I didn't choose not to believe in God.

[Lobsang]

It simply turned out that way. To make a choice about whether to believe in something or not implies that things depend on whether we believe them (or that we choose what is true and what isn't). They don't. As far as I know things are the way they are irrespective of what our beliefs are. If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there to hear it, it does make a sound, because 'sound' is vibrations regardless of whether there is a brain to interpret them nearby.

Even if I tried to believe in god it wouldn't work because I just don't believe, just like I don't have 3 arms. That is just the way things happen to be.

So, if one day it turns out the dude does exist, and he says to me "Why didn't you believe in me?" I can say, I had no choice. It wasn't my fault, it's just the way I happened to be.


I thought of this as I was drying from having a bath (yeah I'm weird. I think about ridiculous things at ridiculous times). It just occurred to me that the phrase "choose to believe" is ludicrous and egotistical.


I have put this in MPSIMS because it is not a great debate as far as I can tell, It is just a mundane pointless thing I thought about and decided to share. It's not a new concept, it's just something I probably haven't thought about myself before.


well, er... Bye.

(I had more for this thread but in the time it took to get the computer on and the SDMB I forgot most of it)

[Dung Beetle]

I'm agnostic, with a strong leaning towards atheism, and I always figure if there is a God, I will point out this loophole to him as he prepares to send me to Hell.
Actually, if we were going to do things in a perfectly logical manner, we'd go out and get ourselves some religion just to keep our butts covered!

[Lobsang]

FUCK! (sorry) That was supposed to be an OP, not a reply in someone else's OP!

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

FUCK! (sorry) That was supposed to be an OP, not a reply in someone else's OP!

Please disregard this. I have just made about 3 mistakes in succession. (I am laughing my ass off, If anyone keeps track of my recent posts they will see why)


What I MEANT to say in this thread was this...

Even though I don't believe in god, I still have that damn habit of saying "oh, for god's sake" or "oh god". Every time, I catch myself in the act and feel stupid for saying it and being a non-believer.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

It simply turned out that way.
...snip...

Actually, I did. I was brought up Episcopal. I had questions that no one could or would answer. I started looking for the answers and after many years of study, the hard evidence was staring me in the face: organized religions are nothing more than a giant con game.

Needless to say, I was not pleased to find that so many people had lied to me for so long, and that so many other people were so gullible as to believe the lies. But there it is.

[kunilou]

I want to keep this light because, as you say, it's not a great debate.

I think you're starting off with the wrong assumption. "To make a choice about whether to believe in something or not implies that things depend on whether we believe them (or that we choose what is true and what isn't)."

But belief is more than about facts, it's how you respond to the facts. If you believe your government always tells the truth and acts in your best interests, you'll certainly vote differently than if you believe it's full of greedy liars.

Even if the only difference in the way you live as a believer or non-beliver is that you look more kindly on the proponents of one side or another, that will cause the "butterfly effect" and will eventually have results.

If you don't believe then you don't believe. I'm not going to ask you to justify your position. But don't try to look God in the face and say "you made me this way."

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by kunilou

I want to keep this light because, as you say, it's not a great debate.

I think you're starting off with the wrong assumption. "To make a choice about whether to believe in something or not implies that things depend on whether we believe them (or that we choose what is true and what isn't)."

But belief is more than about facts, it's how you respond to the facts. If you believe your government always tells the truth and acts in your best interests, you'll certainly vote differently than if you believe it's full of greedy liars.

Even if the only difference in the way you live as a believer or non-beliver is that you look more kindly on the proponents of one side or another, that will cause the "butterfly effect" and will eventually have results.

OK, in that sense, believing in something or not believing in it can have an effect on whether it is true (it's self fulfilling prophecy type thing)

But my point is, we can't have a direct influence on something purely by believing or not believing it. I can't make a third arm appear on my body just by believing it. My body is the way it is regardless of what I believe. Just as the world is the way it is.

If you don't believe then you don't believe. I'm not going to ask you to justify your position. But don't try to look God in the face and say "you made me this way."

I don't believe in god, so I don't believe I will ever have to look him in the face and say "You made me this way" My comment about "If it turns out he does exist" was a bit of a joke. Perhaps not funny, but I don't think the scenario will ever arise.

[Aries28]

To each his own, and I certainly respect your right to your beliefs or lack thereof...

However, I did choose to believe in God. There came a time when I was faced with living my life on the path I was on and extremely unhappy or deciding to make some changes and renew my spirituality. I chose to believe and I don't regret it. That void was filled in my life once I did.

And a lot of organized religion for the most part is a con game. Full of people out for everything they can get from those who put their trust in them.

I choose not to put my faith in man because man will ultimately fail me. God hasn't so far.

[Lobsang]

Surely 'Choose' is an ability exclusive to our surface-level consciousness and our beliefs are deep down. Choosing what we believe is denying what we actually believe.

Isn't it logically impossible to choose our beliefs?

Perhaps I am not makeing my point well enough. It just seems like choice is and should be limited to those things we can easily manipulate, such as choosing which desert to have. Choosing what we believe is surely lying to ourselves? Isn't it??


I am not going to say this again because some of you believe you have chosen a belief and I don't want to contradict you. But I can't shake this logic.

[Ex Machina]

Lobsang is absolutely right. To "choose to believe" is a self-contradictory expression. "Belief" is not about guessing.

Agnostics are simply craven atheists. They are not torn between equally rational arguments, they are simply struck by fear of the consequence of their true belief.

Pascal's Wager is not logical. You can't make an irrational decision rational simply by calling it so. If a spiritual advisor told you that the only way to eternal life was to jump off a tall building, would it be rational to do so? The argument would be the same. "If the advisor is wrong and I don't jump I don't gain anything, I just dismiss his claims. But...what if he is right. In that case I have everything to gain." So you jump. Was that a rational decision?

