Agnosticism (Debate it)

[Elect Marx]

I would like to start a debate about agnosticism. I invite anyone willing to address the subject matter to back up their view. Any slanderous statements about “fence-sitting” or cowardice to commit to a conclusion will be regarded as mere desperation from inability to prove an argument. Likewise, this does not involve any justification of religious belief so I would appreciate everyone not posting pro-religious spam.

Originally posted by Definitions (may be important in discussion)
ag•nos•tic (²g-n¼s“t¹k) n. - One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of god(s) but does not deny the possibility that god(s) exists. –ag•nos•tic adj.

a•the•ism (³“th-¹z”…m) n. 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of god(s). b. The doctrine that there is/are no god(s)

ex•ist (¹g-z¹st“) intr.v. ex•ist•ed, ex•ist•ing, ex•ists. 1. To have actual being; be real. 2. To have life; live. 3. To live at a minimal level; subsist. 4. To continue to be; persist. 5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur.

proof (pr›f) n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. 2.a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or an argument used in such a validation. 3.a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration. b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence. 4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial.

dis•be•lief (d¹s”b¹-lf“) n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

dog•ma (dôg“m…, d¼g“-) n., pl. dog•mas or dog•ma•ta (-m…-t…). 1. Theology. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

god (g¼d) n. 1. God.a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. c. Christian Science. “Infinite Mind; Spirit; Soul; Principle; Life; Truth; Love” (Mary Baker Eddy). 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

These are reasonable definitions as I know them. Unless anyone has objections, I will assume they hold this understanding as well.


I will start with the idea of drawing a conclusion about religious beliefs.
To come to a logical conclusion, you must have evidence and no evidence proves divine entities do not or cannot exist.

EXAMPLE: It is theorized that gravitons are particles that conduct or create gravity.

You cannot currently prove that gravitons do or do not exist. Any decisive statement on their existence is mere assertion. The likelihood of their existence cannot affect the physical reality that they either do or do not exist.
You cannot conclude that gravitons do not exist because they are not proven to exist just as you cannot say what precisely gravitons would be if they exist and cannot judge their existence based on commonly held theories (you need proof).

Proof:

While you can prove that Santa Clause does not live at the North pole by surveying the area, you can only assume god(s) do not exist in the physical world by lack of evidence. Though by disproving tenets that are held as the rational for believing is say, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god you can conclude that such a god does not exist (this does not discredit the concept of god(s)).

God could mean just about anything: (in)corporeal, humanoid, alien, the consciousness of the universe, incarnate form in man, some guy in the sky that throws lightning and/or the lord of the underworld.

You can only prove anything within the limitations of your observation.

EXAMPLE 2: Dialogue

Dave: There is a leprechaun on my hand.

Samantha: I don’t see one.

…another conversation

Dave: Air has a large percentage of nitrogen.

Samantha: I cannot see, taste, smell, feel, or hear, nitrogen.

Based on the nature of any observable item, one can possibly conclude whether or not it exists. So you can only conclude whether or not god(s) exists in any form by the terms one is specified as.

Declaration:

Why would someone say that they do not believe leprechauns exist, even though they cannot prove such a statement, shouldn’t one only make serious statements that can be proven or perceived as commonly understood by others (thereby not necessitating explanation)?
I would, however, say that I have no reason to believe in leprechauns, because this is simply a statement of non-belief and not disbelief, which equates to denial.

If humanity invented the idea of god(s), just as humanity could have invented the idea of leprechauns, there is no point in denying their existence only in stating an objective observation that there is no reason to draw such a conclusion.

Reasoning:

Assuming that there is no known proof of something, it is safe only to make deductions with the understanding that this is on an assumed basis (a theory with the limitations of proof). One can compile evidence to make a case but without proof, it is still just a theory. If no proof exists either way, you cannot rationally argue the point let alone make a “decision.”

No one must come to a conclusion without evidence to argue the validity of any point: god(s) exist(s) or do(es)n't, therefore, to be agnostic is to admit no proof exists.

1000th post!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
While you can prove that Santa Clause does not live at the North pole by surveying the area, you can only assume god(s) do not exist in the physical world by lack of evidence.

