Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

I dare say, what with the added spotlight, criticism and agitation attributed to Religion and theism in recent times, labelling oneself an atheist and running around shouting "Ha, I don't believe there is a God, I take a stance against God, I don't need God" etc has become the in thing to do. With this increase, the term has been generalised to it's detriment?

Well I dunno. I view everything from such an individual point of view, I don't need a god but since the concept is meaningless to me from a practical everyday point of view I see no need to denounce it. I can see why others would though. These subtle slants paint an interesting, vastly deeper picture of course.

0 Replies

Ashers I share your "individual point of view," which is why I referred somewhere above to "MY atheism." It rests to a good extent on the fact that, like you, I have no NEED for a God. If I did have such a need, I suspect I would rationalize a "faith". To some extent that's what I do regarding the "mystical thesis" mentioned above. The difference between that and theism, as I understand the latter, is that mysticism DOES involve a kind of "knowledge", involves direct experience. Theists might also claim to have experience of God, i.e., a "nudge" to the heart, but that is very different.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Nietzsche may be called a "positive atheist" in that he advocated a kind of "this-world pietism." He found that THIS world is all that exists and contains all that is needed for a thoroughly satisfying life.

I don't in the sense that through technologic advancements I believe we can supercede our present limitations by a large margin.
.
.
.
.
Can you be an Atheist by Doc's definition if you have a belief in the 'golden' future of man?

0 Replies

I don't recall Doc's definition, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no "golden future" so long as we linger in the shadow of the Middle Ages. Since The Enlightenment, God is dead, but we remain in his shadow.

0 Replies

Quote:

Can you be an Atheist by Doc's definition if you have a belief in the 'golden' future of man?

What sort of future would constitute 'golden'?

0 Replies

That's a difficult question. I don't really believe in Utopias because they tend to ignore the inevitability of time and change. No static "Golden" era is possible, but the continuous movement toward the "Better" life is.
What do you think are the most desireable possibilities, Dok?

0 Replies

It sounds similar to "a life in heaven." There ain't gonna be no such thing with humans occupying this planet.

0 Replies

I think the first major hurdle needs to be overcome before worry about anything else, finding ways to get out of the limited space and resources of the Earth....once we manage that, the sky is no longer the limit.

0 Replies

Time limitations - extended life span
Resource limitations - exodus from Earth
Drudgery limitations - robotics
Mental and physical imitations - cybernetics, artificial intelligence, increased human brain horsepower
Man's character - the opportunity to redefine

So can you maintain Atheist status by Doc's definition if you have a belief in the above 'golden' future of man?

Sounds lotta betta than a golden shower anyways Smile

0 Replies

JL,

Quote:

What do you think are the most desireable possibilities, Dok?

A a worldwide dictatorship with myself at its head

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Time limitations - extended life span
Resource limitations - exodus from Earth
Drudgery limitations - robotics
Mental and physical imitations - cybernetics, artificial intelligence, increased human brain horsepower
Man's character - the opportunity to redefine

So can you maintain Atheist status by Doc's definition if you have a belief in the above 'golden' future of man?

Sounds lotta betta than a golden shower anyways

I may be missing something, but what has one to do with the other?
What connection do said beliefs have to belief in deities?
I am not seeing a conflict of interest.

0 Replies

If we are the creator but simply do not yet know it.

0 Replies

While it does not make us "gods," we ARE--individually and collectively--the creators of our world, i.e., our historically constructed culture and Schopenhauer's idealist notion that "The world is my idea." But that's another well-worn thread: the psychological and social construction of reality.

0 Replies

The variation was by saying we "do not yet know it" I have suugested that through technological leverage we will become the creator. That is not the same as your reference to the "psychological and social construction of reality".

That's why I ask if one can maintain Atheist status by Doc's definition if you have a belief in the future of man. A future in which through technological leverage we will be as what some might call god or god-like.

It is a type of faith and it does impute a deity-like description. And I make no specific allusions to idealizations.

0 Replies

Chumly, As long as humans have differing beliefs in politics, religion, and economics, there will never be anything close to god-like or utopia on this planet.

0 Replies

OK, but I specifically exempted the premise of utopian idealism and did not limit the premise to either Earth or our human condition as we understand it today.

0 Replies

"Technological leverag" whatever that means is still the product of humans that affects politics, economics and religion.

0 Replies

We may not be talking about the same thing, I am refering to the apposite of ancestor worship in a sense.

A simple example of technological leverage in a literalist sense is a motorcycle transmission, less so would be a cloned replacement heart.

0 Replies

Ah, you're talking about "inventions."

0 Replies

I know what you are saying now. The belief that we will one day achieve what those of our technological limitations might describe as godlike is just a progression. What we are capable of now with our technology would have seemed quite 'godlike' to those living in the 7th century, and what they could do would have seemed quite godlike to those living in pre-historic times.
But to define something as godlike requires one first to factor in a deity to begin with( IE in order to be godlike, there must be a god to be like) which is something not required of an atheist.

0 Replies

Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know