Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[Tigers!]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

In your post 489 you mentioned a fence. What did you mean by it?

I did't define it, I used it.

Is the issue whether a fence exists or not in physical reality?

The question again, what is a fence? Answer that and we can proceed.

Were fencing over a fence. On guard!

You mentioned that an agnostic is sitting on a fence. Presumably you mean something that delineates two distinct areas or locations. One can sit on either side of a fence or straddle it.

 

[Copernicus]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

In your post 489 you mentioned a fence. What did you mean by it?

I did't define it, I used it.

Is the issue whether a fence exists or not in physical reality?

The question again, what is a fence? Answer that and we can proceed.

Were fencing over a fence. On guard!

You mentioned that an agnostic is sitting on a fence. Presumably you mean something that delineates two distinct areas or locations. One can sit on either side of a fence or straddle it.

Come on, folks. It's obvious that the metaphorical fence divides those who believe in God from those who reject belief. One sense of "agnostic" is that agnostics neither accept nor reject belief in God. They are genuinely unable to decide. Another sense is that they reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, even though they believe it extremely unlikely. T. H. Huxley coined the word, but he only meant it to reject the idea that one can know that for which one has no evidence one way or the other. Huxley himself tended to be what we would call an atheist--one who rejects belief in God. He wasn't someone who genuinely could not decide. He had a position on the question, but didn't want to claim absolute knowledge.

Nowadays, the term "agnostic" refers to someone who has no position on the question. That is, an "agnostic" is someone who sits on the fence between belief and rejection of belief. Huxley himself was not really a fence sitter on that question. He just felt that one could reject belief in God without claiming to know for certain that God did not exist. That's the same as rejecting belief in ghosts without claiming to know for certain that ghosts do not exist. That is, one can reject belief in ghosts without being conflicted about whether ghosts exist. One can just say that there is some logical possibility that they exist, however unlikely the possibility might be.

 

[steve_bank]

To me agnostic is sitting on a fence.

Are you sure there is a fence to sit upon?

What is a fence?

In your post 489 you mentioned a fence. What did you mean by it?

I did't define it, I used it.

Is the issue whether a fence exists or not in physical reality?

The question again, what is a fence? Answer that and we can proceed.

Were fencing over a fence. On guard!

You mentioned that an agnostic is sitting on a fence. Presumably you mean something that delineates two distinct areas or locations. One can sit on either side of a fence or straddle it.

That would be stadling a fence, a bit hard on the gonads if you are a guy.

You apperd to be saying there is no fensce. metaphorcally speaking of couse when it comes to theist vs agnostic.

Dr Z is far more knwedeleble than I am. As he put agnostc is vague term at best.

There is theist, atheist, and inbytween.

The inbetween takes a number of forms. When it comes to agnostic you can pick from a number of definitions and categories.

I don't belive in the bible god but I think there is something. and so forth and so on. One invents atheists like theists invent theology.

Atheist 'theology' is more of the dame. There is plain atheist, styrang atheist, weak atheist.

I dentfy as atheist because it is convenient to do so in cetain situations. Howerve I am not an atheist 'believer'. Atheist and theist are flip sides of the same coin.

Agnostic as I see it is atheist with qualifications.

Agniostic is sitting on a fence without committing to one side or the other.

I view both atheist and theist arguments and debates as equally illusionary.

The debates here are a form of exercise, neither side is provable or winable.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nowadays, the term "agnostic" refers to someone who has no position on the question. That is, an "agnostic" is someone who sits on the fence between belief and rejection of belief. Huxley himself was not really a fence sitter on that question. He just felt that one could reject belief in God without claiming to know for certain that God did not exist. That's the same as rejecting belief in ghosts without claiming to know for certain that ghosts do not exist. That is, one can reject belief in ghosts without being conflicted about whether ghosts exist. One can just say that there is some logical possibility that they exist, however unlikely the possibility might be.

For some forgotten reason I have always equated agnosticism with belief in the claim that there is insufficient knowledge to know one way or the other, therefore "I don't know." But I guess that's saying the same thing.