The fact is that using the "logic" of Pascal's Wager, you would have to believe every hypothesis which leads to salvation. And since the infinite possibilities would necessarily contain contradictions the philosophical stance is irrational and patently false.

"But what if...?" is not an expression of logic. It is an expression of desperate hope.

I find it hard to imagine a god who would determine the eternal fate of individual men, the god's creations, simply because they chose to "bet" on his existence.

If I reveal that I arrived at the invalidation of Pascal's Wager while sitting on the crapper will this thread remain in MPSIMS?

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally Posted by Ex Machina

Agnostics are simply craven atheists. They are not torn between equally rational arguments, they are simply struck by fear of the consequence of their true belief.

As an agnostic, I feel the need to disagree with you. Why is there always confusion about the status and ideas of agnostics? George H. Smith, who wrote the book "Atheism, the Case Against God" made a terrific blunder when he claimed that agnostics were actually claiming that god does exist by defining god as unknowable. Basically, agnostics were unknowingly sneaking god in the back door of their own the beliefs by saying that god has the quality of being unknowable. In other words, by saying the word god, they had made a claim to believe in god. This, along with the assumption that agnostics are weak-willed atheists, are two of the biggest misconceptions about agnostics. (The book, by the way, was billed as the Bible for Atheists, isn't that a hoot?)

So, let's clear up two things right now... Agnostics, in my understanding as an agnostic, claim simply that they lack the ability to know whether or not there is a god. It's not a question of whether or not god is knowable, it is a question of whether or not we are able of even knowing if there is a god or not. Basically, I'm admitting that I'm incapable of knowing. Realizing one's own failings does not make them craven. Actually, truth be told, there is another layer here that most people don't recognize... Agnostics can still be split into atheist or theist. The atheist agnostic understands that he/she cannot know whether or not there is a god, but believes that there isn't one. The theistic agnostic understands that he/she cannot know whether or not there is a god, but believes there is a god, and, further, understands that he/she is unable to understand god if god does indeed exist. I happen to be atheist-agnostic... It doesn't make me weak-willed to admit that I am a subjective creature and unable to know even if there is an objective reality, much less what that objective reality would be like... Either way, whether or not there is a god, we can never know. So, I wouldn't really call it being torn between two equally rational arguments, I would call it being torn between two equally irrelevant arguments.

I guess, finally, all I can really say is that it's too bad that I care about all of this, because I could be an apathetic athiest agnostic...

[Planet of the Shapes]

I agree, Lobsang. I don't believe that God or Gods exist, but i didn't chose this belief, its just what i believe. Belief in something (for me anyway) isn't a choice, its a consequence of your brain processing information and coming to a conclusion. I can't decide to believe in god, and suddenly believe. I suppose i could decide to try to make myself believe in god, and seek evidence/arguments in favour of his existence, but then seeing as i don't believe in him in the first place such as endeavor would seem like a waste of time, and i wouldn't do it.

Ex Machina I'm not sure i agree with your argument though. Surely in your example, if you throw yourself off the building you definately lose x years of life, and possibly gain salvation. Whether it is logical or not for you to jump off the building depends on the probability you assign to god's existence (and also the probability you assign to the advisor being correct). Maybe you need a little more time on the crapper to refine it..

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Ex Machina

Agnostics are simply craven atheists. They are not torn between equally rational arguments, they are simply struck by fear of the consequence of their true belief.

Craven, eh? Thanks, but I'll choose the reality: I simply don't know. I'm not especially afraid of anything; if God exists as Christians purport, then He will, by all they know, forgive me as long as I'm sorry. If God exists as an alternate entity, I'm sure it'll be interesting. I have no reason to fear anything because I simply don't know. If no deity exists, then I have nothing to fear about any deity at all.

And what exactly is the consequence of my supposed (read: projected by you) belief? That there is no God? Why ever should that frighten me? According to some Christians I'm to burn in Hell forever. Wouldn't the position that, since God does not exist, there is no Hell ... wouldn't that be favorable? That sounds less like fear of no God and more like fear of a vengeful God.

If I reveal that I arrived at the invalidation of Pascal's Wager while sitting on the crapper will this thread remain in MPSIMS?

You should have noted its placement before beginning your post.

[Zap_Rowsdower]

I feel the same way, I don't believe I chose not to believe in god. I feel I was born that way. As far back as I can remember, I don't recall ever really believing in god. I always put god in the same category is Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFO's etc. In fact when I was young I actually believed in the last three more than god or Santa.

At certain points in my life I did attempt to choose to believe in god. I tried going to several churches. I tried to quit doubting and just accept it, the way I accept the sun will rise in the morning, I just couldn't. I get my sense of awe and inspiration from nature not some old guy with white beard who concerns himself with who I do or don't sleep with.

I do not feel their is a void in my life because I don't believe in god. And I am tired of people saying that. I know for a fact that I am happier than many believers. You don't have to be an atheist to have a void in your life. Though I do think my life would be a bit easier. I have lost a few relationships because I was honest about my atheism.

I have politely told people that I will not attend or be involved with any church service or functions, other than say weddings or funerals and the like. One woman I went out with said she understood and would respect my opinion. unfortunately she later admitted that it bothered her, and shortly after we broke up. I wish she would have been honest about her feeling from the start.

[Ex Machina]

Ex Machina: "In 15 minutes I am going to crap a living full grown bull elephant."

Craven Agnostic: "In spite of all of my life experience I have no way of disproving your claim, therefore it is as reasonable to assume that it will happen as to not happen. And therefore I am being intellectually honest in saying I just don't know."

