|
Post by crocoduck on May 21, 2012 15:36:36 GMT -5
Agnostic is a position, Hito, it's just slang. There are different type of agnostics, there's agnostic atheist and agnostic theists. Most people that say they are agnostic, mean they're agnostic theists and most people that say they're atheist are agnostic atheist.
Agnostic atheist -> Doesn't believe in the supernatural, but accepts the possibility that they might be wrong. So if somebody shows them proof of the supernatural, they will be alright with accepting it. Gnostic atheist -> Doesn't believe in the supernatural, but refuses to accept any proof. This is somebody that believes as strongly in the lack of god as church-goers believe in the existence of one.
Agnostic Theist-> One who believes something is out there, but doesn't quite know what. They believe in a higher power, a higher order, but it's not exactly organized nor does it have a name and they usually accept the fact that they might be wrong. Gnostic theist-> without a doubt (sort of) believes in the existence of particular god or belief system and requires no proof of it. They're as adamant about their beliefs as Gnostic Atheists are about their dis-belief. These are your heavy church goers.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 21, 2012 15:39:04 GMT -5
@cdf
Right, I basically agree. Agnostic is something you can stick on any religion or non-religion, so I don't see it's worth as its own position.
|
|
|
Post by CJ on May 21, 2012 15:42:40 GMT -5
Good post CJ. I know a lot of that stuff is personal for you so I won't respond to a lot of your points I might have disagreements with. So with that, I'll just respond to one point. Feel free to discuss any points I bring up. There are a lot of things I feel on religion that I don't talk about for various reasons. However, I won't be offended by any comments about information I share here. I really appreciate the gesture though. It's in response to the idea that you can't take all of the Bible literally, like the creation story and Adam and Eve. My only real problem with this is that it seems you can choose willingly what story is a metaphor and what story actually happened. If you can say Adam and Eve was just a metaphor, can you say Jonah and the Whale is a metaphor? What about Noah? Was Moses and the plagues a metaphor? If you're able to choose what is a metaphor based on what we know about ourselves today, then it seems kind of impossible to know what actually happened. That's where the problem comes in with my explanation. It's hard to differentiate what was real and what wasn't. In my own personal opinion, I can say Genesis is mostly fiction to explain to a primitive people as to how humanity got started. Beyond that, there is sound basis for reality. As Xero stated, pretty much everything in the Bible can be proven scientifically. He's right about that. Take the seven plagues against the Egyptians in the Book of Exodus. Each the plagues actually could have happened (the river of blood for example is a real phenomenon caused by red bacteria). As my dear Old Testament teacher said, it's not the event that makes a miracle, it's when it happens. However, it still is terribly confusing and there are very questionable passages involving sex and incest. I'm not sure why people call it a "Holy Book" when it should really be called "Oh my gosh what is wrong with this Book of Morals." (Oh, and terribly off topic religious nerd comment, the most bizarre part of Jonah's life was his encounter with the "whale." However, it is his teachings and bravery that should be remembered.) In my mind, the God I'm told about is one that is all powerful. If he is truly all powerful and can do anything, I think he could have gotten his word around better than a very old collection of stories that are prone to mistranslation, mistake, and forgery. If I were God, I would make it overwhelming obvious that I existed to the point no one could deny me. I would appear and talk to the individuals and answer their questions. God made us skeptical beings, so it seems wrong for him to punish us for that as well. That's another problem too. It's hard to question what God wants for us and what he doesn't. Why would he make life hard for us? Why do people have to suffer? Why are we punished for the sins of others? It's so terribly confusing and it's a big reason as to why I left my faith for a period of time. There is somewhat of an answer that the Gospel provides as to your question. This scene takes place during the crucifixion in Luke 23:35-43. This passage could be saying that humanity has to discover God for themselves. For whatever reason that is, I don't know. I know my crazy uberCatholic friends would probably tell you that God's love is everywhere or some flowery business but this is all I have an answer for. My version of God btw: Futurama just seems to get me on these things.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 21, 2012 15:51:06 GMT -5
@ CJ
Thanks for the response.
Although I don't completely agree with this (For example, I don't see how Jonah could survive in a giant fish, or how only a handful of animals per species could repopulate the world without genetic anomalies from inbreeding), even if everything in the Bible is scientifically possible, that doesn't mean it agrees with science's version of the earth.
If this is true, it certainly doesn't seem fair. Many people have had personal experiences where God has revealed himself to those people. Does he just decide that not everyone deserves that proof?
