Agnoskepticism

[EusebioScrib]

In his book Designer Evolution, Simon Young describes agnoskepticism as thus:


Rational alternative to atheism, agnosticism, and theism. Attitude of rational doubt without certainty. The existence of a creator both benevolent and omnipotent in a world of inevitable suffering is logcially incorrect., thus invalidating the agnostic's claim to complete ignorance on the matter. The existance of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility, thus negating the validity of athiesm. But in the absense of evidence that such an entity either exists, wishes to make its presence known, or plays any part whatsoever in our lies, the only logical attitude is to presume we are alone until furhter notice, and to seek our own "salvation", that is, ever-increasing survivability and well-being, through benevolence and reason, aided by science and technology.

I'm fully in support of this perspective for revolutionaries. Thoughts?

NOTE: I don't think this belongs in religion as agnoskepticism isn't an "opposing" theory to Marxism. I'm neither attacking or promoting religion, it has nothing to do with religion.

[Rex]

I support it as well. It's very reminiscent of humanism.

[MysticArcher]

But in the absense of evidence that such an entity either exists, wishes to make its presence known, or plays any part whatsoever in our lies, the only logical attitude is to presume we are alone until furhter notice, and to seek our own "salvation", that is, ever-increasing survivability and well-being, through benevolence and reason, aided by science and technology.

So how is this different from atheism?

This seems to be atheism for people who still want to wear their agnostic hats

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio:


The existance of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility, thus negating the validity of athiesm.

A meaningless sentence, since it contains (or relies on) at least one empty concept: a disembodied intelligence.

Hence this is a worthless piece of drivel.

Sorry to punture an illusion.

[EusebioScrib]

So how is this different from atheism?

This seems to be atheism for people who still want to wear their agnostic hats

Agnosticism - We have no clue about anything regarding creative intelligence. Wether it's good or bad, wether it exists, wether it controls us etc. No clue at all. Impossible to know anything.

Athiesm - Creative intelligence doesn't exist

Agnoskepticism - Creative intelligence could exist, however it's far from benevolent and omnipotent because it's obvious from our experiences that it probably doesn't give a fuck etc. So being that we currently have no evidence of its existence, we should just assume it doesn't exist until we prove it. The burden of proof is always on those who make the claim.


A meaningless sentence, since it contains (or relies on) at least one empty concept: a disembodied intelligence.


It never claimed it was disembodied. Simply because it implies it being outside our universe and existence, doesn't mean it's disembodied.


Hence this is a worthless piece of drivel.

A rather baseless claim.

[kurt]

Agnoskepticism - Creative intelligence could exist, however it's far from benevolent and omnipotent because it's obvious from our experiences that it probably doesn't give a fuck etc. So being that we currently have no evidence of its existence, we should just assume it doesn't exist until we prove it. The burden of proof is always on those who make the claim.

From your definition of "agnoskepticism", I can't really see how it's any different from atheism. Atheists would be willing to entertain the idea of "god" if there was hard material evidence. However, we're not delusional in thinking, or in even hoping that any evidence of this sort will surface.

Atheists simply reject god because there is no evidence for god; just as any rational person rejects the idea that pink fairies live in their asshole.

[Led Zeppelin]

The existance of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility

No it isn't, on the contrary, it's perfectly illogical.

[EusebioScrib]

No it isn't, on the contrary, it's perfectly illogical.

You base this on?

From human experience it is seen that they only thing we know of which has the capability to be "creative" is intelligent life. It's perfectly logical that something intelligent created the universe. If not, then what did?

However, we're not at a point where we can prove if such creative intelligence did or didn't. So for now we shouldn't really bother with the question.



Atheists simply reject god because there is no evidence for god; just as any rational person rejects the idea that pink fairies live in their asshole.

Fuck you! I'm perfectly rational!

"Strong athiests" say "there is no god" as if they somehow know. We really don't. So to say there isn't, is rather illogical.

We need to say: "Well, we really don't know. And we can't really find out right now, so we shouldn't bother with such metaphysical questions until we have the capability to answer them."

However the question of is there God or Allah in the religious sense, we can definitly say no. How can such a benevolent intelligence allow suffering etc? And all the other many contradictions with the idea of an omnipotent benevolent creature.

