An agnostic burner’s point of view

[cowboyangel]

Ok, that IS it! I want whatever JStep is smoking

The Aparokshanubhuti (Sanskrit: अपरोक्षानुभूतिः) is a famous work attributed to Adi Shankara. It is a popular introductory work that expounds Advaita Vedanta philosophy. It describes a method that seekers can follow to directly experience the essential truth of one's one nature. Thus, the work is literally titled Aparokshanubhuti, or Direct Experience. Swami Vimuktananda titles his translation Self-Realization.[1]


This is ancient empiricism. Why get hung up on belief or guesswork when the opportunity to know something directly exists? Direct knowledge of something is definitive.
The possibility that direct knowledge exists is worthy of inquiry, no?

[JStep]

With all due respect, your dic is severely abridged. Atheism was coined half a millennium ago by religious authorities to describe godlessness or ungodliness, and later to describe *disbelief*, rather than the more specific belief that God does not exist. Only recently has its usage become as doctrinaire as you assume, but it still doesn't preclude simply not caring about the question of God.

Whether or not you care about the question doesn't change the answer or the definitions of the words. My use of the word as it is defined is not recent that I know of, but I'm not a linguist. The OED definition is "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:" I believe the OED is considered the authority on word definitions.

I've been on your side of the argument, I was wrong.

And stop looking at my dic!

[JStep]

Agnosticism in no way states an equivalence of merit between the position that something for which there is no evidence still exists despite all evidence and logical thought vs the position that the world is rationally explained by the evidence we have without need to create the existence of something that we have no evidence for to answer questions we have that we simply haven't discovered the answer to yet. (How's that for a run-on sentence!)

I vote we put this as a *sticky* in the First Class Gibberish thread.........

That was fantastic, Jstep!!!!.....

heh. i know you're poking but that is a long run on sentence, it was just hard to succinctly state the 2 relative positions in only a few words. Maybe I'll try a diagram next time!

How about:

Rational world based on evidence > irrational world based on belief

[oneeyeddick]

The OED definition is "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:" I believe the OED is considered the authority on word definitions.

Flattery will get you nowhere in this debate.

[wh..sh]

Rational world based on evidence > irrational world based on belief

you mean "according to you, rational world based on evidence > irrational world based on belief", right?
Seems like you categorized anything that's not based on evidence and that's not rational. Wonder why most people read historic, sci, fantasy fictions when they should clearly be reading science books and thesis papers.

"Imagination is better than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

[Ugly Dougly]

Can I be a Whothefuckknowstic?

[JStep]

The OED definition is "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:" I believe the OED is considered the authority on word definitions.

Flattery will get you nowhere in this debate.

...I'm ashamed to admit that this didn't even occur to me at the time. lol

[JStep]

Rational world based on evidence > irrational world based on belief

you mean "according to you, rational world based on evidence > irrational world based on belief", right?
Seems like you categorized anything that's not based on evidence and that's not rational. Wonder why most people read historic, sci, fantasy fictions when they should clearly be reading science books and thesis papers.

"Imagination is better than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

Ok, that just makes no sense in the context of this conversation.

To be more precise for you; Yes, in analyzing the 2 positions and looking to find out which one is a better explanation for the world we find ourselves in, the position that makes sense, answers questions and is backed up by evidence is better than the one that doesn't make sense, creates more questions and paradoxes than answers and is absolutely devoid of any evidence. This is not an opinion, it is simply a statement of the quality of these two approaches to life, philosophy, and thought.

Your last sentence literally makes no sense whatsoever. We're not talking about the subjective value of reading fiction vs reading for learning. We're talking about the use (and mis-use) of the words atheist and agnostic, what those words actually mean and what the implication of their mis-use creates.

[JStep]

Can I be a Whothefuckknowstic?

Yes, and it's pronounced atheist.

