EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[The Hungry Atheist]

There are really no scientific evidences if that is what you're after.
There are physical ones though.

I don't really understand what this means; you seem to be saying that there is physical evidence to support the Bible, but it is unscientific. To me, this merely means that it is unreliable and unverifiable, and has not been shown to be significantly likely to be true. In which case, believing it to be likely seems foolish. Or is this not quite what you mean?

Do you think I have not questioned myself scientifically on the existence of God?
I have based my observations on what the Bible says.

Yeah... see, if you're basing your observations on what the Bible says, you're kinda not being scientific about it. You're already being biased in favour of what you believe, and merely trying to confirm it.

Religions claim to have the answers.
Christianity has all the answers to life's questions.

That's a claim. You just claimed that your religion has all the answers, which is a claim that adherents to any religion tend to make. I don't believe that claim to be true; I've heard Christianity's answers, and I'm not satisifed by them.

[Abulafia]

About one in three Americans (note: not an accurate statistic, just something I'm probably mis-remembering) reckons they've been abducted by aliens. Does this consitute a significant pattern demanding attention?

What's your source for that, and why do you trust it? I know that alien abduction is widely believed in, but I would want to see some pretty good evidence that surveys were wide, accurate, and properly conducted before I would believe a statistic like that.

On the flip side: If one tenth of Americans believed they were abducted by aliens... or one hundredth... That would absolutely represent a significant pattern demanding attention. Saying something demands attention is very different from saying that one believes that the surface explanation ("wow... that must mean x percent of Americans get captured by aliens") is the best one. It means that there's something going on that is significant. Whether it's that aliens have fun probing Americans, or whether it's that something in the 'typical' American psychological makeup is conducive to a particullar sort of hallucination, or whether something else entirely is the case. It means that there's something going on that's un-scientific to dismiss. At most one should say "That's really not my field... someone else should look into what that statistic means".

[Abulafia]

Do you think I have not questioned myself scientifically on the existence of God?
I have based my observations on what the Bible says.

Yeah... see, if you're basing your observations on what the Bible says, you're kinda not being scientific about it. You're already being biased in favour of what you believe, and merely trying to confirm it.

Actually, basing your observations on a given text, authority, or worldview is par for the course in science. I've mentioned elsewhere Kuhn's work on measurement in science. Whether something is scientific or not isn't about whether or not you use a given worldview to guide your measurement or observations.

In part it's:

- how critically you examine the results of your observations

- how well you understand the accuracy of any given method of observation

- whether you are able to use multiple techniques to verify highly disputable observations

- Frequently, a goal of determining whether or not observation matches a given theory, and an openness to the answer being yes or no.

Taking the Bible (Or the Vedas, or the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy) as your frame of reference for interpreting your observations isn't non-scientific. It's what you do with that frame of reference that makes all the difference.

[The Hungry Atheist]

What's your source for that, and why do you trust it?

I described that statistic after I quoted it as "not an accurate statistic, just something I'm probably mis-remembering". Having looked for something more reliable, I found http://skepdic.com/aliens.html, which says: "According to a Gallup poll done at the end of the twentieth century, about one-third of Americans believe aliens have visited us, an increase of 5% over the previous decade." Which isn't quite what I said, true, and still not necessarily trustworthy.

You do make a good point about the statisticial significance of such things, and yes, I suppose it certainly does mean something, if not that 1 in 3 Americans really have bumped into E.T. But I've seen people be wrong before, be deluded or tricked into believing things that turned out to be false - these are fairly common occurrences, about which we can be as certain as we can about anything.

It would seem, then, that the idea that people have got things wrong would be a simpler, and more likely, solution than the supernatural one, be it alien visitation or the resurrection of Christ. Of course, there theoretically comes a point where the mass hallucination idea becomes ridiculous and we must begin to believe in some other explanation. But I don't think there's enough evidence yet to consider this likely.

[The Hungry Atheist]

Taking the Bible (Or the Vedas, or the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy) as your frame of reference for interpreting your observations isn't non-scientific. It's what you do with that frame of reference that makes all the difference.

Perhaps I was unjustly misinterpreting Jian^sia's comment here. A number of Christians I've encountered base all the rest of their ideas on the foundation that the Bible is true, and are unwilling to let this foundation be undermined. You're certainly allowed to have a frame of reference or a starting point, but as you say, it's how reasonably you treat it that really matters.

[mrmufin]

I guess the angle I was taking is that love, beauty and music are qualities that are ultimately undefinable, in terms of our finite minds. You can't appreciate their splendor without experiencing them.