It seems most athiests are athiests not for logical reasons (because it is rather illogical), but for the spectacle. Just to find someway to counter the religious. We don't really need to. It's evident that most people today are saying "fuck religion. I don't really know if anything exists and right now, I don't give a fuck."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio:


It never claimed it was disembodied. Simply because it implies it being outside our universe and existence, doesn't mean it's disembodied.

Well, if it is embodied, then it had a maker, and is not the ultimate explanation sought.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Global agnoskepticism would be placed here, but this discussion is similar to those in the religion forum. Questions regarding creation, "god...actually most that deal with ontology (although not necessarily all) belong in religion.

If the discussion shifts I can move it back, agnoskepticism resulting from the problem of induction perhaps?
Moved

In response to the main point; I see what you are saying, but I dont think it is that big of a deal. In effect, both agnoskepticism and atheism would result in living the same life materially, and that is why I have no problem with either in particular. It is only for "the sake of argument" that you would ever use such a thing,and therefore this remains largely irrelevant.

What this view does overlook however is the nature of religious conceptions of god. God is often seen as something immatterial, or beyond perception, and therefore unverifiable by virtue of their own existence. Logical loops, dogmas and faith in face of reason are some of the weapons we are up against.

Agnoskeptics are not a group I oppose or support, they exist. Like most agnostics, deists, pantheists and atheists I am not really concerned about them, as they can derive whatever takes the place of "morality" from somewhere other than a church or book.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Agnosticism in any form is irrational - nobody as far as I know is agnostic about a tiny teapot orbiting the sun or mind-controlling telepathic spiders in the core of Mars, so why the double standard with some ill-defined, amorpheous "god"?

Agnosticism introduces an unnecessary entity.

[hoopla]

I thimk in realty this is closer to my pov, as I am not quite the hard nosed atheist I would like to believe I am. But, my latent atheism is more becuase I do not think we need God, rather than I think it is an impossibility.

Not my professional opinion - but IMHE, any kind of consistent scepticism wouldn't doubt the impossiblity of any reality (except, of course, the cognito :unsure: ).

As to all the Wittgenstein, I do not find concepts I can imagine "illogical" or not as meaningless. The term "Asxjdnehdn" does not refer to any concept whereas "Unicorns" does - as I can imagine Unicorns.

The concept that the term "Unicorn" refers to exists, or I could not imagine it, no? Why then, is it meaningless?

Its almost as if it is your own values, of what is important, that means you say the term "Unicorns" is meaningless: you have no use for a concept that can only be imagined so you prescribe it meaningless. What, is the proof for the meaninglessness of, say, 'God'?


Agnosticism in any form is irrational - nobody as far as I know is agnostic about a tiny teapot orbiting the sun or mind-controlling telepathic spiders in the core of Mars, so why the double standard with some ill-defined, amorpheous "god"?I am :lol: especially if very intelligent people claimed they had proofs for the tiny teapots.

Just to make myself clearer, IMHE concepts have meaning if they refer to something. The term "Unicorn" does because it refers to a imagined thing.

[hoopla]

Agnosticism in any form is irrational - nobody as far as I know is agnostic about a tiny teapot orbiting the sun or mind-controlling telepathic spiders in the core of Mars, so why the double standard with some ill-defined, amorpheous "god"?Also, to be fair, I think more people would be agnostic if the entities "proved" were "mind controlling telepathic humans in the core of mars" :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:11 PM
Agnosticism in any form is irrational - nobody as far as I know is agnostic about a tiny teapot orbiting the sun or mind-controlling telepathic spiders in the core of Mars, so why the double standard with some ill-defined, amorpheous "god"?

Agnosticism introduces an unnecessary entity.
Noxion you are spot on, I can only accept agnosticism at all when it is applied equally to everything. There is a "legitimate" argument (although I know it would be unpopular here) in favour of global agnosticism, and I don't think that it is that unsustainable a position. Agnosticism only about god however is an evidently crappy position.


