Also, another linguistic limitation is the obfuscation of terminology between a person who believes in metaphysics and a theist.
Theism is really specific, as a term. It doesn't just mean "someone who believes in things that aren't scientifically capable of being substantiated". It means "someone who believes in the existence of a God or Gods".
People also sometimes confuse Atheism with Empiricism. I have seen Atheists who have said things like "I'm an Atheist, because I reject things that are believed in based on faith alone."
That's uh... that's not Atheism.
That's Empiricism. Atheism is certainly under the Empiricist umbrella (all Empiricists are, essentially, Atheists)
Likewise, it's important not to obfuscate terminology and equate Theism (belief in God(s)) with beliefs in metaphysical concepts or other scientifically unprovable articles of faith.
When many people who some would classify as "agnostic theists" say they believe in the possibility of something "greater", they aren't really expressing a theistic belief necessarily. They are certainly expressing some form of metaphysical faith, but that isn't intrinsically theism and I think it's important not to lose sight of that distinction.
When people say things like "there's only agnostic atheists or agnostic theists", that may be technically correct, but an agnostic atheist isn't necessarily an empiricist and may in fact believe in the possibility of some very non-scientific and supernatural ideas that can't really be accurately described as "Gods".
I'm an agnostic because there is no way to empirically prove or disprove the existence of god. Therefore, I simply don't know.
BAM, agnostic.
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.
I don't see why I have to pick a specific god that MAY exist to shore up my agnostic credentials.
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.
I'm not saying you have to pick a specific God. If you believe then you're simply an agnostic theist.
If you believe, then the word 'agnostic' no longer applies to you.
When many people who some would classify as "agnostic theists" say they believe in the possibility of something "greater", they aren't really expressing a theistic belief necessarily. They are certainly expressing some form of metaphysical faith, but that isn't intrinsically theism and I think it's important not to lose sight of that distinction.
I identify myself as an agnostic theist, which means to me that I believe in a higher power, but I cannot and will not ever be able to prove to myself or anyone else that He is real.
Theism - active belief in God
Atheism - active disbelief in God/undecided
Agnosticism - impossible to know if there is or is not a God
This is meaningless unless you define what (or who) you mean by "God."
No, it isn't meaningless. You know damn well who I'm talking about.
No, I really don't.
Are you talking about Yahweh, the god of the Bible? As defined as "the guy who created the world and humans from clay, in the style of a standard Mesopotamian deity, then flooded it, after commanding a dude to corral all kinds of animals onto an ark, personally handed down a bunch of laws straight out of standard Babylonian culture and the Code of Hammurabi, who may or may not (depending on your religion) have a Jewish zombie son, who is himself, that he sacrificed, to himself, to make it so that he doesn't have to punish humans for breaking his laws?"
Or are you talking about Marduk, son of Ea, slayer of the Ocean goddess Tiamat, who created the world from her corpse, brought light into existence by speaking, made humans from the blood of Tiamat's defeated general, and presides over the pantheon of the other gods in a similar way that Yahweh presides over his angels and heavenly beings?
Or are you talking about a vague, abstract entity that may or may not be the Universe itself, who does not interact with humanity at all, and is simply the underlying forces of nature/natural laws?
OR ... are you talking about Yahweh, but ignoring every single thing about Yahweh's description found in the Bible so that Yahweh just ends up resembling God #3 (see above)?
I honestly don't know what you are talking about, please clarify as it will affect the agnostic/atheist equation.
I find the concept of an afterlife is rather heinous since it diminishes the value of our current, limited lives.
Agreed.
At the risk of being controversial, I'd add that I think that living on indefinitely is just horrible.
Actually I think it would be pretty awesome. The world is constantly becoming a better, more interesting place. I want to see what happens. And be with my fiancée. Also I don't really want to stop existing.
Theism - active belief in God
Atheism - active disbelief in God/undecided
Agnosticism - impossible to know if there is or is not a God
This is meaningless unless you define what (or who) you mean by "God."
No, it isn't meaningless. You know damn well who I'm talking about.
No, I really don't.
Are you talking about Yahweh, the god of the Bible? As defined as "the guy who created the world and humans from clay, in the style of a standard Mesopotamian deity, then flooded it, after commanding a dude to corral all kinds of animals onto an ark, personally handed down a bunch of laws straight out of standard Babylonian culture and the Code of Hammurabi, who may or may not (depending on your religion) have a Jewish zombie son, who is himself, that he sacrificed, to himself, to make it so that he doesn't have to punish humans for breaking his laws?"
