I think we are all agnostics at heart

juanveron45

Why do I say that well think about it.

Why are believers so afraid of death if they really believe what they believe because ulimately they are going into the unknown thwy dont realy know what happens

The same with athiests ,for if really believed what they believe they would know that they are not going to be aware of whats happened to them

monkeyfudge

Fear of death is a biological compulsion to ensure survival of the species.

On an intellectual level I can't say I have any great fear of death.

stereoroid

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. The way I see it, Agnosticism is fine as a purely philosophical position, but saying "the question of God can never be answered" doesn't help you deal with the real world. It's not enough to sit on the fence: you have to operate on the premise that gods don't exist - i.e. Atheism - when making choices on how to live etc...

Dave!

juanveron45 wrote: »

The same with athiests ,for if really believed what they believe they would know that they are not going to be aware of whats happened to them

OR, we/I are afraid of death because we're aware that this is our only shot, and we exist for a finite amount of time...... We have the ability to think complex thoughts such as "I like it here", and "I don't want this to end".

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monkeyfudge

Not if you find the idea of everlasting life repulsive.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monkeyfudge

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's why I love being an atheist. I relish idea of everlasting oblivion. The fact that there is no afterlife simply isn't an issue for me.

condra

juanveron45 are you a troll or what?

Three threads started, attempting to challenge atheists in the last couple of days, and only one brief reply among them.

You're starting to annoy me now, and not just because of your awful spelling, grammour and punctuation.

You seem to have an attitude problem. Why not just spit it out and tell us how you really feel?

I'm pretty sure I'd be in a bit of trouble if I posted three seperate antagonistic threads in the Christian forum within 24 hours.

Dave!

If the threads were in any way original it would be grand

JimiTime

womoma wrote:

;You're starting to annoy me now, and not just because of your awful spelling,grammour and punctuation.

I hope that was intentional:D

humanji

stereoroid wrote: »

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. The way I see it, Agnosticism is fine as a purely philosophical position, but saying "the question of God can never be answered" doesn't help you deal with the real world. It's not enough to sit on the fence: you have to operate on the premise that gods don't exist - i.e. Atheism - when making choices on how to live etc...

I don't get that at all. It gives you the same view as being athiest. You just deal with the life that you have. You don't have to have a definite answer to be able to get by.

Dades

humanji wrote: »

I don't get that at all. It gives you the same view as being athiest. You just deal with the life that you have. You don't have to have a definite answer to be able to get by.

I'd agree with that. I don't think either position would lead you to live your life any differently. Unless someone is a very weak 'undefined-god-fearing agnostic' or something.

18AD

I love the idea of RAW that we should be agnostic about everything. Once you assume to know something (believe) you stop exploring that area. So believing leads to dead ends, agnosticism leads to knew ideas, or consciousness expansion.

All the best.
AD.

Zillah

18AD wrote: »

I love the idea of RAW that we should be agnostic about everything. Once you assume to know something (believe) you stop exploring that area. So believing leads to dead ends, agnosticism leads to knew ideas, or consciousness expansion.

Thats one of the more absurd things I've read here.


Do you commit to the belief that if you step off a cliff you'll fall and die?
DON'T STOP EXPLORING THE IDEA THAT YOU MIGHT BE SUPERMAN.

I could list examples like that all day but frankly I'm a little tired and grumpy so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt to extrapolate from the above.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

meee...owww

this kitten's got claws

18AD

Zillah wrote: »

Thats one of the more absurd things I've read here.


Do you commit to the belief that if you step off a cliff you'll fall and die?
DON'T STOP EXPLORING THE IDEA THAT YOU MIGHT BE SUPERMAN.

I could list examples like that all day but frankly I'm a little tired and grumpy so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt to extrapolate from the above.

Yeah. I know what you mean. Nobody ever has the potential to be superman in the entire future of humankind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttz5oPpF1Js
These guys are savage at jumping off cliffs.

Edit: Maybe I should have said sombunall things.

Good luck.
AD.

Zillah

No you plank, I mean you, without equipment, now, not in the future, stepping off a really big cliff because YOU MIGHT BE SUPERMAN. I mean the super hero. Wears tights and underpants, red cape...big S on his chest, the whole thing.

You should remain agnostic about you BEING SUPERMAN and go explore the edge of the nearest cliff. Because no one should assume to know something because you stop exploring that idea.

