Ayn Rand Discussion #1 : Agnosticism

[Tdcci]

Imagination is good. Religious law, like a book that tells people that eating pork and tolerating gays warrant the death penalty is BAD!

 

[Enzo]

Imagination is good. Religious law, like a book that tells people that eating pork and tolerating gays warrant the death penalty is BAD!

And the Universe? Can you prove it has always existed?

ps: I don't like religion at all

 

[Tdcci]

<e> Dustan's is better.

 

[Dustancostine]

And the Universe? Can you prove it has always existed?

ps: I don't like religion at all

That is also self evident:

Universe = All that exist

If the universe does not exist, neither does existence:

Therefore the Universe has always existed.

BTW: It is also important to have a grasp of what time actually is. Time is just a measure of change. Basically time is measure by how existing things change in relation to one another. No universe = no existing things = no time. Therefore the Universe (existing things, have existed since the beginning) have always existed.

 

[clouds]

I don't think you can fault people who believe in God as being unreasonable. I have experienced something outside of normal experience that I believe to be God, that is one of the reasons I believe in God. The funny thing is, you can't argue personal experience. You can't prove to me that I never felt God. The problem with people trying to prove there is a God is that personal experience just doesn't factor into science in this form. In my opinion, this is the only defense people have against atheism. If you have experienced God, the only one who can argue that away is yourself.

I love to get into the philosophical part, though. It's so pointless but it is fun. It's good, though, because being not sure about your own standing is good. It requires you to research your own beliefs to find support, and sometimes to discover it's not there.

Anyway, the reason I feel like agnoticism is a copout is because to me the belief that "anything is possible, so I won't pick anything." To me that justifies being lazy about what you believe, backing it up with nothing more than your skepticism and a desire to not be wrong. As reasonable as the position is, it simply seems to kill all further pursuit into these things. we don't know positively one way or another, so we're not going to pick a way.

 

[Dustancostine]

I don't think you can fault people who believe in God as being unreasonable. I have experienced something outside of normal experience that I believe to be God, that is one of the reasons I believe in God. The funny thing is, you can't argue personal experience. You can't prove to me that I never felt God.

Yes you can certainly claim that they are being unreasonable. I am not saying that this is a negative thing, people make decisions based on emotions (feelings) over reason all of the time (this is an important component of free will), sometimes our emotions are correct and our reason fails us, but rarely is this the case, and even rarer is the case in which we make a decision that was solely based on emotions and counter to our reason and have emotion prevail. Most of the time our decisions are based on a mix between the two, most of the time they line up. But the case for God is based solely on emotion, which makes it unreasonable.

--Dustan

BTW: Look at a real life example, The Obama campaign. What are the reasons that people are giving to support Obama. He inspires them? They feel he will make change? It is emotional, that is the reason they cannot give any concrete reasons why they are voting for him, it just "feels" right. While on the other hand if they did research and were reasonable they would see that his policies are going to enslave us and bankrupt us.

 

[clouds]

Well, i haven't gone into it much deeper than that. I don't simply believe in God because I had a good feeling. That is unreasonable. I followed that experience with an observation of nature and a lot of reading to come to the conclusion that nature is agreeable.

The problem with the emotional argument is that all feelings and such can be broken down further and further. Our emotions and nerves and whatever else has their limit, they can be measured, but the experience cannot. It might just overwhelm those emotions and still be only a fraction of what is really there. You can't simply claim that someone's emotions failed them when they experience God. It simply does not hold water that you can dismiss someone's experience based on your own doubt. On the other hand, since I find nature lines up in my view, I don't see how it could be illogical and against reason. I will not defend anyone else's belief, though. Some probably are backed only by a good feeling of security or whatever, but I think I can defend my own belief.

 

[Cinnaboo]

The author doesn't share my definition of agnosticism. I consider someone to be agnostic if they're religious, but they recognize the possible fallibility and speculative nature of their faith. It's a believer's doubt, like that of Mother Teresa.

However, I agree with the author because I see atheists describe themselves as agnostic all the time -- mostly out of undue respect to the question.

Is there a God?

I'm an atheist because I think that's a stupid question. One that we wouldn't be asking if it weren't for the tradition and prevalence of monotheism. I don't claim to know that there is no higher power, but I can dismiss the notion as easily as the fountain of youth.

 

[Enzo]

Here's what I know:


I've done enough LSD to know that there's a force that is greater than what we experience on our normal physical plane of existence. Whether this is something within us... or external to us... I'm not sure. Call it "spirituality" whatever...

