As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Agnosticism: Lazy Man's Atheism?
Loren Michael
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6-cm2Yj6k0
That's what Pierce says!
What do you think? As a former atheist myself, I can't help but disagree. There's a lot of nuances on the word, one could be an agnostic atheist, for example, or a teapot agnostic.
I'm an agnostic (and not an agnostic atheist) for the simple reason that I believe that, whatever the cause (or whatever word might be appropriate here) of the universe is, it's probably a lot weirder than any of us are prepared to imagine. I'm willing to give a lot of stuff the benefit of the doubt, and I think it's even reasonably likely we might be living in a simulation. I think all of this is pretty much impossible to prove, I do think pretty much all religious claims are almost certainly false... but I'm more of a believer in an unfathomable something that might as well be called god than a doubter. Call me an agnostic theist (or maybe agnostic deist) but I'm definitely not lazy about it.
What say the rest of you? Agnostics: lazy atheist punks or no?
That's what Pierce says!
What do you think? As a former atheist myself, I can't help but disagree. There's a lot of nuances on the word, one could be an agnostic atheist, for example, or a teapot agnostic.
I'm an agnostic (and not an agnostic atheist) for the simple reason that I believe that, whatever the cause (or whatever word might be appropriate here) of the universe is, it's probably a lot weirder than any of us are prepared to imagine. I'm willing to give a lot of stuff the benefit of the doubt, and I think it's even reasonably likely we might be living in a simulation. I think all of this is pretty much impossible to prove, I do think pretty much all religious claims are almost certainly false... but I'm more of a believer in an unfathomable something that might as well be called god than a doubter. Call me an agnostic theist (or maybe agnostic deist) but I'm definitely not lazy about it.
What say the rest of you? Agnostics: lazy atheist punks or no?
Loren Michael on
0
Posts
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
BTW, the probability of a God existing is so low that you might as well say that there is no God.
I just don't see the point of agnosticism.
Pick a side man!
I've always taken my agnostic attitude as more of an admission on my part that I am completely unprepared to have an authoritative answer on this subject. Just as I am not prepared to say what happens to people that cross a street in the Antarctic, I am not prepared to say anything definitive one way or the other regarding an afterlife or supreme being.
Personally, I'd like to reserve the word "agnostic" for people who are actually on the fence about the existence of a God or Gods. Loren, I doubt you go to church every now and then "just in case," or if you occasionally pray for guidance. You probably act exactly like I act with respect to the existence of any of the deities worshipped in religions.
Also, there's a semantic problem in how we define "God." I think I fall pretty squarely in the "atheist" camp but in some ways my metaphysical position is equivalent to pantheism—I think the Universe (or some algorithm governing the Universe's behavior) is the uncaused cause. Does this mean I'm not an atheist? No, because I don't think the Universe ought to be called a God. I think the word "God" means a supernatural being with a personality that has an active interest and interaction with humans and human history, not an abstract Force or Universe.
I HATE YOU NOW
I am comfortable saying that many religions are false. I am not comfortable saying there is no afterlife.
Holy shit, I actually agree with Loren. However, I am agnostic for all of those reasons, plus the fact that I think the Universe is so vastly complicated that nobody is ever going to be completely right about it.
I think the simulation argument is pretty compelling. If we're in a simulation, then there is obviously something akin to a god relative to the universe we inhabit.
When it comes to basically any specific god, atheists and agnostics 100% agree: made-up bullshit.
When it comes to vague, abstract, Universe- or Force-like "Gods," agnostics and atheists also tend to agree: it's certainly possible, we can't know at this level. Except atheists don't think such things should be called "Gods." (Note: I'd say the Deist Clockmaker god counts in this respect).
I'm an atheist. Do I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God exists? No, I don't. I recognize that that's beyond the human capacity to know. I'm just fairly certain and confident that he doesn't most of the time. Christians are allowed to occasionally wonder if God and Christ exist, and that doesn't make them less Christian (well, most of the time anyway). Why can't I?
Agnostics just happen to think it most of the time.
I don't think agnostics are inherently lazy but if a so-called agnostic fails to realize that they are more than just an "agnostic" then they are ignorant and if they realize the distinction but nonetheless actively avoid placing themselves on either side then they are disingenuous and are more interested in depthless appeasement which obfuscates truth. There is no such thing as a middle point between belief and disbelief at least where the human being is concerned and to pretend otherwise is nonsense and potentially harmful to either or both sides that they are trying to separate themselves from.
So before this thread moves on any further please keep these things in mind, because an agnostic who realizes they are also atheist is a whole other thing entirely from a plain "agnostic" who thinks they are wholly separate from either side.
Agnostics, as it is commonly used (at least here) do not exist. Even someone who is lying to themselves about what they believe can be placed in either of the two categories.