I am an atheist. I have never seen one iota of support for the assertion of the existence of a theistic God, unless you accept an endless stream of arbitrary raionalizations. It is a fallacy that the burden is on the disbeliever to disprove an assertion. The truth is that the burden is on the one making an assertion to prove it. It does not change matters by simply claiming that skepticism is itself an assertion.

There is no rational support for the existence of god, and there is much rational support for the non-existence of a theistic God. Since believers are the definers of God, and the first article of definition is absolute existence, it is impossible to disprove existence. This, however, does not mean that it is rational to accept the possibility of existence.

"Agnosticism" is a very minor instance of theoretical atheistic nitpicking. The "inability to disprove" is an infintesimal consideration in the face of empirical evidence. The people who claim to be "agnostics" have enlarged the "nit" far beyond its importance.

T.H. Huxley coined the term agnostic. Shortly after dealing with the death of a young son he wrote these words to a friend, a Reverend Kingsley: "I neither deny nor affirm the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing in it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it...But the longer I live, the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of a man's life is to say and to feel, 'I believe such and such to be true.' "

The agnostics I know maintain their less-than-sacred stance of sitting on the fence and maintaining their sophomoric pose of according validity to both views. Huxley said in the same letter, "It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions." And regarding the doctrine of immortality, "what is this but in grand words asking me to believe a thing because I like it."

Huxley saying "I am an agnostic" is more akin to saying "I have a piece of lint on my shoulder." For the craven agnostics the statement is heard as "I am split down the middle and conflicted."

As for Pascal's Wager, it logically leads to the acceptance of these two propositions: "If you believe in God you will achieve immortality" and "If you disbelieve in God you will achieve immortality." Both can be arrived at in the infinite realm of hope and whimsy.

Cowards on the fence, that's all I see.

You are a believer or an unbeliever. Period. There is no choice save for a condition of fearful, demented confusion.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Ex Machina

You are a believer or an unbeliever. Period. There is no choice save for a condition of fearful, demented confusion.

Ah, thanks, I was wondering who was the arbiter of all this stuff.

Now, unless you have some sort of cite for "iampunha, you are not agnostic, you are a craven coward and your religious belief is demented", I'll show you to two options:

1. Put those sort of comments in the Pit;
2. Make a more *cough* academic go of this in GD, where I'll happily explain my stance to you, should I find your OP ... shall we say, more respectful than your posts here.

Unless and/or until you satisfy one of those three conditions, I reject wholesale the notion that my stance on this issue does not exist. Rather than believing God exists or does not exist, I simply do not know.

[Lobsang]

I see nothing wrong with anyone being agnostic. I think it is perfectly valid to simply not know either way whether god exists.


In a very pedantic very logical sense, we all should be agnostic. Because as brains disconnected from reality by our senses we cannot 'know' anything. We can only go as far as trusting what our senses deliver to the brain. And if agnosticism (word?) is literally not knowing then technically we are all agnostic.


Having said that, it is safe to assume that what our senses deliver to our brains is the truth. So if we're not being pedantic, I atleast am an atheist.

Not only do our senses show that god isn't there. but our logic tells us that the concept of God was almost certainly invented by man. But we can still only trust and not KNOW our logic is correct.

[Cyrokk]

I highly suspect that how a person's brain is wired depends on whether or not they feel a deep need to believe in God. My mother is very religious, while me and my dad feel little or nothing about the idea of any possible entity greater than ourselves. Every time I attended church, regardless of denomination, it just floored me how people could be into something that I could not possibly understand on an emotional level. I felt absolutely nothing at these places, regardless how hard I tried to believe.

It wasn't until I gave up that I appreciated a significantly heightened sense of emotional and intellectual freedom.

I completely agree with the OP. I don't think any of us "choose to believe".

[Cyrokk]

Uh.. that first sentence should read "I highly suspect that whether or not someone feels a deep need to believe in God depends on how that person's brain is wired".

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

And if agnosticism (word?) is literally not knowing then technically we are all agnostic.

Agnosticism, agnostic, agnosticistic (don't ask), etc. Here's a not too academic cite for you.

[Planet of the Shapes]

Originally Posted by Cyrokk

I highly suspect that how a person's brain is wired depends on whether or not they feel a deep need to believe in God.

I saw an interesting program on Horizon (BBC documentary series) about this. There is this guy that claims he can induce religious feelings but applying strong magnetic fields to certain parts of the brain. Furthermore, some people seem to be more receptive to this than others. So it seems like religion may in some way be hard wired into the brain. Of course atheistics like myself will see this as evidence that god is a product of man. Believers will say god deliberately designed our brains that way..

The synopsis of the program is here if you're interested.

[Cyrokk]

Great link! Thanks for the read.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

First off, Lobsang, I hope you don't take offense at this, because I certainly don't intend it, but I've come to expect a more zany thread from you. I look to you for laughs, not introspection, damn it! Now get drunk and post something silly.

That said, I completely agree with the OP, unzany as it is. I'd love to believe in God, I really would- but my brain rejects the notion. If I could take a pill that made me live the rest of my life truly, and I emphasize truly, believing there was some higher plane of existence waiting for me, I'd jump at it. Makes the mundane of this world easier to stomach, I imagine. Such a pill does not exist, and so here we are. My intellectual makeup does not, and I suspect can not, accept the existence of God.

