Agnosticism

[Drace]

I had these ideas running around in my head for months. Thought I'd post on Revleft.

Not Done.

The chances of any event including a 'god' or a supernatural being, more specifically is equal to that of all the others. One religions is as worthy as another. It is because such non sense is never justified, and cannot be! A carrot as creator of men is as likely.

This is to say since one major factor from allowing us to analyaze correctly what the chances are. In trying to determine such odds, one must know the existence of the other world where god is said to be. This dimension of this super natural beings habitant is unimaginable.

The heart of the argument is only a simple recognatation. How is it justified that this other world follows the same logical laws as our!

This is what the common argument athiests base themselves around and it is why why I align myself with agonosticsm instead.

"How could have god just poofed things" this for example clearly pre supposes that god is entitled to the same pphysical boundries as us. But I tell you, god is unimaginable and so is his world.

The question "if god exists then why doesn't he just fix all the problems in the world" also is built on a pre supposition. Without that justified I can give you the answer that god simply does not want to. "But doesn't he not love his children?"...mmm still a pre assumption. Who said
In gods world affection is shown by doing good deeds? Isnt good or bad completly subjective? I can even answer by just saying that god is a liar, and had the bible written for his fun.

My answers are given a chance of being truth because they cannot be disproven or proven. Any attempt to show that its unlikely is completly fallicious as it will all ways cross the line of making a pre assumption...always having kept in mind that God follows the law of nature that we do, and use the logic we have learned to reason with; which only adheres within the reality of our world. LOGIC IS NOT TRANS-UNIVERSAL.

This is why I believe any opinion crossing our world is of no value.
Since an athiestic view is as unjustified as a religious viewpoint and and unjustified as the statement "'carrots' made the world and the edible carrots are their physical form" they are of equal truth; if looked on the perspective that anther world truly exists.

I'm afraid to step in the loophole I just described, so I cannot give reasons to increase the likiness of it being real in the universal sense. Nonetheless, I can show that our reality is compatible with it, that another universe exisisting makes perfect sense to the logic as we know it.



God could be anything and anywhere. His world any any other.

To get a clearer view, I must explain an altered form of Humes theories. As he said, our impressions of things come by either seeing or believeing. That is, If I saw a horse, it is an impression I get of a real existence; the same with a horn.

As I know have the two impressions in my head, my brain may come to create something new of it; by combining them. From the separate beings, I have come to create the impression of a unicorn!...a horse with a unicorn.

It is to say that all impressions are results of what has been seen and what has been combined to create. And somewhat to the extent that all impressions are creation of others.

From what I understand, we have not seen everything! Thus do not have the ideas in our head of what can be imagined. Those impressions not yet seen are never know.

Going back on the subject of another universe...
You have not seen it, and do not have any idea of would it could be. It is why the common visions of what heaven looks like is completly blank and in media, very limited. Always showing clouds due to the lack of the impressions to create new pictures.

An atheistic view as well is equally. The only difference is that it is supported by our physics. But to ultimately declare it the winner requires that we establish tat the physical existence as we know is all there is to the world! If not able to be proven, it is equally false as any religion and any science...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be in OI -- Religion!

[RedAnarchist]

Moved to Religion

[PostAnarchy]

Agnosticism seems to be..no offense...the cowardly middle ground between a principled atheist position and full on idealism/sky god worship.

Either you believe in fairy tales, stone age religions, sky gods or you dont. Simple as that.

[Anti Freedom]

Well, the issue is that agnosticism and atheism tend to, in practice, be the same. The issue is that agnosticism often tends to believe that this lack of evidence warrants a lack of belief, but does not warrant a dismissal, but atheists think this lack of evidence warrants a dismissal. So, the real issue is epistemic, and I think many current atheists consider themselves atheist agnostics, the only way to argue other than that is to argue that a deity is not possible at all, and few people would outright take that stance.

So, I do not see all agnosticism as a cowardly middle ground. A lot of it is, but given that the existence of God can be a metaphysical, meta-ethical, and/or epistemic question, I do not blame people for claiming to be agnostic.