[ibdave]

Agnosticism in no way states an equivalence of merit between the position that something for which there is no evidence still exists despite all evidence and logical thought vs the position that the world is rationally explained by the evidence we have without need to create the existence of something that we have no evidence for to answer questions we have that we simply haven't discovered the answer to yet. (How's that for a run-on sentence!)

I vote we put this as a *sticky* in the First Class Gibberish thread.........

That was fantastic, Jstep!!!!.....

Titwi, (hi BTW)(Missed you this year),
ok then will you fucking explain this?
my head is spinning now that you smartass have tossed all this into the mix..
For me I have been cool with this statement.. "I don't believe in a god, ect and the bible is just a storybook." (short but to the point)
so thanks for the debate, food for thoughts for sure..

[AntiM]

You can't fool me, it is tiny teapots all the way down!

[Simon of the Playa]

"but sir, i am a PROSTITUTE!"


"oh thank god! i thought for a second you said you were a protestant"....

[ygmir]

The OED definition is "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:" I believe the OED is considered the authority on word definitions.

Flattery will get you nowhere in this debate.

...I'm ashamed to admit that this didn't even occur to me at the time. lol

so, the kneepads are something you wear for work?

[ygmir]

if we assume, nothing can actually be proven 100% (quantum physics, Schrodinger, Xeno, etc), then might I suggest "faith" may be the only thing, that is real? Because, it requires no proof.

[JStep]

so, the kneepads are something you wear for work?

And a copy of the OED in my backpack, baby!

[Bob]

Which edition?

[ibdave]

so, how does "Godless" fit into all this..

[unjonharley]

so, how does "Godless" fit into all this..

If I read this right... It fucking funny..ROTF..

So Bob, I and company are godless (stuffy english accent) bastards

[theCryptofishist]

Wonder why most people read historic, sci, fantasy fictions when they should clearly be reading science books and thesis papers.

"Imagination is better than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

This has to be a joke.

[theCryptofishist]

if we assume, nothing can actually be proven 100% (quantum physics, Schrodinger, Xeno, etc), then might I suggest "faith" may be the only thing, that is real? Because, it requires no proof.

I think you're comparing apples and roller skates here.

[JStep]

Which edition?

I'm kidding, I don't have a hard copy, I reference the online edition.

[Bob]

Which online edition? There are at least two.

[JStep]

so, how does "Godless" fit into all this..

I haven't met Godless yet.

[JStep]

Which online edition? There are at least two.

I believe they're on OED2 at this point. I use the Oxford University Press one cause I'm too poor to subscribe to the OED.com version. Ok not poor really, but not interested in paying $295 for time-lines and other add-ons I'm probably not going to use.

[ygmir]

if we assume, nothing can actually be proven 100% (quantum physics, Schrodinger, Xeno, etc), then might I suggest "faith" may be the only thing, that is real? Because, it requires no proof.

I think you're comparing apples and roller skates here.

well, in my little mind, it flows....................

[wh..sh]

I hate my "I started to write but got too lazy half way through" posts!

Nevermind... since this topic isn't subjective at all , I shall put it this way and peace out.
I just don't understand why it's so important to box ourselves into one of these categories. I truly don't see any point in it.
From an atheist point of you, Bible might be storybook and less of an intriguing fiction. who cares! I don't care if people have faith in Bible or in Star Wars.

My friend just sent me a picture of her star wars good figurine vs evil figurine battefield collection

[wh..sh]

if we assume, nothing can actually be proven 100% (quantum physics, Schrodinger, Xeno, etc), then might I suggest "faith" may be the only thing, that is real? Because, it requires no proof.

I think you're comparing apples and roller skates here.

well, in my little mind, it flows....................

And that's all that matters

[JStep]

I hate my "I started to write but got too lazy half way through" posts!

Nevermind... since this topic isn't subjective at all , I shall put it this way and peace out.
I just don't understand why it's so important to box ourselves into one of these categories. I truly don't see any point in it.
From an atheist point of you, Bible might be storybook and less of an intriguing fiction. who cares! I don't care if people have faith in Bible or in Star Wars.

