My apologies,
I saw an "a" where there was only a "gnostic."
As for the other religions and verified proofs, I doubt that very much.
ClaytonB: P.S. I am a rare bird called an "agnostic theist"
P.S. I am a rare bird called an "agnostic theist"
What does that mean?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
cryptocode: For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them. There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them. There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
The whole agnostic/athiest split seems ridiculous to me. Most athiests are agnostic in the strictly literal sense, but it ceases to be a meaningful qualifier because it can be applied to anything from the celestial teapot and the pink unicorn to Santa Claus and any other conceivable proposition regardless of evidence.
The reason I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic is not because I can prove a negative but to distance myself from the 'agnostics' who think that because both God and its negation cannot be proven, both possibilities are equally plausible and should be respected equally. This is an obviously untenable position when one recognizes that 'proof' is not obtainable at the very least via induction and the physical sciences (Hans Albert makes a similar case for logic). To consistently apply the principle used by such agnostics is to conclude that the entire body of science, and its negation, are equally plausible.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
cryptocode: For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them.
For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them.
Source? Are these experiments reproducible? Was it James Randi just taking these deluded 'scientists' out for a spin, as he has done before?
cryptocode: There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
There are physiological explanations for these experiences that do not require the presumption of a supernatural deity. See the work of Thomas Metzinger (or even Penn and Teller or John Stossel)
But scientific proofs can be reproduced. They can be empirically observed. Or at least their effects can be.
I cannot either prove or disprove God, therefore it seems plausible that God exists. But I tend to bet that God doesn't exist.
Also, I think about the risk of being wrong about God and then facing his wrath. I'd rather be wrong and look like a fool in life than be wrong and have to explain my actions to God.
krazy kaju: Question: You cannot be absolutely certain that anything besides you exists. Yet, you are not a solipsist. Why? Answer: Because you have faith that the outside world exists. P.S. I'm an atheist.
Question: You cannot be absolutely certain that anything besides you exists. Yet, you are not a solipsist. Why?
Answer: Because you have faith that the outside world exists.
P.S. I'm an atheist.
I would argue that the two possibilities are not equally probable. The boundedness of our experience, consistent with the implications of an external world that we perceive through sensory organs which we can contrast with our dream experiences which are not so bound, would support the ontological realist hypothesis and not the alternative. I would say there is a much higher probability of there being an external reality, and it is supported by our bounded phenomenology.
>"For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them."
Yeah, mental telekinesis without using magnets or wires is scientifically ironclad and definitely not a hoax. Plus, I saw it on "Heroes", so it must be true.
>"There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc. "
There are also thousands of reported LSD trips, fever-induced deliria, and tumor-induced seizures.
I'm sorry I can't see visions of God through having medically identifiable neurological failures.
>I think about the risk of being wrong about God and then facing his wrath.
But God doesn't care if you believe in him or not. Like with fractional reserve banking, the quantity of space in the universe seems to keep inflating while the ratio of matter to space becomes ever more diluted. Clearly, God is a Keynesian and will destroy you for supporting the Austrian School.
bloomj31: But scientific proofs can be reproduced. They can be empirically observed. Or at least their effects can be. I cannot either prove or disprove God, therefore it seems plausible that God exists. But I tend to bet that God doesn't exist. Also, I think about the risk of being wrong about God and then facing his wrath. I'd rather be wrong and look like a fool in life than be wrong and have to explain my actions to God.
If you don't give me your life's savings you will anger Zefre'Ak who is God the father and he will punish you for eternity.
The probability of the existence of Zefre'Ak is non-zero. Better to be wrong than suffer for eternity, right? I accept PayPal.
Pascal's Wager is bunk.
zefreak: If you don't give me your life's savings you will anger Zefre'Ak who is God the father and he will punish you for eternity. The probability of the existence of Zefre'Ak is non-zero. Better to be wrong than suffer for eternity, right? I accept PayPal. Pascal's Wager is bunk.
Maybe Pascal's Wager is bunk but I'm not willing to risk being wrong.
zefreak: Pascal's Wager is bunk.
Pascal's Wager got me an A minus in college. Just sayin.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
>Pascal's Wager got me an A minus in college. Just sayin.
