and where it came from. Basically, how you get something from nothing.
we don't know. and because we don't know, we can't simply make assumptions about it.
the existance of a god is an assumption; and one that doesn't look very likely under the scientific process.
This statement is false!
Thanks for clearing up the whole agnostic position :), We should make a sticky.. I will once i get my admin rights back.
"We don't know. and because we don't know, we can't simply make assumptions about it."
Exactly. God is not an explanation, like I said. I hear the Big Bang is a good theory, but I admit I've never researched it so I won't defend it.
www.myspace.com/nickpoling
[quote=Toxicat]Yes but, what is impossible to determine is how all that matter was formed and where it came from. Basically, how you get something from nothing.[/quote]
You don't get something from literal nothing. If theres nothing thats still something. Literal nothing is logically impossible. No where in the universe is there evidence that the matter that currently composes the universe came from anywhere. Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstien to name a few, posit that the universe has always been. In fact, the first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is direct evidence to the statement above that the universe quite possibly has always existed. The Big Bang was merely a transitional event; from a point of infintely compressed matter/energy to the current state of the universe. Its the theist who insists on the creation ex nihlo. That the universe had to have started our been created at some point (by god in this instance). When quite frankly the evidence suggests otherwise. What caused the big bang to happen? Thats were we get a little stumped. We don't know for the time being. Some theories posit quantum vaccum fluctuations. Fluctuations, that seem to happen for no reason at all. As in to say, they don't require a cause. Though, as it stands, current evidence neither supports nor rejects this theory. But, simply because we don't know now, is hardly a reason to turn to god for anwsers. I wish Mike (YellowNumber5) were around he could explain this better than I. Hope this helps.
Fragile I think you responded quite well. The notion that something must have come from nothing is a common creationist argument. They like to set the terms of the debate to fit where they want to take it. In other words... it's a strawman logical fallacy argument. They propose that there was nothing and then spout of something can't come from nothing. Then in the next breath they will posit that their God has existed for all eternity. Well if their god has existed for all eternity, how is it so hard to fathom that maybe the Universe existed for all eternity?
There is plenty of evidence today to show us that the Universe is still expanding. Many scientists believe that someday it's possible we will reach a point where the Universe begins to contract. It could contract to the point where all the matter in the Universe becomes condensed into such a small space... that an explosion must occur... A BIG BANG. And the cycle begins all over again.
"Occams Razor" is a term to describe that the simplest solution, the most provable solution is the most valid solution. If we apply Occams Razor to the Universe/God debate... we see we have evidence for a Universe existing, we don't see evidence for a God. If we are to believe that it's possible for one of those to be eternal, to have existed forever, the most plausible solution is that the Universe has existed forever. One more time... we have evidence for the Universe, no evidence for God... the most likely solution is... no god.
Theists have a hard time wrapping their minds around this. Many for different reasons. A few years back I used to have a radio show called, "The Book of Sapient" and I confronted a theist on the show with "Occams Razor." Here is a not so high quality audio file where you can see how he simply is unwilling to accept what he knows to be logical. The commercial was a humorous commercial that ran on the atheistnetwork.com radio station.
And I LOOOOVED it.
-There is no sin save faith
AKA my screenname :)
It's ironic that there are probably more agnostic Christians than atheists. After all, 'just have faith' is a VERY agnostic statement.
-There is no sin save faith
The thing is that nobody has actual knowledge of God (despite all the ridiculous claims)... everyone values faith... a more practical distinction is between weak atheism (lack of belief) and strong atheism (total rejection of the possibility of existence of God). I would call your stance deistic.
Some scientists argue that many big bangs occured in the past (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1768191,00.html)... who knows? we don't need any appeals to the supernatural to explain all that stuff (if we ever manage to)... and yes something might be able to come out of nothing (or more correctly without a cause) as quantum vacuum fluctuations suggest.
[url=
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious/dp/0465006965/sr=8-1/qid=1157787667/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7320577-3184065?ie=UTF8&s=books]But cosmology isn't the way of explaining supernatural instincts. Try evolutionary psychology.[/url]
So what about someone who does not beleive in god, but who has beleifs in evolutionism/scientology? Does that make them an Agnostic Scientologist?
I personally do not beleive in a god, a higher power, or anything such as that. I do beleive however, that evolution makes more sense then anything. It has more reason and more proof behind it then any such relegion. It's more logical.
Evolution theory has nothing to do with scientology...
So you're saying evolution has nothing to do with science?