Or are you talking about Marduk, son of Ea, slayer of the Ocean goddess Tiamat, who created the world from her corpse, brought light into existence by speaking, made humans from the blood of Tiamat's defeated general, and presides over the pantheon of the other gods in a similar way that Yahweh presides over his angels and heavenly beings?
Or are you talking about a vague, abstract entity that may or may not be the Universe itself, who does not interact with humanity at all, and is simply the underlying forces of nature/natural laws?
OR ... are you talking about Yahweh, but ignoring every single thing about Yahweh's description found in the Bible so that Yahweh just ends up resembling God #3 (see above)?
I honestly don't know what you are talking about, please clarify as it will affect the agnostic/atheist equation.
How about this: throw your opinion out there and I'll address it in whatever way is appropriate to me. I don't feel the need or want to define God for you.
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.
Okay. On a metaphysical level, what constitutes "creation"?
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.
Sure, evolution can be said to create forms of animals, and sorry for using a lazy word. Evolution is an unguided process, as it were. That is, there is no intention behind it beyond the logical outcomes of the selection process (and I don't think "intention" is an appropriate word to describe such processes), there is no guiding hand. I believe that the simulation we are inhabiting is likely the result of a process more analogous to <a programmer or artist or author or tinkerer with a blank medium or raw materials with a preconceived notion of the end result> than <a blind process that advances via the success and/or failure of certain random factors>.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I'm an agnostic because there is no way to empirically prove or disprove the existence of god. Therefore, I simply don't know.
BAM, agnostic.
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.
I don't see why I have to pick a specific god that MAY exist to shore up my agnostic credentials.
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.
I'm not saying you have to pick a specific God. If you believe then you're simply an agnostic theist.
If you believe, then the word 'agnostic' no longer applies to you.
You've got a nonsensical vocabulary set up here.
Really? I would consider someone who believes in a God but concedes there is no proof and relies on faith alone to be a very religious person. That's all agnosticism is. It makes no judgment on belief, only on proof, so you need another word in there to qualify what exactly is meant. "Agnosticism" by itself is very vague and honestly very useless as far as a label is concerned because despite being an "agnostic" you can still fall on a very wide spectrum with atheism on one side and theism on the other.
If you think that my vocabulary is nonsense then you deny that religious people are capable of realizing they have no proof for their God? Or do you deny the definition of agnosticism as I understand it, which says there is no way to prove or disprove a God or Gods.
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.
But ... it's not. Like I said, altruism exists among many groups of intelligent mammals.
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.
By your own definition of reality as a simulation, empathy is entirely simulated. Why would you expect everyone's simulation of empathy to match?
He doesn't. In fact, like the last half of his post is pointing out that not everyone's sense of empathy matches.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
When many people who some would classify as "agnostic theists" say they believe in the possibility of something "greater", they aren't really expressing a theistic belief necessarily. They are certainly expressing some form of metaphysical faith, but that isn't intrinsically theism and I think it's important not to lose sight of that distinction.
I identify myself as an agnostic theist, which means to me that I believe in a higher power, but I cannot and will not ever be able to prove to myself or anyone else that He is real.
Then you're confusing agnosticism (a lack of knowledge) with faith (believing despite a lack of evidence).
Those are different things!
If you actually do believe in a "higher power" that you can basically enframe in the way people speak of "God", then you're a Theist, plain and simple.
If your Theism has no other real ramifications on your life, has no practices or community or codified beliefs associated with it, then you're a non-religious Theist. But you're still a Theist.
Calling yourself an "Agnostic" just obfuscates the conversation and confuses people, which doesn't make it very useful as a self-applied label, no?
You can be a non-religious Theist. You can also be a religious Atheist. I know this idea will give Qingu a god damn fit, but that's how it is. Unless you've got some kind of backwards definition of religion that requires Theism (and some kind of definition of Theism that requires religion) then you should acknowledge the two are not identical things. Raven paradox, people!
The way you are using Agnosticism is basically a way of saying "I believe in God, I'm just not pushy about it."
I find the concept of an afterlife is rather heinous since it diminishes the value of our current, limited lives.
Agreed.
At the risk of being controversial, I'd add that I think that living on indefinitely is just horrible.
Actually I think it would be pretty awesome. The world is constantly becoming a better, more interesting place. I want to see what happens. And be with my fiancée. Also I don't really want to stop existing.
I think the argument is that part of what makes the joys of life so intense is scarcity, which is completely lacking if you can continue experiencing things indefinitely.
My understanding of the word 'agnosticism' is 'the inability to know there is a God.' I don't know, and I don't think I can know, so I identify myself as being agnostic. From what I've read and heard, this is an acceptable definition.
How about this: throw your opinion out there and I'll address it in whatever way is appropriate to me. I don't feel the need or want to define God for you.