What, is the proof for the meaninglessness of, say, 'God'?
A term is only meaningful if it can be; a) in principle be empirically verified
or b) shown to be true through virtue of its meaning (a-priori)
;)

This however is not the case, as we cannot empirically verify the existence of god, and (despite lame versions of the ontological argument) god cannot be shown as self-evident (such as the statement taht all bachelors are unmarried and other tautologies) god and talk about god is meaningless.

This doesn't show that god does not exist, but it shows that talk about god is as meaningful as talk about the ivisible crumpets (that give off no heat nor smell) that maintain a constant 31mm distance from my reach at all times.

PS I know the lameness of this approach in reality, but I thought that a different argument might be fun for a change ;)

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:06 PM

[QUOTE] What, is the proof for the meaninglessness of, say, 'God'?
A term is only meaningful if it can be; a) in principle be empirically verified
or b) shown to be true through virtue of its meaning (a-priori)
;)


Positivism eugch (empiricism? :unsure: ). I had to study the logical empiricists for my degree. Didn't it turn out to be a disaster ;) Erm, positivism is one-dimensional thought, man.

What is the proof? It still sounds like a value prescription.

PS the ontological argument is not lame it is 8)

[EusebioScrib]

Well, if it is embodied, then it had a maker, and is not the ultimate explanation sought.

Nobody every claimed it was the "ultimate explanation." Our universe could very well have been created by far superior life. Even now, we have the capability to "create life", so whats to say some other life created our universe and us?

Who knows? We have to wait till we can develop the tech to figure it out.



What this view does overlook however is the nature of religious conceptions of god. God is often seen as something immatterial, or beyond perception, and therefore unverifiable by virtue of their own existence. Logical loops, dogmas and faith in face of reason are some of the weapons we are up against.

It's not a matter of "god." It's a matter that we had to come from somewhere. Logically, we can conclude that some form of intelligence created us as we only know something with intelligence to be able to create. Until we know of something else which can "create" it is only logical to assume something intelligent did. Does that mean "god"? Not necessarily, as I pointed out above.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by hoopla+Jul 3 2006, 05:15 PM--> (hoopla @ Jul 3 2006, 05:15 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 05:06 PM
What, is the proof for the meaninglessness of, say, 'God'?
A term is only meaningful if it can be;
a) in principle be empirically verified

or b) shown to be true through virtue of its meaning (a-priori)

;)

[/b]


The existance of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility, thus negating the validity of athiesm.


A meaningless sentence, since it contains (or relies on) at least one empty concept: a disem
Erm, without a proof of the inexistence of God, Rosa, I think that you are talking meaningless rubbish.

Meaningless, meaningless, meaningless.

The word is nearly becoming "meaningless"

:unsure:

Why aren't qutes working?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:06 PM

What, is the proof for the meaninglessness of, say, 'God'?
A term is only meaningful if it can be; a) in principle be empirically verified
or b) shown to be true through virtue of its meaning (a-priori)
;)

Erm, do you mean statement rather than term, because I struggle to think of a way that a term can be true or false, other than being imaginable etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:08 PM
It's not a matter of "god." It's a matter that we had to come from somewhere. Logically, we can conclude that some form of intelligence created us as we only know something with intelligence to be able to create. Until we know of something else which can "create" it is only logical to assume something intelligent did. Does that mean "god"? Not necessarily, as I pointed out above.
You realise this is the same kind of bullshit advocates of Intelligent Design are trying to push right?

[EusebioScrib]

You realise this is the same kind of bullshit advocates of Intelligent Design are trying to push right?

Maybe instead of name-calling we could arrive at a synthesis if you actually critiqued what I wrote instead of failing to insult me.

Intelligent Design claims that such intelligence exists.

I'm merely leaving the possibility to say "it could! But we can't find out...yet." Claiming an absolute on the issue is illogical because we are incapable of answering the question.

However, it's not a big deal to claim it one way or another. Religion is nearly obsolete today. There will be no more "Great Awakenings". We're done with that crap.

[hoopla]

Unless anyone has proof of the non-existence of God, aren't you all typing meaningless sentences.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:05 PM
Unless anyone has proof of the non-existence of God, aren't you all typing meaningless sentences.
Bollocks.

