Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Well, I'll post again why agnosticism in religion does not necessitate agnosticism in all things.

I can assume that what I observe through my senses is accurate. If it were not accurate, I would not ever be able to observe that it was not accurate, after all, so it would make no difference to me. From there it is obvious that everything I can see about the world, I can deal with rationally.

Things like divinity and suchlike outside the realm of what I can observe, and so with them, yes, I must apply complete agnosticism. But that's acceptable. After all, it makes as little as no difference whether you're a divine being or not if you never do anything to prove otherwise.

Now, I have no problem with asserting a belief about something unknowable. I have a problem with people asserting that the beliefs of others are wrong or stupid, though. Atheists insulting Fundamentalists irritates me just as much as the reverse. I'll grant that Atheist arguments are at least coherent, but they're still asserting that they know there is no God with enough certainty to justify tearing down somebody else's belief structure.

[Andir]

I understand that, but I don't believe in changing your life for the chance that that peanut might exist opposed to living it like it's doesn't.  It's especially disconcerting that someone would attempt to scare me into thinking the red peanut would punish me for not believing in it when it clearly doesn't want to be seen.

It's possible that the red peanut exists, but it's most likely that it doesn't.  For me, it's easier to say the red peanut just isn't there rather than to say that it might and assume it's intentions.

[Bauglir]

Oh, now I totally agree with that. I'm not gonna convert anybody to a religion or anything, I just don't think it's a right to try and convert them out of one, either. And I think the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is a valuable one, for that matter, which is why I've been posting in this excessively confusing argument.

[Kebooo]

I can assume that what I observe through my senses is accurate. If it were not accurate, I would not ever be able to observe that it was not accurate, after all, so it would make no difference to me.

This is not entirely true.  Your senses can be partially accurate.  Your senses could be inaccurate until a point where they become accurate and you come to a full realization they were previously inaccurate.  I could tell you they are inaccurate and give you evidence on why they are (giving evidence to a deaf person on why we can hear and they can not).  All but one sense could be accurate.  Or all senses but one could be accurate.  Your senses could be accurate, but your memories partially inaccurate and accurate.  Or your senses could be accurate and your memory entirely inaccurate.  You could temporarily be in a reality that you will be taken out of, like the matrix.  So what basis can you assume everything in your reality is perfectly accurate?  The agnostic position would be "I do not believe they are accurate" because absolute truth has not been established.  I've been arguing that it is no more reasonable to assume your senses are accurate than to assume the existence of god being unreasonable is accurate.  Neither, at our current state, can be tested. 

Things like divinity and suchlike outside the realm of what I can observe, and so with them, yes, I must apply complete agnosticism. But that's acceptable. After all, it makes as little as no difference whether you're a divine being or not if you never do anything to prove otherwise.

But how can you assume I cannot observe them?  I am the divine unicorn.  How could you possibly take a stance on that, since you cannot observe my divinity.

Now, I have no problem with asserting a belief about something unknowable. I have a problem with people asserting that the beliefs of others are wrong or stupid, though. Atheists insulting Fundamentalists irritates me just as much as the reverse. I'll grant that Atheist arguments are at least coherent, but they're still asserting that they know there is no God with enough certainty to justify tearing down somebody else's belief structure.

I don't go around insulting people.  It was my position described as the moronic atheist.  My case is always based around why I believe it is not reasonable to believe in a god, not why it is stupid or impossible.  I will never say I know there is not one or that I can prove there is not one.  I see nothing wrong with trying to "convert" someone out of believing in a god, because many of these people have never considered what we are discussing in this thread.  They have simply accepted divinity because they were taught it, and instead of challenging it, will completely and entirely believe in it without any evidence in its favor.  It's like me believing in that red peanut and no one attempting to convince me otherwise.  Sure, the red peanut could be there, but is it reasonable to believe it is?  <insert the million pages on reasonableness of possibility and so forth>

But it's fairly absurd to me for someone to argue it is stupid or unreasonable to positively believe something with no evidence or reason to believe in does not exist.  That argument, in itself, is arguing for a positive belief.  If not, then they should say "I do not know either way whether it is stupid or unreasonable to positively believe god does not exist" and they are being hypocritical in being fine with taking positive beliefs without absolute truth and then critiquing another positive belief without absolute truth.

[Andir]

I tend to sit on the Atheist side of the line.  As I explained, it's more logical to assume absence(Atheism) than it is to assume probability(Agnosticism.)  So I label myself an Atheist but it doesn't mean I have an absolute rejection.  Just a logical rejection based on what I've experienced.  I know that might defy the pure definition of Atheism, but how many people do you know who absolutely fit within a group with no exception?

As far as "forcing" religion... I feel it's important to present your idea and that's where our Freedom of Speech plays a role.  After that's been done, you have to let Freedom of Religion take over from there.  I don't know if you can "force" someone to do anything they don't want to do.

