Beer s/Straw is so right, agnosticism means you don't know. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know, and I don't believe.
I don't know. So you keep asserting. But I am not your strawman. It is requested to make a point. That you see it as systematic of a certain initial position is simply your lack of comprehension. You have built your strawman with that initial position, so anything you see as something your strawman would do you assume is because of the same initial position that your strawman has. That is fallacious reasoning on your part. Given that it is the same tendency that leads to belief in belief in magic... it's a reasonable bet. So you keep asserting. What is? The awareness you insist I have that there is no God? No, you categorically don't. You can't look past your strawman, the caricatured atheist that you feel comfortable arguing against such that you insist every other atheist conforms to that view, whether they actually do or not. Not very well, then, given that you can't look past your strawman. So you keep asserting about their position. Just a pity it doesn't actually match the position most have. Oh, but it does match that of your strawman. Indeed it's not that complex. So you shouldn't be afraid to try it sometime. Fromyour strawman's perspective, he would indeed lack belief in something that doesn't exist. Unfortunately I am not your strawman and thus far you have failed to correctly acknowledge my actual position, despite your claims that you accept hat I say about my own position. You do nothing but ignore it and continue on your merry crusade against your strawman. How's that going, by the way? The first part is wrong, and the second part does not even follow from the first. You say I am not aware of God, and I say that I do not know if I am aware of God or not. I might be, I might not be. If God exists and everything is simply am infestation of God then I am patently aware of God simply by existing. If God does not actually exist then what I observe has nothing to do with God. Since I do not know whether God exists or not, how can I say I am not aware of God? You keep asserting it, but then you are facing off against your strawman rather than engaging in this discussion. Oh, wow, so now you think that the only way to know God is to divest yourself of critical thinking? Or better still to never have thought critically? Seriously? Do you see critical thinking as the enemy of God? If so, why did he give us this capability? Sheesh, you really know how to convince a guy, don't you! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That said, the request for evidence, and the use of critical thinking, do not lead me to conclude or even be aware of God not existing, as has been explained to you already. So, final warning, Jan: either turn away from the strawman and start engaging with what people actually write, or just drop out and get a room with your strawman. All matters of belief and knowledge are intellectual. It is how we transfer those into actions that make it practical. One could quite easily have the intellectual belief that God does exist and act no differently than an agnostic or an atheist, or a theist. Sure, many theists' practical life is informed quite heavily by their theistic belief, but it is not a prerequisite. So you can't avoid addressing agnosticism by declaring it merely an intellectual matter. As has been pointed out, agnosticism also covers simple lack of knowledge on a subject, not just the position that the subject is unknowable. Nor, at its core, is either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist, or indeed the lack of belief in either of those. It is how one lets those beliefs (or lack of) influence their practical lives that make them a practical matter. But the beliefs (of lack of) themselves are purely intellectual. But if you want to start a thread on the practical manifestations of various beliefs, on the practical implications of belief that God exists, belief that God doesn't exist etc, then go for it. Here, however, we're discussing the actual beliefs and, specifically, the lack of beliefs, in God. So your dismissal of agnosticism on grounds of not being practical is simply unwarranted. Why do you struggle with the agnostic position so much?
Belief in God has practical implications with respect to the way one looks at the world. It allows one to see what it not obvious. For example, many scientists believe in the BB, but they cannot prove this to anyone who does not wish to believe in the BB. Their inference evidence, alone, without a direct photograph, will never be enough to satisfy the needs of the doubter. They doubter wants to the see big boom, like a fireworks display, since he may not understand their inference proof. If you compare these two parties, those who believe have more open minds and imaginations. They can see the goal even before the solution is complete. The doubters need to be hand held via all the steps of solution, before they can see the goal. They are blind and need a seeing eye dog to lead them. This is why the faithful are so patient with atheists and why atheists are afraid to be led. Back in ancient times, all invention was considered from the Gods. Fire came from Prometheus. Art works, became portals of time and space through which the gods could appear for worship. The invention of fire, as attributed to Prometheus, was considered beyond what could be accepted, by those who had to see to believe. It was not attributed to natural man or atheism. It belonged to a higher power, since it appeared from the sensory void of an animal. The ancients made the parallel between the gods, and all that was not natural to the earth; what the animal man could not see. As you move forward into time, invention and innovative thinking often became taboo. One would be charged as being a witch, since the new appeared to come from a void, and was not directly a part of nature, which the animal man could see with their eyes through direct observational discovery. The animal man could find a new bug but an I-phone would freak them out. The atheists are more like natural animals instead of transcendent beyond our animal nature. With modern science and technology, there are plenty examples of new invention appearing. It is common enough not to say all invention is from the gods. However, the process of invention is not well characterized to where anyone can be taught to do this. There is still a void area than can spooky for the non-transcendent. There are also examples of natural invention, that go beyond hard proof, like how did the universe appear from a void. These tend to go traditional and back to God since they appear in a void. There is an old saying, fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Fear makes one aware of change to higher degree. Change can mean the enemy is near. Wisdom is more intuitive than knowledge and therefore comes from the unconscious mind. Wisdom is a type of creative process, where information and knowledge is adapted and applied to meets the needs of unique situations, where direct knowledge may be slacking. Wisdom allows one to write the book; invent for the occasion, instead of always be by the book; memorize and apply. God and religion opens access to the unconscious mind; practice, and allow more access to the main frame parts of the brain.
