Skip to main content
Topic: The Problem with Agnosticism (Read 33330 times)

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #50
You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.


I thought that was the case, the conclusion depends on the assumption that God exists, that assumption rooted in a claim that imagination equates with logic.

You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.

Spirit is a logical implication in continuum theories. God is spirit. This is a deist or panentheist definition of God. There's no detection of spirit in an empirical sense. Rather, it's an inevitable logical deduction like existence itself. If you insist on saying that it's mere faith, it's the same kind of faith as faith in logic and rationality. For example, you don't throw out the Big Bang theory or evolution theory merely because you can't detect Big Bang or evolution. You can't detect them, but there are facts that strongly imply Big Bang or evolution, and so you believe those theories. You believe in them until a better explanation emerges, if at all. But continuum theories are more fundamental than this. Quantum mechanics is more fundamental than relativity theory.


So it all boils down to a claim that religious-based thinking is superior to other thinking and that no measurable or observable evidence is necessary because the "logic" of such thinking, being revealed by God and only available to those that believe, is so wonderful. A little bit of day-dreaming methinks.

That may seem a harsh statement, but it is against generations upon generations of what use to a religious elite claiming superiority over everyone else.

Same tactic, longer words.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #51

You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.


I thought that was the case, the conclusion depends on the assumption that God exists, that assumption rooted in a claim that imagination equates with logic.
Yes, if logic is imaginary for you. But logic is not imaginary for me. I deduce everything based on facts and logic. Logically you can't have someone who, on one hand, makes choices, but, at the same time, does not exist.


So it all boils down to a claim that religious-based thinking is superior to other thinking and that no measurable or observable evidence is necessary because the "logic" of such thinking, being revealed by God and only available to those that believe, is so wonderful. A little bit of day-dreaming methinks.

That may seem a harsh statement, but it is against generations upon generations of what use to a religious elite claiming superiority over everyone else.

Same tactic, longer words.
You are right that I attribute superiority to logic and rationality over statements and claims that go contrary to reason and facts, but please help me to understand how you can find such a conviction to be religious-based.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #52
you don't throw out the Big Bang theory or evolution theory merely because you can't detect Big Bang or evolution. You can't detect them, but there are facts that strongly imply Big Bang or evolution,

I have no idea what you could possibly mean when you say 'you can't detect the Big Bang or evolution', do you mean I can't see it or touch it?  If so, then you are purposely convoluting the issue again. 

If a God existed he would be detected; otherwise He has to choose to be undetectable to us which means His existence is of no relevance to us.  Either way we can stop worrying about it and move on to more important things. 
James J

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #53

If a God existed he would be detected; otherwise He has to choose to be undetectable to us which means His existence is of no relevance to us.  Either way we can stop worrying about it and move on to more important things.
If you really arrived at the conclusion that you should not worry about God, it makes me wonder why you keep worrying about him. Evidently your subconsciousness is pounding at your mental threshold loudly enough, informing you of your denial.

Detection is not everything. Everybody knows this except you. Detection is the same thing as perception and perception is not reliable, as anyone who ever dreamed or hallucinated can tell.

Facts become knowledge only after methodical organisation. In the process, many perceived facts are discarded as irrelevant or merely apparent as opposed to real, such as dreams or hallucinations. This is an example of inductive reasoning, the inferior type of logic. Beyond this, there are a priori intuitions, inferences, things that cannot be coherently denied. These are the elements of deductive reasoning, the superior type of logic.

Knowledge crucially depends on one's grasp of deductive reasoning, not on perception. This is particularly true with the current topic, which is not about isolated phenomenal facts, but about ultimate things, about the limit of knowledge. For example, we don't detect our own limit of reason. Instead, we reasonably infer that it exists, it's there. We cannot measure the scope of our ignorance with precision. Instead, from what we know we either extrapolate what we don't know, or we infer a magnitude that we reasonably cannot deny.

As a minimum, we cannot coherently deny our own existence and we cannot deny some limit to our knowledge. We cannot deny the inevitability of organising the perceived facts and thus we cannot deny the power of reasoning that organises the facts. You cannot detect any of these. You cannot detect the existence of things beyond the limit of mind, but you cannot deny them either. You cannot detect the mind itself, but you cannot coherently deny it either. Nothing makes sense otherwise. Nothing can be explained otherwise.

This is deductive reasoning. If explanations play a role in your convictions, then you go by deductive reasoning, not by mere detection.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #54
If you really arrived at the conclusion that you should not worry about God, it makes me wonder why you keep worrying about him. Evidently your subconsciousness is pounding at your mental threshold loudly enough, informing you of your denial.