I have no proof of there being no teapot going around the sun but that deosn't invalidate my claim that there is no teapot going around the sun. For that matter I have no proof of lots of things; orcs, unicorns, an invisible walrus on my shoulder called Reginald that tells me what to do and so on but I would be an idiot to be a 'Walrus agnostic' until somone completely disproved Reginald's existance.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 3 2006, 10:08 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 3 2006, 10:08 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 10:05 PM
Unless anyone has proof of the non-existence of God, aren't you all typing meaningless sentences.
Bollocks.

I have no proof of there being no teapot going around the sun but that deosn't invalidate my claim that there is no teapot going around the sun. For that matter I have no proof of lots of things; orcs, unicorns, an invisible walrus on my shoulder called Reginald that tells me what to do and so on but I would be an idiot to be a 'Walrus agnostic' until somone completely disproved Reginald's existance. [/b]
Bollocks to you mate. Did you follow what hegemony typed?

Do you disagree with the verifcation principle, or are you thick

;)

[hoopla]

How did you empirically prove that God didn't exist - deduce that you would be able to fly if he did
:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:33 PM

You realise this is the same kind of bullshit advocates of Intelligent Design are trying to push right?

Maybe instead of name-calling we could arrive at a synthesis if you actually critiqued what I wrote instead of failing to insult me.

Maybe instead of shifting the goalposts you can either admit you're a closet IDer or retract your statement.


Intelligent Design claims that such intelligence exists.

Intelligent Design posits that the existence, variety and complexity of life must be down to a non-human intelligence, usually god, but IDers don't want to admit that or they'll never get their indoctrination program into the science class.


I'm merely leaving the possibility to say "it could! But we can't find out...yet." Claiming an absolute on the issue is illogical because we are incapable of answering the question.

Besides the fact that it's been ruled out by instances of poor design in nature (Such as the choking risk every human takes when they swallow, the blind spot in the human eye, and more (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html)), it's also not what you said. Logically we must rule out the existance of god because there is so much evidence contradicting his existance.


However, it's not a big deal to claim it one way or another. Religion is nearly obsolete today. There will be no more "Great Awakenings". We're done with that crap.

Concession accepted.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:18 PM
How did you empirically prove that God didn't exist - deduce that you would be able to fly if he did
:lol:
I don't need to. You're positing the entity, prove emprically it is there.

[hoopla]

No, like, for a start I haven't posited anything, and... the statement "Invisible unicorns do not exist" is meaningles unless
1. You can think of a test for their existence
or 2. You can prove a priori they do not exist.

According to the verificationist principle, which is toss.

The statement I made about disproving God was more towards the people who follow the VP but say that the sentence "God exists" is meaningless.

[hoopla]

I think I might be wrong.

You can't tell people not to try and prove God beause its a meaningless term, because may not always be. And only because someone has proved it.

So, maybe, at present "God exists" is meaningless, but it may not always be, if we treat it as if it isn't :wacko:

And then again, "God doesn't exist" is meaningless.

[Jazzratt]

Sorry tiredness as caused me to miss the main thrust of the arguments. I don't think anything is 'meaningless' if you cannot disprove it because this leads to a lot of problems with speech and language (which Hoopla has touched on and is probably better at explaining this than me anyway, yet I shall soldier on and give me tuppencworth.).

Agnoskepesicsm can easily become atheism as soon as one looks at theism with their self proclaimed 'rationality'. Rationally there is no god, even the design argument has the flaw of saying 'nothing this complicated cannot have a creator so we will posit a more complex entity which for some reason doesn't need a creator.'

[EusebioScrib]

Maybe instead of shifting the goalposts you can either admit you're a closet IDer or retract your statement.

*scratches head* :huh: Me thinks you is confused...


Intelligent Design posits that the existence, variety and complexity of life must be down to a non-human intelligence, usually god, but IDers don't want to admit that or they'll never get their indoctrination program into the science class.

Well then we need to define "god" don't we?


Besides the fact that it's been ruled out by instances of poor design in nature (Such as the choking risk every human takes when they swallow, the blind spot in the human eye, and more), it's also not what you said. Logically we must rule out the existance of god because there is so much evidence contradicting his existance.


Exactly! The existence of some benevolent omnipotent creator is clearly crap. I'm merely saying that we had to have been created by something. Who's to say some other beings created the universe and us? We are able to create controlled environments and life, who's to say someone didn't do the same to us?


