Hi everyone. I am a little confused and ignorant on all of these issues so I would appreciate any help I can get.
First let me clarify what I mean by these terms:
Atheism: there are quite a few definitions of it, mine is: there most likely is no god.
Agnosticism: neither theism nor atheism can prove their position so we can’t say.
Science: just a broad term that I will use to mean scientific method and values.
Ok so I have no idea how one can be agnostic and value science at the same time. Agnostics seem to treat theism vs atheism as sort of a 50:50 chance that either is right, while suspending judgment on the matter. I would like to point out that it is by no means a 50:50. Here is one argument for it that Michael Shermer used in one of his debates: Claim: There is a god - Null Hypothesis: there is no god. There is no evidence to support the claim, the null hypothesis is affirmed, we know of no god. Now that alone does not mean much, but when you put it into context, and consider for how many centuries, millennia even, no one has ever managed to produce evidence to support the claim, the probability of the null hypothesis being true is huge. And that is just the absence of evidence argument alone. If we consider that we have a clear idea why and how people formed beliefs in the supernatural, and the fact that every theory of god or even every definition of one, has either been refuted or was so vague as to mean pretty much nothing and everything at the same time, I think we can safely affirm that most likely no god exists. So how can anyone be an agnostic?
To any agnostics reading this, I mean no offense, and I strongly encourage you to enlighten and educate me on the subject. As I said I am not very knowledgeable on this particular one. Same goes for everyone else, if I said something stupid correct me.
IMPORTANT: if you use different definitions please clarify it first. Also please justify your claims and provide an argument for them if needed.
Sounds like you’ve listened to a few talks and not done much else. Atheism is a belief claim, Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Science cannot make a knowledge claim with 100% accuracy, therefore, it is agnostic on everything. It is always contingent on new data. If you want to say you are so certain that for all practical purposes, it’s true, that is perfectly fine with me. It is perfectly useful in normal conversation. The thing is, with this particular truth claim, you have a lot of people betting their life on it, so do you really want to get into that? It’s up to you.
Every Sunday in church God is proven by his miracle cures of members of the congregation. Members give testimonials of the cures by God.
There is a God of “faith and belief". God does exist today in the minds of billions of people just like love and dreams.
What steps you decide to take can always be changed to a new direction so don’t be afraid to try several paths.
I know little about “Agnosticism". I am an atheist, I do not believe in deities, really simple. And I think that atheists can prove their position.
Don’t get caught up in the science verses belief (god) paradox, it is a waste of time.
And welcome to CFI.
Every Sunday in church God is proven by his miracle cures of members of the congregation. Members give testimonials of the cures by God. There is a God of “faith and belief". God does exist today in the minds of billions of people just like love and dreams. What steps you decide to take can always be changed to a new direction so don’t be afraid to try several paths. I know little about “Agnosticism". I am an atheist, I do not believe in deities, really simple. And I think that atheists can prove their position. Don’t get caught up in the science verses belief (god) paradox, it is a waste of time. And welcome to CFI.If you're an agnostic you know nothing. ? Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism. The two concepts address completely different things. Atheism is simply lack of belief that a god exists, usually on the basis that no evidence exists to support a god claim. Atheism says nothing about whether a god exists or not. It addresses belief, not existence. Agnostocism is not knowing whether there is a god. Atheists don't claim to know, either. Agnosticism is a completey redundant word, used by people who shrink from the word "atheist."
Happy Thankgiving Lois,
Yes, totally agree with your posting.
Today’s thinking. As computers advance, we are looking at the computer answering just about all our questions in the future. This will create some major problems of correctness. Wikipedia gets around this by not addressing the issue. In other words Wikipedia could be completely wrong. I think there will have to be some new words (meanings) developed to help the public communicate with the computer.
Let’s look at “God" for example. People assume that the meaning has always meant the same. This is not true. Before deities god meant “knowledge" or “teacher". As you can see words from the past have to be translated. These translations also change over time.