[Drace]

Agnosticism seems to be..no offense...the cowardly middle ground between a principled atheist position and full on idealism/sky god worship.

Either you believe in fairy tales, stone age religions, sky gods or you dont. Simple as that.I do not believe in God nor do I believe that he doesn't exist.

There may and may not be. Also, what I tried to do is steer away the thought of supernatural as being anything, and thus, you do not have the slightest view of it. Its unimaginary.

[PostAnarchy]

I do not believe in God nor do I believe that he doesn't exist.

.

Yes and that's precisely what agnosticism is. The middle ground between saying sky gods exist versus saying they unequivacally do not and can not exist. I don't think I misrepresented your view on this.

[Drace]

Alrighty.

My point is that Atheism is fallacious. Saying "No God exists and I'm sure of it" is just as false as religious.

While athiests do not believe in religion since it has no evidence, they automatically settle for the opposite statement, "God does not exist".

The point I argued upon though is that there does not need to be evidence that is of our reasoning. A banana can be the proof of God!

[Drace]

Alrighty.

My point is that Atheism is fallacious. Saying "No God exists and I'm sure of it" is just as false as religious.

While athiests do not believe in religion since it has no evidence, they automatically settle for the opposite statement, "God does not exist".

The point I argued upon though is that there cannot be evidence that is of our reasoning. A banana can be the proof of God!

[wigsa]

I'm quite happy to be agnostic.I think it's the fairest way to view things of a spiritual nature and really think it's the best way to go.

[Apeiron]

Alrighty.

My point is that Atheism is fallacious. Saying "No God exists and I'm sure of it" is just as false as religious.

While athiests do not believe in religion since it has no evidence, they automatically settle for the opposite statement, "God does not exist".

The point I argued upon though is that there cannot be evidence that is of our reasoning. A banana can be the proof of God! Doesn't this presuppose that the burden of proof is equitably distributed? I think the case should be (and actually has been many times) made that the burden of proof is solely upon theists.

Though it seems to be of very little consequence whether one calls themself agnostic or atheist.. and it really doesn't strike me as a particularly interesting problem.

[Drace]

Doesn't this presuppose that the burden of proof is equitably distributed?

What do you mean?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Agnosticism seems to be..no offense...the cowardly middle ground between a principled atheist position and full on idealism/sky god worship.

Yeah, that's what I think.

But it's not a bad insurance policy, "hey man, like, i kinda thought you might exist, you know, deep down inside..."

Agnosticism could be taken a step further, in the belief that some force other than the scientific theory of the moment for the ceation. And truly, all scientic truth about the origins of the universe is complete bullshit, created on the limited horizons we can perceive. And personally, I'd say that there's an equal chance life started the theorized way, developing all the way from amino acids and all that junk, as to aliens dropping something off.

To the largest amoeba, it is the king of it's world. To it, a raindrop is a planet, a pudde is a solar system, a lake a galaxy, and the oceans have the scope of the universe. But the amoeba knows not of these things. It merely does as it's programmed to oblivious of its standing in the big scheme of things.


Either you believe in fairy tales, stone age religions, sky gods or you dont. Simple as that.

Wo unto thee who deny the God of your fathers, lest ye repent!

[Decolonize The Left]

Doesn't this presuppose that the burden of proof is equitably distributed? I think the case should be (and actually has been many times) made that the burden of proof is solely upon theists.

Theists are no longer concerned with "proof." Proof, for theists, is the unexplained. Theism lies in the corners of the universe which have not yet been explained by science or rationality, it hides in the shadows and peeks its head out like a cowardly dog when the coast is clear. Then it lunges and takes some ground (see "Creationism" in the US at the moment). And when it is confronted it retreats again, even deeper into the shadows.

As of the moment, it hides behind the curtain of the big bang - it claims that God created the big bang. It is important to note the retreat of theism over the years - no longer are the stars Gods, no longer did God decide that someone ought to die, no longer did God make you trip and fall after you called that person a bad name... but they will still say 'God exists' like a broken record. Always on repeat though people grow tired of the same sounds, and when they grow tired they turn to what is actually real - life.

