Print

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

[G-Flex]

I am agnostic. I am also religious. I believe there is a possibility of a god, just as much as there is the possibility of there not being one, because "in the end we can't really know", so I choose to worship one.

I'll honestly never understand this kind of reasoning. You make it sound like the possibility of there being a god is necessarily equal to the possibility of there not being one, so... couldn't you apply that to anything? Why not believe in unicorns, or fairies, or invisible goat-men under the surface of Pluto? And how do you choose which god?

Point being that there's an infinite set of potential religious beliefs that aren't (un)provable or falsifiable, so... why just pick one out of a hat at random? It's not like we apply that sort of reasoning to anything else.

[CoughDrop]

I am agnostic. I am also religious. I believe there is a possibility of a god, just as much as there is the possibility of there not being one, because "in the end we can't really know", so I choose to worship one.

I'll honestly never understand this kind of reasoning. You make it sound like the possibility of there being a god is necessarily equal to the possibility of there not being one, so... couldn't you apply that to anything? Why not believe in unicorns, or fairies, or invisible goat-men under the surface of Pluto? And how do you choose which god?

Point being that there's an infinite set of potential religious beliefs that aren't (un)provable or falsifiable, so... why just pick one out of a hat at random? It's not like we apply that sort of reasoning to anything else.

To be fair -- I wouldn't say there was ever someone who decided to choose what they believe in based on random chance. The way a person is raised speaks volumes of their values. With great influence comes great responsibility.

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist.

We are taking over!   

[Heliman]

Point being that there's an infinite set of potential religious beliefs that aren't (un)provable or falsifiable, so... why just pick one out of a hat at random? It's not like we apply that sort of reasoning to anything else.

Think of it from a "Afraid of God's Wrath" standpoint. Many religions aren't very cool with you being of another religion, so the neutral ground is the next best thing.

I'll honestly never understand this kind of reasoning. You make it sound like the possibility of there being a god is necessarily equal to the possibility of there not being one, so... couldn't you apply that to anything? Why not believe in unicorns, or fairies, or invisible goat-men under the surface of Pluto?

You can certainly believe that, that's why they're called myths.

[Bohandas]

Here is something that I found on Wikipedia in relation to the (im)possibility of proving or disproving anything:

Agrippa's Trilemma (aka "The Münchhausen Trilemma") as formulated by German philosopher Hans Albert:

This argument runs as follows: All of the only three ("tri"-lemma) possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:

1.All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
2.One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity.
3.One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.

An English translation of a quote from the original German text by Albert is as follows:

Here, one has a mere choice between:

1.an infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but isn’t practically feasible and doesn’t, therefore, provide a certain foundation;
2.a logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either; and finally:
3.a break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.

Albert stressed repeatedly that there is no limitation of the Münchhausen-Trilemma to deductive conclusions. The verdict concerns also inductive, causal, transcendental, and all otherwise structured justifications. They all will be in vain.

[Hiiri]

Bohandas...  really...

What you just copied from wikipedia was nothing but a waste of forum space (and my time by reading it) and has nothing to do with the subject of God. It doesn't work for or against the subject. (Basically, the text says that the kid who annoys his/her parents by asking "Why?" after every answer, was right afterall!)

And as for the general responses you've given. Presentation is half the argument (as stupid as it sounds).

Edit: PS. No scientist/atheist is claiming to know the absolute truth. (That's what religion is for.) Hell, even gravity could be something entirely different than we've always thought! We cannot absolutely prove/disprove anything at all in the cosmos, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try with our meager human brains. If we don't know something, it does nothing to point at God.

[Heliman]

Edit: PS. No scientist/atheist is claiming to know the absolute truth. (That's what religion is for.) Hell, even gravity could be something entirely different than we've always thought! We cannot absolutely prove/disprove anything at all in the cosmos, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try with our meager human brains. If we don't know something, it does nothing to point at God.

I disagree. While I'm sure that many atheists don't believe in god simply because there is no proof of his existance, I am also pretty darn positive that among atheists there are definitely anti-religious extremists out there who quite resolutely state as an absolute truth that God does not exist. For every form of belief, there is always the possiblity of a minority that will take that belief too far.

[Hiiri]

True. I got a bit carried away.

[freeformschooler]

I am agnostic. I am also religious. I believe there is a possibility of a god, just as much as there is the possibility of there not being one, because "in the end we can't really know", so I choose to worship one.

I'll honestly never understand this kind of reasoning. You make it sound like the possibility of there being a god is necessarily equal to the possibility of there not being one, so... couldn't you apply that to anything? Why not believe in unicorns, or fairies, or invisible goat-men under the surface of Pluto? And how do you choose which god?

Point being that there's an infinite set of potential religious beliefs that aren't (un)provable or falsifiable, so... why just pick one out of a hat at random? It's not like we apply that sort of reasoning to anything else.

