Agnostics are Believers

[Mithrae]

Given that the universe is reality, a being within it cannot know, measure, guess at anything outside of it. In fact the concept of outside reality is logically incoherent. Yet religion postulates that outside of reality is also a thing this god encompasses. To know that there is a god such as is believed in, those in reality would have to be able to measure what is outside of it and measure this god's presence at all measurable points. That is impossible.

This seems like a semantic shell game of your own concoction. No-one else (least of all religious folk) has suggested that the measurable universe is synonymous or co-extensive with everything that is real. In fact scientists suggest quite the opposite, that there definitely is more to reality than our observable universe due to past cosmic inflation and speed of light limitations from our point of measurement. Similarly no-one else (least of all religious folk) has suggested that measurement is the only way of knowing whether something exists; I know that my great-great-grandfather existed without possessing any measurement of him; I know that the sun will exist tomorrow without any measurement of that point in spacetime; I know that my own and my housemate's consciousness exists without any measurement of those.

Within reality, no observation no matter how many supposedly known laws it violates can disprove anything about what is 'outside reality' let alone establish that there is an 'outside reality'. And further, those in reality have no way of distinguishing between an act of a god that violates known physical laws and an act of an incomprehensibly advance alien species that appears to be so magical it is an act of god but in fact is possible due to yet unknown greater physical laws. I don't see how we can ever know that there is nothing left to know no matter how advanced we get. All we can determine is whether or not what we know is accurate in light of new measurements.


The existence of a god is necessarily unknowable.

Here you seem to be equivocating between knowledge and absolute certainty. As with any purported miracle or divine revelation, it could just as easily be the case that our perception of a spheroid planet orbiting a fusion-powered yellow star are impressions thrust upon us by some more advanced species for their own obscure reasons: So unless you also want to declare that heliocentrism and every other scientific fact is "unknowable," appeals to outlandish ad hoc scenarios really don't count as invalidating the potential for knowledge. Such an argument might hold some merit in claiming that a deity's existence is so far unknown (since those outlandish ad hoc scenarios are arguably not all that far behind theistic/religious interpretations of the scanty evidence available), but not that it's necessarily unknowable.

 

[watsup]

Agnosticism is indeed the correct belief system because an atheist cannot prove how the first cause originated and if humans are going to give vague responses as to what they mean by "God" a first cause could be it/Him/Her

If believing tha t such a totally ludicrous concept as a “God/gods/Creator” is possible (“could be”, as you phrase it), then have at it. I don’t buy into such nonsense in the least, so I have no apologies for being an atheist.

 

[watsup]

Yeah, but it's energy and not a god.

As an Atheist, I see no point in bashing my Agnostic brethren for thinking energy had a hand in things.

There is no problem with “thinking that energy had a hand in things”, but to then overlay energy, which is natural, with an imaginary entity (“God”) is engaging in fantasy. Humor them if you wish, but I do not care to.

 

[watsup]

It's got nothing to do with deism except what deism postulates: the concept of the biblical god is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present. This God simultaneously exists at all points in spacetime and encompasses spacetime (and any other heretofor unimagined reality).

Given that the universe is reality, a being within it cannot know, measure, guess at anything outside of it. In fact the concept of outside reality is logically incoherent. Yet religion postulates that outside of reality is also a thing this god encompasses. To know that there is a god such as is believed in, those in reality would have to be able to measure what is outside of it and measure this god's presence at all measurable points. That is impossible.

Within reality, no observation no matter how many supposedly known laws it violates can disprove anything about what is 'outside reality' let alone establish that there is an 'outside reality'. And further, those in reality have no way of distinguishing between an act of a god that violates known physical laws and an act of an incomprehensibly advance alien species that appears to be so magical it is an act of god but in fact is possible due to yet unknown greater physical laws. I don't see how we can ever know that there is nothing left to know no matter how advanced we get. All we can determine is whether or not what we know is accurate in light of new measurements.


The existence of a god is necessarily unknowable.

Then why do so many people, theists and religionists and Creationists, claim to know with absolute certainty that there is such an entity?

 

[Mr Person]

Then why do so many people, theists and religionists and Creationists, claim to know with absolute certainty that there is such an entity?