 

[Copernicus]

Nowadays, the term "agnostic" refers to someone who has no position on the question. That is, an "agnostic" is someone who sits on the fence between belief and rejection of belief. Huxley himself was not really a fence sitter on that question. He just felt that one could reject belief in God without claiming to know for certain that God did not exist. That's the same as rejecting belief in ghosts without claiming to know for certain that ghosts do not exist. That is, one can reject belief in ghosts without being conflicted about whether ghosts exist. One can just say that there is some logical possibility that they exist, however unlikely the possibility might be.

For some forgotten reason I have always equated agnosticism with belief in the claim that there is insufficient knowledge to know one way or the other, therefore "I don't know." But I guess that's saying the same thing.

My view is that agnosticism has at least two very different senses. Both include a claim of insufficient knowledge to know one way or the other, but that alone does not really describe how people use the term. Sometimes they use it to describe genuine indecision over a belief. At other times, they use it to describe sufficient knowledge to believe or reject a claim without having to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that Huxley intended the latter sense of the word. He just didn't want to have to keep trying to prove to believers that he could prove the nonexistence of God. That is, he was not really indecisive about the claim that God existed.

 

[Wiploc]

Come on, folks. It's obvious that the metaphorical fence divides those who believe in God from those who reject belief.

That would be a screwy fence.

Fences generally divide one side from the other. If people who believe in god (theists) are on one side, then everybody else (nontheists) is on the other.

Let's change metaphors for a moment. We'll talk about databases. With a normalized database, everything fits in a category, but nothing fits in more than one category.

If you have a normalized database, you won't leave people wondering what to do with people who neither reject belief nor believe in God. Neither will we have to wonder about people who believe in gods but not God.

One sense of "agnostic" is that agnostics neither accept nor reject belief in God. They are genuinely unable to decide.

One limited sense of the word agnostic, perhaps. But you don't want to make it sound like a disability. Many agnostics have made a decision. They've decided that they aren't as crazy as gnostics (misguided souls who believe they know whether gods exist).

Another sense is that they reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, even though they believe it extremely unlikely.

Another weird little category. If this is what you mean by agnostic, how will you categorize
a. People who reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, but only believe God's existence to be mildly unlikely.
b. People who reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, but who don't have an opinion as to the likelihood of God's existence?
c. People who think God's existence to be highly unlikely, but who do not reject the possibility of knowing?

T. H. Huxley coined the word, but he only meant it to reject the idea that one can know that for which one has no evidence one way or the other.

So we need a separate name for those who think there is evidence both for and against God's existence?

...

Nowadays, the term "agnostic" refers to someone who has no position on the question.

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. I believe no gods exist, but I don't know that for a fact. You can hardly call me someone with no position.

Many agnostics think theists (those who believe gods do exist) and strong atheists (those who think gods do not exist) are equally deranged. It's hardly fair to say that these agnostics have no opinion.

That is, an "agnostic" is someone who sits on the fence between belief and rejection of belief.

Again, that's a weird fence.

Some dictionaries define atheism as denial of gods. And those dictionaries define denial in a way that excludes babies and boys raised by wolves from the atheist category. And dictionary.com has rejection and denial as synonyms.

So it may be that you intend to put theists on one side of the fence, explicit atheists (those who have heard about gods and understood the concept, but who do not believe gods exist) on the other side of the fence, and implicit atheists (everybody else: all people who haven't heard of gods, or who haven't understood what they were hearing) on top of the fence.

That's a broad fence, one that holds all infants until they learn about gods after reaching the age of understanding.

Or maybe you intend rejection of belief as a description of those who believe that gods do not exist?

My best guess is that you seem to waffle because you are yourself undecided. When you say agnostic, sometimes you're thinking of those who don't know whether gods exist, and sometimes you're thinking of those who don't opine either that gods do exist or don't exist.
And, of course, you sometimes are thinking of subgroups of those categories, including only people who think knowledge of gods is impossible, or who think the evidence is exactly balanced or nonexistent.

