Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Agnosticism: Lazy Man's Atheism?
Posts
For society, it makes sense to enforce laws. As a member, it makes sense not to get caught breaking laws. However, if you can get away with a crime, and there is no punishment now or ever, why do you hold back?
and you take this stance on everything that fits the same criteria?
hi5, duder
being happier with yourself and your understanding of the universe is healthy
I call myself an agnostic mainly because I believe there are limits to human perception and observation. I think Qingu makes the distinction he does because he believes that anything falling beyond this point is unlikely to have any meaningful interaction or impact on us, but I'm not sure I'm willing to make that distinction.
because it would hurt another human being
I'm not quite sure which part you're asking me about. I posted a link to a simulation argument in post 29. As to the "god" part, if there's a simulation in a vein similar to a super-advanced SimCity, The Sims, Civilization or whatever and we are a part of it, there is almost certainly a thing that is a god relative to our existence.
Instead of trying to be clever by asking you questions designed to trap you into something I'm just going to immediately tell you that despite this you are still an atheist because you lack belief in a God. If you want to refute this then tell me how you simultaneously reject two out of the two possible positions (belief/no belief) and what this third position you've made for yourself is called.
Or something.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Are you asking why I have a sense of morality at all? Like why would I refrain from murdering or stealing if I could get away with it?
Interestingly enough, this is a linguistic limitation that creates a really silly argument.
Essentially, there's a difference of opinion on whether "atheist" means "lacks belief in a God" or "disbelieves in a God"
Those are two different things!
And people use the word atheist to mean one, or the other, or both. This is a constant source of confusion in these kinds of threads because lack of belief is not the same thing as disbelief.
When people generally call themselves atheist, they mean they disbelieve in a God. When they call themselves agnostic, they usually mean they lack a belief in a God. Those are two different things and ignoring that distinction doesn't help meaningful conversation!
So, rather than try to codify the terms like I'm some kind of authority, I would suggest people, at least for the purpose of this thread, try to differentiate when they are referring to disbelief and when they are referring to lack of belief.
That's possible, sure, but I believe that the likelihood is ultimately on the side of a created simulation for at least the simulation that we are in. There may in fact be an ultimate "simulation", but... I think at that point it simply becomes extremely weird and it's very difficult to discount some truly weird notions, possibly even impossible to contort our minds to understand the ultimate physics or whatever there might actually be underneath or outside (or whatever) it all.
I don't think religion is a crutch. I do think it is a comforting thought, and closes a logic hole for why you should be an unobserved lawful person.
That is, I don't think that someone that doesn't believe in an afterlife can not lead a lawful life. I just don't buy into the logic of why they should. I do agree 100% they should give the appearance of a lawful life. But, cheating and ``looking out for number 1'' would be the absolute name of the game.
Can I only be a Lutheran Agnostic, or a Shiite Agnostic? I can be unsure about the existence or non-existence of a guiding divine hand without picking a particular religion to be unsure about, right?
Because under your definition, there's no such thing as passive agnosticism.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
I, for one, accept that my position is one of 'belief'. However, this belief is that we can never conclusively prove either side (yes/no) and thus, a belief in uncertainty if anything. My longpost last page says it better, and I even accept that what I call 'agnosticism' may actually be better labeled as something else.
I am sorry for you then. you are missing some serious comprehension about a lot of people... any person who doesn't base their morality on a God who will smite them come the afterlife.
Because people aren't moral out of fear of punishment, they are moral because they have been raised with a sense of right and wrong that makes them feel that, say, harming others is wrong, and that they shouldn't do it.
People do not generally think "I'd steal this chocolate bar, but I'll go to hell if I do, so I won't." They don't even think "but I'll get caught by the security guard, so I won't." They just feel terrible and guilty about taking it, because of the moral framework that exists in their mind. So they don't do it. Morals are feelings, they are not logical decisions. Most people make moral decisions based on what feels right or wrong, ultimately.
I realize the distinction. In fact I have always tried to argue that atheism is "the lack of belief in a God or Gods" and nothing else. I think it is more accurate than defining it as "the disbelief in a God or Gods".