Well, I think I see where you're coming from, though I am not sure that I fully agree. Ludwig van Beethoven was deaf by the time he composed his ninth symphony, which is often heralded as his greatest achievement. With that in mind, I'm not sure what you mean by, "not being able to appreciate their splendor without experiencing them." If, in the case of music, experiencing its splendor implies the ability to hear music, then the Beethoven case falsifies that assertion. Though I strongly doubt that Beethoven would have been able to compose nearly as effectively if he had been deaf his entire life, it is entirely possible to compose music without being able to hear it.

Love and beauty are subjective assessments, and I suppose whether or not a particular piece of music is personally appealing is also subjective. Whether or not something is musical --though not completely objective-- is much less subjective.

And you can't adequately describe them to someone who hasn't also experienced them at a similar level. In short, they cannot be explained in scientific terms.

I think you're confusing the response to music with the music itself. It's a real safe bet that my father and I could both listen to Tom Waits' song "Heartattack and Vine" and not have anything kinda sorta somewhat in the neighboring vicinity of approximately the same "experience." Even when we hear the exact same thing, we may have vastly different responses. The fact that music can be notated using a variety of means goes a long way toward describing it in a "scientific" (or at least objective) sense. The fact that Beethoven was able to so effectively convey his last symphony without hearing it externally, strongly suggests that careful attention in the musical notation process can have consistent --and very musical-- results. This does not assure that the soprano and the tenor in Choral will have similar experiences of the work.

In that sense, they are not in the realm of physical sciences, and so that's why I'd call them apart from the natural world. Some of their properties may exist in the natural world, but I would submit that their essence carries over into the supernatural. Does that sound reasonable?

Again, I'll let love and beauty slip from the realm of the objectively verifiable and/or testable into the subjective, but certainly not any supernatural, realm. I could scribble out the top line melody of the Flintstones Theme on a sheet of staff paper, sans title, and mail it to a musician in Denmark. Upon opening the mail and seeing the sheet music, the foreign musician may well "experience" the music without having ever heard (and likely before even playing) the piece. This transferability --made possible via accepted standards of notation-- is currently unavailable for the concepts of love and beauty.

By the way, I am extremely fascinated by the effects of music, which also revolve around poetry. I'm a audiophile who is completely immersed in the rock/pop genres spanning my entire lifetime. I'm amazed at the ability of music to take one's mind on a journey, and how it can influence or create moods.

Though we're really straying from the topic of agnosticism here, I also have an interest in how we respond to music, such as what causes us to regard certain harmonies (er, "wavelength ratios" in a scientific sense) as "pleasing" vs. "not so pleasing." Is this simply conditioning?

As for how atheists explore the possibilities of the universe, it seems to me they most often take some combination of the following stances:
--I've already searched for a God and didn't find one.

US-led coalition forces have searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and found none. Is there a point at which we can safely conclude that there aren't any? For theists, "God" is an entity to be described. For atheists, "God" is a concept to be defined. How could a nonbeliever even know what to look for without a consistent definition from theists? Descriptions of the gods presented by theists are nowhere near as consistent as what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction or an eight-bar jig in E minor.

--If there is a God, I don't want any part of him.

Not necessarily; though I've gotta admit that having or being a part of some thing is much easier when that some thing is observeable.

--We can't know that there is a God... it's pointless.

When theists provide a clear and consistent means of knowing exactly what the gods consist of, and where said gods maybe found, we might be able to know them. It does get a bit speculative as to what the nature of said gods may be or what pleases them without some empirical data.

--I'll believe in God when I have proof.

Heck, we don't even have proof that the heliocentric model of celestial mechanics is true, just heap-loads of evidences that are consistent with the theory. I wouldn't ask for proof outside of a bottle or math class, but some convincing evidence might make a difference.

--Religion is myth, and people throughout history have been fools for following it.

As far as I can tell, religion goes way beyond myth... There's psychology, marketing, tithing, ritual, etc.

--Religion is destructive to society.

Not necessarily, though religions have had their fair share of bloodthirsty field representatives. Oh yeah, and bloodthirsty gods, too, though they're not what concerns me.

--There is no good or evil.

Oh, there certainly are such things as good and evil. We just haven't agreed upon a standardized good-o-meter yet.

I don't hear many of them saying that they're open to the possibility of a God, and even those who are don't seem interested in approaching him apart from scientific means.

Well, I'm certainly open to the possibility of a god, and any god worth worshipping should know exactly how to demonstrate its reality to me.