My opinion is:
• The gods described in religious texts and traditions are obviously, provably made-up.
• There might be some abstract, universal force but I wouldn't call it "God" because that word ought to be reserved for deities with personalities and interests in humans.
• People who claim to believe in the gods of religion but actually just believe in abstract-force-god are intellectually dishonest with respect to the content of their religion.
Also, if you're not willing to define what on earth you mean by "God," your post above should have read:
Theism - active belief in UNDEFINED
Atheism - active disbelief in UNDEFINED
Agnosticism - impossible to know if UNDEFINED
Really? I would consider someone who believes in a God but concedes there is no proof and relies on faith alone to be a very religious person. That's all agnosticism is. It makes no judgment on belief, only on proof, so you need another word in there to qualify what exactly is meant. "Agnosticism" by itself is very vague and honestly very useless as far as a label is concerned because despite being an "agnostic" you can still fall on a very wide spectrum with atheism on one side and theism on the other.
If you think that my vocabulary is nonsense then you deny that religious people are capable of realizing they have no proof for their God? Or do you deny the definition of agnosticism as I understand it, which says there is no way to prove or disprove a God or Gods.
Someone who believes in God isn't agnostic. Proof or no proof, they're not agnostic.
Agnosticism isn't a belief in a lack of proof, it's a lack of belief one way or the other.
Sure, evolution can be said to create forms of animals, and sorry for using a lazy word. Evolution is an unguided process, as it were. That is, there is no intention behind it beyond the logical outcomes of the selection process (and I don't think "intention" is an appropriate word to describe such processes), there is no guiding hand. I believe that the simulation we are inhabiting is likely the result of a process more analogous to <a programmer or artist or author or tinkerer with a blank medium or raw materials with a preconceived notion of the end result> than <a blind process that advances via the success and/or failure of certain random factors>.
Okay. Have you ever created a program or a work of art? It's a somewhat blind process, similar to evolution, testing and retesting and creation and destruction over and over again.
In a broad, metaphysical sense, I'm not sure our "intelligence" if fundamentally different than the "intelligence" displayed by the process of evolution. Both are natural processes involving a selective pressures and a lot of trial and error.
I find the concept of an afterlife is rather heinous since it diminishes the value of our current, limited lives.
Agreed.
At the risk of being controversial, I'd add that I think that living on indefinitely is just horrible.
Actually I think it would be pretty awesome. The world is constantly becoming a better, more interesting place. I want to see what happens. And be with my fiancée. Also I don't really want to stop existing.
That sounds like "I'd like to live a really long time", and I don't see anything wrong with that. "Indefinitely" means going on for, well, forever AFTER there is no world to be interested in anymore.
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.
But ... it's not. Like I said, altruism exists among many groups of intelligent mammals.
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.
By your own definition of reality as a simulation, empathy is entirely simulated. Why would you expect everyone's simulation of empathy to match?
He doesn't. In fact, like the last half of his post is pointing out that not everyone's sense of empathy matches.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
I imagine that how people experience empathy is on a bell curve, just like almost everything else related to how people are. Most people fit within one standard deviation, where everything functions just peachy.
Doc on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Really? I would consider someone who believes in a God but concedes there is no proof and relies on faith alone to be a very religious person. That's all agnosticism is. It makes no judgment on belief, only on proof, so you need another word in there to qualify what exactly is meant. "Agnosticism" by itself is very vague and honestly very useless as far as a label is concerned because despite being an "agnostic" you can still fall on a very wide spectrum with atheism on one side and theism on the other.
If you think that my vocabulary is nonsense then you deny that religious people are capable of realizing they have no proof for their God? Or do you deny the definition of agnosticism as I understand it, which says there is no way to prove or disprove a God or Gods.
Someone who believes in God isn't agnostic. Proof or no proof, they're not agnostic.
Agnosticism isn't a belief in a lack of proof, it's a lack of belief one way or the other.
I never said that agnosticism is a belief in a lack of proof. Every time I have defined agnosticism I have been careful not to use that word when defining it. Agnosticism's definition has nothing to do with belief, in a God or Gods or otherwise. Its definition is restricted only to whether or not a God or Gods can be proven or disproven.
Tell me how this sentence, "I believe in God but I concede that there is no way to prove or disprove this God [note: this is faith]," is illogical. Agnosticism does not say anything about belief in a God or Gods. You can still fill that part in yourself and there won't be a contradiction.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
I didn't mean to imply sociopaths weren't human. I don't know where you got that I thought they aren't products of human evolution.