Agnosticism is a confused denial of history - theism has been proven wrong again, and again, and again, etc...

- August

[Dust Bunnies]

As of the moment, it hides behind the curtain of the big bang - it claims that God created the big bang. It is important to note the retreat of theism over the years - no longer are the stars Gods, no longer did God decide that someone ought to die, no longer did God make you trip and fall after you called that person a bad name... but they will still say 'God exists' like a broken record. Always on repeat though people grow tired of the same sounds, and when they grow tired they turn to what is actually real - life.



Actually its very sad, some people still think God controls you like a puppet. I am more of an Agnostic, there is so many more laws of science to explore I cannot say there is no God.

[Gleb]

Either you believe in fairy tales, stone age religions, sky gods or you dont. Simple as that.

Indeedo, but here's the crucial difference: a theist believes in these "fairy tales, stone age religions and sky gods", agnostic doesn't know if they exist but doesn't believe in them an sich and atheist strictly believes that no kind of higher beings exist.


Agnosticism is a confused denial of history - theism has been proven wrong again, and again, and again, etc... Has it? Religions have been proven wrong again but I'm yet to see any kind of proof that debunks the whole wide concept of theism? After all, while many people actually seem to think so, theism isn't same thing than organized religions and by no means it equates with concept of Christianity and belief in Yahweh! A god doesn't need to be worshipped in order to be a god, a being of extreme magnificence.

When one says "There is no god!", the statement is usually based on lack of scientific evidence when it comes to proving the existence of God and in the other end, on existing scientific evidence that are in contradiction with traditional religions. But still the statement is only partially made of thick, striking scientific data while the rest is made of *le gasp* belief in world without gods: that's something that's beyond the reach of science at this point; our past is still and will probably remain to be filled with questions.

That's pretty much why I tend to be honest with myself and don't go around declaring the word about how there is no god. If I had to choose, I'd probably say that there's no supernatural elf kings down there but my stance would remain unchanged; so far, I have no freakin' idea and I do not, nor do you, have any kind of means of knowing accurately how all this begun.

EDIT: Sorry if I don't make much sense, I've pumped myself full of caffeine and it's something like 2 am already here, but meh.

[Decolonize The Left]

Has it? Religions have been proven wrong again but I'm yet to see any kind of proof that debunks the whole wide concept of theism?

Theism can be measured/judged in two distinct fashions:
1) According its characteristics.
2) According to its historical manifestations (religions).

In regards to the first, we note immediately that it is irrational and authoritarian (if not oppressive as well). In regards to the latter, we note that historically, almost all religions have proven wrong. The only which survive have done so by positing beyond science, and they will continue to do so, until they cannot sustain such nonsensical positions.


After all, while many people actually seem to think so, theism isn't same thing than organized religions and by no means it equates with concept of Christianity and belief in Yahweh! A god doesn't need to be worshipped in order to be a god, a being of extreme magnificence.

Untrue. Theism, that is the belief in a God, necessitates some sort of story about said God. It further necessitates some sort of relationship between the human being and the God. This relationship, by definition, devalues the human being as it posits beyond it in the form of a God. Historically, the extension of this line of thinking is that said God ought to be worshiped for one reason or another.


When one says "There is no god!", the statement is usually based on lack of scientific evidence when it comes to proving the existence of God and in the other end, on existing scientific evidence that are in contradiction with traditional religions. But still the statement is only partially made of thick, striking scientific data while the rest is made of *le gasp* belief in world without gods: that's something that's beyond the reach of science at this point; our past is still and will probably remain to be filled with questions.

The statement "there is no God" is based on many things. The first is the complete, and absolute, lack of evidence for the existence of a God. The second is the history of false religions. The third is the irrationality of theism.

Hence, atheism is based upon reason, history, and science - i.e. atheism is based upon material reality.