Thanks again for your response.
|
|
|
Post by CJ on May 21, 2012 16:09:44 GMT -5
Thanks for responding too! I appreciate it. It's not often I can talk to someone logically about these issues. Although I don't completely agree with this (For example, I don't see how Jonah could survive in a giant fish, or how only a handful of animals per species could repopulate the world without genetic anomalies from inbreeding), even if everything in the Bible is scientifically possible, that doesn't mean it agrees with science's version of the earth. Yeah, the Jonah thing is still really iffy. Noah's Ark, however, took place in Genesis. I keep hating to sound like a bigot but I still don't take Genesis for fact. If it did happen, it was likely exaggerated and the "flood" likely covered most of their world, that is today's Middle East, but probably not the whole world. Many people have had personal experiences where God has revealed himself to those people. Does he just decide that not everyone deserves that proof? My mother explained it to me, when I was younger that is, saying God appears to those who need Him to appear. In Catholicism, Jesus, Mary and several angels seem to have taken over the messenger job as far as the Saints are concerned. But still, why would he only appear to them? If His purpose was to reveal himself to them so that we might know Him, how come everyone isn't a believer yet? Is it because we're not trying hard enough? It's all too confusing, but perhaps that's what makes it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 21, 2012 16:18:14 GMT -5
@ CJ
I enjoy chatting about this as well!
As for Genesis. Why exactly don't you believe Genesis literally occurred? Is it because we have evidence that says otherwise? Most people hundreds of years ago believed in Genesis literally, and some people today do as well. I don't see your justification for saying that book is just a metaphor, but the others aren't.
Let me first say, I do not know what you believe for the after life. I will go with what I was taught and what appears in the Bible. If you do not believe in God or accept Jesus, you will be tormented and tortured forever.
So, with that said, if I were God I would do everything I could to prove I existed to every person so that no one would have to suffer, that includes revealing myself publicly. God, however, does not do this, or if he does, only to a select few. Even if a person didn't go to Hell, but some other place, it is a place of lesser value than Heaven, and they get sent there because God never chose to reveal himself.
Thanks again for the convo CJ
|
|
|
Post by Neurotick on May 21, 2012 16:21:50 GMT -5
Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 21, 2012 16:31:39 GMT -5
To summarize my position on this, the same as it always has been.
As a scientist academic, the more and more you learn the more you see the universe is too finely tuned to have come into existence by chance. Do I believe God exists as a being in the sky who hangs over your shoulder watching your every action, and listening to your prayers at night? No, but I hold true that there is something out there, some higher power. It's up to us as individuals to find out what that is and what that means to us.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 21, 2012 16:41:20 GMT -5
There was a time in my life when I couldn't understand why anyone could be an atheist. wololo I remember when you scared off the original Shark a' Pult with that.
|
|
|
Post by CJ on May 21, 2012 17:20:00 GMT -5
As for Genesis. Why exactly don't you believe Genesis literally occurred? Is it because we have evidence that says otherwise? Most people hundreds of years ago believed in Genesis literally, and some people today do as well. I don't see your justification for saying that book is just a metaphor, but the others aren't. Science really. I feel like religion and science should work together to continue God's story. To be honest, it probably came out of spite for endless Catholic teachers telling me evolution and other scientific theories had no basis, despite clear support from Bill Nye the Science Guy and my uncle who is a priest. Let me first say, I do not know what you believe for the after life. I will go with what I was taught and what appears in the Bible. If you do not believe in God or accept Jesus, you will be tormented and tortured forever. So, with that said, if I were God I would do everything I could to prove I existed to every person so that no one would have to suffer, that includes revealing myself publicly. God, however, does not do this, or if he does, only to a select few. Even if a person didn't go to Hell, but some other place, it is a place of lesser value than Heaven, and they get sent there because God never chose to reveal himself. Baptism and pure belief should not dictate whether or not someone deserves paradise. After all, Satan is supposed to believe in God. This is the problem I have with most Christians. Roman Catholics believe that everyone is judged at death. At the end of the world, those still living and those in Hell will be judged again. You are judged on many things, but mostly on what you did and what you could have done. In some sects, however, it's believed that if you aren't baptized, you have no luck. So are you telling me that the Dali Lama, Gandhi and Buddha are out of luck simply because they weren't baptized? I won't believe that just because I am Catholic, it means I have a greater chance of salvation. I've done terrible things, including this: There was a time in my life when I couldn't understand why anyone could be an atheist. wololo I remember when you scared off the original Shark a' Pult with that. I still feel bad about this. Shark wasn't the only one. I openly criticized others because of their faith and actions. I'm glad I'm much different today. The point is, though, that I shouldn't be allowed into Heaven purely based on my beliefs. There should be more. That's why I can't stand some Christian sects. Just sayin'. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. To summarize my position on this, the same as it always has been. As a scientist academic, the more and more you learn the more you see the universe is too finely tuned to have come into existence by chance. Do I believe God exists as a being in the sky who hangs over your shoulder watching your every action, and listening to your prayers at night? No, but I hold true that there is something out there, some higher power. It's up to us as individuals to find out what that is and what that means to us. This. This is so profound.