Faith is belief against evidence and logic. Literally. Belief against everything.

My answer is: you can't ****ing know, don't you ****ing lie.

Their response is: I believe. And you can't disprove it.


If they rely on their belief to do good, I leave it. If they invoke it to do wrong, I condemn it. (Which then triggers philosophy of morality)

 

[watsup]

No-one else (least of all religious folk) has suggested that the measurable universe is synonymous or co-extensive with everything that is real. In fact scientists suggest quite the opposite, that there definitely is more to reality than our observable universe due to past cosmic inflation and speed of light limitations from our point of measurement.

How exactly do you define “real”. In matter of fact, the very definition of the word science indicates that it is the study of the “real”, namely nature and the universe. Your follow-on sentence does not list anything at all that is not “real” in that, while it may consist of theory, none of it extends outside of the expectations of nature and the universe. You are simply doing the same as the average “believer”and many agnostics in that you are trying to use science to extend into the extra-natural when there is not an iota of evidence for such. Why do you keep carrying water for the theists/religionists?

 

[Paradoxical]

If believing tha t such a totally ludicrous concept as a “God/gods/Creator” is possible (“could be”, as you phrase it), then have at it. I don’t buy into such nonsense in the least, so I have no apologies for being an atheist.

You never know what you're talking about. To such an extent you become annoying. IF there was an intelligence that created the fist cause that would be considered "God". If the universe started for nothing then where did the material come from? Scientists and theologians have been debating these things for centuries and there is no way of knowing one way or the other..........that is agnosticism.

But, I guess you and you alone, with your superior intelligence say that this dictionary definition is wrong and you have learned far more than the greatest scientists of the ages.

Agnosticism is a doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know that any gods exist or not. Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism, but rather a separate concept

 

[watsup]

Faith is belief against evidence and logic. Literally. Belief against everything.

My answer is: you can't ****ing know, don't you ****ing lie.

Their response is: I believe. And you can't disprove it.


If they rely on their belief to do good, I leave it. If they invoke it to do wrong, I condemn it. (Which then triggers philosophy of morality)

Perhaps not, but you can ask them for objective, reality-based evidence of their claims.

 

[soylentgreen]

....

Hardly an insult. It was an obvious bit of manipulation to pretend this is a complicated situation. And it was badly done by you. No subtly at all.

 

[watsup]

You never know what you're talking about. To such an extent you become annoying. IF there was an intelligence that created the fist cause that would be considered "God". If the universe started for nothing then where did the material come from? Scientists and theologians have been debating these things for centuries and there is no way of knowing one way or the other..........that is agnosticism.

But, I guess you and you alone, with your superior intelligence say that this dictionary definition is wrong and you have learned far more than the greatest scientists of the ages.

Agnosticism is a doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know that any gods exist or not. Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism, but rather a separate concept

See post #452. I have nothing to add to that. If you want to carry water for the theists/religionists, have at it. I care not to.

 

[Mr Person]

(Beyond the lyrics, note the insane drummer)

 

[watsup]

But, I guess you and you alone, with your superior intelligence say that this dictionary definition is wrong and you have learned far more than the greatest scientists of the ages.

Not a single one of the greatest scientists of the ages has found even an iota of objective, reality- Saed evidence that there is such an entity as a “God/Creator”. Why do you think that is?

 

[Paradoxical]

See post #452. I have nothing to add to that. If you want to carry water for the theists/religionists, have at it. I care not to.

I was raised as a Catholic and as a result, am well aware of the highly successful indoctrination tactics they employed and still employ to win and keep converts. This is why I rail against all those who call Trump a liar when he says he believes the election was stolen which is in essence what Jack (ass) Smith is saying with his lawfare suit. It is what mainstream media does and what the opposing party does to Trump and how some idiot at CNN came up with some stupid c=rap like 3,489 "lies' and when you look at them, most all are opinions or sarcasm or even mistakes.