That's pretty much why I tend to be honest with myself and don't go around declaring the word about how there is no god. If I had to choose, I'd probably say that there's no supernatural elf kings down there but my stance would remain unchanged; so far, I have no freakin' idea and I do not, nor do you, have any kind of means of knowing accurately how all this begun.

Agnosticism is a nihilist's atheism. The agnostic is unwilling to draw the simple, logical, conclusions that the atheist draws, instead wavering in the uncertain land of 'we just don't know.' Science is based around not knowing, but pursuing the interests of knowledge despite the lack of truth conditions for any given thing. It is foolish to not believe until you 'know' for sure, as then you couldn't believe in anything...

- August

[JohnnyC]

Agnosticism is a nihilist's atheism. The agnostic is unwilling to draw the simple, logical, conclusions that the atheist draws, instead wavering in the uncertain land of 'we just don't know.' Science is based around not knowing, but pursuing the interests of knowledge despite the lack of truth conditions for any given thing. It is foolish to not believe until you 'know' for sure, as then you couldn't believe in anything...

- August
If you are pure, in a way that you are 100 percent sure god(s) don't exist, atheist, imo, you make the same mistake theists do, you choose to believe in something even though you have no evidence to prove it.I consider agnostic atheism to be the only logical thinking based on knowledge we have so far.

[scarletghoul]

All I know is that I don't know, all I know is that I don't know nuthin'.

[Decolonize The Left]

If you are pure, in a way that you are 100 percent sure god(s) don't exist, atheist, imo, you make the same mistake theists do, you choose to believe in something even though you have no evidence to prove it.I consider agnostic atheism to be the only logical thinking based on knowledge we have so far.

There is no such thing as "pure, in a way that you are 100 percent sure" that anything doesn't exist - it is a logical impossibility which is accounted for only through semantic debate.

Let's try this:
Have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? I assume you have.

Then consider religious people the boy, and theism the wolf. Now is it logical (as you claim it is) to be agnostic and say, "well, we can't really know so I guess we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt"?

No. It's entirely logical to say "sorry, but you're wrong. Just look at history. Your religion is no different than any other: a baseless, illogical, metaphysical, bunch of stories claiming to be true without any evidence."

- August

[Drace]

Agnosticism is a confused denial of history - theism has been proven wrong again, and again, and again, etc...

What? Did you even read a word of mine? I proved that all is possible and none is deniable. Yet you can easily just say its simply been proven wrong?

Cmon, give me an argument.

[Valeofruin]

Agnosticism is a confused denial of history - theism has been proven wrong again, and again, and again, etc...

- August

Yet Agnosticism is a perfectly normal phenomenon, you should neither be suprised, appalled, or anything else at the sight of it.

A Materialist recognizes that today Religious superstition is born of social conditions. So long as man is oppressed by SOMETHING, be it a class, state, or a bad harvest, religion is an inevitable affliction.

In my opinion Agnostics are the ULTIMATE proof that religion is not something that can be eradicated with pathetic arguements and ignorant pamphlets. As these people still hold Idealist superstitions in spite of their rejection of the bourgeois church and their agents.

What this means is that you can not influence religion, you can not eradicate it, fight it or anything of the sort.

Religion must be abandoned by the individual. Nothing you say to them can PROVE that you are correct, rather, to have a chance at eradicating religious superstition you must SHOW them your point of view, by promoting them to take action, and learn the errors of their ways through personal experience.

[Valeofruin]

What? Did you even read a word of mine? I proved that all is possible and none is deniable. Yet you can easily just say its simply been proven wrong?

Cmon, give me an argument.

As I said in my above quote, you will always be superstitious until experience argues other wise.

Now I do not know about the Anarchists, nor some flavours of Marxist, but I for one see no reason to argue over your views.

In fact I think they are perfectly normal, I may even venture as far as to say they are a good sign.

The closest thing I'll offer to an arguement is rather a piece of advice, Head on over to the Hoxhaist Union, or some other group of Marxist-Leninists and hang out. Learn from genuine Marxist-Leninist Comrades, be a part of the team, do stuff with us, take action.