What I don't mean to say is that they aren't earnest or passionate. I just think they're erroneously looking for shortcuts.

Shortcuts to what? For what?

Regards,
mrmufin

[bernee51]

I wouldn't brush off the probably hundreds of thousands of accounts as collectively merely being hearsay.[/quote]

Argumentum ad populum

...until there is objective, repearable evidence it is nothing other than hearsay.
.

I always thought it was rather disingenuous of atheists to tell me they used to believe in foolish religious fairy tales when they were little, but then they grew out of them.

why so?

it is fairly well established (by Piaget et al) that belief in the mythic is a well defined stage of development in conciousness. Many of them (myths) we let go...others, where there is a cultural advantage (i.e. sufficient reward) to hold onto them, are maintained.

The counter of that mentioned by atheists is "but you say we're going to hell..." ...but it's "trust in God and follow His counsel."It's not as doomsday as atheists try to make it sound.

and if I don't follow counsel, what are the consequences?

All right, let's compare the efforts of the basic atheist to what I do. My family and I spend about ten hours during the week involved in various church activities,

I (normally) spend at least that doing community activities in the area of suppourt for young men '" with difficulties" . Religion does not have a monoply on altruism - though it can be a conduit.

I live my life in accordance with the teachings, I am consistent (not perfect) in following strict guidelines which I've chosen to pattern my life.

I have the same relationship with my own moral directives.

Every decision I make is based on my religious beliefs. My moral code, my code of diet, from the simple to the complex. I don't use swear words. I don't watch rated R movies or listen to vulgar music. I don't drink or smoke.

these attributes do not necessarily make you a 'better' person

My marriage is based on the belief that it has a higher purpose,

so is mine...to have a truly intimate relationship with another human being.

where Intimacy = in to me see.

I spent two years in a foreign country as a missionary without pay, where the only activity apart from a weekly rest day was proselyting.

I live in a country that has been the target for such activities. It has been mixed in terms of outcomes.

I am reminded of what Desmond Tutu said..."When he white man came with a bible in his hand we had the land. Close your eyes and pray, they said. When we opened them again we had tthe bible and they had the land"

Let me be very clear that this is not to demean what others do... I ask you: How dedicated is the atheist to their cause? How much time and effort do they spend involved in it? Does it engulf them?

It is demeaning if you think that 'devotion to a cause' or lack their of is reflective of a persons quality of life or intriinsic worth.

[snapchamp]

people believe in god for 3 reasons..
1. they were conditioned as a child to believe in god and they continue their ways. this is analogous to being told as a child that a place where it snows is the most beautiful environment to live in-then you move to miami beach and try to convince everyone that the beach is great, but the snow is the best.
2. something terrible happened in their lives and they need a crutch to believe that there is something worth living for.
3. for some reason they NEED answers. they NEED to have a purpose. and they somehow think religion, or god more specifically, is the only place to turn. it's unfortunate that people NEED to know. they can not be happy appreciating the unknown. the unknown scares them, and that's sad. sad that an adult is still afraid of "the dark"

[Abulafia]

people believe in god for 3 reasons..
1. they were conditioned as a child to believe in god and they continue their ways. this is analogous to being told as a child that a place where it snows is the most beautiful environment to live in-then you move to miami beach and try to convince everyone that the beach is great, but the snow is the best.
2. something terrible happened in their lives and they need a crutch to believe that there is something worth living for.
3. for some reason they NEED answers. they NEED to have a purpose. and they somehow think religion, or god more specifically, is the only place to turn.

I agree that those are three reasons, though there are certainly others.

I think perhaps one of the most important is 'numinous' experiences. People simply have experiences sometimes that don't fit well into the worldview offered by mainstream reductionist science.

That's not to say that there can't be a reductionist explanation for them. Just that if the experience is deep and compelling enough the reductionist account has to tell quite a story to satisfy the person.

Whether you end up attributing it to mental disorder on the part of the person, or an experience of the Super-ego or collective unconscious (for the Jungians in the house), or to God, or what have you... there's something to be said for wonder at the universe we're in, and for the experiences which many call 'spiritual' and their effects on the people who have them.

it's unfortunate that people NEED to know. they can not be happy appreciating the unknown. the unknown scares them, and that's sad. sad that an adult is still afraid of "the dark"

Seems to me that the human need to know is one of the greatest things we have going for us. If it weren't for this basic need to know, science as we know it now wouldn't have ever gotten off the ground. Many of the greatest thinkers of any given age have felt compelled to discover the nature of the universe to the best of their ability. Why is that a sad thing? I've always found that a burning curiosity and a need to know help one appreciate the unknown.