While @Mr Person and I don't eye to eye and he most likely has me on ignore, his post #455 is correct. BILLIONS upon billions of people believe some stupid stuff like a human named Mohammed Being whisked to heaven on a winged creature, a con artist named Joseph Smith finding gold plates, a Jewish rabbi rising from the dead to save us based on 4 "witnesses" we cannot question and who merely made claims, and these are just the major religions. Many other crazy claims about "gods" have been made over the centuries and fervently believed by millions upon millions including that Trump colluded believed by over 100 million with Russia with zero proof.

So, many of us here say those people are whacked or mistaken and that a god does not exist. How the universe began will never be known. Even if it began from nothing that alone is a mystery that science would never be able to know what the mechanics of that could have been. It is unanswerable. This is what an agnostic ic. An agnostic is not a waffler or wannabe believer. An agnostic says there is no proof one way or the other.

 

[Mithrae]

Hardly an insult. It was an obvious bit of manipulation to pretend this is a complicated situation. And it was badly done by you. No subtly at all.

Of course it was an insult but - as I said - there's nothing wrong with adding a bit of spice to a broader substantial discussion, for those so inclined, and I made some comparable comments in reply. We're all good you and I... but then there's folk like Watsup who want to get really personal, making just as many if not more rude and uncivil comments of their own but carrying their acrimony across from thread to thread, repeatedly trying to drag the discussion down not with a little spice but with whole posts attacking the person full of 'eternal victim' and 'white knight' routines with zero substantive discussion at all, and pretending to 'psychoanalyze' other posters in what looks very much like a projection of their own idiosyncracies. But to be fair, as a 'debate' tactic trying to drag everything down into a he-said she-said mud-flinging match takes a better person than me to ignore entirely, so it actually is quite effective at stifling robust discussion and making us all look foolish

 

[watsup]

The universe began with the Big Bang. That is the scientific consensus. What was there before the Big Bang? We don't know, but the scientists have some theories based on their knowledge of cosmology and other sciences, and not a single one of those theories involve a God or a Creator. And yet the theists/religionists/Creationists tell us that they are absolutely certain as to what caused the universe, and that was simply because a God "created" it. So there you have the choices: we don't know or it was created by God. I go with the first while rejecting the latter. You go with the first and proclaim the latter to be "possible". Sorry, but unlike you, I don't carry any water for the theists/religionists/Creationists. Feel free to do so, but I choose not to.

 

[tosca1]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity.
It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.

Thank you!

That's why I'm saying there is no such thing as an agnostic-atheist.

For all the song-and-dance some atheists in this forum have been saying they are somewhat agnostic but atheist, is all bull!

Either you're an agnostic or you're an atheist.
You can't be both! Even if only 1% agnostic!

1% agnostic makes you an AGNOSTIC!

 

[Revelation]

Thank you!

That's why I'm saying there is no such thing as an agnostic-atheist.

For all the song-and-dance some atheists in this forum have been saying they are somewhat agnostic but atheist, is all bull!

,,

Either you're an agnostic or you're an atheist.
You can't be both! Even if only 1% agnostic!

1% agnostic makes you an AGNOSTIC!

i think the atheists go about this all wrong.

we describe the nature of God and his attributes.

the Atheist of course denies that, he throws science at you which has nothing to do with measuring or detecting God. science is about the physical attributes of things whether they be biological, physics, chemistry et al.

when i teach children or adults the bible, creation, theology, the last thing i would do is grab a science book and go over chemical formulas, or the inner workings of cellular biology. those reflect God's creativity, but they are not God of course unless you worship nature and get God all back wards.

the best i can say about the Agnostic is that they tend to be more honest. nobody knows everything or even a good percentage of all the knowledge or science available....

so to say that there is 'ABSOLUTELY no God' tells me you have not thought the issue through very well.

LOL, they do 'pride them selves with a superior ability to think' in some way. they just can't think about the Obvious.......as for believers, God IS painfully obvious to us. we get up and the planet is still spinning, God's birds are jumping around; even the insects declare a Superior God of creation.

but i can't teach common sense or the ability to see everyday Evidence that hits them in the face every hour of the day. they expect i suppose the Angels to come down as in Bethlehem and declare to them the Reality of God.

i still feel that if they would feel after God as the Bible tells them to do in Acts, they would find him. it must be they like 'not finding him' and some status of being an Atheist.

be blessed Tosca and you all

 

[Neomalthusian]

i think the atheists go about this all wrong.

