I have claimed agnosticism for over 20 years now but I am starting to consider myself an atheist. Agnostic means more than just-don’t know. It means that the supernatural world cannot be known or proven, so why worry about it. If evidence shows up tomorrow, I’ll believe. But…..I am not holding my breath.
I’m in the same boat, more or less (I’ve considered myself an agnostic for a long time, an agnostic atheist for a bit less time, and simply an atheist for a while now, only qualifying it by explaining the agnosticism part if it’s called for), but I’d like to point out an issue with the idea that “if evidence shows up tomorrow ... ”
The problem is that we can only find evidence in nature, and only of things that are natural, so by defining gods (et al) as “supernatural” we ensure this isn’t a danger. Gods cannot be evidence, and thus they cannot be refuted by evidence. It also means they have to be made up, inherently, by definition, since we have no means by which to knowably perceive anything beyond the natural. It also illustrates that the “supernatural” is a nonsensical notion. “That which is non-natural” is essentially the same as “that which is non-existent,” at least as far as we can possibly have any clue (i.e. again, we can make up some sort of non-natural realm in theory, but I seriously doubt we’re truly any more capable of actually conceptualizing such a thing than we are of truly grasping the concept of infinity).
[quote author=“McCreason”]Atheists seeme to be more absolute in saying that they know, there is no metaphysical world. Agnostics tend to say that there is no evidence for one right now but….who knows what may happen in the future.
Can you think of another concept to we give such inherent respect? Do we hedge to anywhere near this degree in order to reject any other notions within comfortably rational limits? Do we feel the need to say “I don’t believe there’s a tea pot in orbit around Neptune, but I’m not really certain about it, and I’ll accept there is such a thing tomorrow, if we find sufficient evidence.” That may be a pretty obvious example, but you can try others, and remember, the whole notion of anything supernatural must inherently be made up, fabricated from imagination. We cannot have possibly derived any such notion from observation.
Is it possible that people are becoming less tolerant and more hostile as our economy worsens? Could Senator Obama have a valid point that people are clinging to religion out of frustration?
huh? How can some “natural” unconscious be intelligent? THe two do not congrue. When we are unconscious are we intelligent? What does that even mean? An unconscious god? THis unconscious intelligence you speak of you claim is “natural,” so, let’s use an example from nature: When we are unconscious, we rely on our body’s autonomic nervous system. Is this reflective of intelligence? Or a product of natural design and function. No “unconscious” intelligence, dumb luck or stupidity required.
Byron said it pretty good there:
“That which is non-natural” is essentially the same as “that which is non-existent,”
Is it possible that people are becoming less tolerant and more hostile as our economy worsens? Could Senator Obama have a valid point that people are clinging to religion out of frustration?
I would rather believe that people’s true character tends to come out when times are bad, be it good or bad, whether they are religious or not.
Then again some people are just assholes all the time.
I would rather believe that people’s true character tends to come out when times are bad, be it good or bad, whether they are religious or not.
Then again some people are just assholes all the time.
huh? How can some “natural” unconscious be intelligent? THe two do not congrue. When we are unconscious are we intelligent? What does that even mean? An unconscious god?
Sorry, I meant the universal unconscious which means we are all connected to one universal mind. It’s an awesome theory and rings more “true” to me than an religious text. Be true I mean “truth,” of course. Archetypes play a role in this. It sort of reminds me of Richard Dawkin’s meme theory. But I know Richard would have a cow if he knew someone was trying to compare his theory to Jung.
I had a really interesting experience yesterday. If someone was telling me this story, I would be skeptical. I assure you that it is absolutely true. Most everyone in town knows that I am a non-theist.
I was standing in line at our small town grocery store. An elderly lady approached the line with just a few things and I offered to let her go ahead of me. She looked away and quickly scurried to the other check-out line. She loudly told the woman next to her, “I would rather leave than stand next to that Satan worshiper.”
Although she would not look at me I said to her, “With all due respect, Madam, there is no Satan and I do not worship anything.” Everyone else tried to look away and act like nothing was happening. The small, frail, aging woman then said out loud, “He will change his mind when he is burning in Hell.”
I do not have a good enough imagination to make this up. I often have people shun me, but they rarely are this brazen.
I told her to have a pleasant day.