I can actually perfectly understand where you're coming from here. I didn't explain myself very well (like one of the ops on #bay12games says, i am "the worst at words" )

I believe that anything is possible so long as it is unprovable. If it is provable, it will be proven or disproven, and at that point I get to stop being all agnostic about it, and go with the proof.

I also did not pick a random religion out of a hat. Literally the rest of my family is Christian, so I'm going with that. However, since I am agnostic, I believe the possibility of heaven or hell after death (since what comes after death is one thing that thus far can't be proven) is as equally possible as eternity consisting of floating in steaming tomato sauce. Same with other stuff -- I don't think the Christian God is any more likely than the Pineappleist God-head, or every god imaginable being real, or even there being no gods at all. I just choose to go along and put my faith in the foremost mentioned god. Accepting that it's entirely possible I'm wrong and anything else could be true is both a challenge to my faith (the only thing that keeps me a theist in the first place is putting non-absolute faith in something over another, even outside of what my agnosticism makes me consider logical) and a part of my agnosticism in the first place.

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist.

Now we have to have someone come in and say they're Agnostic Pastafarian, then we can have three way paint ball.

EDIT: Now I realize other than me nonsensically choosing to put faith in one thing over another against what I consider logical there's really not that much difference between "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist", at least definition wise.

[counting]

I can't really tell you much, as I'm not an expert on the history of Monotheism.

You might find this video interesting though. It's a perspective on the creation of the Monotheistic God backed by modern archeological understanding and scholarly sources.

As I search though and look them up, I found that indeed some of my guesses are right about the process of forming monotheist infinity concept. Like it's a angry god concept first (as in Yahweh the war god), or a need of unified flag of different gods believes (though the driving reason is different). But its why the functionality of certain concepts is NEEDED makes me curious.

You can picture a very complex concept of the monotheism as much as you want in prehistoric time, but it WOULD NOT work. Since no one would need them. They probably only want the simple part of it which made their life better. So why some priests do such meaningless thing to create an overly designed doctrine, other than confusing himself and the followers. However, it makes sense for a need like war god abilities be added when the neighboring country is invading you. Or believers are scattered by conquest, and when the time they gathered back to homeland, also brought pagan believes with them during lived in different polytheism countryside. Then there is a need for the god/gods, which the authority figures(priests or kings) believes in, gain many abilities of the old gods, so people will be easily unified.

But I still don't know why in 621 BC, the King Josiah suddenly decided to give the "do not challenge my god" command, and demoted the other gods at that time. Although I do NOT believe this single event/person is the sole cause of changing doctrines, but must be a rather gradual process. Since it didn't end when he died on battle. And this let me to believe there are some other external/internal reasons for pushing it. Also, there is a giant gap, from 6 century BCE to 1st century AD, when the process of forming the almighty god settled. What happened during this time to cause the driving force of further advancing the proto-monotheism into later more-modern form? Somethings or many events must happened, and let the old system cease functional.(I got some ideas but not full) And I still believe that its not the infinity causing the debates, but rather some debates occurred in the past lead the need of infinity concepts to be added.

And I got a feeling from that video, the producer is actually questioning and doing the same thing as Buddha centuries ago. He is actually heading the same way (questioning self existence, the perceptions, etc). Like he said the feeling for connections as of god with other people, is the root of karma in Brahmanism. And Buddha tells us it is evolved/generated from the first cause (第一因, 一念無明), and giving the illusion of everything.

The idea of nonthingness (空) in Buddhism is not actually nothing or empty. But the reverse concept of infinity. We might think it's 0 in math, but 0 is not nothing, it is a number, and a concept as well. So the real nonthingness is not even thinking about 0. So we can go beyond the first cause. And that's the concept of crossing over (到彼岸) and enlightenment, not just being one with the universe(Brahman/God) in Brahmanism. And Buddha is not god/universe/everything. It the process and state when crossed over. The pursuit of Atheist leading to a religion is quite a thing, we might see the root of a future religion in out time from people like him. (new form of Zenist  )

I believe you're referring to Akhenaton.  Also a big fan of using religion to justify conquest, this guy.

Thanks, Yes it's him, and his wife the famous female Pharaoh/Queen Nefertiti.

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist.

We are taking over!   

And we all become Buddhist.

Edit: PS. No scientist/atheist is claiming to know the absolute truth. (That's what religion is for.) Hell, even gravity could be something entirely different than we've always thought! We cannot absolutely prove/disprove anything at all in the cosmos, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try with our meager human brains. If we don't know something, it does nothing to point at God.

Practical and Functionalism, I like it . And why can't it be used in religious matter, as long as the need for absolute truth (the annoying kids always asked why) can be more mature. And fearful for the unknown , can be replaced by the joy of discovery.

I disagree. While I'm sure that many atheists don't believe in god simply because there is no proof of his existance, I am also pretty darn positive that among atheists there are definitely anti-religious extremists out there who quite resolutely state as an absolute truth that God does not exist. For every form of belief, there is always the possiblity of a minority that will take that belief too far.

