I think we are all agnostics at heart

lookinforpicnic

joe_chicken wrote: »

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

What does my opinion on agnosticism have to do with your belief or non-belief in a god? Is it a fashion preference for you, "never...consider myself an atheist" what are you on about?

joe_chicken wrote: »

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

Ha..ha..what? ok i'll try be as honest as possible..God...I'm thinking, is my head hurting yet..wheres the confusion, its an idea which sprung up to satisfy and piggy back on the human condition (which is a product of biological and cultural evolution).

lookinforpicnic

18AD wrote: »

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 are a couple of people alright who think consciousness and quantum mechanics are inextricable linked, Roger Penrose is probably the most famous, you might like his stuff, I think his speculations on consciousness are nonsense, as biological systems are evolved, buffered, mechanistic systems and any quantum effects would be completely washed out by the designed (by natural selection) functional properties of neurons..such as generation of action potentials etc.. Also the intuitions many of the these mathematicians or physicists have is idiotic "we have two great singular problems quantum mechanics and consciousness lets solve one with the other"

Indeed I think that idea stems from what you say in your next sentence (which is very common) "'consciousness' (whatever and wherever it is)", the critical mistake is in the innocent little word "it", consciousness does not have to be a problem requiring a singular answer, 'life' in the end did not require a singular explanation (e.g. caused by the presence of vital spirit), and many would argue consciousness doesn't either, it is a mere bags of tricks, it is not one trick. Since your like your videos I've added one of my own..as therapy.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8084768678469239623

Don't get me wrong there is nothing with wrong with speculation, far from it, I was just trying to provoke an argument/discussion out of you.
And no apologies needed btw, if anything they should come from me.

18AD

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

Indeed I think that idea stems from what you say in your next sentence (which is very common) "'consciousness' (whatever and wherever it is)", the critical mistake is in the innocent little word "it", consciousness does not have to be a problem requiring a singular answer, 'life' in the end did not require a singular explanation (e.g. caused by the presence of vital spirit), and many would argue consciousness doesn't either, it is a mere bags of tricks...

Do you mean that consciousness could be the result of the sum of the various parts of the nervous system and their diverse interactions? ...and not something in itself?

Is the soul greater than the hum of it's parts?

Cheers for the linkage.
Double D. I have some of his stuff on my reading list. I'll be sure to watch that tomorrow when I'm not late.

All the best.
AD.

lookinforpicnic

18AD wrote: »

Do you mean that consciousness could be the result of the sum of the various parts of the nervous system and their diverse interactions? ...and not something in itself?

Yeah, pretty much (with the body and world thrown in for good measure).

I think you should ignore everything else on you reading list and just read the double D! If you want to know about evolution, free will, the mind and consciousness its all there in one nice coherent package, that will be a sure way to get rid of your agnosticism:D.

edit: and of course atheism & religion, the double D is good for that too...

joe_chicken

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

What does my opinion on agnosticism have to do with your belief or non-belief in a god? Is it a fashion preference for you, "never...consider myself an atheist" what are you on about?

It was more to do with the vigorous attack on 18ADs ability to think a theory is excellent without a single fact or statistic in sight. It's that kind of condescending tone that I find in a lot of atheists that I detest, and why I generally prefer to avoid them at parties

It's perfectly ok to think a theory is excellent, without considering it gospel truth.

lookinforpicnic wrote: »

Ha..ha..what? ok i'll try be as honest as possible..God...I'm thinking, is my head hurting yet..wheres the confusion, its an idea which sprung up to satisfy and piggy back on the human condition (which is a product of biological and cultural evolution).

Another thing that is endemic in the side of atheism that I dislike. Filling in the blanks. It's like what theists do, with God, but atheists seem to use some pretty solid scientific fact to go so far (evolution = great) and then assume the rest (evolution = no gods).