|
|
|
Post by Neurotick on May 21, 2012 18:04:00 GMT -5
As an aside, the whole idea of agnostic "not being worthy of its own denomination" is atrocious. What am I then, if not agnostic? In the strictest sense I am an atheist since I don't believe in a god or pantheon of gods, but as you can plainly see neither am I of the same "flavor" of atheism as Hito, or CDF. I certainly don't consider myself an atheist in the common sense of the word, and if I were to describe my beliefs to just about anyone else, they would call me agnostic.
For that matter, what is Shark? He believes that there is a higher driving force of some kind but does not attribute it to one of the current religious constructs. He is a theist, but non-denominational. In most circles, that also falls under agnosticism.
On top of that, you left out a lot of religious ideologies in the original poll. What if someone was a Taoist? Neo-Pagan? Wiccan? Hell, in some parts of Europe even a few of the old Norse and Greek gods are getting some new followers.
If you're going to include some religions but not others, then you need to at least include an option for those of us who are not Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Islamic, Buddhist, or atheist.
I know you keep saying you don't know how to change a poll but, come the fuck on, it can't be that hard to google it and figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 21, 2012 21:45:15 GMT -5
I got a lot to reply to. @ sharkWhat do you mean by too finely tuned to come into existence by chance? I'm not sure I completely understand. Do you mean if the universe's constants were somewhat different then the universe wouldn't be able to exist and collapse? Or do you mean the universe has such a set of laws that permit life to form and this seems to unlikely to happen by chance? I'm interested and would like to know more. @ CJThat is your response as to why you deny Genesis actually happened. So, lets say, we didn't know about evolution or the history of the earth. Would you believe in Genesis then? What I'm getting at is that as science makes new discoveries that go against Bible claims, religious people can simply say that the story is a metaphor to get out of having to explain. Do you see what I mean? In response to Hell and the after life, don't you think Hell in itself is atrocious? In my mind, an infinite punishment for a finite crime is never acceptable. You also mentioned some people believe baptism is the only way, and some people don't. Is the Bible not clear on this? If it can go any way, how can anyone be sure? You would imagine and all powerful God would make sure the rules are very clear for his people to follow. But, given how many hundreds of different sects there are, it doesn't seem that is so. @ TickyYou are agnostic. But like cdf and I said, agnosticism deals with what you know and not what you believe. Are you convinced a God exists? If the answer is no, which seems to be your answer, then you are an atheist. Do you know no God exists? If the answer is no, which seems to be your answer, you are also an agnostic. So, you're an agnostic atheist. There is nothing wrong with the term atheist. I can understand if you don't like the 'flavor' of atheism. You have to keep in mind that there are many different kinds of atheism, such as negative and positive atheism. You don't have to bunch atheism up in one term. I think Shark would be called a deist. A deist is a person who believes a higher power may have created the universe, but doesn't think that it is a personal kind of god. Shark is also probably agnostic. So he's an agnostic deist. I only listed the most popular ones because there were only like 8 lines you could type on the poll. Like I said in other posts, if you are 'other' than just say so. I would have included other, but I don't know how to edit polls. Calm down, I don't think a poll option should be a big deal. I can respond to a person without them having to even vote in the poll. But to make you happy, I did google it and apparently you can't edit polls. It's just a proboards thing. Link There may be a code I can use to give me that option, but that is a lot of work for something that isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 22, 2012 3:36:29 GMT -5
I got a lot to reply to. @ sharkWhat do you mean by too finely tuned to come into existence by chance? I'm not sure I completely understand. Do you mean if the universe's constants were somewhat different then the universe wouldn't be able to exist and collapse? Or do you mean the universe has such a set of laws that permit life to form and this seems to unlikely to happen by chance? I'm interested and would like to know more. The omni-determinants, things like subatomic rotations and composite particle orbital formations, or higher branches of determinants like gravitational constants and spectrometry, and so many more. All of these things seem to be very carefully defined, almost arbitrarily. Upon assigning definite parameters to any of these determinants, in many cases changing even some minute value attributed to these can cause the universe to not exist. At least not feasibly form. But those are all very meta level, and largely outside my area of expertise. I know as much as I am expected to know about them as a general science academic. Biology is my forte, but if we look at that instead, we find much the same case. Unlike with the universe, on Earth we can say that Mother Nature has a way of making things work, but from a molecular