I think Buddhism is that form who not only go to far, and also go beyond that. Thus becomes a religion itself, no longer just a belief. You need to form so many hypothesis to cover enough ground, so the believes, can form in a organized way.

EDIT: Now I realize other than me nonsensically choosing to put faith in one thing over another against what I consider logical there's really not that much difference between "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist", at least definition wise.

Welcome to join Buddhist. And I believed Buddhism and some of its offshoots are popular amount modern scholars.

[Hiiri]

I always preferred Buddhists over all the other religions. Primarily because they least resemble a religion and more like a peaceful way of life and thought (or maybe it's because I don't know much about the subject).

Oh, and also, it could be because they haven't been trying to kill everyone else on this planet for the last thousand years in the name of their imaginary friend. (But then again.. maybe they have, and I just don't know about it. Pulling the strings of Muslims, Jews and Christians from their underground lairs scattered all around the world )

But no, I won't be joining their ranks, even though they have my sympathy

[G-Flex]

Think of it from a "Afraid of God's Wrath" standpoint. Many religions aren't very cool with you being of another religion, so the neutral ground is the next best thing.

There is nothing that could be called "neutral ground". Many religions don't like neutral ground either! Or a hypothetical religion might want you to believe the wrong there! What part of "infinite possibilities" is hard to grasp here?

[freeformschooler]

Many religions don't like neutral ground either!

Aside from the Christian extremists literally down the road from me, I have not met such a one what was not fine with my neutral ground so far.

[G-Flex]

Many religions don't like neutral ground either!

Aside from the Christian extremists literally down the road from me, I have not met such a one what was not fine with my neutral ground so far.

Wait, how are we even defining "neutral ground"?

Anyway, my point is that you're obviously treating popular/mainstream religions (and Christianity itself) as somehow special without giving good reason for it being on different ground than, say, any other hypothetical or actual religion you could think of. You can't just "hedge your bets" and believe in the most likely thing that'll get you into Heaven (of course, even the existence of that has the same argument applied), because it is completely impossible to define what that probability is.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Freeformschooler, in the end there's an infinite number of concepts that we can't really know for sure about, such as my previously given example of the rabid invisible ghost rats (I'm liking them as a concept the more I use them.). Why do you choose to give deities special treatment in this regard?
You've said that you believe anything is possible if it's unprovable, so do you trust me about the rats? They aren't provable.
I can save you from their gnawing, unseen teeth, by the way. You just have to send me all your money. Do you believe me at this point? Do you want to take the risk that they'll eat your soul if you don't trust me?

[freeformschooler]

Many religions don't like neutral ground either!

Aside from the Christian extremists literally down the road from me, I have not met such a one what was not fine with my neutral ground so far.

Wait, how are we even defining "neutral ground"?

Anyway, my point is that you're obviously treating popular/mainstream religions (and Christianity itself) as somehow special without giving good reason for it being on different ground than, say, any other hypothetical or actual religion you could think of. You can't just "hedge your bets" and believe in the most likely thing that'll get you into Heaven (of course, even the existence of that has the same argument applied), because it is completely impossible to define what that probability is.

Freeformschooler, in the end there's an infinite number of concepts that we can't really know for sure about, such as my previously given example of the rabid invisible ghost rats (I'm liking them as a concept the more I use them.). Why do you choose to give deities special treatment in this regard?
You've said that you believe anything is possible if it's unprovable, so do you trust me about the rats? They aren't provable.
I can save you from their gnawing, unseen teeth, by the way. You just have to send me all your money. Do you believe me at this point? Do you want to take the risk that they'll eat your soul if you don't trust me?

See, that's the thing. I'm not defining a probability. I'm not even going on a hunch that this is what will get me into heaven over the next thing, even if there is a heaven or not. When I say I'm putting faith in it, that could change at any moment, because I don't really believe any of it is more possible than Pineappleism. Tomorrow I could wake up and choose to put faith in socks if I wanted to but that doesn't mean I'd suddenly believe it's more "likely" to make me ascend to a higher plane or whatever. I'm just going right along with it, rather than sitting around doing nothing. Because you know? Taking part in church services makes me feel good. Even if I was a full blown christian, there is no way I would agree with everything anyone was saying in a service anywhere. I just really enjoy it. I guess you could say I'm riding off of other people here, because I'm always going to be surrounded by "believers", even if I don't feel the same way.

And in some ways that's why I sometimes go to the unitarian church. A lot of them are agnostic. They just like spending time with each other in a "church form". The only real reason I roll right along with the Christian stuff as opposed to being a full time unitarian is because my dad works in the christian church (in addition to liking to format and company obviously) and it lets me see him more.

EDIT: In fact if you want to go throw some rocks in the semantics circle i'm at least 50% sure that "faith" isn't the right word for me to be using here. Sorry if I've confused you guys, I don't know a better word for it.