[Bauglir]

All of those scenarios you listed in your first paragraph could be true, but I, by definition, do not have that information. If I do, it's because my senses tell me so. I can only reason from the information I have, after all. I'm assuming everything is accurate because there is no other assumption I can make. It's not merely a convenience, it's a logical necessity.

As for the second, sure, you COULD observe them, but I can't know whether you can or not. All I can reason from is my own observations, which are sufficient to tell me you are probably not a unicorn. For one thing, your typing is significantly superior to what I'd expect from an entity typing with a horn. But that aside, if you do nothing to show that you're a divine being, then I can't observe any evidence that a divine being exists. I can't grant you that you are a divine unicorn for the sake of argument, because that's the very thing we're arguing about.

Now, I'm not trying to insult you, but you did start by stating that agnostics logically ought to simply be atheists because disbelief is equivalent to nonbelief, which is something of an insult to someone who follows that principle. And there's no inconsistency with having beliefs about nonbelief, either. Metabeliefs are totally permissible to an agnostic, just as it's possible for somebody to be intolerant of intolerance.

Finally, if they believe it because they were taught it, fine. That's their choice; it's when they start to teach others or convince others to convert to their beliefs that there's a problem. I don't care what somebody believes, I just care when they start trying to control what other people believe.

[masam]

I don't know if you can "force" someone to do anything they don't want to do.

You can't.  and if you have in your experience, or in other's experience, run into a christian or other religion who has tried to force their opinion on you, remind them that they should judge not lest they be judged.  Just because you have a step in the right direction, (from their perspective) does not mean they can make you do anything.  if they knew their beliefs they'd realize they can only show another the way to God.  They can't shove one down that path unless a person is willing to believe that on their own. 

and to bauglir; do you mean those who attempt to reach out and offer their belief or their "salvation" in general?  Because everyone has the right to offers someone else a choice.  I'm going to assume you mean people that say, "You're not christian/mormon/jewish/islamic, Believe what I say, I'm holier than thou, blah blah blah."  Just because someone tries to convert you doesn't make them an asshole. 

The end of your post appears, (and this is the internet so it is kind of hard to properly convey a message without something being lost,) angry at evangelism in general.  All members of different faiths are asked to proudly display their beliefs, and offer the information on it to those who ask.  They are also allowed to ask if you would be interested in listening.  If they force themselves on you after you politely decline then yes, you have a right to be upset with them.  But you seem to be angry with the prospect as a whole, when all people of all beliefs, (or nonbelief) have tried to force them on someone else.  You in fact seem intent on converting those in this thread that attempting to teach one's own beliefs to another is wrong.  I'm going to assume you didn't mean that, but from this line,  "That's their choice; it's when they start to teach others or convince others to convert to their beliefs that there's a problem," it comes off as you don't appreciate anyone sharing any kind of knowledge.  And yes I'm being nitpicky, but i'm just showing you a hole in your debate, not your argument.  Make sure not to be so general. 

[Bauglir]

@masam

Yeah, you're right, I was a bit too broad. Generally, I think that the polite thing to do is just not bring it up unless the conversation swings that way, and once you do, you drop it once somebody else says they're getting uncomfortable or starts getting angry about it. I do figure that in a thread dedicated to this discussion, though, both those tend to get waived or else the conversation pretty much just stops.

Part of it is also the attitude; a lot of evangelism comes off as "You're wrong, listen to my way." It's not so much evangelism, I suppose, as zealotry that irritates me, and every belief set seems to have some people that suffer from that, including Atheism. The main thing that annoys me about the common atheist arguments is that they frequently discuss blind faith and the cruelties that religion can lead to, ignoring that it's not unheard of for atheists to display the very same problems, or at least the thinking that underlies them. Now, I want to be clear that I'm not saying that means Atheism is wrong, or using that as a defense of Theism. I'm just not listing my problems with theism because that's been done to death already.

[Mishy]

I don't know if you can "force" someone to do anything they don't want to do.

You can't.

Thats what i thought ;_;

[Andir]

[snip = space]

Don't get me wrong here.... I think one of our biggest problems (as a nation) right now is that "integration" of religion in our national policy and law.  So in a way, I'm pushing against that wall of religious people trying to retain "God" in everything.  I fully believe our founders also realized this (as many have been quoted) and I think many people are overlooking this because it happens to disagree with their stance.  Some would also argue (and as stated in my state's constitution) that you can't govern people without God and that's where I have issue where someone may think I'm trying to push my way (secular governance) on them (monotheistic governance.)

edit:  I know I've shifted topics, but the main reason I'm so vocal right now is because of the state of things.

[Kebooo]

Now, I'm not trying to insult you, but you did start by stating that agnostics logically ought to simply be atheists because disbelief is equivalent to nonbelief, which is something of an insult to someone who follows that principle.

If that's what came across, it's not what I meant.  What I meant is there are people that believe it is much more reasonable that god does not exist, but do not take that belief.  I was saying if you find the idea of god absurd, why not believe he does not exist unless you are going to be pure agnostic in everything else?  So far it's been the "I don't positively not believe in him because it cannot be proven", but I think the topic has demonstrated most everything cannot be proven.