What about this wager?
Suppose God loves adulterers, and if you commit adultery at least 5 times, you will live for ever in paradise and have infinite gain - but if you don't commit adultery, then you will be condemned and have infinite loss.
bloomj31: zefreak: If you don't give me your life's savings you will anger Zefre'Ak who is God the father and he will punish you for eternity. The probability of the existence of Zefre'Ak is non-zero. Better to be wrong than suffer for eternity, right? I accept PayPal. Pascal's Wager is bunk. Maybe Pascal's Wager is bunk but I'm not willing to risk being wrong.
I thought the basis of monotheistic religion was acceptance of god in faith alone. By usurping this fundamental tenant of the religion you are usurping the whole point of belief. Your god will not be pleased with this Pascal's Wager crap
I recommend looking up the argument from inconsistent revelations. If you don't have a reason (other than Pascal's Wager) for believing a particular religion, you are (more than likely) choosing the wrong religion anyways, assuming one exists.
There is also a positive cost associated with Pascal's Wager, namely the opportunity cost resulting from worship and prayer, as well as the effect it can have on your happiness in life (unless your desires line up 100% with the obligations of the church). Then there is the cost to one's integrity which I think to be substantial.
baxter: Suppose God loves adulterers, and if you commit adultery at least 5 times, you will live for ever in paradise and have infinite gain - but if you don't commit adultery, then you will be condemned and have infinite loss.
The existence of such a god is a non-zero probability. Multiplied by infinite gain, you would be irrational to not commit adultery!
Unless of course there are an infinite number of alternative beliefs, each resulting in infinite gain and threatening infinite loss..
Then such a facile use of decision theory would be worthless.
.
zefreak: I recommend looking up the argument from inconsistent revelations. If you don't have a reason (other than Pascal's Wager) for believing a particular religion, you are (more than likely) choosing the wrong religion anyways, assuming one exists. There is also a positive cost associated with Pascal's Wager, namely the opportunity cost resulting from worship and prayer, as well as the effect it can have on your happiness in life (unless your desires line up 100% with the obligations of the church). Then there is the cost to one's integrity which I think to be substantial.
Wouldn't that assume that the god(s) needed to be recognized a certain way, and only one way? What if you did things Greco-roman style and recognized everything. I think that may increase the odds somewhat.
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." –- Stephen Roberts
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
I. Ryan: ClaytonB: P.S. I am a rare bird called an "agnostic theist" What does that mean?
It means that I believe in God - I am spiritual - but I do not see any evidence for it nor do I think there are any good a priori arguments for God's existence (or the existence of anything outside of what can be observed, whether directly or indirectly). Most importantly, I think that religious belief and practice is a healthy, integral component of human society that is a natural outgrowth of the human family/clan/tribe/community that has been twisted and perverted to no end by the machinations of the political class who turn religious energies to their own plunderous uses. Religion is no less fantastical and no less important than dreaming or the arts. I don't see atheists getting up in arms about the absurd imaginations we each engage in every night after we fall asleep... yet our dreams play some integral role in our brain function (otherwise, we wouldn't have them).
Clayton -
Damnit, I posted a reply to this, and it didn't post and I don't remember exactly what I said, so this isn't as good as I originally written...When athiest attack religion they seem to attack the characterics of a religion that they see as having without reason, but they don't mention spirituality. The attacks are on 1) faith, and 2) belief in a superior god who remains superior, and a life of sacrifice to that god to obtain a utopian paradise in the afterlife that is not obtainable on Earth. I have no problem with those points, and those points are what pushed me towards the Left-Hand Path.The problem is that athiest (not all) seem to lack spirituality, and I'm sure some believe that spirituality is religious which is a common misconception. They seem to disregard spirituality, and anything esoteric or subjective. They live in a material world, and that's that. There is no spiritual/material balance.In their attacks they seem to also stray away from attacking the non-Abrahamic, pagan religions. I'd love to hear an athiest try to refute Buddhism, Odinism, or Setian philosophy.
Hard Rain: I thought the basis of monotheistic religion was acceptance of god in faith alone. By usurping this fundamental tenant of the religion you are usurping the whole point of belief. Your god will not be pleased with this Pascal's Wager crap
I'll let God make that judgment. You could be right though.