Can you explain this? Is there any evidence that you possess that leaves you unable to completely rule out the existence of an afterlife? I don't consider there being any evidence for an afterlife, just as I don't consider there being any evidence for an invisible lion in my room. I am quite comfortable denying the existence of both. If there is no evidence do you automatically assume a position of doubt that leaves you to conclude you cannot say one way or another. Is this the case for everything you think about or is this the case only when religion is involved? Or maybe there is some evidence you consider valid that causes you to doubt the non-existence of the afterlife?
I don't disagree with this.
I can say that, for whatever reason, I have very low opinion of many of the atheists that have made that belief known to me. So, I'm sure that clouds my willingness to be labeled as such.
they mean virtually the same thing. at least most of the time, though if you want to call someone like a Dawkin's a "hard atheist" I'd understand since he attempts to use science to disprove God... which I think is a bit silly and entirely unnecessary to call yourself an atheist.
We are obviously in a simulation. You don't even have to resort to metaphysics. You can just look at the brain. Reality is not something that "I" experience directly. Rather, my experience of reality is hallucinated by my brain based on a constant stream of sensory input. The brain translates that raw sensory data, which is meaningless to my conscious "I," into a "simulation" that "I" inhabit.
For example, touch something, like a table. You think you are making contact with it, yes? Actually, nothing on your body makes any contact with the table. There is empty space in between. The "contact" you experience is a hallucination the brain creates to represent the electromagnetic repulsion between the electrons in the table and the electrons in your fingers, which gets picked up by your nerves in your fingers.
Now, you can look at this situation and say "reality is real and my experience of it is fake." But I prefer to say that reality exists in different ways on different levels. On the level of physical reality, touch does not exist; it's electrons repulsing each other. On the level of conscious experience, however, touch does exist. (This is similar to how the laws of biology emerged from the laws of chemistry, which emerged from the laws of physics—but biological laws don't have much to say about the behavior of electrons.)
Edit: I also don't think the thing underlying the simulated experience ought to be called a "god." You are consciousness; that consciousness emerged, naturally, from the evolution of animal brains. The laws of chemistry and biology underlying that evolution aren't "gods."
I am comfortable working with the belief there is no afterlife. However, I also see the benefit to their being one. It gives people living today a real reason to give a fuck about life. I mean, families have a reason to care about their family, in the sense that it is beneficial for them to do so, typically. But, there is no reason to live a lawful life if there is no afterlife. There is only the reasons to appear to do so. (I suppose, in that sense, I consider all atheists who are straight laced to be too lazy to live the one life they have to its fullest.)
I share much of your concern about religion, organized and otherwise, but I differ with you with respect to appropriate locution re: talking to religious people, talking about religious people, and describing one's own beliefs.
You're right, I don't concern myself with religious affairs. Again, I think essentially all religious claims are almost certainly false, mostly a waste of time, and are contaminated with oodles upon oodles of dangerous memes.
I agree that there's a semantic problem regarding "god". That's why I choose to explain my definition (or lack thereof) to people.
that is entirely false.
Simply put- My 'religious views' as they are, can be classified as such.
I 'believe' (if the word can be used here) in what can roughly be considered an 'application of the scientific method'. What this means, in regards to religion and spirituality, is that I cannot accept something I cannot at least attempt to investigate.
The 'question' in my method of spirituality is approximately: "Is there an outside force, that can be viewed as a god, in the universe? Is there a sentient (or not) superintelligence that exists somewhere? Is there an 'afterlife'?"
Now, like a good scientist, I do my research. Oh? Lots of other people have attempted to answer this question! (See: all major religions/ most philosophies). Well, now I can formulate a hypothesis based on this information!
Now, again, as any good scientist knows, one generally constructs SEVERAL hypotheses when attempting to answer a question.
Let us start where I started (albeit, before I discovered my own method) with Hypothesis 1 (H1): Christianity.
H1- Yes there is a godlike entity, and the christian interpretation of God (Yahweh), who sent his son to die for our sins, is an accurate depiction of this being.
Unfortunately, the only tests one can run on this interpretation is based on the 'evidence' of Yahweh, which lies in the Bible. I 'tested' the Bible by examining it for consistency of characterization of this god, factual accuracy, and deviance from 'standard mythologies'. The results (at least to me) were pretty strongly in favor of the Bible being such a poor source that it can not be counted on to give accurate depictions of events (this is not to say the work is valueless; one can still LEARN things from the book, but its depiction of 'god' and the events 'He' did is very poor, inconsistent, and of very questionable validity).
Thus we move on to 'hypothesis is false or partially true'. I constructed other hypotheses (H2-Hn) for most other major religions and reached ultimately the same conclusion.