If you accept the evidence that a survey of the North Pole indicates that "Santa" doesn't live there, then why not accept the evidence that since a survey of the entire world fails to reveal the presence of "Santa" anywhere, the rational conclusion is that "Santa" doesn't exist?

And if that "makes sense" to you, then why do you object to the evidence from a survey of the entire universe that "gods" do not exist?

Your example of the graviton is interesting; our current understanding of the universe suggests (in mathematical terms) that such a particle "ought" to exist. There are some large and very expensive experiments underway at the present time hoping to detect this extremely weak particle.

If it is not found, that could result in a major "shake up" of the foundations of physics -- which might be a very good thing...resulting in a much more profound understanding of the physical universe.

The search for real evidence in such matters is difficult...but "do-able".

Can you explain how an agnostic would search for "evidence" for the "gods"? What reasonable experiments would s/he design and carry out? Would would "evidence" consist of?

And why don't scientists do them? Why is it that scientists, motivated by curiosity, don't attack this "important question"?

You know the answer. It's not a real question any more.

Today, it is social scientists and historians who study religion. To them, the interesting question is "how did we land in this shit?".

Any slanderous statements about “fence-sitting” or cowardice to commit to a conclusion will be regarded as mere desperation from inability to prove an argument.

By you perhaps.

I do maintain that public agnosticism is a "flag" -- all it really says is that "I don't want any trouble"...from the godsuckers! It's the flag of "don't bother me & I won't bother you".

In today's political/social realities (especially in the U.S.), it is a form of cowardice in the face of aggressive religious fundamentalism.

In the struggle between the forces of human emancipation and those who would enchain us in a new version of the "dark ages", it is a refusal to take sides.

Engels called agnostics "shame-faced atheists".

They ought to be ashamed!

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 4 2005, 08:36 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 4 2005, 08:36 PM)

313C7 iVi4RX

While you can prove that Santa Clause does not live at the North pole by surveying the area, you can only assume god(s) do not exist in the physical world by lack of evidence.

If you accept the evidence that a survey of the North Pole indicates that "Santa" doesn't live there, then why not accept the evidence that since a survey of the entire world fails to reveal the presence of "Santa" anywhere, the rational conclusion is that "Santa" doesn't exist?[/b]

I was saying that you can physically look for "Santa." What good would looking for god(s) do? That is my point.

And if that "makes sense" to you, then why do you object to the evidence from a survey of the entire universe that "gods" do not exist?

By what definition of god? Who’s god? What is god? How do you qualify that?
Until I know, I cannot say. Also, my point was that surveys aren't reliable proof. If you survey people’s beliefs, you will come to the conclusion that they believe in "superstition;" do you intend to agree with such a consensus RS?

Your example of the graviton is interesting; our current understanding of the universe suggests (in mathematical terms) that such a particle "ought" to exist. There are some large and very expensive experiments underway at the present time hoping to detect this extremely weak particle.

Thanks; we know to look for something as the universe has the trend of being cause and effect.

If it is not found, that could result in a major "shake up" of the foundations of physics -- which might be a very good thing...resulting in a much more profound understanding of the physical universe.

Yes; if we could harness any of the properties of such particles our technology would develop exponentially; though this is scary really, I don't think our societies are structuraly sound for this...

Can you explain how an agnostic would search for "evidence" for the "gods"? What reasonable experiments would s/he design and carry out? Would would "evidence" consist of?

I don't see that the search is really so important, more so the realization that no evidence exists to prove any claims (so making the search unimportant).
Though, you likely agree that scientific study would likely be the right direction to go for a better understanding of the Universe and consequently any god(s) that could exist. There just isn't any reason or particular method I see to search for deities.

And why don't scientists do them? Why is it that scientists, motivated by curiosity, don't attack this "important question"?

Likely for the same reasons you and I pose.

You know the answer. It's not a real question any more.

Today, it is social scientists and historians who study religion. To them, the interesting question is "how did we land in this shit?".

Agreed but not as much of a non-real question as an insignificant one.

Any slanderous statements about “fence-sitting” or cowardice to commit to a conclusion will be regarded as mere desperation from inability to prove an argument.