[Xanadu Moo]

Hungry Atheist,
I'll respond to you first. I appreciate your comments, as they offer me other perspectives.

Re: Calling people to repentance
Ancient prophets and other leaders were commanded to call people to repentance. So if there is a God, they're just being the messenger. I don't believe the general follower has the duty to call others to repentance, and so those people would be out of line.

Incidentally, in your opinion, if I continue my life as an atheist, and go to my grave still denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, without believing in God or repenting, am I going to burn?

No. There are a few different scenarios. You may not have sufficient opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, and so you could have more chances in the afterlife, prior to judgment day. And your behavior as described may not even require repenting. But even so, those who are not judged worthy, according to my belief system, go to a different degree of glory than those who are judged worthy. The degrees are celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. It's a kinder, gentler doomsday.

I don't believe that religion will necessarily make people become as a whole "better" people, as you seem to be arguing. If your faith has resulted in you doing selfless charity work for others, then I fully support that, but don't consider anyone without your faith incapable of the same.

I didn't mean to imply that theists were better. The main point is how much atheists are willing to devote to their path (or belief system, or what have you). This came up because I was asked why I let my religion come to me instead of seeking it out, as if I weren't investing much of my mental energies into my path. So I'm demonstrating the potential activeness of religion, and the passiveness of atheism. I feel it's a mischaracterization of theists to say that they accept things blindly by faith without using their reasoning powers very much.

What cause? "The atheist" is simply a human being who happens not to share one of your beliefs. His or her cause can be whatever he or she chooses, and they can get as involved in it as they want. I'm not sure why being "engulfed" in a cause is necessarily such a great thing.

The level is key. You say it can be anywhere on the spectrum. But lack of involvement connotes passiveness, hesitancy, unconfidence. Atheists are typically passive in their beliefs. They are often very vocal, and quite vehement -- even to the point of insulting (not on this board, but elsewhere) -- but in terms of putting those feelings into actions, it's a passive endeavor. Theists put their money where their mouth is. I think they're much more dedicated to what they do, because they prove it by backing it up with actions.

And you ask why being engulfed is necessarily such a great thing... that's a legitimate question. Let's even reduce it to being in terms of an 80-year existence on earth and nothing else. If you only go around once in life, why not go for the gusto? Why not go all out? Why not go full steam ahead? Why not be the best person you can be, and help those around you the best that you can? Religion is a structure to help facilitate this, with the backdrop of a divine purpose. Atheism has very little structure if at all. What kinds of things do atheists do in the name of atheism to further the good of humanity? They could do more good if they became an organization promoting good behavior, and not being passive and individualistic about it. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm being condescending by saying this. But I don't know how to say it any more directly.

There's a saying that goes "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." I think it behooves us to take some stand at some point, and point our entire life in that direction. Without conviction, we have very little identity.

My quote: "You can't appreciate their [beauty, art, music, love] splendor without experiencing them. And you can't adequately describe them to someone who hasn't also experienced them at a similar level. In short, they cannot be explained in scientific terms."

The colour red could probably be described in such a way. I couldn't do anything to describe the colour red to somebody who only saw the world in monochrome. They could learn all they wanted about wavelengths of light involved and how the human brain responds to them, but they could never actually understand what it means to see something red without actually experiencing it. And yet, I don't think we need to define redness as anything supernatural.

But red can be explained in scientific terms, so that's the difference. I don't see how you've shot any holes in my assertion with your example.

I'm open to the possibility of a God, but I have no interest in pursuing the idea in any unscientific way.

This is one thing that I have a lot of trouble comprehending. Why would a God make himself discoverable by science if the purpose of life was to be tested according to faith? If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God, He will be discovered last through the scientific method. This is not the place to look. What other infinite quality has science been able to adequately examine? It's completely counterintuitive that we would be able to define an infinite being using a finite template. It will never work.

Also, if there is a God, he has told us how to discover him. Read his works and come to him in prayer. The backdoor approach is futile. And, in my mind, it's also presumptuous. That's what I meant when I talked about atheists looking for shortcuts.

Religion seems to have the answer to everything; science is constantly questioning itself and admitting ignorance and curiousity.

If there is a God, then I would imagine religion better darned well have the answer to everything! If the source of knowledge is God, there's no sense pretending that there are some things that God hasn't thought through. It's not bragging if you can do it.