I'm willing to accept the costs involved. Also the loss to my integrity.
Bert: Damnit, I posted a reply to this, and it didn't post and I don't remember exactly what I said, so this isn't as good as I originally written...When athiest attack religion they seem to attack the characterics of a religion that they see as having without reason, but they don't mention spirituality. The attacks are on 1) faith, and 2) belief in a superior god who remains superior, and a life of sacrifice to that god to obtain a utopian paradise in the afterlife that is not obtainable on Earth. I have no problem with those points, and those points are what pushed me towards the Left-Hand Path.The problem is that athiest (not all) seem to lack spirituality, and I'm sure some believe that spirituality is religious which is a common misconception. They seem to disregard spirituality, and anything esoteric or subjective. They live in a material world, and that's that. There is no spiritual/material balance.In their attacks they seem to also stray away from attacking the non-Abrahamic, pagan religions. I'd love to hear an athiest try to refute Buddhism, Odinism, or Setian philosophy.
Define 'spiritual'. I would love the opportunity to deconstruct Buddhism or any other 'spiritual, non-theistic' belief system that posits non-material or supernatural energy or agency.
zefreak: Define 'spiritual'. I would love the opportunity to deconstruct Buddhism or any other 'spiritual, non-theistic' belief system that posits non-material or supernatural energy or agency.
Isn't this just a bit tangential (off-topic) to the original idea of this thread?
Doesn't that question seem frivolous? Why would I define what's spiritual when in itself is something for the individual to find out.
Go ahead, deconstruct Buddhism. I don't think you need my definition of spirituality to do so.
If you can, deconstruct Rune magic.
Havvy: zefreak: Define 'spiritual'. I would love the opportunity to deconstruct Buddhism or any other 'spiritual, non-theistic' belief system that posits non-material or supernatural energy or agency. Isn't this just a bit tangential (off-topic) to the original idea of this thread?
Conceded, although the thread has already moved on from the OP.
Bert: zefreak: Define 'spiritual'. I would love the opportunity to deconstruct Buddhism or any other 'spiritual, non-theistic' belief system that posits non-material or supernatural energy or agency. Doesn't that question seem frivolous? Why would I define what's spiritual when in itself is something for the individual to find out. Go ahead, deconstruct Buddhism. I don't think you need my definition of spirituality to do so. If you can, deconstruct Rune magic.
I don't know what you are referring to when you use the word spiritual. Materialists such as Dawkins and Hofstadter often use the word but mean something very different from new-agers and mystics. In order to respond to your post about athiests missing the property 'spiritual', I must know what the term refers to.
ClaytonB: It means that I believe in God - I am spiritual - but I do not see any evidence for it nor do I think there are any good a priori arguments for God's existence (or the existence of anything outside of what can be observed, whether directly or indirectly). Most importantly, I think that religious belief and practice is a healthy, integral component of human society that is a natural outgrowth of the human family/clan/tribe/community that has been twisted and perverted to no end by the machinations of the political class who turn religious energies to their own plunderous uses.
It means that I believe in God - I am spiritual - but I do not see any evidence for it nor do I think there are any good a priori arguments for God's existence (or the existence of anything outside of what can be observed, whether directly or indirectly). Most importantly, I think that religious belief and practice is a healthy, integral component of human society that is a natural outgrowth of the human family/clan/tribe/community that has been twisted and perverted to no end by the machinations of the political class who turn religious energies to their own plunderous uses.
If I decided that, if I were to begin to "believe in God", I would somehow be able to more effectively reach my goals or more happily participate with the people of our society, I would still not be able to just get myself to believe it. It would be absurd even to try; I would just be trying to willfully delude myself or produce some sort of hallucination.
So I am not really sure what you mean. Do you just mean that, to mesh with society more effectively, you just act like you believe it?
ClaytonB: Religion is no less fantastical and no less important than dreaming [...]. I don't see atheists getting up in arms about the absurd imaginations we each engage in every night after we fall asleep... yet our dreams play some integral role in our brain function (otherwise, we wouldn't have them).