My only point is that I'm not arrogant or ignorant enough to claim that we are either natural machines... existing for no other purpose than procreation and consumption... or souls within bodily vessels, existing for a "higher" purpose.

 

[Kludge]

Eh... Bump. Like this discussion.

 

[Conza88]

There needs to be a 'I don't care" option...

 

[hypnagogue]

I've done enough LSD to know that there's a force that is greater than what we experience on our normal physical plane of existence.

Now that's funny. Do you believe it is reasonable for a person to make such a claim as an entirely unknown aspect of reality based upon their chemically distorted sensations? I would suggest not. You may say it inspired in you a curiosity, but that remains merely a curiosity until you've used these supposed insights to produce some form of verifiable evidence. Only then would one be justified in believing such a realm existed, let alone being named amongst those things which are known; that being the highest level of belief.

Regarding agnosticism - I would say that agnosticism is more an admittance of ignorance than an actual position. The only justified instance of agnosticism is one in which the individual recognizes that they are not informed, or perhaps not interested, in the evidence pertaining a subject.

In the case of mysticism and deities, since the actual subject is in fact the workings of our reality, I would suggest that all individuals are exposed to the evidence as much as anyone can be. The facts are, for the most part, staring us all in the face.

I am agnostic as to whether a fat woman lives in the apartment below me. I have no evidence, seek no evidence, and do not care about the answer.

I am an atheist because I am alive and I have seen the world and many of the things within, and I have yet to see anything which would reasonably lead one to believe that there are forces or entities outside the purview of science, both science known and yet to be discovered. Further, it seems simple to me to explain the belief in such supernatural phenomena by other individuals with the application of psychological theories.

Remember, the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one.

Furthermore, I tried to read Rand's Atlas Shrugged and found it absolutely unbearable. All of her main characters are totally contrived caricatures, invented solely to support her theories. People such as are portrayed in her novel do not exist. They are completely inhuman. More than just inhuman, in many ways repulsive; both "heroes" and "villains" alike.

 

[ItsTime]

the agnostics I know do not say "you can not proof its false" because most agnostics I know know that you can not prove a negative. Most I know say you can not proof it is true then we do not know. And if you can not proof something to be true it is fact that the only answer is "i do not know"

 

[rational thinker]

"Agnostics are just atheists without any balls." ~ Stephen Colbert

 

[sophocles07]

I agree though I have sometimes referred to myself as an agnostic. I'm beginning to think there is too much negative connotation to such a label, and leaning toward always claiming atheism.

Good Jupiter Moon analogy. I use pink elephants a lot. O religion.

 

[Kludge]

I agree though I have sometimes referred to myself as an agnostic. I'm beginning to think there is too much negative connotation to such a label, and leaning toward always claiming atheism.

Good Jupiter Moon analogy. I use pink elephants a lot. O religion.

Theocrat converted me ~ a week ago.... I'm now a theist/supernaturalist(?).

Something unbound by our scientific laws must exist for existence to... exist since matter cannot be created from nothing.

"But then, where did (insert deity here) come from?" He's unbound by our scientific laws, so it's possible for him to have always existed.

"That's retarded. Because you can't explain it, it's magic." I know absolutely that Evolution explains nothing of our origins' origins and that Scientology is a joke. I also know that supernaturalism is undeniable for our existence to exist. Thus, I know absolutely that magic exists, likely the result of some supernatural deity.


God may not exist, but something does... I'm now a agnostic theist.

 

[Theocrat]

Self-Refutation

How does the agnostic know that no one can know for sure about anything? Hmmm...

 

[amy31416]

Theocrat converted me ~ a week ago.... I'm now a theist/supernaturalist(?).

Something unbound by our scientific laws must exist for existence to... exist since matter cannot be created from nothing.

"But then, where did (insert deity here) come from?" He's unbound by our scientific laws, so it's possible for him to have always existed.

"That's retarded. Because you can't explain it, it's magic." I know absolutely that Evolution explains nothing of our origins' origins and that Scientology is a joke. I also know that supernaturalism is undeniable for our existence to exist. Thus, I know absolutely that magic exists, likely the result of some supernatural deity.


God may not exist, but something does... I'm now a agnostic theist.

I come from the same place and while I wouldn't call myself an agnostic theist, I do recognize that there's something serious that we don't know and can't explain. Thus, I can't call myself an atheist and that's not out of ignorance or cowardliness, but because I recognize both the law of conservation and the fact that that law was once broken by something.

 

[yongrel]

 

[Alex Libman]

Only around a third voted Yes... Sad. I guess some people are just afraid the Flying Spaghetti Monster will avenge their lack of detachment from reality...