I understand that, and people often simply reply: "Well, then you're an agnostic." I have two problems with that. The first is that this is a question which does not matter to me, but one which the world forces on me. In that my reply will always be that i have no good reason to believe that there is a god, the standard reply to that (given that almost all people who are sufficiently interested to bring up the point are either theists or militant atheists) is: "Well, then you're an atheist." The second problem that i have is that among those who consider themselves to be agnostics who are sufficiently motivated to bring the subject up, it is my experience that they are militant agnostics, who will insist that one cannot know. That leaves them in the position of inferentially imagining a definition of god, and denying that anyone can know--so, in fact, they are expressing a certainty which they deny anyone can have in regard to the question of whether or not there is a god.
Such a militant agnostic position is also at odds with what you are saying, because you state that you are not atheist because you acknowledge that there may be a definition of god which you could accept, which you would find plausible. The militant agnostic cannot accept such a position on your part, because the militant agnostic is dedicated to the proposition that this cannot be known.
I just want to be nonreligious so I can be associated with the 'better educated' (per the thread). I don't actually understand any of this.
What's not to understand? Either we're on our own, or you're a godless heathen and the God of Battles will blast you to perdition when that last trump sounds. That's simple enough.
rosborne, Without some description of god, it's useless to say there must be other defintions that "might" meet my idea of god/creator/whatever that I can hang my hat on. I agree with Set; I'm an atheist - period.
Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion would support Set's views on agnosticism. Ultimately we are all agnostic in the sense that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.
But there comes a point (and this is my view not necessarily Dawkins) when a rational decision has to be made.
Sadly for the child there is no evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. Later in life we understand why.
There is not one iota of evidence that a creator God exists...
We have a name for people who reject the idea of a personal god
We do not have a name for people who reject the idea of the tooth fairy.
Steve: We do not have a name for people who reject the idea of the tooth fairy.
Yes, we do; it's called "realist."
cicerone imposter wrote:Steve: We do not have a name for people who reject the idea of the tooth fairy.
Yes, we do; it's called "realist."
true but I meant it in the sense of a-theist meaning without theistic believe.
if there was a specific word describing someone who does not believe in the tooth fairy it might be atoothist. Or in the case of Santa, asantist.
But to my knowledge neither of those words exist...excepting that I have just invented them
Atheism is the beginning of knowledge. It is the triumph of reason over imagination. The truth is what we can know through our own experience. That leads to science -- basing what we know on reason and experience through objective means. Ultimately this leads to questions about origins or causes. What is the origin of the universe? What is consciousness? What is the source of thought? These types of questions, along with dissatisfaction with the limits of objective means of knowing, lead to an exploration of the spiritual dimension -- not in a conventional religious sense, but with a desire to understand the human psyche, the subjective realm of experience. This leads to the experience of consciousness as distinct from the phenomenal world. With continued exploration, there is a transformation of one's sense of self. Identity shifts from mental constructs to a silent Presence within. Unconscious reactivity is replaced by inner bliss and freedom. Knowing becomes Being. The purpose of knowledge is fulfilled.
IFeelFree wrote:Atheism is the beginning of knowledge. It is the triumph of reason over imagination. The truth is what we can know through our own experience. That leads to science -- basing what we know on reason and experience through objective means. Ultimately this leads to questions about origins or causes. What is the origin of the universe? What is consciousness? What is the source of thought? These types of questions, along with dissatisfaction with the limits of objective means of knowing, lead to an exploration of the spiritual dimension -- not in a conventional religious sense, but with a desire to understand the human psyche, the subjective realm of experience. This leads to the experience of consciousness as distinct from the phenomenal world. With continued exploration, there is a transformation of one's sense of self. Identity shifts from mental constructs to a silent Presence within. Unconscious reactivity is replaced by inner bliss and freedom. Knowing becomes Being. The purpose of knowledge is fulfilled.
It would be really interesting to have you as a philosophy 101 teacher.
Nobody would know what the heck you are talking about; but everybody would get an A so long as they piled the BS high enough on their exams.
neologist wrote:IFeelFree wrote:Atheism is the beginning of knowledge. It is the triumph of reason over imagination. The truth is what we can know through our own experience. That leads to science -- basing what we know on reason and experience through objective means. Ultimately this leads to questions about origins or causes. What is the origin of the universe? What is consciousness? What is the source of thought? These types of questions, along with dissatisfaction with the limits of objective means of knowing, lead to an exploration of the spiritual dimension -- not in a conventional religious sense, but with a desire to understand the human psyche, the subjective realm of experience. This leads to the experience of consciousness as distinct from the phenomenal world. With continued exploration, there is a transformation of one's sense of self. Identity shifts from mental constructs to a silent Presence within. Unconscious reactivity is replaced by inner bliss and freedom. Knowing becomes Being. The purpose of knowledge is fulfilled.
It would be really interesting to have you as a philosophy 101 teacher.
Nobody would know what the heck you are talking about; but everybody would get an A so long as they piled the BS high enough on their exams.
Actually, I once taught at the college level (physics labs) while a graduate student. I was not very easy on my students. I was even forced to raise the grade of one student who happened to be the son of a physics professor. Apparently, it didn't look good to assign a "C" grade to the professor's son.
Quite a leap from the quantum to the astral, is it not?
IFellFree, WELCOME to a2k. Enjoy your posts; please stick around and join in some other threads.
neologist wrote:Quite a leap from the quantum to the astral, is it not?
Not for me. I was always curious and wanted to acquire knowledge. I was practicing meditation at the time that I chose the physics major. Physics satisfied my curiosity about how the physical world worked. Spiritual practice gave me intuitive insights and experience of heightened states of awareness. I believe in expanding both inner and outer dimensions of life.
cicerone imposter wrote:IFellFree, WELCOME to a2k. Enjoy your posts; please stick around and join in some other threads.
Thank you. I'm contributing to threads here and there. Its interesting to see the range of opinions and responses.
IFeelFree, As you can see, I'm one of the "old" folks here on a2k. In addition to getting suspended three times, I've been "active" in many of the threads in the Travel, Religion, and Politics Forums; those topics that are known for their controversy on every level.
A2K also has gatherings from place and place, and from time to time. I'm trying to organize one in San Francisco (our second one) for August and/or September, and some for next year. I've attended several, including two in Chicago (just completed one early this month), two in Austin, two in London, and one in Lippstadt, Germany. There have been gatherings in New Mexico, New York and Boston. Try to attend some; you'll get to meet some of the folks in person. Most are great people, even the ones we have disagreements with.
IFF,
I would be interested in your views on (a) Polkinghorne - Cambridge physicist turned Anglican dean and (b) Niels Bohr who adopted the Yin-Yang symbol as his coat of arms.
Here's the
LINK for our San Francisco Gathering.
And here's the
LINK for our recent Chicago Gathering.
fresco wrote:IFF,
I would be interested in your views on (a) Polkinghorne - Cambridge physicist turned Anglican dean and (b) Niels Bohr who adopted the Yin-Yang symbol as his coat of arms.
A lot of physicists have had mystical or spiritual leanings (Newton, Einstein, Bohr, John Wheeler, David Bohm, etc.). When you've gone very deeply into objective methods of knowing, you eventually realize their limitations. I think the really great physicists have needed to have a highly developed intuition, as well as a strong intellect. Intuitive knowing naturally leads to the spiritual dimension.