[chaoticag]

@Andir
True, it gets especially bad when people expect you to fit in bad explanations in science curriculums so as not to upset the theists.

[Kebooo]

Yeah, you're right, I was a bit too broad. Generally, I think that the polite thing to do is just not bring it up unless the conversation swings that way, and once you do, you drop it once somebody else says they're getting uncomfortable or starts getting angry about it.

Also, I don't like this notion because it pretty much allows parenting to dominate belief.  Is it a mere coincidence muslims mostly raise muslims and christians raise mostly christians and jews mostly raise jews? I merely want to challenge their beliefs to the maximum limit, like mine once were (I used to be christian).  If people do not thoroughly challenge their own belief system, we're going to end up in a world where most belief is dictated by what your parents teach you.  And most people won't challenge their own belief system with the same rigors as open debate or discussion will.  If someone gets uncomfortable or angry, sure, it's usually time to stop or tone it down, but there is something wrong if someone is uncomfortable or angry with having to defend such a powerful stance.  Especially if they want their belief to influence law and social interaction.  I don't think anyone in the last dozen or so pages was uncomfortable or angry.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, you're right, I was a bit too broad. Generally, I think that the polite thing to do is just not bring it up unless the conversation swings that way, and once you do, you drop it once somebody else says they're getting uncomfortable or starts getting angry about it.

Also, I don't like this notion because it pretty much allows parenting to dominate belief.  Is it a mere coincidence muslims mostly raise muslims and christians raise mostly christians and jews mostly raise jews? I merely want to challenge their beliefs to the maximum limit, like mine once were (I used to be christian).  If people do not thoroughly challenge their own belief system, we're going to end up in a world where most belief is dictated by what your parents teach you.  And most people won't challenge their own belief system with the same rigors as open debate or discussion will.  If someone gets uncomfortable or angry, sure, it's usually time to stop or tone it down, but there is something wrong if someone is uncomfortable or angry with having to defend such a powerful stance.  Especially if they want their belief to influence law and social interaction.  I don't think anyone in the last dozen or so pages was uncomfortable or angry.

Challenging beliefs is fine, but there's a limit to what people can deal with. And if somebody doesn't want their beliefs challenged, don't do it; it's as simple as showing respect for their freedom to choose. Now, when it comes to implementing policy and stuff, yes, religion ought not influence that, either. But there it's a matter of arguing against each particular case, not the root cause. Inefficient, yes, but it seems to me the only ethical option.

[Kebooo]

Yeah, you're right, I was a bit too broad. Generally, I think that the polite thing to do is just not bring it up unless the conversation swings that way, and once you do, you drop it once somebody else says they're getting uncomfortable or starts getting angry about it.

Also, I don't like this notion because it pretty much allows parenting to dominate belief.  Is it a mere coincidence muslims mostly raise muslims and christians raise mostly christians and jews mostly raise jews? I merely want to challenge their beliefs to the maximum limit, like mine once were (I used to be christian).  If people do not thoroughly challenge their own belief system, we're going to end up in a world where most belief is dictated by what your parents teach you.  And most people won't challenge their own belief system with the same rigors as open debate or discussion will.  If someone gets uncomfortable or angry, sure, it's usually time to stop or tone it down, but there is something wrong if someone is uncomfortable or angry with having to defend such a powerful stance.  Especially if they want their belief to influence law and social interaction.  I don't think anyone in the last dozen or so pages was uncomfortable or angry.

Challenging beliefs is fine, but there's a limit to what people can deal with. And if somebody doesn't want their beliefs challenged, don't do it; it's as simple as showing respect for their freedom to choose. Now, when it comes to implementing policy and stuff, yes, religion ought not influence that, either. But there it's a matter of arguing against each particular case, not the root cause. Inefficient, yes, but it seems to me the only ethical option.

There are fundamentalist beliefs that go hand in hand with the enforcement of them in law.  And if not law, social practice.  Am I to sit by and not convince a single man or woman otherwise if fundamental Islam spread around me, but wasn't made law?  So for example, I eventually get surrounded by fully covered women in my town, on my street, and none of them want their beliefs challenged in any way and I begin to feel alienated because they consider me sinful.  I believe there comes a time where confrontation of ideas is necessary if you do not want to see a community of like-minded people slowly wiped out and replaced by another, even if no law and no aggression took place, just the spread of their belief, the greater reproduction rate and greater indoctrination of their children. 

If I saw atheists disappearing and atheism looked down upon even more, why should I not wish to defend it, and spread it?  It's easy to say I don't care if someone believes in God or Allah or Zeus so long as they are secular not just in law, but their public social customs.  But I certainly do not wish to be surrounded by fully covered women that may not even go to school - all voluntarily, because of their beliefs which were never challenged.  I'm sure this post may be controversial and could spawn another trillion pages, so I'll just say it would be virtually impossible to persuade me otherwise on this one.