Concession accepted.

...who conceded? :huh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:17 AM

Maybe instead of shifting the goalposts you can either admit you're a closet IDer or retract your statement.

*scratches head* :huh: Me thinks you is confused...


You're the one who's confused. First you say that the only logical conlclusion is that were created, then you say it's only a possibility.


Well then we need to define "god" don't we?

Acceptable as long as "god" is defined in a way that is falsifiable - otherwise it is simply an exercise in futility.



Exactly! The existence of some benevolent omnipotent creator is clearly crap. I'm merely saying that we had to have been created by something. Who's to say some other beings created the universe and us? We are able to create controlled environments and life, who's to say someone didn't do the same to us?

Total and utter lack of evidence.


...who conceded? :huh:

You did, of course. By telling us it's not a "big deal" you admitted that you do not truly believe what you say.

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

When I was a toddler I thought God was just made up. In second grade I converted to Christianity because I didn't know about evolution yet, and things seemed to have to have come from somewhere, and Christianity was the most accessible (my parents') religion. Then in seventh grade I dropped Christianity because I knew about evolution, and became a bitter atheist. Then I began toying around with paganism, though it was more of an exercise in Jungian psychology than a serious faith.

And so I was walking along, all in my existential hyperfocus of "we are all that exist" and probably gerenally overthinking life again when I was on my dinner break from working at Sea Isle City Pirate Island Mingolf. I was on my dinner break and looking up at the moon through my polarized sunglasses when I bumped into someone, pretty hard. I looked down, startled, and WHOA. TOTAL hottie. She was pretty tan, built very well. An athletic type, I have a soft spot for that. Her hair was blazing blonde - not like golden blonde but that so-darn-blonde-it-looks-nearly-white. After my eyes sheepishly stumbled all over her gorgeous body, covered in a white bikini, I looked into her eyes and apologized emphatically.

She placed her hand on my shoulder. "Don't worry, my warrior. I will watch over you in your quest." And then I was wondering how old she was because she was definitely not a teenager from her height or...ahem...mature look, but she looked amazingly good for being much over thirty. And yet I got a sense from something about her that she was very old. And then she kissed my forehead, which I was very happy about. I was suddenly filled with peace, confidence, and reassurance about my life, being late for work, the revolution, everything. I looked at her eyes again, curious about the color. Blue? Maybe...yeah...no...gray? No, impossible. Then she walked away from me before I could ask for her number. The next day I realized she was Athena and now I'm pretty much a believer.

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

On a more serious note, I've never heard of agnostoskepticism, but it's pretty much where I'm at. We have this argument over placing absurdities in the same place as God, such as the teapot argument. However, the reason people don't suggest teapots is because the Great Orbiting Teapot does not suggest an answer to the great questions of life - from where did this come, where is it going, why is there evil in the world?

Also besides God we must keep in mind other answers, such as the idea that the suffering in this world is a sort of meritocratic test run by the inhabitants of the next "level up" of spiritual existence, similar views are held by many people who divide the destinies of mortals into Heavenbound and Hellbound.

It could also be that the suffering on this world is a process which makes us stronger, more sympathetic beings, worthy of holding whatever power comes in the next world. It could be a reincarnation/karma situation. Or it could just be a freaking evil God/gods/demon/spirits/consciousness running this mess.

Note that I am not wholeheartedly proposing these alternatives. The reason I am proposing them is to counter the argument that the only thing we're setting the double-standard for is God. The standard I set is yes, people don't say "I don't know if the Orbiting Tea Pot exists" because it's no interest to them, and it wouldn't answer any of life's great questions. There is no condition here on earth that necessitates the question, so we're uninterested.

However, many things on earth necessitate the question of just what exactly is behind all this - why/how we exist, what for, and why evil. Thus people wonder, and though no single suggestion holds any wieght over any other in this overhwelming lack of evidence, we still cannot rule them out.

However, I just felt like clarifiying. I've come to realize all this morality/ethics/ideology/teleology stuff is pretty empty and it's a lot more fun to be in a metal band. I figured I owed you after the above mystifying story.