There's just something wrong with them so they do not internally experience empathy. Sort of like how some people cannot experience sight, or have dyslexia, though we don't know if psychopathy is purely genetic or if it's also environmentally induced (doubtful it's just genetic. Also I'm not really clear what the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is or if there is one.)
depends....am I ageless? can I still do the things I want to do now? Will my mind ultimately deteriorate into senility? Am I just going to be living forever chanting "God is pretty cool!"
Then nah, let me die and return to the earth (I am not getting embalmed or cremated. I want my carbon to re-enter the cycle)
I imagine that how people experience empathy is on a bell curve, just like almost everything else related to how people are. Most people fit within one standard deviation, where everything functions just peachy.
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
I consider this to be like the immutable data structures I use in programming. I have a persistent queue that I can never modify, only create a new one that represents that one modified. However, behind the scenes lots of internal state can be changing. So, it gets back to my statement that the appearance is important, how it is accomplished is up for grabs so long as it doesn't endanger the rest of the system.
Then you're confusing agnosticism (a lack of knowledge) with faith (believing despite a lack of evidence).
Those are different things!
If you actually do believe in a "higher power" that you can basically enframe in the way people speak of "God", then you're a Theist, plain and simple.
If your Theism has no other real ramifications on your life, has no practices or community or codified beliefs associated with it, then you're a non-religious Theist. But you're still a Theist.
Calling yourself an "Agnostic" just obfuscates the conversation and confuses people, which doesn't make it very useful as a self-applied label, no?
You can be a non-religious Theist. You can also be a religious Atheist. I know this idea will give Qingu a god damn fit, but that's how it is. Unless you've got some kind of backwards definition of religion that requires Theism (and some kind of definition of Theism that requires religion) then you should acknowledge the two are not identical things. Raven paradox, people!
The way you are using Agnosticism is basically a way of saying "I believe in God, I'm just not pushy about it."
That's silly.
I believe one thing, but I can't be said to have any knowledge about it. It's speculation, and the arguments I've heard in favor of the proposition are more persuasive to me than the alternatives. That said, I understand that it may in fact not be true, and it's impossible to falsify.
I believe that the universe is very likely a simulation. I do not know the truth of that belief, I only know that I have that belief and believe it to be true. There is a lack of knowledge. Ergo, I am an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist).
My understanding of the word 'agnosticism' is 'the inability to know there is a God.' I don't know, and I don't think I can know, so I identify myself as being agnostic. From what I've read and heard, this is an acceptable definition.
I think that's sort of unnecessarily confusing, personally.
You're a Theist. Are you a religious Theist? Is your Theism a component of what you would consider a religious belief? Do you have practices related to your Theistic beliefs?
I have no idea, and to be honest it's sorta unimportant to the discussion at hand so I won't pry.
But, the point is, all faith is "belief despite a lack of evidence". That defines faith, as a word. Not just religious faith, or theistic faith. All faith. It is how we, as English-speaking folk, use the term in general. Faith is belief despite not knowing with provable certainty that a thing is true or an event will happen.
If you believe in God, you have faith in God. You are believing despite a lack of evidence. That is your decision, and I have no interest in arguing with you about that.
Equating that faith with "Agnosticism", which has a generally clear commonly used definition, is obfuscation that doesn't facilitate meaningful communication, I think.
It has been my experience with the term and the overwhelming majority of the instances where I see it used that a person who expresses Agnosticism doesn't have what could be called "strong" faith in something like Theism or Atheism. They might believe in the possibility of such things, but that's different than saying "I believe, despite a lack of evidence."
It's why people accuse Agnosticism of being "wishy-washy", because by its very usage as a term it denotes a person open to the idea that the beliefs of other people might be right or wrong, but isn't really sure what they themselves believe.
Ultimately, it turns into a semantical nightmare if people just use the terms all willy-nilly. Instead of trying to codify yourself by nebulously defined terminology that you know has controversial usage, it might be more accurate to simply explain what is you do or do not believe as it comes up. For this very reason I deliberately avoid applying labels to my own personal beliefs, because I find that such labels generate more confusion than clarity.
I believe one thing, but I can't be said to have any knowledge about it. It's speculation, and the arguments I've heard in favor of the proposition are more persuasive to me than the alternatives. That said, I understand that it may in fact not be true, and it's impossible to falsify.
I believe that the universe is very likely a simulation. I do not know the truth of that belief, I only know that I have that belief and believe it to be true. There is a lack of knowledge. Ergo, I am an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist).
Would the designer of the simulation itself be living in a higher simulation? Or would it have evolved through natural processes?