Did you know that woman? Were you wearing a Satan Rules t-shirt or something? That would totally freak me out if that happened to me by someone I didn’t know.
Or was she just some crazy old bat who does shit like that to everybody?
huh? How can some “natural” unconscious be intelligent? THe two do not congrue. When we are unconscious are we intelligent? What does that even mean? An unconscious god?
Sorry, I meant the universal unconscious which means we are all connected to one universal mind. It’s an awesome theory and rings more “true” to me than an religious text. Be true I mean “truth,” of course. Archetypes play a role in this. It sort of reminds me of Richard Dawkin’s meme theory. But I know Richard would have a cow if he knew someone was trying to compare his theory to Jung.
Ahh, you mean in a Howard Bloomian ‘global brain’ sense. I must confess, however, that the term universal “mind” comes across as just more delusional human projection; or the anthropomorphizing of the cosmos.
Hope you didn’t mind, I couldn’t help it, I had to rib the rab on the whole unconscious intelligence notion! I think you’re absolutely correct about Dawkins… on the other hand, what would Jung have said about Dawkins’ memes?
If I were you Beam Me Up, I’d blow that small town pop stand; get the hell out of dodge… no wonder you go by beam me up… it’s sort of a plea, aye?
Did you know that woman? Were you wearing a Satan Rules t-shirt or something? That would totally freak me out if that happened to me by someone I didn’t know.
Or was she just some crazy old bat who does shit like that to everybody?
This is a small town-population 6000. Nearly everyone here knows that I am a non-theist who fights to keep evolution in local science texts. This makes me very unpopular locally. I live an unblemished life other than my outspoken, non-religious public debate. Everyone else in town claims to be a Christian. I suspect that I know more about the Bible than most any person in town.
Normal? I’d say that someone who calls someone a “Satan worshiper” who only fights to keep out creationism is schools isn’t normal, certainly not in the rationality department.
Normal? I’d say that someone who calls someone a “Satan worshiper” who only fights to keep out creationism is schools isn’t normal, certainly not in the rationality department.
You seem like the “normal” one to me Beam.
If we use “normal” in the sense of “common” then BMU is absolutely right. If we use it as in “[functionally] nominal” or “functioning properly” then definitely not. But scary as it might be, by the numbers in terms of common/popular, she is more or less “normal,” or at least within the more or less “normal” range ... and most of us in here, being skeptics and atheists and agnostics (and agnostic atheists) are not.
If we use “normal” in the sense of “common” then BMU is absolutely right. If we use it as in “[functionally] nominal” or “functioning properly” then definitely not. But scary as it might be, by the numbers in terms of common/popular, she is more or less “normal,” or at least within the more or less “normal” range ... and most of us in here, being skeptics and atheists and agnostics (and agnostic atheists) are not.
Byron
Unfortunately, you are right. If normal is defined by what is common, then we are abnormal.
I come here for refuge on occasion. It is nice to know that there are some logical, “abnormal” people in the world even if I never meet them in my daily life.
The problem is that we can only find evidence in nature, and only of things that are natural, so by defining gods (et al) as “supernatural” we ensure this isn’t a danger. Gods cannot be evidence, and thus they cannot be refuted by evidence. It also means they have to be made up, inherently, by definition, since we have no means by which to knowably perceive anything beyond the natural. It also illustrates that the “supernatural” is a nonsensical notion. “That which is non-natural” is essentially the same as “that which is non-existent,” at least as far as we can possibly have any clue (i.e. again, we can make up some sort of non-natural realm in theory, but I seriously doubt we’re truly any more capable of actually conceptualizing such a thing than we are of truly grasping the concept of infinity).
I know I’m new (both to philosophy and this board) but although I am agnostic as well I believe I disagree on this point. Supernatural evidence would be an event that breaks the laws of nature, such as a man walking on water or lightning bolts flying from someone’s ass. If this unlikely event were to occur, if someone was in the vicinity would that someone not be able to observe it?
Supernatural evidence would be an event that breaks the laws of nature, such as a man walking on water or lightning bolts flying from someone’s ass. If this unlikely event were to occur, if someone was in the vicinity would that someone not be able to observe it?
I bet Preparation H wouldn’t give you much relief from that!
I’d say that someone who calls someone a “Satan worshiper” who only fights to keep out creationism is schools isn’t normal, certainly not in the rationality department.