Your attempt always seems to be to want to make God so exceedingly recondite and profound and mystical that any attempts by mere mortals to know Him are laughable.  You tried the other day to reserve knowledge of God only to those who diligently seek, scrutinize and deeply contemplate Him. Not everyone walks around soul-searching and being introspective all their lives, nor should they.  What about the more simple people--those merely looking to enjoy life without being cerebral all the time, i.e. most people.  Can they know God?  God (if He is anything), is all things, so He is simple and He is infinitely complex.  Give me the "God for Dummies" version. 
James J

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #55
People are different, but not too different in my opinion. If you think you and I are insurmountably different, then you are asking from the wrong person. Find someone who suits your mindset better, whom you can believe more easily. 

The philosophy that serves as a perfect explanation of everything for me, evidently means nothing for you, so I must admit we are different on this point. The way I am explaining things is the dummies' version from my point of view. To ask to detect God is, to me, so self-evidently a wrong demand that I don't understand why you keep insisting on it.

Remember that I am a convert myself. I converted solely by the power of my own mind. Nobody preached to me, ever. There are no religious people in my family and circle of friends. I am the only one. At conversion, some things changed, such as my understanding of the deeper meaning of life. I reconciled the fact of life with the fact of death, happiness with suffering. Heaven and hell, spirit, soul, matter, and a host of other concepts acquired significance for me. This all only took a little more insight into the nature of the mind-aspect of the universe. This may sound complex or mystical, but isn't, because everyone of us has a mind and can acquire the same insight right here right now, by turning the attention there.

There are some things that didn't change. For example, my hierarchy of proof was always this way:

- Empirical detection is the least important
- Inductive reasoning is a bit better
- Deductive reasoning is most convincing

So, to me to talk about detecting as proof or evidence of something, of anything, always was like the buzzing of flies, meaningless babble. I simply don't understand when people speak of detection as evidence, it's either trivial or meaningless, worthless in either case. To get to the real truth, the attention must be directed not at fleeting things, but in the opposite direction. It's correct that not everybody is well predisposed for introspection, but absolutely everybody has their own mind at their disposal at all times, so nobody is far from the opportunity to try this either.

It's just a matter of making up your own mind. Anybody should be able to do it.


Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #57
While our agnostic/atheist friends keeps demanding (??) that God has the same attributes than the neighbor next door, therefore being perceived the same way, the problem with ..... will persist endless.
A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population...  :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #58
To ask to detect God is, to me, so self-evidently a wrong demand that I don't understand why you keep insisting on it.

It's interesting (but typical), that you would find the simplest (for the beings He created), and most convincing way for God to reveal Himself, the least important and logical.  It is EXTREMELY suspect that God refuses to be crystal clear.  Certainly God knew that by creating His ambiguity, He would create all kinds of trouble.  For God to choose to be undetectable is insanely illogical. 
James J


Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #60
A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population...

Recent surveys have showed that 29% or more of people only mouth the words 'I believe' when asked and actually never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word.  To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives? 
James J

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #61
To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives? 

True believers only have to think once a month about our Invisible Friend Who has turned a blind eye to the killing of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Apparently, He doesn't want to take sides.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #62

A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population...

Recent surveys have showed that 29% or more of people only mouth the words 'I believe' when asked and actually never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word.  To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives? 
I can't say I would go along with that, doubter that I am.

Many people get their own benefits from religious teaching, with a framework of "good behaviour" which stands them in good stead and makes them steadfast human beings, and derive a comfort to fall back on if they have misfortune or bad health. I may have my doubts for the rationale for that belief and in my ruder moments even call it a placebo effect, but it is definitely there.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #63
I'd like to see a person with a severe toothache derive comfort from either a Bible or thoughts of Jesus.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #64
Many people get their own benefits from religious teaching, with a framework of "good behaviour" which stands them in good stead and makes them steadfast human beings,

"Some of my best friends are believers..."  All facetiousness aside, I have a huge family (40-50 on FB), we are a good mix from devoutly religious to atheist, but the common thread we all share is exceptional goodness of heart.  My family's goodness doesn't stem from religion, the Bible or God, we derive goodness from each other generation after generation by passing it on freely.  I don't believe people derive their goodness from religion at all.  Sending an evil person to church gives you an evil believer, that's all.  Even if you ordain single minded sexual deviants...well, you get the picture.  You can't squeeze goodness out of people by promising they will live forever and eternal damnation is certainly not a deterrent to screwing your neighbor's wife.
James J

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #65

To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives?

True believers only have to think once a month about our Invisible Friend Who has turned a blind eye to the killing of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Isn't the whole point to have someone else do the thinking for them?


Apparently, He doesn't want to take sides.