I must echo the sentiment of 'punha, though- I'm certainly not an atheist, and I hesitate to call myself coward. Ex Machina, you seem to be defining "atheist" as "one who does not believe." I think there is a further distinction to be made- there are those who do not believe in God, and there are those who believe in no God. In other words, there are believers in God, believers that there is not a God, and a third category- those who do not truly believe either statement. I call those in the third category agnostics. You call them "cowards on the fence," but I don't see why a lack of belief is cowardice. It's just like the question of extraterrestrial intelligence- some believe it is out there, some believe there is none to be found, and there never will be. Others, because they have not been convinced by evidence supporting one side or another, acknowledge their ignorance, and believe nothing, for nothing is proven. Surely this is not due to cowardice on their part, but logic, don't you agree? Why pick a side if that side hasn't shown any signs of superiority?

I'll use myself as an example- I find it bizarre that there would be some kind of divine being in charge of such a disturbing world, and this I count as evidence against the existence of God. However, I also find it incredible that there is a planet full of reasoning beings who can communicate with each other and solve complicated problems, and these beings simply sprung forth and became sentient through years of biological developments. This I count as an argument for God's existence. I'm not scared of saying there isn't a God- I find the world inexplicable without some driving force. Like I said before, though, I have problems with accepting that there is someone omnipotent in charge of this faulty planet. Agnosticism is to me the term that describes my entrenchment at this intellectual impasse. Cowardice has nothing to do with it, but more importantly to this argument, neither does "the impossibility to disprove." I don't care if it's possible to disprove or not- the existence of God is as good an explanation of the world's existence as I've got. And incidentally, I'll take

a condition of fearful, demented confusion

over lying to myself any day.

[Ex Machina]

Iampunha said "I'm not especially afraid of anything; if God exists as Christians purport, then He will, by all they know, forgive me as long as I'm sorry."
This is essentially saying "I am not afraid but I choose to believe that God will forgive because I am afraid."

If you were born a believer you will believe. If you were born a disbeliever you will disbelieve. If you try to override your fears because of disbelief you will only step into the world of dementia.

No one chooses to believe. People only choose to hide from unpleasant reality. And that is merely frightened self-preservation. Every day you can meet people who claim to be believers but have a profound fear of annihilation. These people are just the "agnostics" from the perspective of the opposite end of the spectrum. In other words they are the frightened believers while agnostics are the frightened atheists.

[Ex Machina]

Jimmy Chitwood said "It's just like the question of extraterrestrial intelligence- some believe it is out there, some believe there is none to be found, and there never will be. Others, because they have not been convinced by evidence supporting one side or another, acknowledge their ignorance, and believe nothing, for nothing is proven. Surely this is not due to cowardice on their part, but logic, don't you agree? Why pick a side if that side hasn't shown any signs of superiority?"

I don't agree that "it's just like the question of extraterrestrial intelligence". Some conjecture is more rational than other. I don't believe this can be disputed. The idea that other conscious beings could arise under similar circumstances is much more rational than the idea that a magical being created a world out of nothing but will.

And, contrary to Jimmy's suggestion, I believe that one side has shown total rational superiority over the other.

It is interesting to note that agnostics choose a certain point to begin saying that they "don't know". Why do they believe they can believe anything?

The statement 'I don't know' is a simple statement of fact, mere words and pedantic trivia. It is not an invitation to believe that every absurdity conceived by the minds of men is a possibility.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Ex Machina

Iampunha said "I'm not especially afraid of anything; if God exists as Christians purport, then He will, by all they know, forgive me as long as I'm sorry."
This is essentially saying "I am not afraid but I choose to believe that God will forgive because I am afraid."

This analysis is completely inaccurate ... actually, that's not true. "Inaccurate" implies, to me at least, that there is any modicum of truth to it.

Since you seem to be so fond of telling people what they are, what they believe, what that means about them, etc., perhaps you should take a step back, examine the possibility, the mere chance ... that you are NOT, contrary to what must be a fervently held (but ultimately error-riddled) belief, the ultimate arbiter of this, or any, thing.

I do not choose to believe any particular thing about God. If you examine my statement, you will find that I do not choose to believe in God at all. I am, as I have said before, both here and elsewhere, agnostic. This means, to me (and contrary to your previously stated assertion that one can only believe or not believe), that I do not know if God exists and, to me, further, that I do not know if there is sufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of said God.

I do not know if God exists. I do not know if God does not exist. I have precious little to tell me either way credibly. So in the mean time, unless and until something changes, I remain agnostic.

By the way, what is this great deep-rooted hatred you have for agnostics? It seems rather irrational.

The statement 'I don't know' is a simple statement of fact, mere words and pedantic trivia. It is not an invitation to believe that every absurdity conceived by the minds of men is a possibility.

Some day you simply must teach to me this great skill of projecting your meaning onto every other creature that on Earth does dwell. When I say, for example, "I don't know", in response to the question "Does God exist?", that means "it could be, or it could be not; I do not know. Either is possible". Is it a possibility that God exists? Surely, to me, it is possible. Do I know it for a fact, or to a reasonable degree? Nope. Is it a possibility that God does not exist? Surely, to me, it is possible. Do I know it for a fact, or to a reasonable degree? Nope. It is at least as possible to me that God exists as it is possible that God does not exist. I simply do not know. So it is, to me, that "invitation to believe" or not believe.

Really. Truly. Don't presume to speak for me or down to me on this.

And I will remind you, once again, of the forum containing this thread. If you are going to blanketly insult religion, we have the BBQ Pit for that. Unless it takes some Herculean effort merely for you to type responses, I can't imagine that it would be such the utter strain on your being to post an OP detailing what you have said here.

[Cajun Man]

Lobsang, you may not have intended this thread to become a debate . . . but it certainly has.

Off to Great Debates.
__________________

Cajun Man ~ SDMB Moderator

[Lobsang]

I was on the verge of suggesting it be moved myself. I don't mind.