Then what is the difference between the two?
Not science... scientology which is a crackpot sci-fi based religion.
[quote=Derevirn]Not science... scientology which is a crackpot sci-fi based religion.[/quote]
religion+some lame sci-fi movie on at 3 in the morning = scientology
I am an Agnostic Athiest. Sure there could be a god, I personally don't think so, but hey if I die, and end up in hell, then I'll believe all those thiests. I really with everything in my body don't think there is a god, but there really is no way to prove it.
Well, to address your first statement:
How do figure we ended up here somehow?
Secondly, animals such as cats and dogs are capable of rational thought, just not on the same level of complexity as humans. If not, what do you think guides the 'seeing-eye-dog' for the blind man? Why do you s'pose cats behave in the arrogantly smug manner they do if they weren't remotely aware of their cognitive abilities? Why do you even suppose, last I heard on the news several years ago, there's a pig in some Midwestern state that's capable of dialing '911' when their owner is in danger?
You are right, however, that humans are not capable of knowing every rational thought. But, I believe, it's not necessarily because our minds can only retain so much knowledge (which of course is true) as opposed to the true vice in our ventures is that logic, quite simply, has a fault within it.
Zeno of Elea created the paradigm of "Achilles and the Tortoise." The point, he devised, is that the story is an impeccably logical argument that leads to a false conclusion. Which leads us to think what about logic?
"If it is possible for us to start from unobjectionable premises, and then proceed by logical steps, each of which is without fault, to a conclusion which is manifestly untrue, this threatens with chaos our attempts to reason about the world around us."
[The Story of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, page 19]
As far as the Bible, it's nothing more than a compilation of stories, philosophies and systems of belief. Nothing less of a syncretistic nightmare, I assure you. A fair number, if not all, of the stories in the Bible can be traced back to civilizations that predate the original Bible itself. A good example of this is Noah's Ark. The story was traced back to several civilizations that predate the Bible's time period (*gasp* Gee golly, isn't that somethin?!). The oldest being Mesopotamia (5000 BC). Incidentally, a similar 'Noah's Ark' story is mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh that's worth checking into.
Toxicat, I'd just like you to ask yourself...
Is it logical that some supernatural being was just floating around in the space/time continuum (or out of it?) and just decided to create the universe? If so, who created this being? Why is it so easy to accept that a supernatural being could have existed for eternity but plain matter and energy had to be created?
There is no doubt that the universe is enigmatic, but just because we do not understand it (yet!) does not mean there MUST have been some supernatural being to have created us.
Another interesting question would be why would he create that big messy universe? Christians assert that he created us (along with the universe) out of love. So he created that vast universe so we could live in a unimaginably tiny portion of it? Pretty inefficient :P, Creation also indicates lack of something, a perfect being such as this supposed creator would have no need to create anything.
Toxicat - your position, though more rational then full-blown theism, seems to go against the rational thought that most atheists pride themselves in.
Simply because something is inexplicable at the moment or merely hard to comprehend does not mean that we will not someday be able to understand it. And, even if we never figure out exactly how the unvierse came into being, it is not logically sound to invoke deities to explain away its existence, most especially when they said deities must, by default, be more complex then their creation, and, therefore, even less probable. Yours reeks of the Argument from Personal Incredulity. That is, your awe at the universe and its constituent parts has lead you to presume that everything must have been designed by [i]something[/i] bigger then us, which is pure unfounded superstition. It is far more likely that the universe came into being from extremely simple beginnings and by small, gradual, cumulative steps then having been whipped out of a very complex, very improbable, very bored deity's rear end one monday morning.
Mike
we as humans have a habit of trying to make everything "becuase" but we must accept some things happen just because or by freak accident. We humans like to think more of ourselves because we are the "smartest" but in truth we are only slightly smarter than dolphins "some are less 8) " but in truth we may never know the "entire truth" but you make good points!
Hey, in addition to the Nirvana (I use this only to mean a eternal universe) comments, I would like to say that some Physicists think the Big Bang was a result of colliding 10D superplatelets of pure energy. Something like that. Basically, I just use that as an example of how we can have come into existance through ways that most people can't currently understand.