Let’s suppose it is 2020 and someone asks her computer the question, “Is Jesus an atheist?" What will the computer say? Correct answer is “yes". Next question, “Was Jesus a god?" The correct answer would again be “yes". Next question, “did Jesus believe in god?" The correct answer is again “yes". Next question, “can I become a god?" The computer would say “yes".
It takes years for us to understand certain subjects. The problem is the computer cannot answer in the steps of learning that is standard for people today, the computer there for needs help communicating in subjects like “god".
I better cover the questions. Christianity was the result of Paul and John more than what Jesus was trying to teach. As we are beginning to understand data from the past and understand clearly what went on. We are finding that Jesus was Gnostic. Gnostic was based on religion that was around before deities and has always been around and is still around today. Gnostic means knowledge. And the goal in the gnostic religion is to become a deity. I have always had a little trouble with that, I think the experts could come up with a better exclamation. This is my understanding of why they say that. The people of the Gods (knowledge) had religion that included heaven, spirit and the soul. The religion dealt with being good and bad by the reward of reincarnation to a better life. Or a step up in the caste system in the next life.
You reached the top of the steps after twenty-seven years of learning knowledge. Overtime the knowledge base grew larger. The one item that all deities even today have in common is knowledge or the claim to control some sort of knowledge. Now it is understandable why you want to become a deity in Gnostic religion. You want to know or understand some type of knowledge. I like to think of the term professor instead of deity. Example, Salem was the “City of Gods" or “City of professors" or “The City of People of Knowledge".
Next point is that the term “Deities" needs to be redefined into “Deities" and “false Deities" or teachers of faults ideas. In the past they called the deities of false ideals “idols". Note, the term idol today is ‘idiot".
Finally, point being. The term “Atheists" means “one that does not believe in deities." Should it really be “one that does not believe in idols ‘idiots’?" For right now, the term to use is deities but it may need to be changed in the up and coming future to keep up with the understanding of our knowledge on the subject and the computer.
Please be assured you said nothing stupid but as you said you do have a lot to learn but that’s OK, we all do and none of us “knows it all”. The only advice I would give now, is don’t get tied down trying to label yourself. Too often we all limit ourselves by saying I’m a liberal or conservative or maybe I’m a believer or non-believer etc. etc… etc. and I can assure you none of us are just one thing. If you are sure you want to be labeled, just one suggestion," I am a citizen of planet Earth". Any way, welcome.
Happy Thankgiving Lois, Yes, totally agree with your posting. Today’s thinking. As computers advance, we are looking at the computer answering just about all our questions in the future. This will create some major problems of correctness. Wikipedia gets around this by not addressing the issue. In other words Wikipedia could be completely wrong. I think there will have to be some new words (meanings) developed to help the public communicate with the computer. Let’s look at “God" for example. People assume that the meaning has always meant the same. This is not true. Before deities god meant “knowledge" or “teacher". As you can see words from the past have to be translated. These translations also change over time. Let’s suppose it is 2020 and someone asks her computer the question, “Is Jesus an atheist?" What will the computer say? Correct answer is “yes". Next question, “Was Jesus a god?" The correct answer would again be “yes". Next question, “did Jesus believe in god?" The correct answer is again “yes". Next question, “can I become a god?" The computer would say “yes". It takes years for us to understand certain subjects. The problem is the computer cannot answer in the steps of learning that is standard for people today, the computer there for needs help communicating in subjects like “god". I better cover the questions. Christianity was the result of Paul and John more than what Jesus was trying to teach. As we are beginning to understand data from the past and understand clearly what went on. We are finding that Jesus was Gnostic. Gnostic was based on religion that was around before deities and has always been around and is still around today. Gnostic means knowledge. And the goal in the gnostic religion is to become a deity. I have always had a little trouble with that, I think the experts could come up with a better exclamation. This is my understanding of why they say that. The people of the Gods (knowledge) had religion that included heaven, spirit and the soul. The religion dealt with being good and bad