By you perhaps.

Yes, that is what I meant; by me at least (I wrote it).

I do maintain that public agnosticism is a "flag" -- all it really says is that "I don't want any trouble"...from the godsuckers! It's the flag of "don't bother me & I won't bother you".

Well that is where we disagree and is false in my case because I am against the power religion holds in society; so opposed to "godsuckers" agendas.
I do fight religious BS; in-fact I proposed anti-preaching guidelines here.

In today's political/social realities (especially in the U.S.), it is a form of cowardice in the face of aggressive religious fundamentalism.

Maybe by some but this seems to be a poor generalization. Try to prove the correspondence between the ideas and the action, not just insinuations.

In the struggle between the forces of human emancipation and those who would enchain us in a new version of the "dark ages", it is a refusal to take sides.

Feel free to address where I made the point of side-taking. This is about logical thinking, not loyalty.

Engels called agnostics "shame-faced atheists".

Hail Engels! I have felt the divine intervention, I'm sorry.
Seriously, there was no point is posting this; maybe we could have some context?

They ought to be ashamed!

You ought to be ashamed RS! Feel better? I think we can both set our standards above this kind of irrelivant slander. On with the debate!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
I was saying that you can physically look for "Santa." What good would looking for god(s) do?

How else, besides physically, does a rational individual look for "proof" that something exists?

If "gods" existed, we should be able to find them or at least some actual effect on space/time that could not be explained by anything else than the existence of "gods".

There ain't nothing there!

Even "dark matter" and "dark energy" (whatever they might turn out to be) show their existence in the universe that we can detect even if we're not yet able to detect dark matter/energy directly.

Both interact with the kind of matter and energy that we can see.

The "gods" have not made manifest their "existence" in any way with regard to the universe as we can see it.

Either they "exist" but don't interact with our universe at all -- or they simply don't exist, period.

The simplest conclusion is that they don't exist.

By what definition of god? Who’s god? What is god? How do you qualify that?

Use any "definition" you like...it doesn't matter.

Suppose you pick the "gods" that set off the "big bang" and then went off to party, ignoring forever afterwards the universe (ours) that they "created"?

In that case, it also doesn't matter...you can act just as if they never existed at all without any change in the outcome of your actions.

I don't see that the search is really so important, more so the realization that no evidence exists to prove any claims (so making the search unimportant). Though, you likely agree that scientific study would likely be the right direction to go for a better understanding of the Universe and consequently any god(s) that could exist. There just isn't any reason or particular method I see to search for deities.

I think this is the key part of your reply and a perfect illustration of the bankruptcy of agnosticism as a "formal position".

What you're really saying here is "I don't know and I'm not even interested in finding out".

If agnosticism were really serious, then the agnostics would be the most avid "hunters for evidence" one way or the other.

The faithful believe that "gods exist".

The athiests know that it ain't so.

The agnostics? "We don't know and we don't care."

What's to debate with people like that?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 4 2005, 11:08 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 4 2005, 11:08 PM)

313C7 iVi4RX

I was saying that you can physically look for "Santa." What good would looking for god(s) do?

How else, besides physically, does a rational individual look for "proof" that something exists? [/b]

Okay, maybe I stated that poorly. The human senses and conditions have there limitations and scientific study can facilitate to allow use to discover/explore the universe. Who knows where to go about looking for god(s)? What would it take?

If "gods" existed, we should be able to find them or at least some actual effect on space/time that could not be explained by anything else than the existence of "gods".

There ain't nothing there!

Theoretically yes, there should be some divine bread crumbs; but who can know? We haven't even slightly understood space-time until recently. I don't see how we could have debunked all the correlations in the Universe that could be some divine energy or whatever you would look for. We haven't even scanned 10% of the visible (at this point) Universe and likely wont anytime soon.

Even "dark matter" and "dark energy" (whatever they might turn out to be) show their existence in the universe that we can detect even if we're not yet able to detect dark matter/energy directly.

Both interact with the kind of matter and energy that we can see.

More unknown areas; what is your point?

The "gods" have not made manifest their "existence" in any way with regard to the universe as we can see it.