[Marley23]

The notion that you are born and atheist or a theist strikes me as a bit silly. You're born with no knowledge or opinion on the subject whatsoever. It's possible that you're born with your brain configured in such a way that you're more likely to be one or the other (or neither) later in life, but that's different.

I was not born an atheist, I became one. I'm not sure if you can characterize it as a choice or not. I met my first atheist, we talked a little, and I realized that the religion didn't make any sense to me. Doesn't seem like a choice, but I chose to listen, chose to think about it, and the conclusion I came to was not unrelated to other things in my life.

To me, the way your brain works and the way you think are (at least somewhat) genetic. The conclusions your brain brings you to are basically not, although your brain being wired a specific way may make some conclusions more likely.

[IWLN]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

So, if one day it turns out the dude does exist, and he says to me "Why didn't you believe in me?" I can say, I had no choice. It wasn't my fault, it's just the way I happened to be.

I think the correct response to him would be "Well I sure do now, uh, Sir." I do agree with you, belief is not a choice or some decision you make. Belief is a product of need and emotion. I'm not trying to imply that it's a weakness, either. I believe, but don't recall it being a conscious choice. It wasn't fear. I don't even believe in hell. There is an aspect of believing in something without any proof, that is vaguely embarrassing. So, take your pick; it's either a disparity in hard-wiring, which can limit perception or increase misconception, it's all part of "The Plan", or we believer's are benignly wacky. I like the second choice, of course.

[Apos]

Originally Posted by SpacemanSpiff

As an agnostic, I feel the need to disagree with you. Why is there always confusion about the status and ideas of agnostics?

Because there is confusion about the word. We can expect the same to happen in ANY minority where there is no central organization to keep it defined, and many many hostile people who wish to define it in a way that aids them in equivocation.

George H. Smith, who wrote the book "Atheism, the Case Against God" made a terrific blunder when he claimed that agnostics were actually claiming that god does exist by defining god as unknowable.

I don't know that this is what he said at all. He attacked strong agnostic theism (i.e. god exists but is unknowable): he didn't say that agnostics were theists. In fact, he laid out the idea that agnosticism (which conerns knowledge) was independant of atheism/theism: the same idea that you suggested.

So, let's clear up two things right now... Agnostics, in my understanding as an agnostic, claim simply that they lack the ability to know whether or not there is a god. It's not a question of whether or not god is knowable, it is a question of whether or not we are able of even knowing if there is a god or not.

I'm not sure I see the difference. By "knowable" we obviously mean "knowable by us." If God is not knowable, then how can you know anything about it, including whether or not it is knowable?

Basically, I'm admitting that I'm incapable of knowing.

This actually is the position that Smith criticizes, in part. He points out that you cannot know that you are incapable of knowing something: that would constitute knowing at least something about it, a self-contradiction. If you know nothing about God, then you cannot know whether or not he is knowable. Indeed, to know that God is unknowable, you'd have to both

A) Know all about God and B) Know the limits of human knowledge
Only then could you be able to say that God lies outside those limits.

But A you've already rejected, and nobody seriously claims to know B.

You can _believe_ that God is unknowable, certainly, though this still involves a contradiction (since God's unknowability counts as "something I know about God," and indeed would require knowing quite a lot about God)

The weaker version of agnosticism: simply, "I dunno" makes more sense, and tempts no contradiction.

[Apos]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The notion that you are born and atheist or a theist strikes me as a bit silly. You're born with no knowledge or opinion on the subject whatsoever.

Depending on how you define atheist, you may be right, but certainly all people are born as non-theists, without a belief in god, since as far as we know, we are born without the ability to hold conceptual beliefs at all. They may later develop beliefs, and indeed maybe the very first belief they develop is a belief in god, for all we know. But babies are most certianly non-believers.

[IWLN]

Originally Posted by Apos

But babies are most certianly non-believers.

Aww...take it back. You'll make baby Jesus cry.

[Marley23]

Depending on how you define atheist, you may be right, but certainly all people are born as non-theists, without a belief in god, since as far as we know, we are born without the ability to hold conceptual beliefs at all. They may later develop beliefs, and indeed maybe the very first belief they develop is a belief in god, for all we know. But babies are most certianly non-believers.

I agree completely. It does depend on how you define atheist. If you go with the normal "one who does not believe god exists" definition, than babies technically fit. But I don't think it makes sense to count someone as a believer or non-believer if his/her mind is literally not capable of belief.

[Mangetout]

I agree with the OP; to say that we choose to believe would imply that we do so regardless of what we perceive to be the actual truth of the matter; I know elephants are grey, but I choose to believe they are pink. Alternatively, the belief that elephants are grey isn't a choice, it's just an acknowledgment.

This is one of the key reasons why arguments based on Pascal's wager are so ridiculous - the assumption that God would accept your feigned belief which is nothing more than a hedged bet, when in fact that might be exactly the sort of lack of integrity that really pisses him off.

[Siege]

I'm one more hard-core Christian who believes Lobsang is right (of course, as a hard-core Christian, I believe all sorts of strang things).

I can't explain things adequately without venturing off into that New-Age, La-La Land which renders all explanations in adequate, but there are things which have happened to me which make it extremely difficult for me not to believe in God. The more my faith has grown, the more obvious and frequent they've become. How frequent? Would you believe the last one was on Thursday night, less than 36 hours ago? Atheists, your answers are noted and recorded.

On the other hand, I have a friend in real life who has actually been searching for evidence that God exists. He's looking, but is unwilling or unable to find what he seeks, even though he's had a couple of experiences which the friend who's been aiding him in his search has presented to me as evidence. It may be his brain's not wired that way. I don't know.