Really? I would consider someone who believes in a God but concedes there is no proof and relies on faith alone to be a very religious person. That's all agnosticism is. It makes no judgment on belief, only on proof, so you need another word in there to qualify what exactly is meant. "Agnosticism" by itself is very vague and honestly very useless as far as a label is concerned because despite being an "agnostic" you can still fall on a very wide spectrum with atheism on one side and theism on the other.
If you think that my vocabulary is nonsense then you deny that religious people are capable of realizing they have no proof for their God? Or do you deny the definition of agnosticism as I understand it, which says there is no way to prove or disprove a God or Gods.
Someone who believes in God isn't agnostic. Proof or no proof, they're not agnostic.
Agnosticism isn't a belief in a lack of proof, it's a lack of belief one way or the other.
I never said that agnosticism is a belief in a lack of proof. Every time I have defined agnosticism I have been careful not to use that word when defining it. Agnosticism's definition has nothing to do with belief, in a God or Gods or otherwise. Its definition is restricted only to whether or not a God or Gods can be proven or disproven.
Tell me how this sentence, "I believe in God but I concede that there is no way to prove or disprove this God [note: this is faith]," is illogical. Agnosticism does not say anything about belief in a God or Gods. You can still fill that part in yourself and there won't be a contradiction.
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Words fucking mean things. Specific things. And in this case, not the things you think they mean.
Sure, evolution can be said to create forms of animals, and sorry for using a lazy word. Evolution is an unguided process, as it were. That is, there is no intention behind it beyond the logical outcomes of the selection process (and I don't think "intention" is an appropriate word to describe such processes), there is no guiding hand. I believe that the simulation we are inhabiting is likely the result of a process more analogous to <a programmer or artist or author or tinkerer with a blank medium or raw materials with a preconceived notion of the end result> than <a blind process that advances via the success and/or failure of certain random factors>.
Okay. Have you ever created a program or a work of art? It's a somewhat blind process, similar to evolution, testing and retesting and creation and destruction over and over again.
In a broad, metaphysical sense, I'm not sure our "intelligence" if fundamentally different than the "intelligence" displayed by the process of evolution. Both are natural processes involving a selective pressures and a lot of trial and error.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
Because they fuck it up for the rest of us!
And this is the way it is because propensity to altruism is very evolutionarily valuable. You can model it with game theory. Cooperating prisoners score more points on average, over time, than prisoners who constantly try to fuck each other over to get ahead. So, evolution has favored primate brains that reward altruistic behavior.
Sure, evolution can be said to create forms of animals, and sorry for using a lazy word. Evolution is an unguided process, as it were. That is, there is no intention behind it beyond the logical outcomes of the selection process (and I don't think "intention" is an appropriate word to describe such processes), there is no guiding hand. I believe that the simulation we are inhabiting is likely the result of a process more analogous to <a programmer or artist or author or tinkerer with a blank medium or raw materials with a preconceived notion of the end result> than <a blind process that advances via the success and/or failure of certain random factors>.
Okay. Have you ever created a program or a work of art? It's a somewhat blind process, similar to evolution, testing and retesting and creation and destruction over and over again.
In a broad, metaphysical sense, I'm not sure our "intelligence" if fundamentally different than the "intelligence" displayed by the process of evolution. Both are natural processes involving a selective pressures and a lot of trial and error.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
But, the point is, all faith is "belief despite a lack of evidence". That defines faith, as a word. Not just religious faith, or theistic faith. All faith. It is how we, as English-speaking folk, use the term in general. Faith is belief despite not knowing with provable certainty that a thing is true or an event will happen.
But there is a position now that states that God is provable via physical evidence. I think that's a completely ridiculous notion, as do most people here (I think), so I want to make it clear that I'm not in that camp.
But if you were to ask me, "If someone walks up to you and asks you what your religious views are, how do you respond?" I will not say "by telling them I'm an agnostic theist." As far as I'm concerned, it's not important.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
Yeah Qingu, I really really dislike that analogy.
How did your mind arrive at the ideal form which you want to build?
My basic point was that "intelligent design" by humans is still very much a process—whether it's exact or wandering. That process is governed by natural laws, and is itself a natural phenomenon.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
I didn't mean to imply sociopaths weren't human. I don't know where you got that I thought they aren't products of human evolution.
There's just something wrong with them so they do not internally experience empathy. Sort of like how some people cannot experience sight, or have dyslexia, though we don't know if psychopathy is purely genetic or if it's also environmentally induced (doubtful it's just genetic. Also I'm not really clear what the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is or if there is one.)
They may be human, but broken ones, then? Why is that considered broken? Especially since it is highly beneficial to be able to ``game'' many situations. That lovely economics study that shows the old folks that get visits from their children likely have multiple children and an inheritance. Lacking those two things, guess what, suddenly your normally empathetic children are likely to not visit that often.
