Jump to content

hijack from What made you stop believing in God?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, MigL said:

You're gonna have to re-phrase that.
I haven't a clue what you mean to say.

Was just a joke to lighten the mood of this thread a bit but it's probably one of those referential humour things where if you don't know the origin it won't make sense.

I don't really identify with any organised religion but I don't identify with atheism either. I'm agnostic. I just see myself as opposition to baseless dogmatism. No-matter where that comes from. Science and religion both have their batches of dogmatic individuals. Ten years ago I was mocked by scientists for some of my beliefs about the early universe, now a few of my beliefs have been experimentally verified as potentially probable. Mostly I just take issue with anyone who says "I know" or "we know" because I have very high standards for epistemic claims, individually and collectively. It doesn't matter if someone says "I know god exists" or "I know conformal cyclical cosmology is wrong/right." I'm only really taking issue with the semantics of the claims being made really. Never claim to "know" anything. Only claim reasonable certainty for justification of belief, leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim to "know" something was actually just you fooling yourself. 

As it is, I just adhere to generationist values, since I am certain there will be future generations of humans who could have gotten a leg up by work done in my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MSC said:

I don't really identify with any organised religion but I don't identify with atheism either. I'm agnostic.

Theism / Atheism are statements of belief. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge or certainty. So, to elaborate:

One can be a confident theist.

One can be a confident atheist.

One can be an agnostic theist.

One can be an agnostic atheist.

... and there are several levels along the spectrum in between, but...

One cannot just be "agnostic." It's a complete misuse of the word.

</pedantic>

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MSC said:

As it is, I just adhere to generationist values, since I am certain there will be future generations of humans who could have gotten a leg up by work done in my time.

Never claim to "be certain" about anything. Only claim reasonable justification for belief, as it leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim of "certainty" was actually just you fooling yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Theism / Atheism are statements of belief. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge or certainty. So, to elaborate:

One can be a confident theist.

One can be a confident atheist.

One can be an agnostic theist.

One can be an agnostic atheist.

... and there are several levels along the spectrum in between, but...

One cannot just be "agnostic." It's a complete misuse of the word.

</pedantic>

Actually, I'm confident my beliefs are in a box and that I don't know either way. Agnostic. I'm not misusing the word, you just aren't aware of how agnosticism is also a statement of a belief.

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Never claim to "be certain" about anything. Only claim reasonable justification for belief, as it leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim of "certainty" was actually just you fooling yourself. 

This is just what I meant said in a different way except you've replaced knowing with certainty as if they mean the same in this context. They do not. Try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iNow said:

Theism / Atheism are statements of belief. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge or certainty. So, to elaborate:

You didn't read that SEP page did you? You just assumed only your point was there and that mine wasn't, I suggest you read more Le Poidevin and don't treat SEP like a one stop shop and that if you are going to treat it as such, at least read it all in it's entirety and treat it with respect.

If there is a specific part of that entry you'd like to excerpt for us here, I suggest you do that.

Firstly, Agnosticism isn't a statement of knowledge or certainty, it is a belief about knowledge and certainty. A distinct difference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumptuous and needlessly aggressive much?

You either believe or you do not, and have varying levels of certainty. Suggesting you’re just 50/50 down the middle is disingenuous, either to others or to yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Presumptuous and needlessly aggressive much?

You either believe or you do not, and have varying levels of certainty. Suggesting you’re just 50/50 down the middle is disingenuous, either to others or to yourself. 

Projection much? I'm sorry if you've interpreted aggression in my tone. I'm just being honest with you that I don't think you've read the full entry and your reluctance to quote from it only strengthen that belief. As does your desire to call me aggressive when I'm just being honestly polemical in my argumentation.

If you don't like being told to read something in it's entirety, then don't share it unless you have done that. I didn't suggest I was fifty fifty at all. I'm suggesting that I don't know what I believe. Hence why I said my beliefs are in a box, I don't have a key to this box. But by all means, try to tell me what my beliefs are and don't even address any of my points. That will help.

1 minute ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Reminder: if you aren’t discussing what made you stop believing in God, you are off-topic.

 

This is why I started a new thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

You didn’t start this thread. I split it.

 

I wasn't talking about the split. I was talking about my new thread "What do words mean?" I knew we were being taken off topic so I started a new thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSC said:

This is just what I meant said in a different way except you've replaced knowing with certainty as if they mean the same in this context. They do not. Try again.

LOL! I'm pretty sure there is no difference between "knowing with certainty" and "knowing for a fact".

Just admit it and move on. No need to embarrass yourself by trying to hide what is obvious to everyone.

"Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can continue forward while ignoring the non-apology apologies and needlessly unfriendly tone. 

Perhaps this offers a clearer picture of my intended meaning:

vaalncufnjz11.jpg


Where are you on this grid, MSC? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think we can continue forward while ignoring the non-apology apologies and needlessly unfriendly tone. 

Perhaps this offers a clearer picture of my intended meaning:

vaalncufnjz11.jpg


Where are you on this grid, MSC? 