We will educate you in Dialectical Materialism, and share with you our opinions on religion, and from there it will be something for you to contemplate on your own.

[Decolonize The Left]

What? Did you even read a word of mine? I proved that all is possible and none is deniable. Yet you can easily just say its simply been proven wrong?

Cmon, give me an argument.

It is an argument, a rather potent one as well.

Theism, that is the belief in an ultimate deity, has been proven wrong repeatedly. People used to believe the sun, moon, and stars were gods, etc... they were wrong.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Yet Agnosticism is a perfectly normal phenomenon, you should neither be suprised, appalled, or anything else at the sight of it.

I'm not. Just because it exists doesn't mean I can't critique it.


A Materialist recognizes that today Religious superstition is born of social conditions. So long as man is oppressed by SOMETHING, be it a class, state, or a bad harvest, religion is an inevitable affliction.

The second statement doesn't follow from the first (though I agree with the first).


In my opinion Agnostics are the ULTIMATE proof that religion is not something that can be eradicated with pathetic arguements and ignorant pamphlets. As these people still hold Idealist superstitions in spite of their rejection of the bourgeois church and their agents.

What this means is that you can not influence religion, you can not eradicate it, fight it or anything of the sort.

I disagree - sounds like liberal, bourgeois, 'freedom of religion' to me.


Religion must be abandoned by the individual. Nothing you say to them can PROVE that you are correct, rather, to have a chance at eradicating religious superstition you must SHOW them your point of view, by promoting them to take action, and learn the errors of their ways through personal experience.

What? You fail to understand that a theist can justify anything as the work of god, etc...

I agree that the theist must abandon their religion, but this is done through sowing the seeds of doubt, and this is done through argumentation. Surely the theist can learn on their own through experience, but I'm talking to folks here on RevLeft - I have argumentation at my disposal.

- August

[Valeofruin]

I'm not. Just because it exists doesn't mean I can't critique it.



The second statement doesn't follow from the first (though I agree with the first).



I disagree - sounds like liberal, bourgeois, 'freedom of religion' to me.



What? You fail to understand that a theist can justify anything as the work of god, etc...

I agree that the theist must abandon their religion, but this is done through sowing the seeds of doubt, and this is done through argumentation. Surely the theist can learn on their own through experience, but I'm talking to folks here on RevLeft - I have argumentation at my disposal.

- August

It is 'Freedom of religion', What it is not is liberal Bourgeois.

This however is one of the things that seems to set all other so called 'revolutionaries' apart from Leninists, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything WRONG with arguing, just that these sorts of tactics towards religion are entirely unproductive.

'Sowing the seeds of doubt' is fine, yet it's useless without being backed up by experience.

This is why Leninists educate Theists in Materialism, which is INHERENTLY hostile towards religion (sow the seeds of doubt), yet at the same time have no problem taking religious comrades into their party, and making them feel welcome. We tolerate such Idealist notions at all ranks in our party's, so long as they do not become detrimental to the party's Materialist foundation.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is why Leninists educate Theists in Materialism, which is INHERENTLY hostile towards religion (sow the seeds of doubt), yet at the same time have no problem taking religious comrades into their party, and making them feel welcome. We tolerate such Idealist notions at all ranks in our party's, so long as they do not become detrimental to the party's Materialist foundation.

You fail to realize that the theist can easily synthesize materialism and religion - it has been done many times, and will continue to be done.

Furthermore, you seem to hold the belief that there is some sort of divide between the private value system of an individual (religion) and the public ideology (materialism/Leninism). This is a difficult road to walk as there is no proof of such a divide and in fact, it is far more likely that there is no such divide and that all belief systems, value systems, and ideologies impact one another within the individual.

If this is the case, it is difficult for your lassai-faire attitude towards religion to be coherent and consistent. Now this is not to say that I walk down the street with a copy of Das Capital and Darwin's Origin of the Species screaming at religious folks, but this is a forum - not a Leninst organization. Schooling an individual in materialism is great, I'm all for it, but challenging their religious beliefs is vital to uprooting superstition and returning focus to material reality.

- August