A billion in perspective......

[Nobahar]

Virginia, a key swing state Agnosticism has nothing to do with not caring, and your second statement really illustrated it perfectly. There is no definitive way to know whether there is or isn't a god. And agnosticism is about not defining what we can't know. There are many different subtypes, but mostly it's because of lack of objective evidence to illustrate god. You can't prove the existence of god, but you also can't disprove it through the same sort of objective reasoning- therefore god may or may not exist, and most agnostics believe we will never have the level of ability to prove it.

I started out in agnosticism, but I can tell you where I stand within that large subcategory. I do believe in the existence of something more than the individual, which for practical purposes I can call supreme being, however my view of this supreme being is incompatible with the major religions for a variety of reasons. However, I refer to the supreme being as the same god that other people worship, I just eliminate all the cultural practices associated with religion to define what it is.

I'm an agnostic only by definition. I can explain what I just said through your equation too. Both P(q) and P(~q) exist, but since the human mind cannot accept god both existing and not existing observer bias plays a part to choose one or the other. Agnostics refuse to make that choice without some kind of "reasonable" way. I say through logic, mathematics, or even quantum mechanics.

See Schrödinger's cat experiment for observer bias.

[jakegub]

So if I'm a theist that agrees that the existence of god (lowercase being synonymous here with "higher power" or "supernatural") can neither be proven nor disproven does that make me an agnostic? Because i'm not an agnostic, I'm a theist. However, I agree that it can't be proven or disproven. What distinguishes you from me?

[Nobahar]

You decided on P(q) and therefore P(~q) is ruled out, so you are not an agnostic. In your mind only P(q) exists. The difference is that because you are a theist, you wouldn't say god might not exist. He definitely does exist under your decision, which most theists base their decision on faith, holy scripture, or just cause it is easier to believe than actually think about what you are believing.

[Skippman]

Skippman,

you mentioned above you were an agnostic, doesn't that basically just mean you don't care. Even if you lack the perspective to KNOW, you have to know that either there is a god, or there is not. So then you either have to choose to believe one way or another, or as an agnostic you can just not care. Am I simplifying that correctly?

Sort of P(q or ~q) = 1 sort of deal....

Firstly let me thank you for reading the thread Jake. Secondly, I understand your perspective. I've been asked this many times. This is something I wrote about 4 years ago when I was first asked a similar question.

Here is my belief.

I believe there are things in this universe that the human mind cannot comprehend. Whether that is by social constrictions, the lack of sufficient scientific knowledge, or a pure physiological inability to process the data. I believe completely in Chaos Theory. Nothing in the universe, short of human will, is truly random. However, it would be impossible for the human animal to be able to perceive, let alone measure, all the factors involved in things like weather and ecosystems.

I do believe in the possibility of a higher state of consciousness and the possibility of a being, or beings of greater magnitude than ourselves who may have created life on this planet. Whether or not that being or beings have actually played and active role in either our development or religion is up to serious debate. I imagine it to be much like our relationship with microscopic organisms. We lack the ability to even perceive that which is greater than ourselves.

I am an agnostic. I believe that I will never truly know what lies after this life. I believe that it is impossible for man, one way or the other, to know his creator if such a being exists.

To futher answer your question specifically, I am facinated by religion from both a philosophical and a historical perspective. I've tried to learn as much as I can about the many religions that are on this planet. Being baptised and raised a Lutheran my background is obviously Judeao-Chrisian but I have also read about Budhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Christian Science, and some of the newer "faiths" like Wiccian and Objectivism.

While none of them have spoken specifically to myself, I do believe they all have merrit. I will undoubtbly continue to try to expland my theological knowledge until I either find something that speaks to me, or I conclude it all to be bunk and embrace atheism. Right now I would have to say I find the ideas behind Christian Science to be closest to my own personal beliefs, minus the shunning of modern medicin for which the religion is famous for (your wrong if you think they all do that).

Mind you religion and as a byproduct morality have nothing to do with living an ethical life. Morality is argued based on religious perspective. IE "Drinking is immoral because I'm Baptist and it violates my doctrine". Ethics is argued from the perspective of least harm and most good. IE "Murder is wrong because it deprives another of thier chance at life."

[jakegub]

Nabahar,

I certainly have not decided on the issue. I believe either a god exists or a god doesn't exist. I have decided to believe that one does exist, although I understand that I can not know for sure until after death and maybe not even then. (especially if a god doesn't exist).

As far as I can tell, agnostics are just unwilling to state which way they will choose to believe.

Skippman wrote:
I am an agnostic. I believe that I will never truly know what lies after this life. I believe that it is impossible for man, one way or the other, to know his creator if such a being exists.


I also believe that I will never truly know what lies after this life. I believe that it is impossible for man, one way or another, to know his creator if such a being exists.
I have a caveat though, that after life, I may possibly find out what lies after this life.

If I believe what you believe, am I not also an agnostic, or perhaps are you not actually a theist?

[Nobahar]

I have a critique of the agnostic position but I'll save it for another day (and another post to hijack). I think we do have the ability to perceive what is greater than ourselves, it just requires skills beyond what an ordinary person can accomplish. The key to understanding how to develop these skills is to understand how the brain works, and I'm not talking about neurons firing I'm talking on a macro cosmic scale. Once you formulate a theory, you then use the tools we have available (mathematics, or in my case quantum reasoning) to scientifically explain it.