You see the bottom of that middle line where it says Agnostic in red? That's me. I have a physical, non-supernatural idol. Not a god. I deify the future as the only thing that can truly judge me. For some, this puts me too far outside the common definitions of god or deity to be anything but an atheistic agnostic. To others, it means I have a god. Which means theistic agnostic. I view the entire debate over whether there is a creator god as something that is beyond my ability to gain any knowledge or certainty of. Of course, we are speaking consciously of course. Sub-consciously, I really couldn't say. I'll find that out on my deathbed when I either start praying, or don't. In this sense, my agnosticism has nothing to do with knowledge about beliefs in god, but more to do with my not knowing what my true beliefs are due to the nature of my existence. That being said, maybe psychoanalysis could shed some light on that and help me figure that out? I really don't know. For now, my final answer is that I am agnostic. My belief in god is like a cat in a box with some poison. I can't tell you if the cat is dead or alive, so for now I'm saying it is both. If you like, it means that a part of me is on the bottom left of the graph, and a part of me is on the right. However I trust myself to be able to self identify and self define, rather than allow others to identify or define me. So I say agnostic and I reject all other labels because to claim any certainty or knowledge either way would be truly disingenuous, I'd just be capitulating to what someone else says about me and that wouldn't be very honest at all, to myself or anyone else.

Unfriendly tone? Do you mean my word choice comes across as unfriendly? Or do you mean you're reading this with an audible tone of your own making? If so then my tone isn't the problem. How people interpret it is. I am diagnosed as a person with an autistic spectrum disorder, so maybe the way that makes me communicate comes off as aggressive or unfriendly but this is a misunderstanding made by individuals who are used to more Neurotypical styles of communication. 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well that settles it.
I'm an agnostic atheist.

( I'm a science guy, we're never 100% sure of anything )

Are you certain you're an agnostic atheist? Or are you an atheistic agnostic? I reject the four choice dichotomy given in the graph.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Me neither; I don't believe you...

And you do well. Everyone is unbelievable. Can you believe yourself?

Humans should stop believing each other and themselves. The sooner the better.

Let alone God.

A better world might result.

Edited by joigus
Addition to be on topic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MSC said:

I am diagnosed as a person with an autistic spectrum disorder, so maybe the way that makes me communicate comes off as aggressive or unfriendly but this is a misunderstanding made by individuals who are used to more Neurotypical styles of communication. 

Makes sense. I suspect you’ll find this community is pretty used to people being on the spectrum given the membership.

It’s a mistake to suggest people misunderstand you when they’re simply reacting to your style. I can understand perfectly the reasons for your style and tone while still finding your style off putting and abrasive. They’re not mutually exclusive. You can be both on the spectrum and come across as needlessly unfriendly all at the same time. 

You’ll also likely find others stop interacting with you if you refuse to adjust. All the best. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iNow said:

Makes sense. I suspect you’ll find this community is pretty used to people being on the spectrum given the membership.

It’s a mistake to suggest people misunderstand you when they’re simply reacting to your style. I can understand perfectly the reasons for your style amd still find your style off putting. They’re not mutually exclusive. You can be both on the spectrum and come across as needlessly unfriendly. 

You’ll also likely find others stop interacting with you if you refuse to adjust. All the best. 

If people don't ask me questions or answer my questions, like yourself, then I'm not likely to be that bothered if people refuse to interact because I didn't "adjust" to their individual standards. It's not like you speak for everybody, so I really don't care. 

Why should I take anyone seriously who don't charitably read what I have to say?

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ll put you down for agnostic atheist then

You're making a list? That's weird. Atheistic agnostic* you saying otherwise isn't going to change my mind. You're just doing it to make yourself comfortable. You're playing a language game with yourself right now.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

You can be both on the spectrum and come across as needlessly unfriendly. 

You're coming across that way to me, so are you sure you're not projecting? You seem to care very much about my identity to the point of trying to force your point on me. So far what you see as unfriendly, I see as disagreeing with you. Which I'm allowed to do, last I checked, or do you think individuals with ASD don't have that right where you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iNow said:

How do you know I’m not also someone on the spectrum?

I don't, but I try to communicate in substantive detail and have been honest with you about my thoughts at every point. Hell, even if you didn't have a formal diagnosis that in itself wouldn't mean you aren't on the spectrum. It just means you've never been screened for it. 

This isn't the point of this thread though, if you want to discuss ASD then I suggest you open a new thread. You've not had a single rational or reasonable answer to what I have said about agnosticism. Now, would you like to address any of my points or are you just going to ignore everything I have to say on the matter just because I don't agree with you and you just want to be right instead of informed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MSC said:

are you just going to ignore everything I have to say on the matter just because I don't agree with you and you just want to be right instead of informed?

This is known as a strawman. Thanks for the neg rep, though.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is known as a strawman. Thanks for the neg rep, though.

Projection again, you've strawmanned so much I have chafe in my teeth. You've done it again by accusing me of it when you know full well you've not answered any of my ON-TOPIC writings directly and have instead been quite rude. If you actually knew what you were doing, you'd have steelmanned my points. You've not. Bye now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.