Religion is no less fantastical and no less important than dreaming [...]. I don't see atheists getting up in arms about the absurd imaginations we each engage in every night after we fall asleep... yet our dreams play some integral role in our brain function (otherwise, we wouldn't have them).
Once you wake up, you realize that you were in a dream world, that you were deluded. So when do you wake up from your "belie[f] in god"?
ClaytonB: Religion is no less fantastical and no less important than [...] the arts.
Religion is no less fantastical and no less important than [...] the arts.
But, to paint paintings, write fiction, or whatever, what dogma must you hold?
zefreak: I don't know what you are referring to when you use the word spiritual. Materialists such as Dawkins and Hofstadter often use the word but mean something very different from new-agers and mystics. In order to respond to your post about athiests missing the property 'spiritual', I must know what the term refers to.
Well, I detest the new-age garbage that floats around. Besides the Temple of Set and Church of Satan, I can't stand anything modern. From what I know on mysticism, and what it refers to, the closest I read into that would probably be Hermeticism, but it's still not close.
It would be futile for me to give a meaning to what spirituality is. You would be getting my subjective view on it which I'm sure would differ from a lot of others (Left-Hand Path vs. Right-Hand Path).
Yet, proposing that question can show that not all religion is the same, and to disregard all religion on some bases is a bias against all religion without knowledge of everything that there is. Asking someone to define spirituality without knowledge on all concepts of what spirituality can contain and obtain shows that there is still more to learn. One of the points I was making is generally attacks on religion are specifically on the Abrahamic religions, and not the pagan ones. If an atheist took a closer look at the many and diverse pagan religions they might actually come across something they like.
For example, just take a look at the beliefs of the Church of Satan.
"In their attacks [atheists] seem to also stray away from attacking the non-Abrahamic, pagan religions. I'd love to hear an athiest try to refute Buddhism, Odinism, or Setian philosophy."
I'm guessing it's just due to lack of familiarity. For example, I don't really know what Odinism is (is it the original Norse religion - or some new derivative of it?) and have never even heard of Setian (SETI - worship of finding aliens?).
>It would be futile for me to give a meaning to what spirituality is.
I have no clue what the word means. While I believe the world is material and deterministic, I find it difficult to think from the point of view of being a component in a fixed 4D universe or even as an acting automaton. I experience an illusion of conciousness, free will, and flow of time. Is that kind of like what you are refering to?
baxter: "In their attacks [atheists] seem to also stray away from attacking the non-Abrahamic, pagan religions. I'd love to hear an athiest try to refute Buddhism, Odinism, or Setian philosophy." I'm guessing it's just due to lack of familiarity. For example, I don't really know what Odinism is (is it the original Norse religion - or some new derivative of it?) and have never even heard of Setian (SETI - worship of finding aliens?). >It would be futile for me to give a meaning to what spirituality is. I have no clue what the word means. While I believe the world is material and deterministic, I find it difficult to think from the point of view of being a component in a fixed 4D universe or even as an acting automaton. I experience an illusion of conciousness, free will, and flow of time. Is that kind of like what you are refering to?
Odinism is the original Norse religion that was practiced practically all over Europe before Christianity. The traditions, rites, and holiday's have been stolen and Christianized. It also incorporates Runes for many purposes.
Setian (Setian philosophy) relates to the Temple of Set which was born out of the Church of Satan due to philosophical differences. The name comes from the Egyptian god Set. The Temple of Set is the "leading religious organization in Left-Hand Path philosophy". From Wikipedia: "The philosophy of the Temple of Set may be summed up as "enlightened individualism": enhancement and improvement of oneself by personal education, experiment, and initiation."
The problem with me defining "spirituality" or "spiritual" is that I'm going to give a meaning that is probably influenced by Left-Hand Path beliefs and my own personal view. In a way, I find it escaping the material world and centering towards your own personal, mental, physical fulfillment (spiritually growing). Selfishness and expansion of the self, ego, through the subjective, non-material world. When it comes to the Left-Hand Path, a spiritual dissent from unity with nature, god, and the universe. Find the "darkness" in your mind which is untouched by the "forces" that work in nature and in the universe which is untouched by any god. If god controls nature and the universe then he would obviously control the aspects and creations of those places. The "devil" would be a mere puppet of his creation, but it's not. It's what manifest from your own mind that is outside the control of any god. The mind is a powerful force that can create and destroy civilizations. You must take control of your own mind and "come into being" (through the spiritual and material worlds, balanced).