by the reward of reincarnation to a better life. Or a step up in the caste system in the next life. You reached the top of the steps after twenty-seven years of learning knowledge. Overtime the knowledge base grew larger. The one item that all deities even today have in common is knowledge or the claim to control some sort of knowledge. Now it is understandable why you want to become a deity in Gnostic religion. You want to know or understand some type of knowledge. I like to think of the term professor instead of deity. Example, Salem was the “City of Gods" or “City of professors" or “The City of People of Knowledge". Next point is that the term “Deities" needs to be redefined into “Deities" and “false Deities" or teachers of faults ideas. In the past they called the deities of false ideals “idols". Note, the term idol today is ‘idiot". Finally, point being. The term “Atheists" means “one that does not believe in deities." Should it really be “one that does not believe in idols ‘idiots’?" For right now, the term to use is deities but it may need to be changed in the up and coming future to keep up with the understanding of our knowledge on the subject and the computer.We can redefine Deities into Deities and false deities the moment someone produces objective evidence that a deity of any description exists. We can't know what a false deity is until we know what an actual deity is, if an actual deity exists. Until then, the rational approach is to assume that all deities are false. Can you separate "real" space aliens from false ones?
The meaning of Deity came from India, a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people.
Wikipedia - Various cultures have conceptualized a deity differently than a monotheistic God.
The term came out of India in the Vedic and it was an ethical concept. And all deity in India end up dying, they were human. By the time Gnostic teachings came about the deities are items like Sophia, a Greek word meaning “wisdom". In the time of Jesus we have to look at the Valentinianism thinking. And Sophia was the syzygy of Jesus.
That is my point. Just take one word like “Deity" and it has a whole history and has been translated many times. Gnosticism was a way thought of as secret knowledge. Just the opposite, look at the writings coming directly from the teachings of Jesus, “The Gospel of Thomas,” the “Apocryphon of James,” The Gospel of Phillip" and “The Gospel of Truth.” Take in the fact that Gnosticism in three or four different times almost became the Roman state religion over Christianity. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “to know” or “knowledge.” I really don’t think of it as “secret knowledge" as much as a different thinking at the time based upon religions that were older and from other areas.
Fast forward to today, we have AI computers that can beat man at chest and beginning to think for themselves. How will mankind react when the time comes that we can ask the computer questions and get a logical scientific answer. One system claims that the computer AI system has even developed its own language. The AI systems of the future may be able to review data and come up with answers in seconds that would take us years to figure out.
That’s one part. The other part is that what we think we know and that is generally accepted by the masses, may turn out to be wrong. How will we react? Here’s what I think looking at the Climate Change Models. In this global warming the models had Greenland getting colder instead of warming as being claimed by many scientist. Conclusion was the models were not working properly. After not being able to fix the models they went out and did a field test of Greenland and the models were correct. I am not saying Climate Change is not happening, but because of weather patterns some area may get colder as we are warming up. I think the same thing will happen with religion. When the AI answers do not please the general public, it will open up a new investigation into the past. This AI technology is moving really fast, we could be less than a decade away from this synopsis.
Point three. What will living with AI be like? We could ask AI anything from the best stock picks to who would make the best president. So do you think that when invisible has a question about agnosticism and atheism that she would ask CFI or AI?
We can redefine Deities into Deities and false deities the moment someone produces objective evidence that a deity of any description exists. We can't know what a false deity is until we know what an actual deity is, if an actual deity exists. Until then, the rational approach is to assume that all deities are false. Can you separate "real" space aliens from false ones?Sure we can. History tells us it has been done in the past. Just break down deities to the root words and original meanings. Deity = teacher = wisdom. False deity = idol = idiot. We keep the wisdom and get rid of the idiots. So we keep Budda (teacher). And we keep Jesus (teacher) in the Gnostic teachings. We get rid of Jesus (idol) in the NT.