And a "belief" in the BB - lacking that visible boom - is different from the belief in "god" because ...? Where's the "boom" for "god"? Unsupported claim Unsupported claim. The vast majority of theists throughout history believe because they've been told. Not one word of which makes it a fact that "invention came from the gods". Correct. And that taboo was mostly - if not entirely - promulgated and enforced by religion. Bollocks. What? I fail to see how this classes as an invention - "natural" or otherwise. Likewise there's no proof at all - let alone "hard proof" - that "goddidit". Nor is "god" an explanation. There's a lot of old sayings - until they're shown to be factual then they remain just tat: old saying. And of course you can show evidence for this, can't you? What am I saying? Of course you can't. And even if you had evidence you wouldn't post it because your entire modus operandi here is to post unmitigated shit, fail to engage on comments made/ questions raised, disappear for for a while and come back later to repeat the process. More unsupported crap.
No it doesn't, it can fill in the gaps at your pleasure, but can be impractical if invoked in fear of admitting ones own ignorance. :EDIT: And, as most of your posts are, it is a convoluted paradox: you may want to be me, but I really don't want to be you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
During my time in the Operating Theatre I saw many surgeons open up skulls to access brains Most times it was to take out a bad bit He had access to all sections of the brain but the boundaries are ill defined Boundaries are a little clearer on CAT scans We access our own brain internally of course and while there seems to be a gazillion books on accessing your unconscious brain I have never seen evidence of this occuring in practice Why would you? This part of the brain runs the body So if you're are a control freak and want to control breathing digestion maintain blood pressure and pH and all other body functions leave it alone For those who believe in god that should be enough For those seeking god the unconscious mind is the wrong track to tread Religion shuts down sections of the conscious brain via loops Certainly open the brain to ALL ideas (your conscious brain has enough neurones to handle them) but try not to get stuck in any idea which is a self perpetuating loop like religion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I understand it might well affect ALL parts of the brain The unconscious parts of the brain will continue to act on the parts of the body whichthey are responsible for but uncoordinated They might also through misfiring connect to other parts not on their work list The conscious part also cross scrambles the neurones firing connections leading to numerous delusions, seeing god being popular Part of the problem of seeing god or any of the delusions when the effect wears off not all of it goes Some of the new connections made remain god scrambles the brain many ways truely moving in mysterious ways Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why do you extend your lack of awareness to everybody? Could it be some are aware and some aren't? Jan.
I'm not extending anything to anyone. I'm just telling you what these words mean. Agnosticism refers to knowing, from the Greek gnostikos, "having knowledge". Theism and Atheism refer to belief. So you can be a gnostic theist, and agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, and an agnostic atheist.
God wont show himself to me because I'm a bad person. Begin with the extermination of me and all others. You have God on your side.
What point would that be? No it's not. If you don't know whether or not God exists, then He currently doesn't exist. How is believing in magic analogous to believing in God? I merely asked if you are aware of God. You're not. Therefore God doesn't currently exist as far as you're aware. They are based on practical experience Even applying faith is based on practical experience. Otherwise it is pure speculation. Your agnosticism is based on speculation. Your actual, practical experience is, "God does not exist. What kind of acts? The Bible verse explains that the fool (not calling you a fool) says in his heart there is no God. So I believe you are correct that you essentially know that God Is, but you choose to accept that God does not exist. Romans 1-19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened... Jan.
Sarkus, hence, should be killed! :EDIT: Oh, and how does admitting ones own ignorance amount to vanity? Your bible quote, per se, demands that said person knew God?
Philosophically, admitting that one is not aware of something existing is different than the assertion that something actually doesn't exist.
That you can no more know that God objectively exists than anyone else can know it. That it is seemingly an unknowable issue. That any existence you claim to be aware of seems to be purely subjective. And thus you concisely demonstrate that you struggle to comprehend the agnostic position. Both appear to be a natural product of the mind filling in the gaps of our comprehension. Not true. I simply do not know if I am aware of God or not. I could be. I don't know. And thus you again concisely demonstrate that you struggle to comprehend the agnostic position. All beliefs are. But they are intellectual positions. Of course the application of faith is a practical matter. That's no different from saying that the hydration of food is based on adding water. No, it's based on practical experience - experience that lacks definite knowledge of God. No, my practical experience is that I don't know. Once again you merely assign the views of your strawman upon me, without actually seeking to comprehend. Please stop doing that. Any you care to mention in which the belief that God exists has no direct impact. Or do you think that to believe that God exists is equivalent to believing in God (given your previous instance on there being a difference between the two, I would think you don't think them the same)? That aside, once again you demonstrate quite aptly that you have no interest in listening (not calling you deaf) to the person you're discussing with, no interest in attempting to comprehend them (not calling you arrogant or ignorant), and instead merely look at your strawman and argue against that (not calling your arguments fallacious), applying whatever view you think the strawman has to those you think should be the same as your strawman (not calling you blind). Either you're doing it deliberately, in which case you are trolling (not calling you a troll), or you are just out of your depth (not calling you stupid) with regard comprehending the agnostic atheist view. Or possibly any nuanced philosophical position.
We will all be killed, one way or another. That's not the issue. How we live the life we are given, is. You read the quote, figure it out if you care to. Jan.
Considered a delusion? Don't pussy foot Always has been always will be Surely this Merry-go-round has no revolutions left? It might be a interesting project if anyone would care take on to see how many dittos occurred within the post? How many questions were answered by a question? How many requests made for evidence were answered by you don't understand or words to that effect? And last who were puppets and who puppet master? And the thread ended (it is now ended right?) with no resolution correct? Surely if it continues it should play another note? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is amusing, IMO, in a sad sort of way, that most of the so-called scientists here who are arguing that there is no evidence for God (atheism, +/-) are more than willing to accept that 'everything' came from 'nothing'. Where is the observable (not hypothetical or theoretical) evidence for "everything came from nothing"?