I don't feel the need to write any further. I wrote a 3 (or so) page "introduction" to the Left-Hand Path for a friend's zine. I'd prefer for the individual to look into this themselves.
Sounds like egoism dressed up in metaphysics. If its just a system of ethics (man should improve himself through education and experimentation) then how is it a religion? Unless it postulates some teleological goal or end that man must work towards, some state that fulfills his spiritual nature. In which case it is new-age spiritualism for egoists.
I remember offending someone at school by saying all atheists were hindus. The first atheists were the Carvaka, an older, now defunct school of Hinduism. Indeed, in some ways I do object to the classification of Hinduism, and in some ways even the word is deceptive in the sense it gives the impression of a singular identity.
Unlike Islam, Christianity and Judaism, I don't think the so-called religions of the east offer such easy categorisation.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
zefreak: Sounds like egoism dressed up in metaphysics. If its just a system of ethics (man should improve himself through education and experimentation) then how is it a religion? Unless it postulates some teleological goal or end that man must work towards, some state that fulfills his spiritual nature. In which case it is new-age spiritualism for egoists.
I use the word "religion" loosely. The goal or end that man must work towards could be in fact his own self (becoming your own "god"), but this can be subjective.
I wouldn't call it new-age. Then again, this is a subjective bias. Any, or all, of the new-age material I've read is garbage. It seems to be more about unity and becoming one with nature or the universe and Right-Hand Path beliefs than it is spiritual dissent. At least the Temple of Set takes influence from ancient beliefs and religions than the new-age garbage that is just a bunch of various rehashed beliefs (most of which have nothing in common) and spewing them out into some form of "witchcraft". An example would be Wicca (the laughing stock of paganism).
When I became an anarchist, I took the next logical conclusion towards atheism, though that didn't come until 4 months after my turn towards anarchism. I simply recognized that both statism and religionism require some sort of central planner to exist. Both have the same roots. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Babylon, Ancient Summaria, etc.. the government arose out of religion. Men who claimed kingdship due to some god given right. Of course, eventually the state and church had a separation, but the values inherent in statism still use much of religiosity to legitimize itself.
I also realized I did not need some mystifying, all knowing, omni-benevolent being in my life to be a moral agent.
Both statism and religionism have a lot of violence inherent in both systems. It's pretty obvious after you think about it enough. Both require some sort of veil of illusion to exist. Some sort of subversion of ones mental faculties.
You observe, but you do not see.
You can be a theist and not be religious. :)
Whats your point?
You must live a sad and meaningless life if you don't judge anything.
Anyway, to those saying this thread is meaningless, how so? You apply reason to all facets of your life. Why is reason somehow not applicable to religion?
Brilliant post.
This guy is saying what I was trying to say, except 10 times better.
What is statist about voluntary arrangements?
baxter: >Most atheists, I am sure, do not believe that to "prove a negative" is possible. My understanding is: Atheist = no belief in god Antitheist = belief in no god
>Most atheists, I am sure, do not believe that to "prove a negative" is possible.
My understanding is:
Atheist = no belief in god
Antitheist = belief in no god
it is my understanding that anti-theism is being against theism, or more specifically religions and pointing out all the horrible things that religion and belief in God have caused. Anti-theists are (I would guess almost all atheists), but go further in saying, "not only is there not a God, but thank goodness there isn't. How terrible would it be if something like the Christian God were true"
Joe: but go further in saying, "not only is there not a God, but thank goodness there isn't. How terrible would it be if something like the Christian God were true"
but go further in saying, "not only is there not a God, but thank goodness there isn't. How terrible would it be if something like the Christian God were true"
Such would be an existence under a petty and sadistic big brother. Death would serve as no escape either, since that is when god passes judgment on you. Only two paths two go from there: eternal oven duty or eternal adulation duty by the side of a divine clingy sociopath. What a bleak retirement that would be indeed.