All part of the show. The writers suck though.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #66
rue believers only have to think once a month about our Invisible Friend Who has turned a blind eye to the killing of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Apparently, He doesn't want to take sides.


You don't know how right you really might be.

God doesn't give anyone any special protections in life solely because they believe in Him.

Actually, the only way that might happen is through fervent prayer.

God's Kingdom (what some call heaven) is reserved for the afterlife -- after death, & it is only then can we appreciate His love & goodness. How we suffer prior to death isn't as important as that it ends in death, for it's only through death will there be life.

All we need to do is believe in Him during our life, which is a just trial/test of that belief prior to everyone's eventual death -- which will bring about eternal life through Him.

Faith is all that believers need to live.

Oh, & before you start pounding the hammers of hell, I don't care if you believe what I've said, & be rest assured I won't ever try to prove any of it either.....Why? .....'cause I don't give a rats ass what you believe or don't believe.

I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.




Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #68
[quote author=SmileyFaze, & before you start pounding the hammers of hell, I don't care if you believe what I've said, & be rest assured I won't ever try to prove any of it either.....Why? .....'cause I don't give a rats ass what you believe or don't believe.

I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.[/quote]
Given that this is a discussion group, I care about what you've said even if I don't agree with your beliefs.

As for proving any of your beliefs, I damned well know that you can't prove any of them...unless you have a video of yourself walking on water, liquid water, without water skis.


Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #70
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-18, 15:26:16
Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-18, 04:02:06
I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.
How perfectly Christian of you. 

Did I say I was a Christian?

Ok then...How perfectly sanctimonious of you. (Better?) 
James J

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #71
Being for a while I was a paid killer of men, & quite proud of every soul-less monkey/gook  I dispatched except one --- a 10-12 year old girl --, I can accept your nescient criticism regardless of how typically atheist of you....

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #72

Many people get their own benefits from religious teaching, with a framework of "good behaviour" which stands them in good stead and makes them steadfast human beings,

"Some of my best friends are believers..."  All facetiousness aside, I have a huge family (40-50 on FB), we are a good mix from devoutly religious to atheist, but the common thread we all share is exceptional goodness of heart.  My family's goodness doesn't stem from religion, the Bible or God, we derive goodness from each other generation after generation by passing it on freely.  I don't believe people derive their goodness from religion at all. Sending an evil person to church gives you an evil believer, that's all. Even if you ordain single minded sexual deviants...well, you get the picture.  You can't squeeze goodness out of people by promising they will live forever and eternal damnation is certainly not a deterrent to screwing your neighbor's wife.


On the red text. Although I don't believe that religion is necessary to develop morality or live by its precepts, one had to admit that historically our societies haves been influenced by the predominate thinking on these issues which has been religious. So unless your family have lived all their lives in a different society than the rest of us they have been influenced by that society to think of some things as good and some things as not good.

Maybe in a few more generations our societies will have diverged from their historical bases and think differently, for example substituting Buddhist mores or Atheist mores or indifferent mores so that even the existence of their present religious basis is seen as not good, but for the moment one should recognise the society for what it is.

On the blue text. That is nonsense. It denies the possibility that the religious mindset does not instil a set of values. What those values are depends on the church/sect and can be beneficial even if there are some extreme sects and even if it is done under the umbrella of some superstition or other.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #73
Recent surveys have showed that 29% or more of people only mouth the words 'I believe' when asked and actually never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word.  To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives? 

Never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word are not synonymous of hate, sin and hypocrisy...
There's a certain tendency in Europe for a more secular kind of religion and that's not a necessarily bad or censurable thing, very much the contrary.

The Catholic Church structures are realizing that such behavior doesn't make worst Catholics, people are focusing the importance of the Church at real important moments of their lives rather than just willing to show to others "look how I'm a good Catholic and go everyday to the church".
That's certainly a good thing.

A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #74
So unless your family have lived all their lives in a different society than the rest of us they have been influenced by that society to think of some things as good and some things as not good.

From psychology we have learned that the predominant influences for molding us into the type of people we are going to be are friends and family; and probably in that order.  The rest of society will have very little to do with what kind of person we become.  If we don't get morals and goodness from our family, we are unlikely to get it somewhere else.  To say that my family's goodness could only stem from religion is to say that it couldn't stem from basic human nature which is peace not hatred, happiness not greed, love not heartache, and wisdom not confusion.  The goodness religion teaches lasts for the hour it takes to deliver the sermon and then people are off doing their own thing again; people live with their families not their pastors.  I'm not denying the Christian foundation and influence in this nation, but if it weren't for strong family influence, goodness wouldn't spread any further than the front door of the church. 
James J