"Wrong" depends on their intent. If they were intending to be able to believe in a Christian God, but just struggling to do so psychologically, then yes, they'd be going about it "wrong." It seems some believers are under this impression about them, too, as though they want to believe but are just having a hard time with it and maybe need help. But that's often not at all their intent.

we describe the nature of God and his attributes.

One who describes God is only describing his or her beliefs.

the Atheist of course denies that, he throws science at you which has nothing to do with measuring or detecting God.

"Measure" and "detect" are pretty scientific, empirical words. If the notion of God is non-scientific, which I think everyone can and should agree is the case, then I would stay away from words that are strongly scientific in nature, like "measure" and "detect." Maybe that's what you were trying to say here though, I don't know.

the best i can say about the Agnostic is that they tend to be more honest. nobody knows everything or even a good percentage of all the knowledge or science available....

I don't think agnosticism is honesty, I think it's largely an intentional position of pacifism so as to minimize conflict and discomfort with loved ones who are ardent believers.

so to say that there is 'ABSOLUTELY no God' tells me you have not thought the issue through very well.

Absolute atheists may not have necessarily "thought the issue through very well," but that doesn't mean any believers have either. I could say that I am agnostic in the sense that absence of evidence is not evidence and absence of proof is not proof, and that technically anything is possible, especially when it comes to things that are well beyond our ability to observe or measure...

...however, to me, that leaves infinite possibilities, including countless which no religion's sacred text articulates, and countless which would conflict very strongly with the certitude that virtually all religious believers carry around. A true agnostic would give no special consideration to one specific religious myth over another. God could be a being or entity that cares about us the same as we care about an atom that is part of a bacterium living on a Demodex mite that lives at the base of one of our hair follicles. That is to say, whatever God is could be altogether oblivious to and apathetic about us. As a true agnostic, I concede that I can't prove otherwise, so it's possible, and it's no less possible than anything and everything every religious thinker in history has ever thought, written or believed.

 

[devildavid]

"Wrong" depends on their intent. If they were intending to be able to believe in a Christian God, but just struggling to do so psychologically, then yes, they'd be going about it "wrong." It seems some believers are under this impression about them, too, as though they want to believe but are just having a hard time with it and maybe need help. But that's often not at all their intent.

One who describes God is only describing his or her beliefs.

"Measure" and "detect" are pretty scientific, empirical words. If the notion of God is non-scientific, which I think everyone can and should agree is the case, then I would stay away from words that are strongly scientific in nature, like "measure" and "detect." Maybe that's what you were trying to say here though, I don't know.

I don't think agnosticism is honesty, I think it's largely an intentional position of pacifism so as to minimize conflict and discomfort with loved ones who are ardent believers.

Absolute atheists may not have necessarily "thought the issue through very well," but that doesn't mean any believers have either. I could say that I am agnostic in the sense that absence of evidence is not evidence and absence of proof is not proof, and that technically anything is possible, especially when it comes to things that are well beyond our ability to observe or measure...

...however, to me, that leaves infinite possibilities, including countless which no religion's sacred text articulates, and countless which would conflict very strongly with the certitude that virtually all religious believers carry around. A true agnostic would give no special consideration to one specific religious myth over another. God could be a being or entity that cares about us the same as we care about an atom that is part of a bacterium living on a Demodex mite that lives at the base of one of our hair follicles. That is to say, whatever God is could be altogether oblivious to and apathetic about us. As a true agnostic, I concede that I can't prove otherwise, so it's possible, and it's no less possible than anything and everything every religious thinker in history has ever thought, written or believed.

There is no reason to think that anything and everything is possible. Otherwise, there is no real meaning to the word possible. Just because human beings are able to conceptualize gods, doesn’t mean that gods are possible. Human imagination is not the measure of what is possible.

 

[Paradoxical]

Thank you!

That's why I'm saying there is no such thing as an agnostic-atheist.

For all the song-and-dance some atheists in this forum have been saying they are somewhat agnostic but atheist, is all bull!