I find it much more likely that the normal is fairly non-empathetic, when it comes down to it.
I think it's important if a person is going to say things like "I am an agnostic" or "I am a theist" or whatever in this here thread... it might be a good idea to follow up that label usage with an explanation of what you mean by that.
Assuming other people understand your usage of these terms is sorta dumb and just creates confusion. It's not like saying "I like apple pie!" where everybody knows what I mean by "apple pie".
They are highly contentious, controversial terms that do have dictionary definitions but that generally doesn't make an iota of difference to how they are used on an everyday basis.
Start from there, and then you could have a more meaningful conversation instead of constantly having semantical arguments over who is using which word the right way.
I consider myself an agnostic because I really don't know one way or the other whether a deity exists. And frankly, I don't think it matters because the existence or non-existence of a god isn't going to change how I live my life.
The idea that God would require worship in order to receive a rewarding afterlife disgusts me. If there is a god, and when I die my life as good and moral person isn't enough for him, he wasn't deserving of worship in the first place. So I'm firmly a non-religious person. But I'm also completely comfortable with the idea that there may not be a god or afterlife. The concept that one day I will simply cease to exist doesn't seem all that awful to me.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
Yeah Qingu, I really really dislike that analogy.
How did your mind arrive at the ideal form which you want to build?
My basic point was that "intelligent design" by humans is still very much a process—whether it's exact or wandering. That process is governed by natural laws, and is itself a natural phenomenon.
That 'basic point' was very far removed (at least to me) from what you actually said.
My mind arrived at the ideal by having an idea, and seeing what worked to make a specific design. That is different from a 'blind' process like evolution wherein the design grows out of what does and doesn't work.
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
Because they fuck it up for the rest of us!
And this is the way it is because propensity to altruism is very evolutionarily valuable. You can model it with game theory. Cooperating prisoners score more points on average, over time, than prisoners who constantly try to fuck each other over to get ahead. So, evolution has favored primate brains that reward altruistic behavior.
Haven't studies shown that altruism is not quite the norm that people have tried to say it is for a while, now?
Posts
Agreed.
At the risk of being controversial, I'd add that I think that living on indefinitely is just horrible.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Theism is really specific, as a term. It doesn't just mean "someone who believes in things that aren't scientifically capable of being substantiated". It means "someone who believes in the existence of a God or Gods".
People also sometimes confuse Atheism with Empiricism. I have seen Atheists who have said things like "I'm an Atheist, because I reject things that are believed in based on faith alone."
That's uh... that's not Atheism.
That's Empiricism. Atheism is certainly under the Empiricist umbrella (all Empiricists are, essentially, Atheists)
But just because all ravens are black, doesn't mean all black things are ravens.
Likewise, it's important not to obfuscate terminology and equate Theism (belief in God(s)) with beliefs in metaphysical concepts or other scientifically unprovable articles of faith.
When many people who some would classify as "agnostic theists" say they believe in the possibility of something "greater", they aren't really expressing a theistic belief necessarily. They are certainly expressing some form of metaphysical faith, but that isn't intrinsically theism and I think it's important not to lose sight of that distinction.
When people say things like "there's only agnostic atheists or agnostic theists", that may be technically correct, but an agnostic atheist isn't necessarily an empiricist and may in fact believe in the possibility of some very non-scientific and supernatural ideas that can't really be accurately described as "Gods".
You've got a nonsensical vocabulary set up here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I identify myself as an agnostic theist, which means to me that I believe in a higher power, but I cannot and will not ever be able to prove to myself or anyone else that He is real.
And your cat would hesitate to be near many other kinds of animals. You can call it fear of punishment, or knowledge of expected outcomes.
Are you talking about Yahweh, the god of the Bible? As defined as "the guy who created the world and humans from clay, in the style of a standard Mesopotamian deity, then flooded it, after commanding a dude to corral all kinds of animals onto an ark, personally handed down a bunch of laws straight out of standard Babylonian culture and the Code of Hammurabi, who may or may not (depending on your religion) have a Jewish zombie son, who is himself, that he sacrificed, to himself, to make it so that he doesn't have to punish humans for breaking his laws?"
Or are you talking about Marduk, son of Ea, slayer of the Ocean goddess Tiamat, who created the world from her corpse, brought light into existence by speaking, made humans from the blood of Tiamat's defeated general, and presides over the pantheon of the other gods in a similar way that Yahweh presides over his angels and heavenly beings?
Or are you talking about a vague, abstract entity that may or may not be the Universe itself, who does not interact with humanity at all, and is simply the underlying forces of nature/natural laws?