level to our constituent proteins, allot of the bio-determinants are, like the bigger picture, largely finite, very defined parameters. In so many cases, we find examples of where, something could only feasibly exist or function given the specific detail of some amino acid function or synthase process. There's a "person" in biology who we refer to as LUCA. She's the entity you find when you go to the root of every organismal ancestral tree, from which all current life on earth is descended. We often wonder what could be learned from her, what we could understand of life based on her characteristics, and I myself think how profoundly interesting it would be to even look at her. Without meeting her in person though, we really are left to base our knowledge on what we can understand. I posit that LUCA could answer allot of our questions about life and might make this whole argument much more simple, but without that we have to go off what we have. And as it is, as aforementioned things are a bit wonky. As for your question Hito, from what I've seen there's two main schools of thought on how the universe came to be. Given that the universal constants are so specifically defined, such that even the most minute deviation would not allow for the existence of the universe, there are only two feasible methods in which the universe as we know it came to be, either; 1. In order to get exactly the right values and specifications for the constants, the universe continually created and destroyed itself, each time with slightly altered constants. Given an infinite timespan, eventually some stability will have been attained, with each successive universe lasting a little bit longer or a little bit more stably. Under this logic, it may be that the universe will never reach true stability (given the nature of entropy), and that the existence we live in is just one in a long line of existences, less stable versions having come before us and more stable versions to come after us. 2. In order to get exactly the right values and specifications for the constants, the correct values for stability and a feasible existence were intentionally assigned. Both of these are feasible methods, however as you might have guessed, the second method effectively writes the universe off as the creation of sorts, of some outside force. But then you encounter the problem that even in the first, it's hard to imagine the universe as some self-correcting force without it having some sense of "intelligence" (however you want to describe that), or that same as with the other reason, something induces it to correct itself. Either way you end up on a slippery slope, and one of the reasons why I became a Biologist; in Physics you have to write everything off as "just the way it is" and to just go along with it. It's not your job to know why gravity or radiation behaves the way it does, you just have to interpret it. At least in Biology we can actually see how things work, even if we don't know why. As for Chemistry, well... fuck Chemistry. Seriously. In the face. For your other question, what you mention is more of an existential concept. I could talk about that all day, but I don't really want to.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 22, 2012 3:39:28 GMT -5
Also you people should stop trying to label me.
Deist? Agnostic? Atheist?
Pfft, I'm awesome. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 22, 2012 10:28:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the post Shark.
First of all, I enjoyed the LUCA paragraph. I haven't read much about it, but it would be interesting to know more about that ancestral bit of life.
As for your next point.
Before anything else, I'd like to respond to this:
I agree that if you changed most things, the universe would not be able to exist. However, the universe is not completely fine tuned. For example, one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, the Weak Interaction could not exist at all and the universe could still potentially survive and not be so much different than our universe. If the universe was planned and created, I don't see why an intelligent creator would overlook this. It seems more likely to me that it was chance, or that it had to happen given infinite universes. More on that below.
Out of the two points you gave, either the universe recreates itself until it becomes stable, or the universe was made stable, I don't know which one is true. Or if either is true. Perhaps there are multiple universes occurring 'simultaneously' where every reality is played out. Or maybe there is some fundamental working of reality that causes things to come into being. Or maybe, through some kind of weird process of retrocausality, the universe caused itself to exist.
What I'm basically getting at is that I have no idea how the universe came into being, and I believe whatever the reason is, that reason is currently unknown and may even be unreachable forever. That is why I do not propose the universe was created intelligently, because there are so many alternatives that we may have no even discovered or thought of yet.
To summarize, I don't know how the universe came to be, but I believe the reason is something we have not yet discovered.
Again, thanks for your response
Finally, I would also like to share with you, and anyone else who might be interested, a talk by Lawrence Krauss titled 'A Universe from Nothing'. Because I am not an expert in this field, I rely on people who are experts for answers. Anyway, the video:
|
|