Jake, you are actually in essence an agnostic by definition. They refer to that as agnostic theism. I know plenty of agnostic theists.

[jakegub]

Agnostic theism sounds like the way to go. (good job me!). Consider this thread low-jacked. How about that 700 Billion bailout joke. I was just about furious at both idiot candidates on that one and if we didn't have a 2 party system, I'd vote for a 3rd party.

[Alathald]

Being agnostic does not mean you don't care, it means you acknowledge the fact that there is no way to know either way. You can neither proof or disprove the existence of a god so it would be stupid to take either extreme without any knowledge, only beliefs. Atheism is just that, a belief system, a 'religion' if you will. Agnostics don't 'believe' one way or another, they want to 'know' and with religion you just can't know.

If you're curious about my beliefs I believe there are things that are both true and unprovable. Fill that with what you will whether it be God, the FSM or nothing at all.

[Skippman]

I personally feel many people subsribe more to Pascal's wager than any true faith. Pascals Wager loosely states: "If there's a god and I believe in him, I reap the rewards in the afterlife. If there is no god and I still believe, I have lost nothing. If there is a god and I deny him, then I loose everything. Better to gamble for his existance than against." I invite you to read the article at your convience.

That being said, I am an agnostic because I accept the fact that I do not know what lies after this life and more importantly I do not have faith in any one religious doctrine. Until I have faith it's hyprocrtical of me to profess a belief in one religion over another. An agnostic is open to the possiblity that at some point they my find meaning in a religion and in that meaning find faith. A atheist flatly denouces that possiblity.

[Nobahar]

The problem with Pascal's wager, while I agree with you that most people subscribe to it, is that it is flawed. You tend to violate the fundamentals basis of the religion when you cast doubt on what is defined as a religious truth. I know specifically in Islam two of the pillars were to believe there is only one god and that Mohammad was a prophet of god. That's where fundamentals would be violated.

Half-believing in a religion for outcome and practicing those ethics is just as good as being any ethical person in terms of action. According to Deepak Chopra, who subscribes to the multiple universes theory in physics, every person's soul projects their beliefs in the immediate after-life and that there are multiple celestial levels that represent a progress of the soul's journey with the help of a guide, which he refers to as the supreme being. His book is interesting, but it draws a lot upon his own cultural upbringing- which was what led me to my rejection of the system. I just used it as a model to explain the latter circuits of Dr. Leary's 8 circuits of consciousness. It's interesting most people don't even think of Leary as a religious pioneer, and would probably denounce all his theories on basis that he was a crazy druggie, but essentially through manipulation of his brain with different chemicals he was able to change his thinking. If you believe someone who dies and is revived can have an Out-of-Body experience, that dissociating effect can also be produced in the brain with Ketamine.

Obviously you don't need drugs to experience that, but your body releases similar chemicals in response to stimuli. Buddha's technique involved deep meditation and starving himself, if you do this for a lengthy period of time you will start hallucinating until eventually reality blurs to a point that you lose track of it. When your perception changes radically, you can start listening to things that are happening simultaneously outside the material world. Now, for someone who denounced the religion I was born into and brainwashed to subscribe to, it's easy to reject something that doesn't make sense to you but it isn't easy to make sense of what you do believe in. I'm on my own path of making sense of things, and that's about where I am so far. Reading Chopra, seeing where it fits in Leary's model.

[Skippman]

My personal beliefs are somewhere between the "shared dream" that the Christian Scientists believe in and the "Overmind" that Transedentialsm speaks of. I believe that we are all connected in some way. That's why certian people you meet you instantly like them while other people you automatically distrust. Think of it as an extension of instinct. Now whether this "collective conciousness" would be considered god is up to each individual to determin for themselves. When you die, your conciousness is returned to the pool. When a new life is created energy from that pool is drawn out and invested in the new host or avatar. This would account for the belief in reincarnation that some religions profess. I don't think the new ka or soul is identical to the old one, but perhaps a variation on it as it has been changed by the other energies of this "overmind".

Ok, that's pretty dang deep for a Thursday morning! :D

[Tim Burton]

Every politician we have spends money. "Fiscal" conservatives spend money by embroiling themselves in wars, even if you take into account Bush's tax cuts- he, and partially with the help with a republican congress, have spent proportionally more money than any other term in the history of this country.

Not true. Outside of Bush (who isn't a fiscal conservative, he is a compassionate conservative, which is PC code words for big spenderon social programs), name the last fiscal conservative who got people into a war.

Both Bushes were Moderates at best. LBJ was a liberal progessive. JFK was a liberal progressive. FDR was a Facist Progressive. Wilson was a Facist Progressive. TR was a Progessive.

Few wars have been started by fiscal conservatives in the History of the US, though they have had some defensive wars.

Technically FDR did not start it, but he should have made peace and kept working with Japan. After all, at their worse they treated the Chinese better than Mao did. I'm not saying we shouldn't have fought WWII, but we should have kept out of it long enough to let the USSR and Germany grind each other down, then should have stepped in and pushed to Moscow. We would have saved 65+ million lives.