Huxley himself was not really a fence sitter on that question. He just felt that one could reject belief in God without claiming to know for certain that God did not exist.

You're now saying he was a gnostic strong atheist, one who believes that gods (or just God?) don't exist, but who can't prove it. Are you now defining agnostic as meaning agnostic strong atheist? Or is agnostic defined more broadly, but in a way that includes agnostic strong atheists?

You seem to be all over the map.

 

[Copernicus]

...
Come on, folks. It's obvious that the metaphorical fence divides those who believe in God from those who reject belief.

That would be a screwy fence.

Fences generally divide one side from the other. If people who believe in god (theists) are on one side, then everybody else (nontheists) is on the other.

Let's change metaphors for a moment. We'll talk about databases. With a normalized database, everything fits in a category, but nothing fits in more than one category.

If you have a normalized database, you won't leave people wondering what to do with people who neither reject belief nor believe in God. Neither will we have to wonder about people who believe in gods but not God.

Sorry you didn't like the metaphor, but I think that it was perfectly clear and reasonable. So I'll stick with it. Either you accept or reject that belief that one or more deities exist. Or you can sit on the fence.

One sense of "agnostic" is that agnostics neither accept nor reject belief in God. They are genuinely unable to decide.

One limited sense of the word agnostic, perhaps. But you don't want to make it sound like a disability. Many agnostics have made a decision. They've decided that they aren't as crazy as gnostics (misguided souls who believe they know whether gods exist).

I covered that point in my post, and you quote it below.

Another sense is that they reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, even though they believe it extremely unlikely.

Another weird little category. If this is what you mean by agnostic, how will you categorize
a. People who reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, but only believe God's existence to be mildly unlikely.
b. People who reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists, but who don't have an opinion as to the likelihood of God's existence?
c. People who think God's existence to be highly unlikely, but who do not reject the possibility of knowing?

You are overthinking this. I'm not denying that one can create different distinctions separated by different metaphorical fences.

T. H. Huxley coined the word, but he only meant it to reject the idea that one can know that for which one has no evidence one way or the other.

So we need a separate name for those who think there is evidence both for and against God's existence?

No, that's not what I said or Huxley said.

...

Nowadays, the term "agnostic" refers to someone who has no position on the question.

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. I believe no gods exist, but I don't know that for a fact. You can hardly call me someone with no position.

Me, too. You aren't the kind of agnostic that takes no position on the question. There are others that are genuine fence-sitters. You and I are not.

Many agnostics think theists (those who believe gods do exist) and strong atheists (those who think gods do not exist) are equally deranged. It's hardly fair to say that these agnostics have no opinion.

I don't. Seriously. Not anywhere. I was talking about different usages for the word "agnostic", not arguing that there is only one usage. I think that you kind of missed my point by focusing too much on out-of-context snippets.

Huxley himself was not really a fence sitter on that question. He just felt that one could reject belief in God without claiming to know for certain that God did not exist.

You're now saying he was a gnostic strong atheist, one who believes that gods (or just God?) don't exist, but who can't prove it. Are you now defining agnostic as meaning agnostic strong atheist? Or is agnostic defined more broadly, but in a way that includes agnostic strong atheists?

You seem to be all over the map.

I don't know enough about Huxley to say whether he could be counted as a strong atheist, so you are building another straw man here. I'm just saying that he originally coined the word with a specific meaning but that popular usage modified it to mean something else. I wouldn't appear to be all over the map if you just held it steady and took a look at the whole thing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You aren't the kind of agnostic that takes no position on the question. There are others that are genuine fence-sitters. You and I are not.

Semantics aside, an informed position wherein it is eventually decided to take no position, neutrality essentially, is indeed a position. At least that's what I learned in management training.

 

[Copernicus]

You aren't the kind of agnostic that takes no position on the question. There are others that are genuine fence-sitters. You and I are not.

Semantics aside, an informed position wherein it is eventually decided to take no position, neutrality essentially, is indeed a position. At least that's what I learned in management training.