So you go explore the notion that you might be superman, though you should never ever decide fully if you are or aren't. I'm gonna keep pressing the delete key on my PC and see if I can make you explode. Now, although I've pressed it ten thousand times before and nothing has happened I'm going to keep exploring the possibility that my delete key can make people explode, because ever committing to believing something is a bad thing, apparently.

In ten million years we can meet up and compare notes. Though its fairly pointless really, cos we'd just go back to seeing if you can fly or if I can make people explode.

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote: »

No you plank

On form today Zillah!

18AD wrote:

believing leads to dead ends

I agree fully. Agnosticism is the only rational viewpoint, as long as you can survive without questions being answered.

/EDIT holy shìt, just watched that video... amazing stuff!

Dades

joe_chicken wrote: »

On form today Zillah!

But obviously ingesting too much caffeine. Careful now, Z.

Sangre

What if you want explore something but to do so you must rely on a thousand different assumptions and truths that have gone before you? I doubt you'd get far.

'hey scientist, forget your ground breaking work on quantum mechanics and stop assuming that pythagoras' theorem was correct.'

18AD

Zillah wrote: »

No you plank, I mean you, without equipment, now, not in the future, stepping off a really big cliff because YOU MIGHT BE SUPERMAN. I mean the super hero. Wears tights and underpants, red cape...big S on his chest, the whole thing.

You should remain agnostic about you BEING SUPERMAN and go explore the edge of the nearest cliff. Because no one should assume to know something because you stop exploring that idea.

So you go explore the notion that you might be superman, though you should never ever decide fully if you are or aren't. I'm gonna keep pressing the delete key on my PC and see if I can make you explode. Now, although I've pressed it ten thousand times before and nothing has happened I'm going to keep exploring the possibility that my delete key can make people explode, because ever committing to believing something is a bad thing, apparently.

In ten million years we can meet up and compare notes. Though its fairly pointless really, cos we'd just go back to seeing if you can fly or if I can make people explode.

Just to clarify, I meant this type of agnosticism:(wiki)
Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

And I'm not just refering to God(s).

One of the key features is withheld judgement until more evidence is available ie. a passing of time, to gather more evidence possibly...
So in saying to do it now holds no relevance here.

I might actually be superman. The idea of superman may be a metaphor for everyone's life struggle. A private life and a social life, often kept separate but always mingling with eachother.

I may be able to become superman. Although I highly doubt I'll ever become an actor.

I may eventually be able to develop the supernatural abilities superman has.
If we can overcome aging we'll have an infinite amount of time to explore this. (and you can test out tapping the delete key for as long as you like)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39

Maybe technology will hold the keys to this advancement.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/38

Unless the prerequisite to being superman is to be born on Krypton then I confess I'm not that superman (unless it's also a metaphor!).

Didn't the delete key in Die Hard 4 blow stuff up? I'm sure it's easy enough to rig it up.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Maybe there're some remote alternate universe where technology is incredibly advanced. Maybe one day we'll bring it back here and have a ball. Unless you're exploding people.

I don't think that what we know now is the end of our knowledge. The future holds many bizarre possibilities.

So I'm not saying discard quantum mechanics, I'm just saying that it's not the final truth. Along with ideas in other areas.
And hence, that if you believe something to be ultimately true it's likely that you'll stop exploring that area because you believe it's all wrapped up.
So Pythagoras starts math and it advances because there is more truth behind it. It's not regarded as the end all.

All the best.
AD.

aidan24326

joe_chicken wrote: »

I agree fully. Agnosticism is the only rational viewpoint, as long as you can survive without questions being answered.

Not necessarily. We do have to be just a little bit agnostic about the existence of any god or gods, a god creator in the more sophisticated sense.

Bt what about the god of the christian bible for example? Should we be agnostic about that god even though he/it is a totally absurd impossibility? Or Zeus? Or any of the myriad other gods postulated by various religions? No, we say off-hand that they don't exist, as they are contradictory, mostly ridiculous and invariably lacking even the tiniest shred of evidence.

18AD

Maybe they don't exist in material reality. But surely the very thought of their existence having an effect on the "real" world gives them some sort of credibility.

Edit: The very idea of God being God itself. Maybe.
Good luck.
AD.

aidan24326

18AD wrote: »

Maybe they don't exist in material reality. But surely the very thought of their existence having an effect on the "real" world gives them some sort of credibility.