Either they "exist" but don't interact with our universe at all -- or they simply don't exist, period.

Right, they do or do not; no reason to conclude either way, the agnostic point.

The simplest conclusion is that they don't exist.

The simple conclusions and reality are not the same thing. I am familiar with Occam’s Razor, likelihood does not an answer make. I made this point when I started this thread.

By what definition of god? Who’s god? What is god? How do you qualify that?

Use any "definition" you like...it doesn't matter.

Suppose you pick the "gods" that set off the "big bang" and then went off to party, ignoring forever afterwards the universe (ours) that they "created"?

In that case, it also doesn't matter...you can act just as if they never existed at all without any change in the outcome of your actions.

Exactly my point, the argument of decision, pro/con, doesn’t matter. Acting as if something isn't, is just that acting. There is no need to act; god(s) are or are not. Why pretend to know.
Will the Universe continue to expand or collapse eventually? I don't know; the simplest answer is that it will expand forever, no cycling. Does that make it reality?

I don't see that the search is really so important, more so the realization that no evidence exists to prove any claims (so making the search unimportant). Though, you likely agree that scientific study would likely be the right direction to go for a better understanding of the Universe and consequently any god(s) that could exist. There just isn't any reason or particular method I see to search for deities.

I think this is the key part of your reply and a perfect illustration of the bankruptcy of agnosticism as a "formal position".

Why? You need to have a reason to make such a statement.

What you're really saying here is "I don't know and I'm not even interested in finding out".

Absolute bullshit. You are "putting words in my mouth." Let us please get back to legitimate debate, you've shown you can do that. I would be happy to "know;" I simply don't see how that is possible. If you have some sort of ability to prove that god(s) cannot exist, I would like to see it.

If agnosticism were really serious, then the agnostics would be the most avid "hunters for evidence" one way or the other.

Agnosticism is not a party or a class but an understanding of the futility of the theological argument. If I said, "if communists where really serious, communists would be the most active political group," and that would be just as true.

The agnostics? "We don't know and we don't care."

What's to debate with people like that?

I have already stated that I care and you can start with the points I have just made.

[Dyst]

I'm a gnosticist. Take whatever you want out of it.




... h34r:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Keiza@Feb 5 2005, 04:37 AM
I'm a gnosticist. Take whatever you want out of it.




... h34r:

Thanks; but did you mean agnostic or gnostic:

Gnos·tic (n¼s“t¹k) adj. 1. gnostic. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. 2. Of or relating to Gnosticism. --Gnos·tic n. A believer in Gnosticism.

[T_SP]

Ok, If we are to believe that the definition of agnostic is right, which we shall for arguments sake, it is a farce! A complete contradiction in terms. Let us see:

ag•nos•tic (²g-n¼s“t¹k) n. - One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of god(s) but does not deny the possibility that god(s) exists. –ag•nos•tic adj.

So they believe there is no proof, but don't deny they exist? This is nonsensical BS!! How is this possible? You can't not believe in something yet believe in it!

This means that if someone came up with proof, no matter how ridculous that proof may be, that the agnostic decided in themselves was true they would believe?

I think Engels hit the nail on the head there when he said

Engels called agnostics "shame-faced atheists".

nicely quoted RS2K. The agnostics are the fence sitters!

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by T_SP@Feb 5 2005, 05:00 AM
Ok, If we are to believe that the definition of agnostic is right, which we shall for arguments sake, it is a farce! A complete contradiction in terms. Let us see:

You are very confused...

ag•nos•tic (²g-n¼s“t¹k) n. - One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of god(s) but does not deny the possibility that god(s) exists. –ag•nos•tic adj.

So they believe there is no proof, but don't deny they exist? This is nonsensical BS!! How is this possible? You can't not believe in something yet believe in it!

Did you read through my post? You need to prove something doesn't exist in whatever form the claim to existence might be. There is no proof gravitons exist but it is theorized that they do... just read my fucking posts, I should not have to repeat the exact same points.

This means that if someone came up with proof, no matter how ridculous that proof may be, that the agnostic decided in themselves was true they would believe?

