So what am I ?

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 03:02PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hmm, I think you are slightly disrespectful (underestimating?) of the agnostic position, to be honest. I am quite firm in my position that one cannot know whether a god/s exists, making the truth statements of the religious and (some) atheists alike, misguided at best, and at worst, outright dishonest.

Are you saying that you think that God (if he exists) cannot demonstrate his existance to someone?

My schema was:

Indoctrinated Catholic Child-->Atheist-->Agnostic

Agnosticism isn't some waiting room for the bewildered.

(I may have misread your meaning, apologies if I have)

There was no dissing intended. Agnostics sound the more considered/less dogmatic to me. And that was the flavour of the OP's tone. S'all.

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 03:04PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In order to be antagonistic towards god, people would first have to believe there is something to be angry or in conflict with. The opposite to faith in god isn't antagonism, it's apathy.

I disagree. IF God THEN influence by God exerted possible THEN antagonism against that influence possible. It's the same thing really, as being able to believe God without believing in God.

Ickle Magoo · 21-03-2010 03:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I disagree. IF God THEN influence by God exerted possible THEN antagonism against that influence possible. It's the same thing really, as being able to believe God without believing in God.

I have no idea what that first bit means...

How can anyone believe god speaks or does something if they lack belief in god?

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 03:06PM

Erren Music wrote: »

There are no religious gods.

Religion is made up fictional fantasy.

What else do I need to learn about this.

That this has little to do with agnosticism, perhaps even atheism.

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 03:10PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have no idea what that first bit means...

How can anyone believe they don't god speaks or does something if they lack belief in god?

Consider. If goodness is something that is an attribute of God and you're anti-goodness on some issue or other then you are antagonistic against an attribute of God which attempts to influence you to goodness.

Which is effectively antagonistic regarding what God stands for. Which is antagonism against God.

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 03:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying that you think that God (if he exists) cannot demonstrate his existance to someone?

Well, what I mean is that we cannot possibly test for a god, but I will try to answer your question.

It depends on how you define your god. But if this god is powerful enough to create an entire universe, then it is only logical to assume that even if he/she did attempt to communicate with us, we would not be able to comprehend this. There is a quote that I like which may metaphorically sum up what I am saying:

Wittgenstein: if a lion could speak, we could not understand him.

Erren Music · 21-03-2010 03:13PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, what I mean is that we cannot possibly test for a god, but I will try to answer your question.

So why invent one then.

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider. If goodness is something that is an attribute of God and you're anti-goodness on some issue or other then you are antagonistic against an attribute of God which attempts to influence you to goodness.

Which is effectively antagonistic regarding what God stands for. Which is antagonism against God.

WTF

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 03:15PM

Erren Music wrote: »

So why invent one then.

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

We cannot test for dark matter.

Erren Music · 21-03-2010 03:20PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

We cannot test for dark matter.

OK ...

hopefully cern will provide us with answers in 2 or 3 years

BUT

I don't see dark matter churches, or dark matter commandments. I don't see or hear delusional DM madmen telling me that I will go to hell if I do not follow DM rules,

....... while all the time DM was fcuking our primary school kids behind our backs

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 03:23PM

Erren Music wrote: »

OK ...

I don't see dark matter churches, or dark matter commandments. I don't see or hear delusional DM madmen telling me that I will go to hell if I do not follow DM rules,

....... while all the time DM was fcuking our primary school kids behind our backs

Either you are dodging my point or you accept that your logic of:

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

is wrong then?

I have already explained to you why agnosticism has nothing to do with your above rant. I don't feel the need to cover it again.

Ickle Magoo · 21-03-2010 03:25PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider. If goodness is something that is an attribute of God and you're anti-goodness on some issue or other then you are antagonistic against an attribute of God which attempts to influence you to goodness.

Which is effectively antagonistic regarding what God stands for. Which is antagonism against God.

What?

Atheists aren't against anything regarding god, there is no god in the atheist equation. There are no attributes to stand against or godly influences attempting anything...I can't be antagonistic against something that doesn't exist. Are you antagonistic towards faeries or leprechauns?

The Mad Hatter · 21-03-2010 03:43PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What?

Atheists aren't against anything regarding god, there is no god in the atheist equation. There are no attributes to stand against or godly influences attempting anything...I can't be antagonistic against something that doesn't exist. Are you antagonistic towards faeries or leprechauns?

A fairyist would say yes.

5uspect · 21-03-2010 03:48PM

iMax wrote: »

What am I ?

You're Brian and so is your wife!

robindch · 21-03-2010 04:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote:

antiskeptic wrote:

antagonism against God is something lost people have

Antagonism? I find the the christian deity, as presented by christian believers [...] plan hilarious!