Biological and cultural evolution is a great theory, but using these things as a tool to dismiss a god is using some pretty huge assumptions. A god, that you and I know, may have been a product of these things, but maybe that's a bastardised version of something that may have been legitimate and has been corrupted by the tools you use to dismiss (I refuse to use "human condition", because it's a ridiculous term)

But then again, maybe you're right.

I suppose what is at the root of my agnosticism, is that if I have no proof for something being true or false, I say "I don't know".

For an atheist it would seem they make up which one they want to believe, depending on whatever theories they find "excellent".

Like I said, you're still not trying hard enough... you're not confused.

stevejazzx

This one is easy...we did it in atheist 101 last year..Dawkins has a concise little bit about it
'hand s up who's agnostic about thor and zeus etc?...well? Noone?
hmmm well then just take it one god further..viola - atheism...the full set like Scoffs much lauded quote of late.

Dades

joe_chicken wrote: »

Another thing that is endemic in the side of atheism that I dislike. Filling in the blanks. It's like what theists do, with God, but atheists seem to use some pretty solid scientific fact to go so far (evolution = great) and then assume the rest (evolution = no gods).

If that was the only reason to not believe in a god that would be fine. But it's patently not, so that line of thought is disingenuous at best.

joe chicken - do you believe the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god exists? No diatribe please, an answer if you would.

joe_chicken

Dades wrote: »

If that was the only reason to not believe in a god that would be fine. But it's patently not, so that line of thought is disingenuous at best.

If you read my initial post, you'll see I don't say it's the only reason. In fact I go as far as to say it's not a trait shown by all atheists: "endemic in the side of atheism that I dislike"

Dades wrote: »

joe chicken - do you believe the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god exists? No diatribe please, an answer if you would.

No. Mostly. Like everyone else.

Dades

joe_chicken wrote: »

If you read my initial post, you'll see I don't say it's the only reason. In fact I go as far as to say it's not a trait shown by all atheists: "endemic in the side of atheism that I dislike"

So it bothers you as a reason? Why is that? It patently is. People believe in God because the bible says he exists. The bible also describes how god created the world. The world wasn't created that way. Does not compute.

joe_chicken wrote: »

No. Mostly. Like everyone else.

So what exactly are you agnostic about?

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

A god, that you and I know, may have been a product of these things, but maybe that's a bastardised version of something that may have been legitimate and has been corrupted by the tools you use to dismiss

Yes but can you not see that that is a bigger assumption than the original one you are giving out about and using this assumption to cast doubt on.

Occam's razor and all that.

It is far more likely that humans invented the entire concept of "gods" than the alternative you put forward that gods actually exist and humans have just some how managed to pick up some vague undefined sense of this which in turn was structured into organized religion.

I see little reason to consider that as a plausible theory at all, behind the very human need to keep open the hope that some supernatural deity does actually exist and will actually look after us, even if the person rejects human religion as nonsense.

joe_chicken wrote: »

I suppose what is at the root of my agnosticism, is that if I have no proof for something being true or false, I say "I don't know".

But what do you believe?

You don't after all have "proof" of anything. You don't have proof you were alive yesterday or that you will be alive tomorrow. Saying "well I remember being alive" isn't proof. You memories could be fake. You don't have proof than anything that happening to you up until this point. You don't have proof that if you drop a pen it will actually fall instead of rise. It may rise. You don't know.

This idea that we must be agnostic towards God because we can't prove he doesn't exist is rather ridiculous because it is impossible to prove or disprove anything for certainty. We don't go through our lives only deciding things when we have proof, if we did we wouldn't decide anything

We make decisions based on the best theories we have about the universe around us. I believe the pen will fall to the ground. I believe that I was alive yesterday. I do this because to me this is more plausible than any alternative theory someone can come up with.

Could I be wrong? Certainly, but that doesn't mean I go to the bank every day to check that my money is real, or am constantly testing gravity to see if it still works the way it should before I get into a car.