What the hell are you trying to say? Agnosticism doesn't mean believing ridiculous claims (!?) Please make sense.

I think Engels hit the nail on the head there when he said

Engels called agnostics "shame-faced atheists".

nicely quoted RS2K. The agnostics are the fence sitters!

That doesn't even relate to your argument!

[(R)evolution of the mind]

To explain the agnosticist position, it is perhaps best to take an analogy.

A decision problem in logic and computer science is undecidable if a computer can't in general find a (true/false) answer to the problem in finite time. Take for example the halting problem. If the halting problem were decidable, there would be a program that given any other program would in finite time tell us whether the input program finishes. But the problem has been proven to be undecidable, and therefore no such program exists. We could of course simply simulate the input program, and in the positive case -- that the program is indeed is of a finishing sort -- our simulation will eventually end, yet it may take indefinitely long. But in the negative case -- that the program never finishes -- we can never know that for sure. The program could always finish at next step, and the next and so on.

Sufficiently sophisticated claims of existence of supernatural beings are in a similar sense "undecidable". If such a being indeed exists, we might be able to prove the positive case by finding some evidence for this -- for example the being simply deciding to manifest to us. But in the negative case, we can't never know for sure.

Theists claim that the world around as and whatever is infact a proof of the existence of supernatural beings, yet their "proofs" can be shown to be flawed. Atheists also incorrectly claim that supernatural being do not exist simply because no positive prove has yet been found. Agnostics take the only scientifically sound position: we do not know yet, and we never will if the answer is indeed negative (but also generally do not really care which way it is [edit: added the following] and -- for obvious reasons -- tend to behave as if the answer was negative).

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the mind@Feb 5 2005, 05:53 AM
To explain the agnosticist position, it is perhaps best to take an analogy.

Thanks for reinforcing my argument with an interesting analogy, though I am not sure how many people will relate to it.

Theists claim that the world around as and whatever is infact a proof of the existence of supernatural beings, yet their "proofs" can be shown to be flawed. Atheists also incorrectly claim that supernatural being do not exist simply because no positive prove has yet been found. Agnostics take the only scientifically sound position: we do not know yet, and we never will if the answer is indeed negative (but also generally do not really care which way it is).

Straight to the point, good form Did you find any points of contention in my initial post?

[T_SP]

Elect Marx, do you believe the burden of proof lies with the believer or the Agnostic or both?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by T_SP@Feb 5 2005, 06:19 AM
Elect Marx, do you believe the burden of proof lies with the believer or the Agnostic or both?

Why do I feel like Jesus might in the story where he was questioned by the Jewish theocrats?

Agnostics would only be proving that they have no proof and that is ridiculous, by the definition of agnostic, they don't have proof. I doubt anyone would challenge that...

The burden of proof is on those that claim to know, if you are certain of something, you should be able to prove it; that is a logical conclusion.

The believer should logically be able to provide proof because they have asserted god(s) do(n't) exist.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Feb 5 2005, 01:33 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Feb 5 2005, 01:33 PM)

T_SP

@Feb 5 2005, 06:19 AM
Elect Marx, do you believe the burden of proof lies with the believer or the Agnostic or both?

Why do I feel like Jesus might in the story where he was questioned by the Jewish theocrats?

Agnostics would only be proving that they have no proof and that is ridiculous, by the definition of agnostic, they don't have proof. I doubt anyone would challenge that...

The burden of proof is on those that claim to know, if you are certain of something, you should be able to prove it; that is a logical conclusion.

The believer should logically be able to provide proof because they have asserted god(s) do(n't) exist. [/b]

Good answer What your saying is because you don't refute god(s) completely the burden of proof either way does not lie with you as an agnostic.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by T_SP@Feb 5 2005, 06:51 AM
Good answer What your saying is because you don't refute god(s) completely the burden of proof either way does not lie with you as an agnostic.

Thanks; I disprove any concepts of god(s) that I see are invalidated by facts and as such, I don't have any unjustified assertions to prove.

Sound reasonable?

[Dyst]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Feb 5 2005, 03:57 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Feb 5 2005, 03:57 PM)

Keiza

@Feb 5 2005, 04:37 AM
I'm a gnosticist. Take whatever you want out of it.