I can understand and agree with your main point. However, if you are trying in any way to argue that you can set aside semantics in management training, then I would have to disagree quite strenuously with that. You can't really have a successful career in management, if you can't compete in the logic chopping contests.

 

[SIB]

I am an atheist so I approach this from my "side". Flip the script and see if the claim stills holds reliability

Why would a reasonable person not believe we are part of "something more"?​

To me, the issue isn't belief vs non belief. Its something else. Addiction, abuse, mental illness, whatever lending itself to support some type of agenda. In its simplest form its reliable vs unreliable. Sometimes we just are not sure and do the best we can with what we have. Absolutes like "god said so" and "never use a person for [insert whatever] gain" instantly reveals a brain state. Any statement that counters those is seen as "commie" or "fascist"

At the most basic level its more reliable to believe in something more versus the opposite. Thats what the data shows. That's simple. Avoiding that or not admitting that to oneself means something else is going on. But there is no magic. If we can't link a belief to the standard model (as woefully incomplete as it is) it is less reliable than those we can.

Its that simple.

Hyper focused on deity (forward thinking thing that "judges us) always seems to more political end games/personal need than discussing reliable beliefs. Otherwise this is simple. When we see special pleading by people using a statement of belief about god to drive their reality is when when we start running into problems.

Atheist or theist becomes secondary when approached from a wider view ... Humans are human first. List the traits of a fundamental believer and predict how an atheist would sound with the same "ersonality".

 

[bilby]

Why would a reasonable person not believe we are part of "something more"?

Because nobody will give me a straight answer as to what "something" is, or what it is more than.

It's not even a coherent thing that I am being asked whether I believe, so the answer has to be "no".

Why would a reasonable person not believe in Slood?

 

[No Robots]

DeCasseres:

The evolution of the sense of the Infinite can only be studied as a personal experience. There is no "taste for the Infinite.” One must be born to it. If the Absolute, the Infinite, the Eternal exists in the psychic being it will begin to exfoliate at adolescence. There will be tendencies to godolepsy, alcoholism, suicide and poetic transfiguration of reality. It is a possession. The consciousness of the Infinite revalues all values, negatives all positives and shatters all bonds. Father, mother, sister, brother are nothing. Mighty distances become outlined in the brain. The space between consciousness and the body that pedestals it becomes interstellar. My hands become ghost-hands, my feet ghost-feet. Jesus denied his mother, the Yogi foregoes his body. The Infinite encroaches, corrodes and consumes all around it…. Once the ideas or sentiments of social, family or human relations have disappeared, once the world of matter and contingency has foundered in the consciousness of the Eternal and the Infinite, all ways lie open to the person who is so endowed. He partakes of all nature and life. He is no longer a person, but a force. He is a metaphysical chameleon. He is satanic, because Time has a satanic principle: it mocks at everything. He will be passionately in love with the idea of self-sacrifice, for in the Infinite his transitory being can mean nothing. Irresponsibility, contempt, disdain, indifference—for of what value is anything where there is no ultimate? The theological God was invented to save men from this dreadful truth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

DeCasseres:

The evolution of the sense of the Infinite can only be studied as a personal experience. There is no "taste for the Infinite.” One must be born to it. If the Absolute, the Infinite, the Eternal exists in the psychic being it will begin to exfoliate at adolescence. There will be tendencies to godolepsy, alcoholism, suicide and poetic transfiguration of reality. It is a possession. The consciousness of the Infinite revalues all values, negatives all positives and shatters all bonds. Father, mother, sister, brother are nothing. Mighty distances become outlined in the brain. The space between consciousness and the body that pedestals it becomes interstellar. My hands become ghost-hands, my feet ghost-feet. Jesus denied his mother, the Yogi foregoes his body. The Infinite encroaches, corrodes and consumes all around it…. Once the ideas or sentiments of social, family or human relations have disappeared, once the world of matter and contingency has foundered in the consciousness of the Eternal and the Infinite, all ways lie open to the person who is so endowed. He partakes of all nature and life. He is no longer a person, but a force. He is a metaphysical chameleon. He is satanic, because Time has a satanic principle: it mocks at everything. He will be passionately in love with the idea of self-sacrifice, for in the Infinite his transitory being can mean nothing. Irresponsibility, contempt, disdain, indifference—for of what value is anything where there is no ultimate? The theological God was invented to save men from this dreadful truth.