Antagonism takes many forms. It need not be naked and personally directed.

And it should not be invented where it is not present.

Gregor Samsa · 21-03-2010 04:15PM

iMax wrote: »

Here's the rub, I'm flip-flopping over the final stages (count me out) because I have kids. They're baptised because my wife is a catholic (non practising, but has her beliefs).

Your kids are already baptised, so the usual conundrum of "but what about sending my kids to school" doesn't apply in your case. If you want to go the "count me out" route, then it won't and can't have any bearing on your children's chances of getting into a catholic school. If they ask for a baptism cert for your kids, you have them - they're can't base your childrens' enrollment on your relationship (or lack of it) with the church. so antiskeptic's comments on "playing the game" are a bit off here (ref: post #9). You've already played that game regarding your kids - what you do yourself has nothing to do with the schools.

From a strictly personal point of view, I don't see "count me out" as a final stage of anything. I was baptised, communioned, confirmed, and now I don't believe in god, and don't involve any church in the affairs of my life (my child is not baptised, I had a civil wedding, and I've requested a non-church funeral). That's it for me. I don't' see the church as having the authority to declare me "defected" (not that I have defected to anything).

Officially, I'm still a member of the Desperate Dan Fan Club since joining at 6 years of age. Now, I no longer feel the need to say "... but I'd rather have a cow pie" after every statement, but equally, I don't feel the need to let them know that I officially don't regard myself as a member any more.

That said, kudos to the Count Me Out people for making the information available and bringing the issue into the public domain, and if it is for you, then go for it. It's just not for me, I'd rather have a cow pie (doh!).

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 10:28PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What? Atheists aren't against anything regarding god, there is no god in the atheist equation. There are no attributes to stand against or godly influences attempting anything...I can't be antagonistic against something that doesn't exist. Are you antagonistic towards faeries or leprechauns?

Assuming God exists (here we go again

) then atheists not believing in God wouldn't alter the fact of God's existance, nor would it alter the fact that God exerts and influence on all men (by way of conscience). This influence is railed against by sinful man - the result being sinful behaviour.

Do you suppose not believing in gravity alters a persons interaction with gravity?

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 10:36PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, what I mean is that we cannot possibly test for a god, but I will try to answer your question.

Okay. I was putting the onus on God to arrive at us, not us to arrive at God.

It depends on how you define your god. But if this god is powerful enough to create an entire universe, then it is only logical to assume that even if he/she did attempt to communicate with us, we would not be able to comprehend this.

There is a quote that I like which may metaphorically sum up what I am saying:

Wittgenstein: if a lion could speak, we could not understand him.

What if we became like order with God? Children say? Could we understand him then?

Ickle Magoo · 21-03-2010 10:41PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming God exists (here we go again ) then atheists not believing in God wouldn't alter the fact of God's existance, nor would it alter the fact that God exerts and influence on all men (by way of conscience). This influence is railed against by sinful man - the result being sinful behaviour.

Do you suppose not believing in gravity alters a persons interaction with gravity?

The biggest difference being gravity is demonstrable, it's not something that it's really feasible to lack belief in - which is the problem with what you are saying. IF god existed and atheists chose not believe in a god that clearly exists then it could be called antagonism but as things stand, atheists have as valid a base to lack belief in god as theist have to claim belief in the positive, so a term suggesting active resistance just doesn't really fit...

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 10:45PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What if we became like order with God? Children say? Could we understand him then?

I'm afraid I don't understand your use of language here. Could you rephrase?

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 10:58PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand your use of language here. Could you rephrase?

A lion is a different order of creature to us, with different experiences and different outlooks than we have. Therefore communication is suggested as impossible between it and us - unless we project human conceptualizations/experiences onto the lion (just as we often do with our pets behaviour). I gather you implying this at least.

But what if we are made the same order as God (or, in his image and likeness). Doesn't the above problem disappear? Or to put it another way: suppose God created men from himself (thus like order) and they Fell from that position and are (some of them at least) restored to that position. Wouldn't that permit communication?

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 11:04PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The biggest difference being gravity is demonstrable, it's not something that it's really feasible to lack belief in - which is the problem with what you are saying.

*rolls eyes (good humoredly)*

Let's suppose lack of belief in bacteria (before a time where bacteria could be demonstrated). Would a lack of belief in bacteria alter a person being influenced by bacteria? I wouldn't have thought so.

And so we can permit your being influenced by God - without your believing in God. If antagonistic to that influence, then you are being antagonistic to God (given that it's his influence you're resisting) without, we might agree, believing in God.

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 11:05PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

A lion is a different order of creature to us, with different experiences and different outlooks than we have. Therefore communication is suggested as impossible between it and us - unless we project human conceptualizations/experiences onto the lion (just as we often do with our pets behaviour). I gather you implying this at least.