Atheism is not about what I "know". I don't know anything in the scientific sense. It is about what I believe.

lookinforpicnic

joe_chicken wrote: »

It was more to do with the vigorous attack on 18ADs ability to think a theory is excellent without a single fact or statistic in sight. It's that kind of condescending tone that I find in a lot of atheists that I detest, and why I generally prefer to avoid them at parties

Again what does my condescending tone have to do with your opinion on metaphysical matters.

joe_chicken wrote: »

Another thing that is endemic in the side of atheism that I dislike. Filling in the blanks. It's like what theists do, with God, but atheists seem to use some pretty solid scientific fact to go so far (evolution = great) and then assume the rest (evolution = no gods).

Well I'm not going to join all the dots for you...

joe_chicken wrote: »

(I refuse to use "human condition", because it's a ridiculous term)

It was just the quickest way to describe a complex system, as I didn't want to just say biological factors or the human brain as I wanted to include uniquely human functions that have a lot to do with cultural (mediated by the brain) such as attributing agency etc.

joe_chicken wrote: »

I suppose what is at the root of my agnosticism, is that if I have no proof for something being true or false, I say "I don't know".

see wicknights point

joe_chicken wrote: »

For an atheist it would seem they make up which one they want to believe, depending on whatever theories they find "excellent".

Any scientific theory that I have came across does not have a god jumping in creating miracles, so there is no need to make up one that i want to believe in or that i think is "excellent", all scientific theories have no place for god.

joe_chicken wrote: »

Like I said, you're still not trying hard enough... you're not confused.

You confuse me.. does that make you god.

joe_chicken

Had a bigger post, but I think this is the crux of it:

Dades wrote: »

The world wasn't created that way

This is a potential mine field, so I'll tread carefully

In most areas of my life, I live by science. Every day i make thousands of assumptions based on scientific prior knowledge. So does everyone.

The problem with statements like "The world wasn't created that way" is that the assumptions that I need to make on top of the scientific knowledge are too large for me to say that I definitely believe a certain theory.

I can have a preference for one or another, but when it comes to these questions, I really don't have to commit. Unlike decisions I make everyday, which I have to commit to quite strongly.

I see it as a luxury to be able to say "I don't know" rather than fill in the gaps with "I believe".

Does that answer the agnostic question too?

Basically -
For everyday life I use scientific prior knowledge.
For forays into existential angst I use uncertainty.

Dades

joe_chicken wrote: »

The problem with statements like "The world wasn't created that way" is that the assumptions that I need to make on top of the scientific knowledge are too large for me to say that I definitely believe a certain theory.

If you think saying the world was not created in 7 days is 'an assumption' there's no hope for this discussion!

joe_chicken wrote: »

I see it as a luxury to be able to say "I don't know" rather than fill in the gaps with "I believe".

But a belief doesn't fill any gaps. Suggesting a knowledge as with religion surely would - but atheism doesn't claim knowledge, it's about disbelief. You hold a belief without actual knowledge - that's what distinguishes a belief from 'fact'.

joe_chicken

Dades wrote: »

If you think saying the world was not created in 7 days is 'an assumption' there's no hope for this discussion!

I do think it is an assumption, just like I assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

It is. But it might not. I don't think about the sun rising, because it is part of everyday life, and I'd go crazy if I had to justify every assumption I ever made. The creation of the world, however, is something I can say "I don't know", because it doesn't really relate to me in practical terms.

Dades wrote: »

But a belief doesn't fill any gaps.

I'd disagree. See my last point.

Dades wrote: »

but atheism doesn't claim knowledge, it's about disbelief.

Again, my last point.

Dades wrote: »

You hold a belief without actual knowledge - that's what distinguishes a belief from 'fact'.

I'd consider a belief/disbelief of something would be prior knowledge plus an assumption.

Dades

joe chicken, if I was a defence lawyer I would fill my jury with agnostics like you.

I read your point, btw, I just don't see it.