... h34r:

Thanks; but did you mean agnostic or gnostic:

Gnos·tic (n¼s“t¹k) adj. 1. gnostic. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. 2. Of or relating to Gnosticism. --Gnos·tic n. A believer in Gnosticism. [/b]

I don't make mistakes...


Lol. Sorry, anyways, I did mean gnostisicism.

Gnosticism is the following of self-realized "religion", or even the following of self-realized philosophy of reality.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
The human senses and conditions have their limitations and scientific study can facilitate to allow use to discover/explore the universe. Who knows where to go about looking for god(s)? What would it take?

That's not my problem, it's yours.

You are the one claiming that there "might" be "gods"...therefore you are the one who must design the experiments to go looking for them.

But you don't do that...nor does any other agnostic.

You just throw your hands up and claim "the problem is intractable" and "can't be solved".

How convenient! You can avoid all the negative evidence and the complete absence of any positive evidence...and likewise avoid most or all of the flack from the godsuckers.

Meanwhile, of course, behaving as if you actually were an atheist and that there are no "gods".

Intellectually, you take the "safe" position that we can "never know for sure whether gods exist or not" -- and in your real world actions proceed just like an atheist would...on the conviction that the "gods" do not exist.

Theoretically yes, there should be some divine bread crumbs; but who can know?

Can you suggest even one reputable scientific article or book that purports to demonstrate the presence of "divine bread crumbs"?

Oh, but maybe our science will be more developed a million years from now, and the crumbs will be detected.

Yeah...maybe. In which case all the atheists will be eating crow for the rest of their lives (if crows still exist).

And maybe we'll also discover that astrology really works and the great pyramids really do contain the ancient secrets of the universe and ghosts really do exist and blah, blah, blah.

You see where you end up? If you accept the "possibility" of "gods", then you have no logical reason not to accept the "possibility" of anything!

Being "a little bit" superstitious is like being "a little bit" pregnant. If "gods" are "possible", what isn't?

I am familiar with Occam’s Razor, likelihood does not an answer make.

If you are familiar with Occam's Razor, why your reluctance to apply it? It has served as a very useful tool in the history of science...why withhold it in this particular case?

Growing a beard?

Will the Universe continue to expand or collapse eventually?

All of the currently available evidence points to a continuous expansion; none points to an eventual contraction.

That could change in the light of future evidence, of course...or even a dramatic reinterpretation of existing evidence in the form of a better (more coherent) theory.

As of today, we know that the universe will expand forever.

I would be happy to "know;" I simply don't see how that is possible.

It's "possible" in the same way we "know" the composition of the Martian atmosphere. You design an experiment to find out.

Your admission that "you can't do that" cuts the ground from beneath your feet. It makes the proposition that "gods might exist" unserious.

At best, agnosticism is a form of intellectual play-acting. As soon as it's subjected to a serious challenge, the toys go back in the box.

Agnosticism is not a party or a class but an understanding of the futility of the theological argument.

It's not "futile" to theologians -- they "think" they're arguing over the characteristics of something "real".

Nor is it "futile" to revolutionaries -- we're trying to drive a reactionary ideology out of the arena of acceptable public discourse.

What are agnostics "trying to do"?

Evade the issues.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

You are the one claiming that there "might" be "gods"...therefore you are the one who must design the experiments to go looking for them.

The theists claim there are gods without sufficient proof. The atheists claim there are no gods without any attempt at proof at all. We agnostics do not claim anything, we just acknowledge that both are possible yet we have no knowledge as to which one, and it also is irrelevant to our lives.

Let's take the theory that our universe is just a computer simulation. The operator of that computer would then be a god to us. Since we can ourselves simulate parts of our universe with our computers, it not inconceivable that our universe could in full be simulated by the "gods'" computers. The theist position would be that this constitutes a proof of the theory. But clearly it is not sufficient proof. The atheist position is to outright reject any chance of the theory being correct without proof just because it might not be true. The agnostic position is to acknowledge that yes, it is possible, but on the other hand irrelevant to our lives until the computer operator decides to show itself to us, supposing there ever was one.