The theological god was invented to explain witnessed phenomenon, at least at the individual level. After its institutionalization all bets are off because now that individual experience has been corrupted by malarkey. Ultimately, however, it's the working of the PFC that matters most.

 

[Tigers!]

Why would a reasonable person not believe in Slood?

What has Slood ever done for me? (apologies to Monty Python)

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I guess I'm a shade of agnostic because I'm not willing to absolutely say there's no such thing as god, life after death, etc. because it's unknown.

Other than that, I find no compelling reason to believe in a god or any version of such an entity.

At this point I believe the simulation hypothesis is better/less lame than all the god stuff. Given advances in technology and foreseeable advances, it's not totally implausible. It's a horrible program and were it possible I'd like to slap the nerd who wrote it upside his dorky little face, but alas, I'm just a bunch of 1's and 0's... or something.

 

[bilby]

I'm not willing to absolutely say there's no such thing as god, life after death, etc. because it's unknown.

It's not unknown.

Most people don't know it, but it's known.

It's just not obvious, and most people are not aware of it.

The gods described by major religions are all impossible.

Life after death is also impossible, if we accept that our fundamental physics, which has successfully explained literally everything for which we have an explanation, isn't obviously and totally nonsensical.

That is, we can only consistently believe in life after death, if we also believe that the whole of science and technology works by pure coincidence and luck, despite all our theories being completely wrong.

So we have a simple choice: Do we accept that physics isn't completely random and nonsensical, or do we still consider the possibility of life after death?

Personally, I'm not ready to reject the notion that we know stuff that has been rigorously tested and demonstrated for centuries, in favour of belief in something for which we have no evidence whatsoever, but which would be lovely if true.

Apparently that puts me in a tiny minority. Which, if I may be permitted to set aside modesty for a moment, is a problem with the majority of humanity, not a problem with the inescapable conclusion of my understanding of reality.

 

[Tigers!]

Apparently that puts me in a tiny minority. Which, if I may be permitted to set aside modesty for a moment, is a problem with the majority of humanity, not a problem with the inescapable conclusion of my understanding of reality.

I shouldn't worry if I were you Bilby about modesty. No-one on these fora will accuse you of setting aside modesty too often. It is a large pool.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm not willing to absolutely say there's no such thing as god, life after death, etc. because it's unknown.

It's not unknown.

Most people don't know it, but it's known.

It's just not obvious, and most people are not aware of it.

The gods described by major religions are all impossible.

Life after death is also impossible, if we accept that our fundamental physics, which has successfully explained literally everything for which we have an explanation, isn't obviously and totally nonsensical.

That is, we can only consistently believe in life after death, if we also believe that the whole of science and technology works by pure coincidence and luck, despite all our theories being completely wrong.

So we have a simple choice: Do we accept that physics isn't completely random and nonsensical, or do we still consider the possibility of life after death?

Personally, I'm not ready to reject the notion that we know stuff that has been rigorously tested and demonstrated for centuries, in favour of belief in something for which we have no evidence whatsoever, but which would be lovely if true.

Apparently that puts me in a tiny minority. Which, if I may be permitted to set aside modesty for a moment, is a problem with the majority of humanity, not a problem with the inescapable conclusion of my understanding of reality.

Okay.

I really shouldn't participate in these types of discussions anymore because the fact is that I just don't care and I waste everyone's time by running my mouth in the first place.

 

[TomC]

I waste everyone's time by running my mouth in the first place.

Isn't that kinda the point?
Tom

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I waste everyone's time by running my mouth in the first place.

Isn't that kinda the point?
Tom

Haha---I suppose so. But Bilby took the time and effort to write a thoughtful response about something I didn't give a damn about in the first place.