OR ... are you talking about Yahweh, but ignoring every single thing about Yahweh's description found in the Bible so that Yahweh just ends up resembling God #3 (see above)?
I honestly don't know what you are talking about, please clarify as it will affect the agnostic/atheist equation.
How about this: throw your opinion out there and I'll address it in whatever way is appropriate to me. I don't feel the need or want to define God for you.
Sure, evolution can be said to create forms of animals, and sorry for using a lazy word. Evolution is an unguided process, as it were. That is, there is no intention behind it beyond the logical outcomes of the selection process (and I don't think "intention" is an appropriate word to describe such processes), there is no guiding hand. I believe that the simulation we are inhabiting is likely the result of a process more analogous to <a programmer or artist or author or tinkerer with a blank medium or raw materials with a preconceived notion of the end result> than <a blind process that advances via the success and/or failure of certain random factors>.
Really? I would consider someone who believes in a God but concedes there is no proof and relies on faith alone to be a very religious person. That's all agnosticism is. It makes no judgment on belief, only on proof, so you need another word in there to qualify what exactly is meant. "Agnosticism" by itself is very vague and honestly very useless as far as a label is concerned because despite being an "agnostic" you can still fall on a very wide spectrum with atheism on one side and theism on the other.
If you think that my vocabulary is nonsense then you deny that religious people are capable of realizing they have no proof for their God? Or do you deny the definition of agnosticism as I understand it, which says there is no way to prove or disprove a God or Gods.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
Then you're confusing agnosticism (a lack of knowledge) with faith (believing despite a lack of evidence).
Those are different things!
If you actually do believe in a "higher power" that you can basically enframe in the way people speak of "God", then you're a Theist, plain and simple.
If your Theism has no other real ramifications on your life, has no practices or community or codified beliefs associated with it, then you're a non-religious Theist. But you're still a Theist.
Calling yourself an "Agnostic" just obfuscates the conversation and confuses people, which doesn't make it very useful as a self-applied label, no?
You can be a non-religious Theist. You can also be a religious Atheist. I know this idea will give Qingu a god damn fit, but that's how it is. Unless you've got some kind of backwards definition of religion that requires Theism (and some kind of definition of Theism that requires religion) then you should acknowledge the two are not identical things. Raven paradox, people!
The way you are using Agnosticism is basically a way of saying "I believe in God, I'm just not pushy about it."
That's silly.
I think the argument is that part of what makes the joys of life so intense is scarcity, which is completely lacking if you can continue experiencing things indefinitely.
• The gods described in religious texts and traditions are obviously, provably made-up.
• There might be some abstract, universal force but I wouldn't call it "God" because that word ought to be reserved for deities with personalities and interests in humans.
• People who claim to believe in the gods of religion but actually just believe in abstract-force-god are intellectually dishonest with respect to the content of their religion.
Also, if you're not willing to define what on earth you mean by "God," your post above should have read:
Which is, you know ... meaningless.
Agnosticism isn't a belief in a lack of proof, it's a lack of belief one way or the other.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You're way ahead of the game, in that case. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you aren't, you could be making a lot of money right now.
In a broad, metaphysical sense, I'm not sure our "intelligence" if fundamentally different than the "intelligence" displayed by the process of evolution. Both are natural processes involving a selective pressures and a lot of trial and error.
That sounds like "I'd like to live a really long time", and I don't see anything wrong with that. "Indefinitely" means going on for, well, forever AFTER there is no world to be interested in anymore.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I imagine that how people experience empathy is on a bell curve, just like almost everything else related to how people are. Most people fit within one standard deviation, where everything functions just peachy.
I never said that agnosticism is a belief in a lack of proof. Every time I have defined agnosticism I have been careful not to use that word when defining it. Agnosticism's definition has nothing to do with belief, in a God or Gods or otherwise. Its definition is restricted only to whether or not a God or Gods can be proven or disproven.
Tell me how this sentence, "I believe in God but I concede that there is no way to prove or disprove this God [note: this is faith]," is illogical. Agnosticism does not say anything about belief in a God or Gods. You can still fill that part in yourself and there won't be a contradiction.
There's just something wrong with them so they do not internally experience empathy. Sort of like how some people cannot experience sight, or have dyslexia, though we don't know if psychopathy is purely genetic or if it's also environmentally induced (doubtful it's just genetic. Also I'm not really clear what the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is or if there is one.)
depends....am I ageless? can I still do the things I want to do now? Will my mind ultimately deteriorate into senility? Am I just going to be living forever chanting "God is pretty cool!"
