If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ViewFromAbove]

For those who answered my question about the benefits in belief in God, thanks. However, I'm waiting for the OP to answer as I'm interested in that answer.

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs. I asked a question. I didn't accuse or belittle someones belief because it is different than mine.

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing. However, when you die and I turn out to be right, you've lost everything.

Pascal’s wager (your thought preference) is not rational, and it’s ethnocentric.

Why would a benevolent God punish you for being honest about your ignorance?
I’m an ethical person and strongly believe in the “golden rule” principle. It makes no sense that a just god would punish me for exercising my “god given” empathy.

Even if you believe in a Christian God, would you not be punished for being an “infidel” if the Islamic God existed?
Religion is a cultural artifact.

Pascal’s wager Is misunderstood. The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that not having faith is irrational. And by benefits I mean to say benefits in living life.

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational;

A better way to out it:

Belief without evidence is "faith".

A smart bet based on evidence is "trust". You dont have "faith" in the scientific method. You have trust, based on evidence.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

The curse of the agnostic is that they don’t know. This includes not knowing there is evidence or is not evidence. For if they knew there was or wasn’t, they wouldn’t be agnostic.

Honesty about one’s ignorance is not a curse; it’s rational. Scientists practice objectivity 99% of the time, and usually conclude their research with probabilities based on their data and “more research needed”.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Since it is performed by humans, bias is still a risk. So I question that 99% of the time they are truly objective. With that said, I do believe they try to be objective.

By definition science is never truly conclusive because if new information comes along everything is fair game to change.

My point about agnostics is that they aren’t really agnostic because if they were they wouldn’t hold any opinions on the existence or non-existence of a creator. By definition they not only do not know they believe it is not possible to know.

Most self professed agnostics are atheists.

Scientists are agnostic by nature of their methods. Of course, they have theories and hypotheses, but they are tested objectively (unless corruption occurs).
As mentioned previously, an agnostic stance leads to weak atheism (no belief). A strong atheist is not agnostic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A strong atheist is not agnostic.

Correct, he is a "gnostic atheist".

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational;

A better way to out it:

Belief without evidence is "faith".

A smart bet based on evidence is "trust". You dont have "faith" in the scientific method. You have trust, based on evidence.

I would say “Belief without evidence” is “naive faith”. Belief in corroborated science is “mature faith or trust”.

Trust & faith are somewhat interchangeable.
I used “faith” because religious people prefer that word.
A definition of “faith”:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would say “Belief without evidence” is “naive faith”. Belief in corroborated science is “mature faith or trust”.

Fine, as long as you draw a stark distinction between the two ideas, which are actually nothing alike.

 

[ding]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

There is no evidence for any “spirit” of the type you describe.

Wouldn’t the material world be that evidence?

Assuming of course spirit did create the material world, right?

The material/natural world we perceive provides LOTS of evidence for evolution through self-organization and emergence processes.
Your “spirit” perception is not based on any credible evidence or rational thought, in my opinion.

Sure it is. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created from nothing.

Huh?? How do YOU know that?
Space and time created from “nothing”?
Even if you were a philosopher of physics, you cannot justify that claim.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational;

A better way to out it:

Belief without evidence is "faith".

A smart bet based on evidence is "trust". You dont have "faith" in the scientific method. You have trust, based on evidence.

I would say “Belief without evidence” is “naive faith”. Belief in corroborated science is “mature faith or trust”.

Trust & faith are somewhat interchangeable.
I used “faith” because religious people prefer that word.
A definition of “faith”:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Exactly. I (as well as most people) only put faith in someone or something if I have good reason to do so.

 

[ding]

Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational;

A better way to out it:

Belief without evidence is "faith".

A smart bet based on evidence is "trust". You dont have "faith" in the scientific method. You have trust, based on evidence.

I would say “Belief without evidence” is “naive faith”. Belief in corroborated science is “mature faith or trust”.

Trust & faith are somewhat interchangeable.
I used “faith” because religious people prefer that word.
A definition of “faith”:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

But it's not naive faith to put complete trust in someone or something. It is blind faith and I can think of several reasons for why someone may do so.

 

[ding]

I would say “Belief without evidence” is “naive faith”. Belief in corroborated science is “mature faith or trust”.

Fine, as long as you draw a stark distinction between the two ideas, which are actually nothing alike.

They are absolutely alike and connected. They are alike because both require good reason.

Trust is a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

Faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

[ding]

For those who answered my question about the benefits in belief in God, thanks. However, I'm waiting for the OP to answer as I'm interested in that answer.