And what effect do these gods have on the 'real' world? None that I can see. You can pray for something until you're blue in the face and it still won't happen, even if you're the bestest holy-joe christian in town. Millions of prayers everyday offered up for this and for that and nothing ever happens beyond statistical chance. That alone should tell you that either god doesn't exist or at least doesn't care too much about us anyway, so not worth worshipping one way or the other.

18AD

aidan24326 wrote: »

And what effect do these gods have on the 'real' world? None that I can see. You can pray for something until you're blue in the face and it still won't happen, even if you're the bestest holy-joe christian in town. Millions of prayers everyday offered up for this and for that and nothing ever happens beyond statistical chance. That alone should tell you that either god doesn't exist or at least doesn't care too much about us anyway, so not worth worshipping one way or the other.

I meant that the 'idea of god' has real world effects. People crusading in the name of and so on.
Which reminds me of the general notion that the imagination is not real (I think we have Aristotle to thank for that), yet it effects the real world.
Maybe like any imaginary character may have had an effect on your life. Any cartoon you saw as a kid that you feel nostalgic about

I was reading an interesting essay by Doug Hofstadter last night in which he talks about the reductionist view of consciousness ie. consciousness explained as neuroscience, explained as biology, explained as chemistry, explained as physics, explained as particle physics.
At the level of particle physics there's an inseparable link between consciousness and objective reality, apparently.
[Speculation]So our belief system may play a role in how we perceive reality and truly alter it. Are we projecting our thoughts outside ourselves and creating real changes. And hence creating gods outside ourselves. Will a totally clear mind see things how they really are? Letting go of ideas or 'having faith'.[/Speculation]

There a some more far out philosophies on this.
If the universe arose out of nothing, and you can't create something from nothing.
In this existence the mind can create something from nothing. So the universe appears to have arose from the mind of "god".

There is also an excellent theory known as the holographic universe.
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
Would one call the implicate order god?
I gotta delve into this a bit more.

-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9q6iyhY-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec

-

http://www.iloveulove.com/psychology/jung/jungarchetypes.htm
Gods as archetypes of the mind.
The christian god then resembles a dominant male authority figure archetype, I would imagine.
In this sense then, there is a god (in your head)

The very scope of definitions for god confuses me.
I like the idea that it refers to the unknown. Know the unknowable. Imagine the unimaginable. Define the undefinable...let's just call it god

Maybe people are praying to the wrong god or praying in the wrong way. A 4-(spatial)dimensional being could really make things happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8oiwnNlyE4

God is everywhere and watching you :eek: ..or is that santa. (Now that I think of it, the idea of santa brings much joy and wonder to a child. Why does the dogmatic idea of (christian) god just destroy my soul! Edit: Maybe it's because santa usually delivers and god doesn't. There might be more to the anagram of satan in the name than I thought.)
http://www.futurehi.net/images/cosm_oversoulweb.jpg

All the best.
AD.

lookinforpicnic

You really do jump from idea to idea 18AD, is that a symptom of caffeine/cocaine or your agnosticism..I suspect the latter.

18AD wrote: »

I was reading an interesting essay by Doug Hofstadter last night in which he talks about the reductionist view of consciousness ie. consciousness explained as neuroscience, explained as biology, explained as chemistry, explained as physics, explained as particle physics.
At the level of particle physics there's an inseparable link between consciousness and objective reality, apparently.

"apparently"...?? I suggest re-reading the essay. You do realize he doesn't take a reductionist position when it comes to consciousness. "Inseparable link" sure a trivial one, but a completely empty one when it comes to explanation, you don't explain the workings of the cell by reference to subatomic particles, but of course (trivially) the workings of the cells depends on the laws that govern subatomic particles. Hofstadter has the same idea about the workings of the mind, but the kind of higher-level descriptive or pragmatic stance one takes is up for debate.

Btw your speculation is nonsense, also beliefs do alter reality, but only by altering neural tissue, or neurochemistry in modifying the strengths of synaptic connections, (thoughts/perceptions don't float on magic dust) or by altering the spiders body you decide to step on.

18AD wrote: »

There is also an excellent theory known as the holographic universe.

What..?? Within your wishy washy agnostic crap you can also decide if you think a theory is excellent or not, on what basis? Because it fits with your wishy washy agnostic crap.