Then nah, let me die and return to the earth (I am not getting embalmed or cremated. I want my carbon to re-enter the cycle)
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
I consider this to be like the immutable data structures I use in programming. I have a persistent queue that I can never modify, only create a new one that represents that one modified. However, behind the scenes lots of internal state can be changing. So, it gets back to my statement that the appearance is important, how it is accomplished is up for grabs so long as it doesn't endanger the rest of the system.
I believe one thing, but I can't be said to have any knowledge about it. It's speculation, and the arguments I've heard in favor of the proposition are more persuasive to me than the alternatives. That said, I understand that it may in fact not be true, and it's impossible to falsify.
I believe that the universe is very likely a simulation. I do not know the truth of that belief, I only know that I have that belief and believe it to be true. There is a lack of knowledge. Ergo, I am an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist).
I think that's sort of unnecessarily confusing, personally.
You're a Theist. Are you a religious Theist? Is your Theism a component of what you would consider a religious belief? Do you have practices related to your Theistic beliefs?
I have no idea, and to be honest it's sorta unimportant to the discussion at hand so I won't pry.
But, the point is, all faith is "belief despite a lack of evidence". That defines faith, as a word. Not just religious faith, or theistic faith. All faith. It is how we, as English-speaking folk, use the term in general. Faith is belief despite not knowing with provable certainty that a thing is true or an event will happen.
If you believe in God, you have faith in God. You are believing despite a lack of evidence. That is your decision, and I have no interest in arguing with you about that.
Equating that faith with "Agnosticism", which has a generally clear commonly used definition, is obfuscation that doesn't facilitate meaningful communication, I think.
It has been my experience with the term and the overwhelming majority of the instances where I see it used that a person who expresses Agnosticism doesn't have what could be called "strong" faith in something like Theism or Atheism. They might believe in the possibility of such things, but that's different than saying "I believe, despite a lack of evidence."
It's why people accuse Agnosticism of being "wishy-washy", because by its very usage as a term it denotes a person open to the idea that the beliefs of other people might be right or wrong, but isn't really sure what they themselves believe.
Ultimately, it turns into a semantical nightmare if people just use the terms all willy-nilly. Instead of trying to codify yourself by nebulously defined terminology that you know has controversial usage, it might be more accurate to simply explain what is you do or do not believe as it comes up. For this very reason I deliberately avoid applying labels to my own personal beliefs, because I find that such labels generate more confusion than clarity.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
And this is the way it is because propensity to altruism is very evolutionarily valuable. You can model it with game theory. Cooperating prisoners score more points on average, over time, than prisoners who constantly try to fuck each other over to get ahead. So, evolution has favored primate brains that reward altruistic behavior.
Yeah Qingu, I really really dislike that analogy.
But there is a position now that states that God is provable via physical evidence. I think that's a completely ridiculous notion, as do most people here (I think), so I want to make it clear that I'm not in that camp.
But if you were to ask me, "If someone walks up to you and asks you what your religious views are, how do you respond?" I will not say "by telling them I'm an agnostic theist." As far as I'm concerned, it's not important.
My basic point was that "intelligent design" by humans is still very much a process—whether it's exact or wandering. That process is governed by natural laws, and is itself a natural phenomenon.
They may be human, but broken ones, then? Why is that considered broken? Especially since it is highly beneficial to be able to ``game'' many situations. That lovely economics study that shows the old folks that get visits from their children likely have multiple children and an inheritance. Lacking those two things, guess what, suddenly your normally empathetic children are likely to not visit that often.
I find it much more likely that the normal is fairly non-empathetic, when it comes down to it.
Assuming other people understand your usage of these terms is sorta dumb and just creates confusion. It's not like saying "I like apple pie!" where everybody knows what I mean by "apple pie".
They are highly contentious, controversial terms that do have dictionary definitions but that generally doesn't make an iota of difference to how they are used on an everyday basis.
Start from there, and then you could have a more meaningful conversation instead of constantly having semantical arguments over who is using which word the right way.
The idea that God would require worship in order to receive a rewarding afterlife disgusts me. If there is a god, and when I die my life as good and moral person isn't enough for him, he wasn't deserving of worship in the first place. So I'm firmly a non-religious person. But I'm also completely comfortable with the idea that there may not be a god or afterlife. The concept that one day I will simply cease to exist doesn't seem all that awful to me.
That 'basic point' was very far removed (at least to me) from what you actually said.
My mind arrived at the ideal by having an idea, and seeing what worked to make a specific design. That is different from a 'blind' process like evolution wherein the design grows out of what does and doesn't work.
There is a subtle, yet powerful, difference.
Haven't studies shown that altruism is not quite the norm that people have tried to say it is for a while, now?