We human beings are built in an astonishing variety of ways, and religion is a subjective experience. I don't know of anyone who can build a machine which can detect presence, absence or degree of faith, although one could be useful in investigating televangelists. I had a boss once who, on hearing Handel's Hallelujah Chorus in the background when she called into the office, said, "Turn it off! It's awful!" Her idea of good Christmas music was the Backstreet Boy's Christmas album. I can easily see how a person could not experience what I do during a church service on an emotional and spiritual level. As I said, people are wired differently, and Lobsang and I would probably experience football games involving Manchester United and the Pittsburgh Steelers equally differently.

I have a hard time admitting anything's impossible, so I will content myself with saying, "It would be extremely difficult for me not to believe in God." If I weren't so pig-headedly in favour of free will, I'd also say that "For me, belief in God is not a choice." On the other hand, it would be easier for me to choose never to voluntarily listen to music again than to stop believing in God. By the same token, I believe Lobsang when he says he didn't choose not to believe in God. His life and mine have been and will continue to be very different. That doesn't change my enjoyment of his posts or my appreciation of the opportunity to hear his side of things.

CJ

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Siege

He's looking, but is unwilling or unable to find what he seeks, even though he's had a couple of experiences which the friend who's been aiding him in his search has presented to me as evidence.

Conversely, of course, is the possibility that he is looking for evidence that does not exist, and that friend sees what s/he believes in all sincerity and belief to be evidence, but which is not evidence at all

I can easily see how a person could not experience what I do during a church service on an emotional and spiritual level.

This might or might not help you, but I have had the same feeling in Church that I've had at dopefests and other places (some similar, some very different). Of course I haven't had the feeling in a church in a while (mostly because it's no longer a source of happiness and because I don't go anymore).

I'm sure you'll be terribly surprised, CJ, to know that I experienced that feeling at DaW back in October (and partly when we spontaneously broke into that one song whose name escapes me). It's so wonderfully confusing...

[CairaJade]

Originally posted by Ex Machina
Agnostics are simply craven atheists. They are not torn between equally rational arguments, they are simply struck by fear of the consequence of their true belief.

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
Actually, truth be told, there is another layer here that most people don't recognize... Agnostics can still be split into atheist or theist. The atheist agnostic understands that he/she cannot know whether or not there is a god, but believes that there isn't one. The theistic agnostic understands that he/she cannot know whether or not there is a god, but believes there is a god, and, further, understands that he/she is unable to understand god if god does indeed exist.

I believe this notion can even be taken a step further (bravo, Spaceman Spiff). As an athiest agnostic, I deny the existence of an omnipotent creator god, but believe that if there is some other sort of higher order, it is either not possible for us to understand in this life or only knowable through Enlightenment (therefore, I will remain agnostic until I reach Enlightenment). How does this make me weak in my convictions and secretly sneaking God into my life?

I don't see any evidence, however, for people being born theist or atheist. We all come to our personal conclusions through our thought processes. Some of use do choose to rely solely on logic to reach our conclusions, but we all come to our own personal decision based on the criterion which we value. For some it is indeed cold hard logic alone. But for most, it is a combination of logic and our desires and teachings. For some, logic may not come into it at all. They were taught something at an early age and never questioned it. All of this points to our religious choices being logical, social, behavioral, and academic, but not congenital. I may not have been born an atheist, but I cannot arbitrarily change my value system to allow myself the belief in God.

Ex Machina, agnotics are not by definition "split down the middle and conflicted." Maybe your experience is limited to a few individuals who call themselve agnostic and really do choose not to take a side, but that is not the only possibility of an agnostic viewpoint. My husband, for example, is the quintessential dictionary agnostic. While he does refuse to commit to the existence or non-existence of a higher power, he asserts that either way he is not meant to and not capable of knowing, and ultimately it is irrelevant.

The human belief system is far too complicated to be summed up neatly into catagories. How can one be an atheist agnostic Buddhist? Isn't it contradictory? No, because you're looking at one (figuratively). We do not choose our catagory; we define our beliefs then try to identify with the catagory that closest fits our beliefs.

Originally posted by Ex Machina
Cowards on the fence, that's all I see.

Nice.

[Ex Machina]

"Not knowing" is a universal epistemological given. "I don't know" can be said about anything. But agnostics selectively apply their cosmic ignorance in a way that assuages their fears.

The "fear" that I speak of is manifested in many ways. One is the fear of commitment. If a person entertains even the slightest possibility of God's existence he is compelled to believe. Pascal's Wager is really Pascal's Imperative. An agnostic feels the compulsion but fears the commitment. Sanity draws them towards their natural atheism but fear pushes them towards the whacky world of agnosticism. And this is where they remain, in a logical limbo, thinking they have arrived at intellectual solid ground. "I'm just being honest!" is the cry. But the truth is they are just afraid to get off the fence and make a commitment.

The bottom line is that agnostics live in a dementia where God exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

Religion is a great and necessary thing. Mankind would never have acheived its level of civilization without it, regardless of the horrible things it has sometimes led to. Religion provides answers, gives hope, provides solace to sufferers, inspires, leads to social order, and it instills a purpose which so many need to aspire to betterment and accomplishments. I know that it is essential and I don't believe a word of it. I don't hate religion or the religious. Agnostics, on the other hand, are the pits. They add nothing to the discussion (unless it is a transitional stage which is good for an exercise in reason) with their submission to ignorance. They perch on the fence like little goblins spouting absurdities like "I don't believe in God but that's all right because God will understand."

[The Great Unwashed]

I agree very much with the stance of Ex Machina, except I'd maybe allow the possibility that some agnostics are not craven, but merely lazy.