The null hypothesis in this experiment, is of course, the answer '"No, there is no outside force, that can be viewed as a god, in the universe. There is no sentient (or not) superintelligence that exists somewhere. There is no 'afterlife'."
HOWEVER- several of the other hypotheses (H2+, and even some of H1, remember 'partially true') can never ACTUALLY answer the question. If you look closely at H1, and extrapolate that hypothesis to other forms of spirituality, you will see that it does not actually answer my initial question. It is possible for H1 to be false, and for the answer to ultimately be "There is an outside force, that can be viewed as a god, in the universe. There is a sentient (or not) superintelligence that exists somewhere. There is an 'afterlife'."
Therefore, I am still stuck at the question, and thus cannot move forward. I am skeptical towards a definitive statement on either end (yes/no) because I feel it is a matter, ultimately, that I cannot make a decision about because I do not currently possess all the information needed to answer the question. I can 'test' the statements and interpretations of 'god' and 'His/Her/Its" miracles present in modern-day religions and come to a conclusion about that particular interpretation, but I can never prove or disprove the existence of any sort of deity.
Therefore, I feel that for me to hear that 'agnosticism', as I understand the word to mean "A belief in uncertainty", is a 'lazy Atheism' is aggravating as I have spent a great deal of work and thought in getting to this point. I am just as open to the existence of a god as I am to the NON existence of a god. (Just as I am open to me not actually knowing what 'agnosticism' truly means).
Isn't that technically an interpretation, not a simulation. Your brain did not model all of the physical effects that went into touching anything, it simply interpreted the physical effects that sent input to it. For it to be a simulation, something else would have to be responsible for coordinating the two.
How is it entirely false? Again, I am not saying you want to appear to be unlawful, but you definitely have no compelling reason to always do so.
Okay, so my lack of grand larceny, overindulgence, and general hedonism is what I've been doing wrong all this time.
And here I though getting my ass beat by the police/in prison/people who are bigger than me in general was enough reason for this atheist not to pull shit like that. Plus, you know, that stupid-as-bricks sense of solidarity and compassion with other members of my species that makes me feel badly whenever I hurt babies or cause adults to cry inconsolably.
In terms of there being an external simulation that we all inhabit. We are very likely the Sims to some highly advanced iteration of SimUniverse.
the Hebrews didn't believe in such an afterlife.
Altruism predates the concept of an afterlife, of language, and really, human beings; many animals are altruistic.
The reasons you follow laws are (1) you think they are morally good, or (2) you don't want to risk getting punished for breaking them.
you're saying religious people are only lawful because they hope to get into heaven.
morality, respect, these things have nothing to do with it?
its basically all of these religous people running around calling everyone who doesent believe in god an idiot because it cant be disproven, then you have your athiests running around calling everyone else an idiot because they dont disbelieve in a god that cant be proven. then you have your agnostics running around calling everyone else an idiot because everyone else is basing their opinions of everyone else over which side of an aisle they stand on, niether having proof either way to sway a critically-thinking person to make a decision.
Keep in mind that this is a huge generalization of all parties involved, but thats the kind of behavior i see on a fairly regular basis.
Can you elaborate on this argument, or is this it in full? I don't find arguments founded on an unproven hypothetical to be very compelling however maybe this is just the short version.
I am close to accusing you of being condescending by reducing religion to a crutch and claiming people need it to leave good lives but I don't think I fully understand what you're saying so I'd like to you elaborate. I don't think there is another life after this one, so you would be saying then that I cannot lead a lawful life? And what are these illusions that I apparently call reasons that you are talking about? You are claiming that the reasons I have for living, the purpose I make for myself, is false? Furthermore, religion is the only real reason to live? Please explain.
I postulate that they exist on a laziness/cowardice spectrum, with some falling closer to one or the other.
For me, it was a lot of introspection and seeking a means to communicate in a nonthreatening and approachable way the actual, or likely nature of the universe to people who (in all likelihood) believe wrongly about such matters.
BAM, agnostic.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You just said what I said last page, but much shorter.
if i die... tell my wife... hello
Greg Egan had this awesome idea in his book Diaspora where transhumans happen upon a planet that's empty oceans except for these floating carbohydrate mats that are sort of like a simpler version of algae. They examine them and figure out that the carbohydrates are arranged on these mats in patterns like Wang Tiles, geometric patterns that can function like computers.
So, they analyze the arrangement of the Wang tile carbohydrates and discover there is an entire world "encoded" inside the mats of algae, complete with multitudes of complex, intelligent creatures.
I mean, shit. You can close your eyes and imagine an entire simulated world based on your experiences. That is a simulation that emerged, ultimately, without any "designer," without any "god," since the underlying creative force of the brain that's doing it is natural evolution.