But what if we are made the same order as God (or, in his image and likeness). Doesn't the above problem disappear? Or to put it another way: suppose God created men from himself (thus like order) and they Fell from that position and are (some of them at least) restored to that position.

Ok, you get the lion metaphor, but I'm puzzled by your attempt to apply it to the God/Man question.

Firstly, both God and Man looking like each other doesn't fly, as you acknowledged yourself, the Lion/Man metaphor is based on experiences, not images. Of course, self-image is an experience, but even removing that doesn't change the dissimilar experiences.

Secondly, if Men are/were of the same order of God, then where is the line drawn between Men and God? Are Men not God? Is God not Man?

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 11:13PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, you get the lion metaphor, but I'm puzzled by your attempt to apply it to the God/Man question.

I'm not attempting to apply it to the God/Man question. I'm attempting to prevent you applying it to the God/Man question.

Firstly, both God and Man looking like each other doesn't fly, as you acknowledged yourself, the Lion/Man metaphor is based on experiences, not images.

"Image and likeness" isn't intended to convey a physical image (for it is not suggested that God has one). The idea is that we share characteristics and attributes of God. We are creative because he is creative. We reason because he is reasonable. We love because he is love. That kind of thing.

Secondly, if Men are/were of the same order of God, then where is the line drawn between Men and God? Are Men not God? Is God not Man?

Where is the line drawn between any two creatures of same order? At personhood ultimately, I suppose.

Ickle Magoo · 21-03-2010 11:23PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

*rolls eyes (good humoredly)*

Let's suppose lack of belief in bacteria (before a time where bacteria could be demonstrated). Would a lack of belief in bacteria alter a person being influenced by bacteria? I wouldn't have thought so.

And so we can permit your being influenced by God - without your believing in God. If antagonistic to that influence, then you are being antagonistic to God (given that it's his influence you're resisting) without, we might agree, believing in God.

Nope, still doesn't work, sorry.

A lack of belief in the bacteria doesn't alter anyone's influence by said hypothetical bacteria but we also can't show there is any corresponding influence by virtue of being unable to show the bacteria exists. Until it IS actually demonstrable, no one can be accused of being antagonistic to the bacteria; skeptical, lacking belief, doubtful to the existence of, certainly...but it cannot be considered active resistance until it can be shown that there is something being resisted.

Flamed Diving · 21-03-2010 11:45PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not attempting to apply it to the God/Man question. I'm attempting to prevent you applying it to the God/Man question.

"Image and likeness" isn't intended to convey a physical image (for it is not suggested that God has one). The idea is that we share characteristics and attributes of God. We are creative because he is creative. We reason because he is reasonable. We love because he is love. That kind of thing.

Where is the line drawn between any two creatures of same order? At personhood ultimately, I suppose.

I have a few problems with your above statements, but rather than debate in circles, I will cut straight to it.

Having emotions and characteristics in common is not enough for two reasons.

Firstly, man shares many of these emotions in common with mammals. Especially social mammals, and especially chimps. Now, I'm not really sure what your definition of order is, but I guess you would read this and say that chimps are on a much lower emotional and intellectual level than humans, and you are right. Much the same as between God and Man.

Secondly, and this is perhaps more striking. If Man is not God, a being defined as having omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence; then man cannot know or understand such a being.

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 11:49PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Nope, still doesn't work, sorry.

A lack of belief in the bacteria doesn't alter anyone's influence by said hypothetical bacteria but we also can't show there is any corresponding influence by virtue of being unable to show the bacteria exists. Until it IS actually demonstrable, no one can be accused of being antagonistic to the bacteria; skeptical, lacking belief, doubtful to the existence of, certainly...but it cannot be considered active resistance until it can be shown that there is something being resisted.

I think you're forgetting that an analogy has limits. The limit of this analogy is singular: influenced by something unbelieved in - without commenting on the nature of the influence. Once establishing that, we can move on to the specific case of antagonism to something unbelieved in.

Let's take the phrase "God is good" and suppose that goodness is something sourced in God - that is to say - any good that is done by humans is done because of God's influence on them. Antagonism to goodness therefore, is antagonism to God - because goodness is part of the very essence of God (rather than something external to God that he happens to conform to).

Does that compute?

antiskeptic · 22-03-2010 12:14AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Having emotions and characteristics in common is not enough for two reasons.

Firstly, man shares many of these emotions in common with mammals. Especially social mammals, and especially chimps. Now, I'm not really sure what your definition of order is, but I guess you would read this and say that chimps are on a much lower emotional and intellectual level than humans, and you are right. Much the same as between God and Man.