Either you're an agnostic or you're an atheist.
You can't be both! Even if only 1% agnostic!

1% agnostic makes you an AGNOSTIC!

Matt Dillahunty used to be a firm believer. Baptist I think. He has his own YouTube channel and debates Christians and has debated theologians many times. He calls himself an agnostic atheist.

 

[Neomalthusian]

There is no reason to think that anything and everything is possible. Otherwise, there is no real meaning to the word possible. Just because human beings are able to conceptualize gods, doesn’t mean that gods are possible. Human imagination is not the measure of what is possible.

All I’m admitting is the pedantic technicality that I couldn’t scientifically prove beyond all doubt that any imagined thing beyond our comprehension is impossible. Incomprehensibility precludes proof one way or another.

I don’t actively think that anything and everything is possible, because I agree, there’s no real reason to do so. Pretty pointless.

A lot of theists seem to think this technicality gives them something to work with and that maybe just maybe I’ll come around to embracing their narrow 1,500-3,000 year old sacred text as incontrovertible truth.

All my version of agnosticism says to theists is that their notion of God is on equal footing with infinite other theoretical possibilities in which their conception of God is extremely far off/false, including infinite possibilities in which no god exists, and possibilities in which whatever god may exist has absolutely zero concern for or awareness of us and our issues. My agnosticism trivializes theists’ Bronze-Age-inspired human-centric notions of God.

 

[Revelation]

Matt Dillahunty used to be a firm believer. Baptist I think. He has his own YouTube channel and debates Christians and has debated theologians many times. He calls himself an agnostic atheist.

hmmm....

Famous Atheist Quits Debate in Fit of Rage When Christian Apologist Hits a Little Too Close to Home​

When atheist apologist Matt Dillahunty engaged in his latest debate against theist Andrew Wilson about whether belief or disbelief in God was better for societal flourishing, he probably thought he would be the aggressor — tearing apart happy-clappy attitudes Christian apologists tend to use.
No such luck. In fact, Wilson’s opening remarks were so scathing that Dillahunty walked out after them.

Famous Atheist Matt Dillahunty Quits Debate in Anger When Christian Hits a Little Too Close to Home

“Even if God isn’t real at all, people acting as though he is is still superior to whatever nonsensical egalitarian worldview” atheism offers.

www.westernjournal.com

 

[Paradoxical]

hmmm....

Famous Atheist Quits Debate in Fit of Rage When Christian Apologist Hits a Little Too Close to Home​

When atheist apologist Matt Dillahunty engaged in his latest debate against theist Andrew Wilson about whether belief or disbelief in God was better for societal flourishing, he probably thought he would be the aggressor — tearing apart happy-clappy attitudes Christian apologists tend to use.
No such luck. In fact, Wilson’s opening remarks were so scathing that Dillahunty walked out after them.

Famous Atheist Matt Dillahunty Quits Debate in Anger When Christian Hits a Little Too Close to Home

“Even if God isn’t real at all, people acting as though he is is still superior to whatever nonsensical egalitarian worldview” atheism offers.

www.westernjournal.com

I heard that story. Matt isn’t your white glove debater and he doesn’t tolerate ignorance and that’s why he cut it short. Had nothing to do with his saying he is an agnostic atheist though.

 

[Revelation]

I heard that story. Matt isn’t your white glove debater and he doesn’t tolerate ignorance and that’s why he cut it short. Had nothing to do with his saying he is an agnostic atheist though.

i may take a look at the video to see what is going on. never heard of the guy but looked him up and this is what the search engine spit out tonight.

complements to you all, the forum is getting a bit more interesting lately with new blood. you all are talking above my head at times, but good to see some competition here.

blessings.

 

[Paradoxical]

i may take a look at the video to see what is going on. never heard of the guy but looked him up and this is what the search engine spit out tonight.

complements to you all, the forum is getting a bit more interesting lately with new blood. you all are talking above my head at times, but good to see some competition here.

blessings.

FWIW, I debated religion online for decades and felt I heard all the arguments so many times wrapped in new ribbons that I switched to politics. Like Dillahunty I was raised in religion but the Catholic cult and by nuns.