As for agnosticism there are two sides to it. You can believe in a God or Gods but concede you can't prove or disprove them (relying instead completely on faith) or you lack belief in a God or Gods but concede you can't prove or disprove them. There is no middle ground as far as I am concerned.
It doesn't close the 'hole' at all though, because we still apply an outside standard when we pick and choose those moral lessons from religion we wish to obey. Morality is cultural.
Are you a sociopath?
Do you lack basic, secular human empathy? Do you require the Damoclesian sword of metaphysical retribution hanging over your head in order to keep you in line?
Because that's fucked up, man. I sure as hell don't! And a lot of people don't!
If you're so cynical as to think the majority of people, by default, require this sort of thing in order to have ethics and morality, I feel sad for you. It is certainly true that people indoctrinated by religion often have a hard time understanding a moral framework outside their religion, but that doesn't make it the default conduct of the human race.
Most people who have no metaphysical punishment-fear keeping them in line or the hope of some spiritual reward driving them forward are nonetheless very capable of being moral and ethical people, even in the lack of authority figures to tell them to do so.
People can certainly go all "Lord of the Flies" in a period of traumatic anarchy (see: New Orleans immediately following Katrina) but as a norm, people don't constantly have to be threatened and watched in order to be good people to each other.
God damn, man.
Fair enough- to your last point.
Can evolution be said to "create" forms of animals?
If creation has to be the product of an inteliligence, what does that word even mean? Our brains have several forms of intelligence working in concert. Some of those forms are truncated versions of evolution. We've designed genetic algorithm AI's.
Evolution is a vast, difficult-to-fathom force of nature, and it's responsible for "creating" the simulation we experience as consciousness. But I wouldn't call evolution a God. I don't think God is a good word to describe something like that. I also don't know why you would ever assume it's likely that a humanlike tinkerer designed the universe as a simulation when we are such a small and insignificant speck of the Universe's unfolding.
I saw someone earlier said "because it would hurt another human being." We do tons of shit that hurts other human beings. See the climate change thread. Nobody here would directly hurt someone, as they do not want the appearance of having done so. However, we take actions that have a very high chance of endangering the lives of someone down the line.
Am I trying to bring morality in to this? I do not believe so. I do question any strict adherence to any rules and regulations by people that scorn other people's rules and regulations. Society is no more corporeal than any god, to me.
I'm not saying you have to pick a specific God. If you believe then you're simply an agnostic theist.
Theism - active belief in God
Atheism - active disbelief in God/undecided
Agnosticism - impossible to know if there is or is not a God
So, to me, agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism, as it prescribes that there simply isn't any way for us to know with absolute certainty that God exists. I could be way off here, but that's what I've gathered.
We're a social creature. We benefit when the rest of our group benefits, thus it's in our best interest to keep society functioning smoothly, which is best done by following all laws.
The underlying reason is that our brains are evolved to feel empathy, and they give us rewards (happiness, or perhaps respect in humans) for aiding others. Only psychopaths lack empathy. And they are a huge problem because they do indeed game the system, like you fear.
How about this one? I bought a keyboard a few months ago. Rain leaked through my ceiling and damaged it. I still had the receipt, so I could have returned it to the store for an exchange, no questions asked. But I didn't. I don't believe in any deity that affects my life.
Morality isn't dependent on reward. It's not even dependent on harm towards others. A lot of it has to do with societal notions of what is "right" and what isn't.
No, it isn't meaningless. You know damn well who I'm talking about.
Altruism also exists among groups of 'unintelligent' insects!
By your own definition of reality as a simulation, empathy is entirely simulated. Why would you expect everyone's simulation of empathy to match?
Also, many humans do have empathy for animals, especially pets. Great effort is made to abstract the process of killing animals for meat so that consumer humans don't have to face the suffering we cause.
When I said everything we experience is "simulated" I didn't mean that it's fake or that it's not meaningful.
Also, some people don't have empathy: psychopaths.
He doesn't. In fact, like the last half of his post is pointing out that not everyone's sense of empathy matches.