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs. I asked a question. I didn't accuse or belittle someones belief because it is different than mine.

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing. However, when you die and I turn out to be right, you've lost everything.

Pascal’s wager (your thought preference) is not rational, and it’s ethnocentric.

Why would a benevolent God punish you for being honest about your ignorance?
I’m an ethical person and strongly believe in the “golden rule” principle. It makes no sense that a just god would punish me for exercising my “god given” empathy.

Even if you believe in a Christian God, would you not be punished for being an “infidel” if the Islamic God existed?
Religion is a cultural artifact.

Pascal’s wager Is misunderstood. The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that not having faith is irrational. And by benefits I mean to say benefits in living life.

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Darwin says otherwise. The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.

So what is the functional advantage of faith? I believe that William James captured it best.

"When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are absolutely alike and connected.

They are nothing alike. Drawing conclusions from evidence is the opposote of starting from a point of adopting a belief without evidence. This is why it is pointless talking to you...you will literally say anything, no matter how obviously retarded it is.

 

[ding]

The curse of the agnostic is that they don’t know. This includes not knowing there is evidence or is not evidence. For if they knew there was or wasn’t, they wouldn’t be agnostic.

Honesty about one’s ignorance is not a curse; it’s rational. Scientists practice objectivity 99% of the time, and usually conclude their research with probabilities based on their data and “more research needed”.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Since it is performed by humans, bias is still a risk. So I question that 99% of the time they are truly objective. With that said, I do believe they try to be objective.

By definition science is never truly conclusive because if new information comes along everything is fair game to change.

My point about agnostics is that they aren’t really agnostic because if they were they wouldn’t hold any opinions on the existence or non-existence of a creator. By definition they not only do not know they believe it is not possible to know.

Most self professed agnostics are atheists.

Scientists are agnostic by nature of their methods. Of course, they have theories and hypotheses, but they are tested objectively (unless corruption occurs).
As mentioned previously, an agnostic stance leads to weak atheism (no belief). A strong atheist is not agnostic.

Do you consider yourself an atheist?

 

[ding]

They are absolutely alike and connected.

They are nothing alike. Drawing conclusions from evidence is the opposote of starting from a point of adopting a belief without evidence. Ding, stick to magical nonsense. You are embarrassing yourself.

Your tone says otherwise. Your tone says you are threatened by the content of my words.

I don't believe I could have explained it any more clearly. I have good reasons for my beliefs, so I trust them.

 

[ding]

They are absolutely alike and connected.

They are nothing alike. Drawing conclusions from evidence is the opposote of starting from a point of adopting a belief without evidence. This is why it is pointless talking to you...you will literally say anything, no matter how obviously retarded it is.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know it was you who created it?

 

[ding]

This is why it is pointless talking to you...you will literally say anything, no matter how obviously retarded it is.

No. I only say things that I believe and have good reason to believe. In fact, I believe I do a good job of providing the basis for my belief.

 

[keepitreal]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Agnosticism neither denies nor acknowledges God

If you are agnostic you play it safe, or so one thinks

Believing that nothing + nothing = creation, is fantasy

Believing that a whole bunch of nothing
created a whole bunch of different life forms.....
life forms and living organisms all dependent on each other

That, somehow, from nothingness
an intelligent life form could manifest
with self sustaining precision, is absurd

You can not see the wind but you can feel it
and see the leaves, grass, flags and water moved by it

No faith is faith in itself

 

[Slyhunter]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Agnosticism neither denies nor acknowledges God

If you are agnostic you play it safe, or so one thinks

Believing that nothing + nothing = creation, is fantasy

Believing that a whole bunch of nothing
created a whole bunch of different life forms.....
life forms and living organisms all dependent on each other

That, somehow, from nothingness
an intelligent life form could manifest
with self sustaining precision, is absurd

You can not see the wind but you can feel it
and see the leaves, grass, flags and water moved by it

No faith is faith in itself

You can't prove what was first created.

 

[keepitreal]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Agnosticism neither denies nor acknowledges God

If you are agnostic you play it safe, or so one thinks

Believing that nothing + nothing = creation, is fantasy

Believing that a whole bunch of nothing
created a whole bunch of different life forms.....
life forms and living organisms all dependent on each other

That, somehow, from nothingness
an intelligent life form could manifest
with self sustaining precision, is absurd

You can not see the wind but you can feel it
and see the leaves, grass, flags and water moved by it

No faith is faith in itself

You can't prove what was first created.

What difference does that make?

I don’t have to prove people didn’t evolve from apes
to know we didn’t

 

[james bond]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.