Well... There are parts of the conversation that are subjective, like where I venture my opinion as to why many people wish to avoid the atheist title. But the crux of the conversation hinges on what the word atheist means and whether or not that encompasses agnostics, which is not really subjective at all.

As for boxing ourselves in, that's dependent on your point of view. If you use the literal meaning of the word atheist, it's not a boxed in label at all. Lack of belief in a god or gods is a whole lot of people. In fact, everyone is born an atheist and has to be indoctrinated later in life to consider the possibility of the existence of something that has no evidence, whether they end up believing it or not.

I think I indirectly touched on this idea when i mentioned something like "I don't believe in leprechauns, but I'm not an aleprechaunist"; In other words atheist is one of the few words that really shouldn't exist because it defines someone as to what they do NOT do or believe. It's only because the default condition for a human is/was considered to be a believer that such a word ever came into existence to define the departure from the norm. I can't even think of any words that parallel this very well. I guess you could think of it like how we now have a word called "flat-earther" for people who maintain that the Earth is flat, the moon landings and NASA photos are a hoax, etc. At one point maybe we had a word for the rare few people that suspected the Earth is actually round and the sun went around it, not the other way around. We don't refer to these people as Round-earthers or aflateartherists.

[TomServo]

I’m an agnostic. I believe It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god. And that the world’s attempts to do so, throughout history, have resulted in war, hatred and misunderstandings. I am not a “fence sitter.” Agnosticism is not a religion. I’ve analyzed both sides of the debate, and came to the conclusion that it’s a futile exercise, trying to justify or explain a position you really know nothing about. The set up...the explanation of my beliefs and how it ties into...

This is not to say, that I do not believe in spirituality. That, I can feel. Or, at least have the illusion of feeling. It would be nice to know for certain, that a loving god exists. That he or she is controlling the universe, and is responsible for all the fucked up shit that happens. but faith or denial is all most people have to go on, And I don’t like either word. I have had a spiritual awakening, I think…and it was at Burning man.this is the "however" part..

My first year at burning man, I sat on top of the hay bales, below the man. It may have been dehydration, or it may have just been the beer…but, I had an overwhelming sense of comfort and purpose. That something larger than myself was watching over me…probably because a 50 foot wooden man was standing over me. I’ve often felt, since then, that the collective conscious of black rock city is that larger force. me, trying to analyze that spiritual experience and the conclusion I'm happy with

So, I’ll end this little speech with an agnostic prayer…I've read a couple "agnostic prayers" and decided to make my own...even if I AM talking to myself

Whoever…you know who I’m talking about, if you do exist. Please don’t spill the beans. Keep us guessing, in our minds…but don’t allow us to be obsessed with it. Because there’s a lot of cool shit in life, for us to discover… and…no offense, you are just a distraction.this part...is my prayer. Their are many like it...but this one is mine!And, my distraction point...was well illustrated in this thread

[theCryptofishist]

if we assume, nothing can actually be proven 100% (quantum physics, Schrodinger, Xeno, etc), then might I suggest "faith" may be the only thing, that is real? Because, it requires no proof.

I think you're comparing apples and roller skates here.

well, in my little mind, it flows....................

Sorry, I have a lot of trouble with the kind of reductionist thinking that some on the religist right indulge in, i.e. the "science is just another belief." Science is not perfect and scientists don't always follow the scientific method and certainly there are underlying beliefs that give scientists blind spots. But the ways that science is proven and not proven and can and cannot be proven are very different than the ways than the objects of faith are proven or not proven.
PET scans of brains believing in gods and of brains beliving in evolution (for instance) may look the same (or thye may not, I've never read about this being done, and I"m not sure how it could be) but that does not mean that they are equivelent in the real world. Hence the definition: Science is that when you stop beliving in it still remains true.
I find the deep anti-intellectualism and anti-science bias in this country to be frightening and regressive. You can expect that I will jump on statements that seem to support that world view.