I am saying that I believe we do not and cannot know for certain, either way.
You’re not a very careful reader; I have answered the questions.
Nah, not really trying to make a point. I do have an opinion on atheism, though, which I have stated.
Well I understand what your saying; I should have been more clear about where I stand. I generally hold the belief that Religion has been the cause for both the greatest and worst things done in Human History.
We can’t know for *certain *that we’re not all brains in bottles hooked up to an elaborate computer simulation, but that doesn’t mean we should extend any particular consideration to that hypothesis.
We can never know ANYTHING “for certain”, even basic facts like the color of the walls or whether it is day or night. All we can do is construct explanations that account as best as possible for the sensory data we receive.
If you were truly agnostic you would be unable to function on a day to day basis, since you would refuse to accept any of the necessary provisional assumptions that we all make from moment to moment to engage with the world around us. Is that traffic light REALLY green? How can you step on the accelerator without being CERTAIN?
Of course, most agnostics only apply their principles to theological entities. Which is merely a form of begging the question. You decide in advance, for no apparent reason, that you’ll apply different epistemological standards to different types of things. You’re concerned about absolute certainty only when it serves to keep the door to the supernatural propped open an inch or two. It’s an intellectually inconsistent position.
Exactly. I’ve never been able to respect agnosticism as a position; it’s just a means of giving religion a position of intellectual privilege. I firmly take the stance that there are no gods for the same reasons I take a firm stance that Sauron is a fictional character. People would laugh at me if I was agnostic about Sauron, yet I’m supposed to take people seriously when they claim to be agnostic on bronze age myths.
Religion is generally correlated with destructive, stupid, unethical behavior both socially and personally; example: Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side’
Religion is destructive. It undercuts scientific and social progress, encourages and excuses tyrannical and irrational behavior, ruins people’s judgment, and diverts energy from more useful things. And by all the evidence it’s simply factually wrong, not to mention impossible in most cases; and I prefer to be right.
Let’s face it folks. Human beings are animals with technology (technological and social) that allows us to create the construct of morality. Without it we would (will) revert to our original evolved programming - self preservation - vicious - merciless- kill or be killed etc. etc.
It’s not evil, it’s just nature.
Religion is a construct of social technology, the realization of an evolved, intelligent animal that there is a higher probability of survival when gathered in tribes. Religious tribes bring the added benefit of potential immortality, an escape from the harsh reality of the less attractive world of meaningless mortality.
We are addicted to chemically induced pleasure (natural or otherwise) and an instinct to procreate.
Boy, that does make me come off as one hell of a cynical hard case, but here’s the rub. I’m really not - just voicing what all of us probably feel in our gut.
Time for another beer :-)(
Morality, or at least a tendency to be moral appears to be part of that built in nature. There are people like you describe, namely psychopaths; but most of us aren’t psychopaths. Our upbringing, our “technology of morality” can extend and render more sophisticated our natural moral impulses; but as psychopaths demonstrate without that initial, instinctive moral impulse all culture can do is get them to fake a surface version of morality. In other words, I care about the welfare of people far away whom I’ll never meet because of my culture; but the only reason I care at all about anyone is because of instinct.
The idea that natural impulses are nothing but “kill or be killed” is archaic, and largely a myth created for ideological/theological reasons. In reality cooperation is at least as natural as competition and predation.
This is an interesting statement. There are plenty of atheists (and theists) who state their position as fact rather than belief.
So? It doesn’t validate the theist position in any way.
I agree.
Ah, I see. I did miss it. From your description I’d say you were Hard Agnostic. (Is there one particular god you’re agnostic about? or do you think all/some/a few of them are possible?)
Thanks. My parents and brother are believers and I agree that it’s not delusion and the comfort is “real to them”. But that’s different from saying the things they take comfort from are objectively real. They believe in heaven and derive comfort from this belief, but if heaven isn’t real this comfort is going to be taken away at some point, abruptly.
Good post. It may be added that countries don’t believe in God, people do, and some that believe in God may not follow the teachings. Also in any country there is only a small percentage of the population that consistently break the law. I believe the study to be worthless. Just an ad for atheistism.
I don’t agree with this. Theistic agnosticism doesn’t preclude functioning in absence of certainty. A theistic agnostic functions perfectly fine with regard to decisions based on ethical or moral behavior (which is very much in the realm of religion). Whether or not, a deity (or deities) exist does not prevent the agnostic from going about life in the same manner an atheist does. It becomes, for all intents and purposes, a non-issue. At least for me it does.
ETA: Besides, there is evidence that my perception of the color of traffic lights is accurate.
Of course. That, again is why agnosticism isn’t something to be taken seriously; it is applied only when necessary to shelter religion from critical thought. It’s just a specialized, get-out-of-jail-free card for religion; for people who are unwilling or unable to really defend religion, but who don’t want to admit just how bad it comes off when any serious critical thought is applied to it.
You mean atheism?
The problem with religion is that it often encourages violence while atheism has no set of teachings to really encourage anything.
Know what the punishment for apostasy in Islam is?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Why would an agnostic care about sheltering religion from critical thought? And doesn’t faith sort of require the absence of critical thought?
Why would agnostics wish to defend religion? As an agnostic, I can be certain that there’s no evidence of a “higher power,” but I can’t say that lack of evidence proves there is no higher power. I’m simply not aware of one. Further, I have no use for faith in one because it doesn’t effect my life one way or another. I, personally, consider belief in a higher power to be hypothetical, not even theoretical. It’s just not a hypothesis I have any use for.
Thanks for the spelling correction. But no religion encourages violence, no, not one. All major religions encourage just the opposite.
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
It is people that encourage violence, equally those who belong to religions and those who don’t.
And you are right about atheists also
You can post all the links you want.
When the Mutaween or the Basij refuse to let girls out of a burning school because they don’t have their faces covered, that’s a religious cause.
Judaism, Islam, Christianity- they all advocate violence, despite what apologetic religions leaders across the world say. My cites are the Bible, the Torah and the Qu’ran themselves.
The nonexistence of God is a fact to exactly the same extent that the rising of the sun this morning is a fact. Both hypotheses can never be absolutely proven, but both are also the best explanation for the data (or lack of it) presented by our senses.
Perhaps you should ask yourself that question.
Just as you can’t be *certain *that there’s not a leprechaun stealing your socks out of the dryer. The fact that you’ve never seen him do it is not proof of his nonexistence … right?
The fact is that agnosticism is merely a form of special pleading for religion. It holds theological claims to a different standard of truth than other claims. But why should an exception be made for religion? Why should the question of the existence of God be treated any differently than the question of the existence of ANY hypothetical entity?