[quote=Toxicat]We ended up here somehow, right? That leads me to believe there must be some superior being.[/quote]how does it lead you to a belief in a superior being?
yes, we ended up here. that's obvious. but the how is where things get sticky.
it's basically been proven that evolution occurred, which can very easily occur over millions of years just by starting from really simple self-replicating molecules
[I wrote a more detailed explanation before, but it was a lot longer, and not to my actual point]
anyway, I also assume you're questioning the initial existence of the universe itself.
how it got here, we don't currently know. but I don't like to make assumptions or jump to conclusions.
and by saying that there is a superior being:
1. you are making many assumptions, which may or may not be correct. This includes, but is not limited to:
a) the universe had a beginning
b) there is an outside the universe
c) that the universe was created (which actually can be mutually exclusive from d)
d) that the universe had a creator
e) this creator is an independent being
2. you also raise many questions, including, but not limited to:
a) what is this creator?
b) how did the creator get there?
c) (from b) was this creator created?
d) where did the creator get all the stuff to make the universe?
[quote=Toxicat]Not necessarily a "god"[/quote]also depends on the definition of "god"
[quote=Toxicat]and most certainly not the Christian God.[/quote]too true
[quote=Toxicat]However, if there is something, it is way beyond human intelligence.[/quote]I don't necessarily agree.
[quote=Toxicat]We're merely mammals, and like cats and dogs [b]cannot comprehend rational thought[/b][/quote]I don't understand why you say this.
rational thought is just the process of intaking of information to form premises, and logically working out the relationships between said premises, and hence coming to a certain conclusion.
This is something people do all the time (although not in the case of "faith")
[quote=Toxicat]we cannot comprehend something as infinite as a god.[/quote]firstly, this is assuming that god exists.
secondly, this is assuming that god is infinite.
thirdly, the statement can only be true if this infinity applies to this god's complexity - but if that were the case, said god could not logically exist.
[trying to think of a good explanation of why something can't be infinitely complex]
for something to have a complexity, it must have a certain amount of logical [i]layers[/i], I guess. but there can't be an infinite amount of layers to anything's logical make-up.
[I'm thinking you might not understand what I'm trying to get at. I'm not saying you are stupid, but sometimes it can be really hard to convey a picture in my mind by using words]
[quote=Toxicat]As humans, we are obviously the most intelligent species on the planet, but that doesn't mean we are capable of knowing eveything.[/quote]I assume this is in relation to infinity.
actually, the human mind is more than capable of having a concept of infinity, and of understanding lots of things which have some property in relation to infinity (quite often I deal with infinities in one of my maths classes)
but you're right, we can't know everything. however I do hope we can one day understand all the laws of physics - which I don't think there are an infinite amount, or are infinitely complex; again, it is impossible for infinite complexity to occur.
so I think we may have the ability to eventually understand exactly how the universe works (in terms of laws of physics, and its origin etc); but just not all the events that happen inside it.
[quote=Toxicat]Any rational thinker knows that our brain capacity is just not that great.[/quote]no, the human mind does not have an infinite capacity.
though capacity is relative. I would say that the capacity of the human brain is quite enormous,in that we haven't actually measured any rough estimate on a limit. on top of that, nobody can really make a definite [i]line[/i] as to where any brain's limit is; it tends to be a very grey area.
[quote=Toxicat]So why would people waste their time in having faith in something, worshiping something, and even basing their whole life around something that is impossible to discern? Brainwashing I tell ya. The Bible, though it contains some historical fact, is a load of holy crap. (Get it? Holy crap? Hah!)[/quote]this I really agree with.
[quote=Toxicat]It upsets me that people don't seem to understand this, including my parents.[/quote]me too (except my parents are atheists). I'm generally a calm person, but it can be frustrating when so many people don't get simple ideas. even more so when people are so closed minded about the issue.
I especially don't like it when people overcomplicate things by refusing to accept that the idea might be wrong, and covering holes with more unfounded assertions or assumptions.
[quote=Toxicat]Anyway, that is basically why I consider myself agnostic and not atheist.[/quote]I think that part has been more than covered above
[quote=Toxicat]Anyone else feel this way?[/quote]I'd technically be a weak atheist, since I don't technically [i]absolutely[/i] believe there is no god. but I'm about a hair's breadth off being a strong atheist.
[quote=Toxicat]I know most of you are probably atheist, and I'd love to hear your thoughts![/quote]I think I got a little deeper into this than I planned. originally, I was just going to respond to the first part:
[quote=Toxicat]We ended up here somehow, right? That leads me to believe there must be some superior being.[/quote]
but very often I find myself getting deeper into a lot of things. I think I'm just a lot more focused than most people are.
A really good webpage I came across explaining how life came about - http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/bio/lifestart/lifestart.htm