The burden of positive proof lies with those who purport a theory and the burden of proof to the contrary with those who reject it as impossible, not those who consider it irrelevant.

Atheists have as unfounded a religous position as the theists. Claims to the nature of the universe with absolutely no proof.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 5 2005, 10:19 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 5 2005, 10:19 AM)

313C7 iVi4RX

The human senses and conditions have their limitations and scientific study can facilitate to allow use to discover/explore the universe. Who knows where to go about looking for god(s)? What would it take?

That's not my problem, it's yours. [/b]

Okay, don't worry about it then... I will handle the burden for us both, whatever.

You are the one claiming that there "might" be "gods"...therefore you are the one who must design the experiments to go looking for them.

I an making no such claims and I am not even proposing a likelihood. Like other statements you have made; this is completely unfounded.

But you don't do that...nor does any other agnostic.

Like I said, there is no point, prove me wrong, this is a debate, not a yes/no argument. I have proved my points. Time for a counterargument?

You just throw your hands up and claim "the problem is intractable" and "can't be solved".

Never happened; I am open to suggestions.

How convenient! You can avoid all the negative evidence and the complete absence of any positive evidence...and likewise avoid most or all of the flack from the godsuckers.

Yes, avoiding something that doesn't exist... how do I do that? If the evidence doesn't exist, it isn't evidence. I would hate to be in your court, "how do you prove your innocence?" There is no case against me! "Oh, so you have no evidence!?"

Meanwhile, of course, behaving as if you actually were an atheist and that there are no "gods".

Hey! Don't call me an atheist atheist ;P How should I react to lack of evidence? I don't live in denial and I am no atheist (though I will take that as a complement coming from you).

Intellectually, you take the "safe" position that we can "never know for sure whether gods exist or not" -- and in your real world actions proceed just like an atheist would...on the conviction that the "gods" do not exist.

Hey, safety in numbers is great to RS, you can always join me. You are in-fact the one claiming to know for sure whether god(s) exist; I just want proof of your claims. We can know if any such god(s) would choose the "grace" us with their company; otherwise, no es importante, it doesn't matter.

Theoretically yes, there should be some divine bread crumbs; but who can know?

Can you suggest even one reputable scientific article or book that purports to demonstrate the presence of "divine bread crumbs"?

You said:

If "gods" existed, we should be able to find them or at least some actual effect on space/time that could not be explained by anything else than the existence of "gods".

So I said, "Theoretically yes," because in theory, they should exist to prove that but I don't know of any. You know what theory means; don't you?

Here you go:

the•o•ry (th“…-r, thîr“) n., pl. the•o•ries. 1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system. 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation. 3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. 4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Oh, but maybe our science will be more developed a million years from now, and the crumbs will be detected.

Yeah...maybe. In which case all the atheists will be eating crow for the rest of their lives (if crows still exist).

Sounds like a plan but if you cannot be certain that won't happen; why make such a declaration? Does it make you feel good to state you rationalizations are "logical?"

And maybe we'll also discover that astrology really works and the great pyramids really do contain the ancient secrets of the universe and ghosts really do exist and blah, blah, blah.

Astrology would and likely has been disproved by experiment to judge how much the stars can tell us. I have no reason to believe in ghosts; what is your point?

You see where you end up? If you accept the "possibility" of "gods", then you have no logical reason not to accept the "possibility" of anything!

On the contrary. I don't see how denying the existence of god(s) is some sort of magical conclusion that gives you the power of deniability. I will stick with logical deductions; thanks anyway.

Being "a little bit" superstitious is like being "a little bit" pregnant. If "gods" are "possible", what isn't?

Lo seinto, yo un poco emberasada. ;P You can stop trying to make me out as saying "gods possibly," exist, I see no proof; your argument is invalid.

I am familiar with Occam’s Razor, likelihood does not an answer make.

If you are familiar with Occam's Razor, why your reluctance to apply it? It has served as a very useful tool in the history of science...why withhold it in this particular case?

Because it solves nothing and it is an assumption.

Growing a beard?

Not really, I keep my facial hair trimmed rather short; you?

Will the Universe continue to expand or collapse eventually?