To compare the instinctual application of intelligence to the issues involved in instinctually-driven living (chimp) with the endlessly creative expression of intelligence - often for the sheer fun of it (humans) would be to compare apples and pears. The suggestion: we endlessly creative/exhuberance because he is endlessly creative and exhuberant would be closer to the mark intended.

Secondly, and this is perhaps more striking. If Man is not God, a being defined as having omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence; then man cannot know or understand such a being.

A verse springs to mind..

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

It would be the case, it seems to me, that in the measure we are transformed from common (if I might use the term) image and likeness into full likeness (ie: brought to the point of most intimate sharing of the divine nature) so too will we come to know and understand God.

Which would mean it can happen by degree. Bit by bit.

krudler · 22-03-2010 12:45AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming God exists (here we go again ) then atheists not believing in God wouldn't alter the fact of God's existance, nor would it alter the fact that God exerts and influence on all men (by way of conscience). This influence is railed against by sinful man - the result being sinful behaviour.

Do you suppose not believing in gravity alters a persons interaction with gravity?

piffle, I dont believe in gravity, so I fly to work every morning. and dont get me started on physics, next you'll be telling me my elephant wont fit through this needle head.

Man created God, not the other way around.

Wibbs · 22-03-2010 12:23PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Image and likeness" isn't intended to convey a physical image (for it is not suggested that God has one). The idea is that we share characteristics and attributes of God. We are creative because he is creative. We reason because he is reasonable. We love because he is love. That kind of thing.

Yes but again all those are characteristics of a intelligent social animal that evolved to have same. Any creator of a universe while obviously understanding these characteristics would be functioning outside them. It could be anything it wanted if it so chose and so could be human or a rock or whatever, but it would be the equivalent of playing dress up.

Erren Music wrote: »

So why invent one then.

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

WTF

As was pointed out there are many things we cant test for so far. Some like dark matter will stand or fall in the fullness of time, others like the existence of extra dimensions or other universes or what happened "before" the big bang will very likely remain forever out of reach. It doesn't stop us developing theories, both scientific and philosophically, nor should it.

We "invented" science to explain reality too BTW. Indeed one could argue science sprang from religion as another path to understanding. Where the god of the gaps explained things for some, it led others to look more closely at the gaps. Understanding is a trajectory of evolution and had many parents.

Erren Music wrote: »

This has no bearing on whether something created our universe 13.72 billion years ago. If something did we will never know.

Very possibly, or like the weakness of gravity may point to the existence of universes/dimensions laying close to ours, the very fact of existence itself may point to the existence of an external force that set it in motion. Or not of course. Because we are of this universe and bounded by it, we are hardwired to think of beginnings and endings. From our own lives to the fact of entropy. "Outside" the universe beginnings and endings may have no meaning. Well without time they dont, or at least are very hard to pin down.

This also plugs into the notion of a personal god versus one that never intervenes. Too black and white on both sides of the argument IMHO. It narrows the concept of intervention. If I want to place a marble at the bottom of a hill. I can walk down and place it myself or I can roll the marble down the hill. Same result. Marble at bottom of hill. The former is a direct intervention, the latter is also an intervention but once removed.

BUT it has nothing to do with the religious idea of god ok.

True it may not. I agree that the chances are incredibly high that it doesnt. That said one could consider that the god in the background is a universal race memory, an echo of the progenitor of existence. That is explained by theists as "God" and by science as physics and cosmology. I would have little issue with the latter.

Agnostic = sitting on a fence = ditherer's = can't make a decision

Utter tosh I have to say. Never trust someone who is that sure about something no one can know yet or ever. Theist or atheist. Both have too much faith in their position. Bad enough for theists, worse for science.

Ickle Magoo · 22-03-2010 07:55PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you're forgetting that an analogy has limits. The limit of this analogy is singular: influenced by something unbelieved in - without commenting on the nature of the influence. Once establishing that, we can move on to the specific case of antagonism to something unbelieved in.

Let's take the phrase "God is good" and suppose that goodness is something sourced in God - that is to say - any good that is done by humans is done because of God's influence on them. Antagonism to goodness therefore, is antagonism to God - because goodness is part of the very essence of God (rather than something external to God that he happens to conform to).

Does that compute?

The analogy apparently only has limits that would hinder our arrival at the answer you want but it seems to be perfectly reasonable to bend the rules of physics and reality?

No, it still doesn't work. If you crowbar in all your particular pre-requisites and juggle the analogy and phraseology to within an inch of it's life, ignoring the obvious while shoe-horning in the fantastical then, yeah, no bother, it's a great analogy that make perfect sense otherwise no, just...no.

Are you calling me a robot? :P

So what am I ?

Comments