18AD wrote: »

The very scope of definitions for god confuses me.

I imagine that most things confuse you, given that you have a silly idea that somehow being open or agnostic to all ideas is somehow an intellectual virtue.

TheThing!

Ara sure its a good thread

I have no fear of death, I really only fear that the way it comes about may be decidedly uncomfortable. I am an atheist (well agnostic in a very Bertrand Russell teapot way) and as an atheist I believe that when I die, that’s it folks, shows over. I think its fair to say that this point of view should naturally lead to less anxiety about death itself, because we don’t believe in the whole matter of final judgment (Aside: that has to be one of more hilarious aspects of Christianity, the omnipotent creator of the universe pointing out to each and every job soap, who he loves, why he is sending them to hell forever, LOL!)

18AD

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

"apparently"...?? I suggest re-reading the essay. You do realize he doesn't take a reductionist position when it comes to consciousness. "Inseparable link" sure a trivial one, but a completely empty one when it comes to explanation, you don't explain the workings of the cell by reference to subatomic particles, but of course (trivially) the workings of the cells depends on the laws that govern subatomic particles. Hofstadter has the same idea about the workings of the mind, but the kind of higher-level descriptive or pragmatic stance one takes is up for debate.

I probably will re-read it. I don't remember half as much as I thought.
Just to clarify, he was merely presenting the reductionist view in that particular essay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4_nl0ICao
The link is that the act of observation (measurement) appears to remove the particles from a state of indeterminancy. I find this interesting in the fact that the study of the objective universe has lead to an observer.

There's an idea that says before there were any observers, the universe was in all quantum states at once, if time even makes sense.

Btw your speculation is nonsense, also beliefs do alter reality, but only by altering neural tissue, or neurochemistry in modifying the strengths of synaptic connections, (thoughts/perceptions don't float on magic dust) or by altering the spiders body you decide to step on.

But consciousness isn't just the connections. Unless we're being reductionist about it. If not, 'consciousness' (whatever and wherever it is) is changing things in the physical world. Maybe eventually it won't be bound to just the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

I heard a quote a while back (by whom escapes me at the moment) which went something along the lines of 'people who speculate a lot about a certain topic usually don't know very much about it'. I guess I fall into that.

What..?? Within your wishy washy agnostic crap you can also decide if you think a theory is excellent or not, on what basis? Because it fits with your wishy washy agnostic crap.

I just thought it was an interesting theory...I like interesting things...I call the things I like excellent. My apologies.

I imagine that most things confuse you, given that you have a silly idea that somehow being open or agnostic to all ideas is somehow an intellectual virtue.

Yeah. Sombunall things are confusing to me.

"A man hanging by his teeth in a tree over a precipice. His hands grasp no branch, his feet rest on no limb, and under the tree another man asks him, 'Why did Bodhidharma come to China from the West?' If the man in the tree does not answer, he misses the question, and if he answers, he falls and loses his life. Now what shall he do?"

But for now I'll remain certain that being agnostic about agnosticism about agnosticism about... is the best way to go
Maybe attain some sort of agnosis.

Hail Eris!

Good luck.
AD.

joe_chicken

aidan24326 wrote: »

And what effect do these gods have on the 'real' world?

The fact you would put the word real in that sentence in quotes, suggests that you already know the answer to this... i.e. there is no answer, because we can't objectively define 'reality'

aidan24326 wrote: »

That alone should tell you that either god doesn't exist or at least doesn't care too much about us anyway, so not worth worshipping one way or the other.

Although you make a valid point, the question is not whether to worship a god, but whether it exists or not.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

What..?? Within your wishy washy agnostic crap you can also decide if you think a theory is excellent or not, on what basis? Because it fits with your wishy washy agnostic crap.

This kind of drivel is exactly why I'm not, and never would, consider myself an atheist.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I imagine that most things confuse you, given that you have a silly idea that somehow being open or agnostic to all ideas is somehow an intellectual virtue.

To be honest, if you don't get confused by the idea of god, then you're not thinking hard enough.

Being open or agnostic to all ideas, is indeed, stupid.

Nobody here claims that. It would be like saying to an atheist they don't believe in all ideas.

Dave!

All ideas that are as well supported, or have as little evidence, as the existance of god? I don't think any atheists would have trouble with being considered an atheist vis a vis that.