All of the currently available evidence points to a continuous expansion; none points to an eventual contraction.

That could change in the light of future evidence, of course...or even a dramatic reinterpretation of existing evidence in the form of a better (more coherent) theory.

As of today, we know that the universe will expand forever.

know (n½) v. knew (n›, ny›), known (n½n), know•ing, knows. --tr. 1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt. 3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in. 4. To have fixed in the mind. 5. To have experience of. 6.a. To perceive as familiar; recognize. b. To be acquainted with. 7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct. 8. To discern the character or nature of. 9. Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with. --intr. 1. To possess knowledge, understanding, or information. 2. To be cognizant or aware. --idioms. in the know. Informal. Possessing special or secret information. you know. Informal. Used parenthetically in conversation, as to fill pauses or educe the listener's agreement or sympathy. --know“a•ble adj. --know“er n.

as•sume (…-s›m“) tr.v. as•sumed, as•sum•ing, as•sumes. 1. To take upon oneself. 2. To undertake the duties of (an office). 3. To take on; adopt. 4. To put on; don. 5. To affect the appearance or possession of; feign. 6. To take for granted; suppose. 7. To take over without justification; seize. 8. Theology. To take up or receive into heaven. --as•sum“a•ble adj. --as•sum“a•bly adv. --as•sum“er n.

You seem to be wrong by definition; you assume by likelihood, an informed decision, not logic.

I would be happy to "know;" I simply don't see how that is possible.

It's "possible" in the same way we "know" the composition of the Martian atmosphere. You design an experiment to find out.

You know the composition of god(s)? I thought you said they/one didn't exist?

Your admission that "you can't do that" cuts the ground from beneath your feet. It makes the proposition that "gods might exist" unserious.

So not:

se•ri•ous (sîr“-…s) adj. 1. Grave in quality or manner. 2.a. Carried out in earnest. b. Deeply interested or involved. c. Designed for and addressing grave and earnest tastes. d. Not trifling or jesting. e. Of such character or quality as to appeal to the expert, the connoisseur, or the sophisticate. 3. Concerned with important rather than trivial matters. 4.a. Being of such import as to cause anxiety. b. Too complex to be easily answered or solved. --se“ri•ous•ly adv. --se“ri•ous•ness n.

"Unimportant"; you have made my point.

At best, agnosticism is a form of intellectual play-acting. As soon as it's subjected to a serious challenge, the toys go back in the box.

At best we are having a tea party; see, I can come to "conclusions" too.

Agnosticism is not a party or a class but an understanding of the futility of the theological argument.

It's not "futile" to theologians -- they "think" they're arguing over the characteristics of something "real".

Nor is it "futile" to revolutionaries -- we're trying to drive a reactionary ideology out of the arena of acceptable public discourse.

Right! Disprove right? That is different than denial. You and your revolutionaries clique? Are you denying that I too am a proponent of revolution? Specifics; they work!

What are agnostics "trying to do"?

Evade the issues.

You said it; you prove it (remember the burden of proof?)... I'm waiting.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Keiza+Feb 5 2005, 09:26 AM--> (Keiza @ Feb 5 2005, 09:26 AM)

313C7 iVi4RX

@Feb 5 2005, 03:57 PM

Gnos·tic (n¼s“t¹k) adj. 1. gnostic. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. 2. Of or relating to Gnosticism. --Gnos·tic n. A believer in Gnosticism.

Gnosticism is the following of self-realized "religion", or even the following of self-realized philosophy of reality. [/b]

That seems a little vague. Is that all there is to it?

phi·los·o·phy (f¹-l¼s“…-f¶) n., pl. phi·los·o·phies. Abbr. phil., philos. 1.a. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. b. The investigation of causes and laws underlying reality. c. A system of philosophical inquiry or demonstration. 2. Inquiry into the nature of things based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. The critique and analysis of fundamental beliefs as they come to be conceptualized and formulated. 4. The synthesis of all learning. 5. All learning except technical precepts and practical arts. 6. All the disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 7. The science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 8. A system of motivating concepts or principles. 9. A basic theory; a viewpoint. 10. The system of values by which one lives.

That could mean just about anything?