Ex Machina says it so well here:

"Not knowing" is a universal epistemological given. "I don't know" can be said about anything...

and

...The statement 'I don't know' is a simple statement of fact, mere words and pedantic trivia. It is not an invitation to believe that every absurdity conceived by the minds of men is a possibility.

Perhaps some agnostic could point to a reason for their non-committal on the matter of the existence of a god that doesn't apply to every other belief that they have?

[IWLN]

Originally Posted by The Great Unwashed

I agree very much with the stance of Ex Machina, except I'd maybe allow the possibility that some agnostics are not craven, but merely lazy.

I could be missing something, but if you were looking at G-d from a purely scientific standpoint, you would say there is no evidence of his existence. That would be a true statement. If science went on to say "G-d does not exist", that would not be a supportable conclusion. It seems that agnostics are going with the information available and atheists are taking one more step and reaching a conclusion that can't be determined. Requiring a full committment to the statement "There is no G-d", seems to be more of an emotional statement than anything factual. Now why does not endorsing something that cannot be known equal laziness?

Perhaps some agnostic could point to a reason for their non-committal on the matter of the existence of a god that doesn't apply to every other belief that they have?

Point out another belief that could have the same potential impact, depending on it's veracity.

[Marley23]

If science went on to say "G-d does not exist", that would not be a supportable conclusion.

That depends entirely on how you frame the issue. Science offers no evidence for god, and depending on how you define god personally, science may disprove your god. Just as an example, if you're a biblical literalist, science does indeed contradict the thing that you say is god's revealed word and proof of his existence. If you give god any kind of specific characteristics (especially if you think he gets involved with creation regularly), I think science can disprove that. If you take the view that god is totally non-interventionist, science can't do anything, but I think Occam's Razor dices that argument pretty thoroughly.

It seems that agnostics are going with the information available and atheists are taking one more step and reaching a conclusion that can't be determined. Requiring a full committment to the statement "There is no G-d", seems to be more of an emotional statement than anything factual. Now why does not endorsing something that cannot be known equal laziness?

I think that would be how an agnostic or someone who believes in god would probably look at it. I feel bad for saying it, IWLN, but I think you're out of your depth. You're not an atheist, so you're not in a very good position to explain the emotions of atheists. The ones calling agnostics lazy are atheists, and atheists obviously disagree that they are "endorsing something that cannot be known."
I've never been one of the "agnostics are cowardly atheists" camp, but I think the arguments Apos has Aposted (sorry) are very good. It's not my problem, though.

[IWLN]

Originally Posted by Marley23

That depends entirely on how you frame the issue. Science offers no evidence for god, and depending on how you define god personally, science may disprove your god. Just as an example, if you're a biblical literalist, science does indeed contradict the thing that you say is god's revealed word and proof of his existence. If you give god any kind of specific characteristics (especially if you think he gets involved with creation regularly), I think science can disprove that. If you take the view that god is totally non-interventionist, science can't do anything, but I think Occam's Razor dices that argument pretty thoroughly.

I do agree with you on the biblical literalist. I don't agree with conclusions based on any assessment of G-d's potential or past involvement in creation, since that would be something not definable. OR is merely a tool used to come to the most likely conclusion, though and has nothing to do with anything particularly factual.

I think that would be how an agnostic or someone who believes in god would probably look at it. I feel bad for saying it, IWLN, but I think you're out of your depth. You're not an atheist, so you're not in a very good position to explain the emotions of atheists. The ones calling agnostics lazy are atheists, and atheists obviously disagree that they are "endorsing something that cannot be known."
I've never been one of the "agnostics are cowardly atheists" camp, but I think the arguments Apos has Aposted (sorry) are very good. It's not my problem, though.

I was simply making an observation about atheists, kind of like they were making about agnostics. Don't feel bad for telling me I'm out of my depth. I think it's a very nice way of telling me you think I'm full of sh*t. I can cheerfully accept that. I'm usually wrong at least as much as I'm right, but hey, it's a good way to learn. I still don't agree on this one, though. "Endorsing something that cannot be known", is exactly what I'm doing and what the hard atheist is doing. The agnostic is the only one that can be sure that he won't be proved wrong.

[sibyl]

If you accept one religion, you must, at least on some level, deny the validity of all the other religions. You can't just say all the religions are right because contradictions abound.

When you do this, you can't even support your argument with statements like "so many experiences in my life have strengthened my belief in God." For every experience you have had that has validated a Christian God in your mind, I could offer you a dozen experiences that have validated the existence of Hindu gods, for example. I could offer you reams of Roman literature that have claimed validation of contact with an Olympian god based on their experiences as well.

Religion is teeming with anthroporphism and culture-centric properties. Why is it that someone raised in a strictly Muslim household never magically finds Jesus, but instead finds Allah, when they have religious experiences? Why doesn't a religious person here ever find Allah if they were born and raised and exposed only to Jesus?

Religion offers a lot of things, so I'm not vitriolic to people who choose to believe in it, but there is so much hypocricy, cultural influences and obvious signs of human involvement in something that should be divine that I find the whole concept to be likely to be an invention of our minds. Of course, I don't know this for sure, just like I don't know anything for sure. I don't know that what I'm seeing is really there or is just random radiation hitting parts of my brain as I lie dead in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust either.

[CairaJade]

Originally posted by Ex Machina
But the truth is they are just afraid to get off the fence and make a commitment.

Once again, who made you arbitrator? How do you know what is someone else's mind or heart? Many agnostics are not on the fence at all, and even if they haven't been convinced one way or they other, it is not a matter of cowardice. Moreover, many people, Buddhists for example, do not place such importance on realizing the ultimate truth of the divine. Have you never had a moment of indecision in your life? Are you 100% convinced that everything you believe is absolute truth? That your stance on the major issues of the day, gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, etc., are the only correct conclusion? If so, then you are a domineering, arrogant bigot.

[cichlidiot]

Originally Posted by Ex Machina

"Not knowing" is a universal epistemological given. "I don't know" can be said about anything. But agnostics selectively apply their cosmic ignorance in a way that assuages their fears.

The "fear" that I speak of is manifested in many ways. One is the fear of commitment. If a person entertains even the slightest possibility of God's existence he is compelled to believe. Pascal's Wager is really Pascal's Imperative. An agnostic feels the compulsion but fears the commitment. Sanity draws them towards their natural atheism but fear pushes them towards the whacky world of agnosticism. And this is where they remain, in a logical limbo, thinking they have arrived at intellectual solid ground. "I'm just being honest!" is the cry. But the truth is they are just afraid to get off the fence and make a commitment.

I don't see where you are getting all this fear from. If from your agnostic friends (though the goblin comment makes one question whether they are really friends), I don't see how you make the leap to a blanket statement about all agnostics. I know agnostics who find the fears you listed as irrelevant. I'm reading your statements as disgust, that other people haven't come to the same conclusion as you. Not as an atheist, but that agnosticism is limbo or fear of making a commitment. You haven't proven to me that agnostics are full of fear, or that they haven't weighed the possibilities and come to a logical conclusion, rather than an indecisive limbo.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Originally Posted by Ex Machina

It is interesting to note that agnostics choose a certain point to begin saying that they "don't know". Why do they believe they can believe anything?

The statement 'I don't know' is a simple statement of fact, mere words and pedantic trivia. It is not an invitation to believe that every absurdity conceived by the minds of men is a possibility.

"Not knowing" is a universal epistemological given. "I don't know" can be said about anything. But agnostics selectively apply their cosmic ignorance in a way that assuages their fears.

OK. I see where you're coming from, and it's not exactly where I thought. An agnostic's claim that he lacks the information to prove or disprove God means nothing to you, because that same logic can apply to anything- we don't really know that the sun will come up tomorrow, for example, we just believe it. An agnostic who holds onto "the fence" when it comes to divinity is, in that sense, a hypocrite because he/she will commit to belief in other things based on rationality, like the sun rising daily. Am I reading you right so far?

Never mind. The Great Unwashed, I see, asks the question directly:

Perhaps some agnostic could point to a reason for their non-committal on the matter of the existence of a god that doesn't apply to every other belief that they have?

Perhaps the question should be asked, why is is that in the case of religion, uncertainty is an invalid position? No one has ever asked me whether I was a true believer in the sunrise, or demanded that I choose a position. I'm not a true believer as I see it defined here. My non-committal applies to everything, in varying degree. The strength of my belief is directly proportional to the strength of the evidence as I see it. In the case of the sunrise, I've lived 21 years and it has occurred every morning. This strengthens the evidence in favor of a sunrise tomorrow. I've never seen a morning without a sunrise, so I lean strongly towards believing it will happen. This is not an absolute commitment as I would define it. If I had to bet my life one way or the other, I would bet on the sunrise. That is not to say that I find it outside the realm of possibility that the sun rise late, or never. In the parlance of this thread, apparently, I am a craven, lazy coward, through and through. From my perspective, though, I wonder why when it comes to the existence of God, there are only two acceptable answers, even though the rest of the world is a question of degree.

[iampunha]

The Great Unwashed and Ex Machina, in case either of you is planning to continue to insult agonstics, do bear in mind (for what it may or may not be worth) that should it continue I for one have no qualms in inviting you to a brief stay here. Enough is enough, and enough was before this thread got moved

Originally Posted by The Great Unwashed

Perhaps some agnostic could point to a reason for their non-committal on the matter of the existence of a god that doesn't apply to every other belief that they have?

On the chance that I'm parsing this correctly:

I have not currently committed to a firm stance on the existence of God/s/Goddess/es/gods/etc. because I do not believe that I have enough evidence to either prove, to myself or to anyone else, the existence of any deity or deities ... or to disprove that. It's not a matter of being craven or having a demented opinion or being lazy; I simply do not know. And it is an issue that is important enough (to me, to others, etc.) that I want to be well and truly sure that I have a sound case before I go forth with it. It's not like "do you believe an apple is on the table?" or something more trivial than, to many, the existence of a deity or deities. Even if I found it to be a trivial manner, I would consider it disrespectful to too many people to treat it as such were I to present either an argument for or against the existence of one or more deities.

On the chance that I am not parsing this correctly:

Care to clarify?

Lastly, Ex Machina, "If a person entertains even the slightest possibility of God's existence he is compelled to believe."

By compell here do you mean "forced" or "it is strongly suggested that he"? I have entertained the possibility of God's existence, but I am not forced to believe. I am not strongly urged to believe. If we assume that the construct of God that some here believe in is accurate, then I will never be forced, by Him, to believe anything. If, on the other hand, we believe any number of other constructs are accurate, then perhaps something less enjoyable will happen.

[Apos]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I agree completely. It does depend on how you define atheist. If you go with the normal "one who does not believe god exists" definition, than babies technically fit. But I don't think it makes sense to count someone as a believer or non-believer if his/her mind is literally not capable of belief.

Well, the definition is litterally dead on correct, so why not? The problem is people's confusion in thinking that non-belief requires some positive position. It doesn't: neither in babies nor in adults.

[Apos]

Originally Posted by IWLN

"Endorsing something that cannot be known", is exactly what I'm doing and what the hard atheist is doing. The agnostic is the only one that can be sure that he won't be proved wrong.

Yep. Though perhaps someday it could be proven that he really DOES know that there is a god.