RE: Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..
November 22, 2011 at 5:59 am
(This post was last modified: November 22, 2011 at 6:07 am by mayor of simpleton.)
NO EVIDENCE = NO GOD....
How's this....
The absence of all evidence for the necessity of X existing is evidence against the necessary existence of X.
I use this regarding deism or pantheism. Two cryptic and vague assertions, from my perspective. It seems to be that the only underpinning for them is an anthropomorphic perspective regarding the universe/cosmos.
Conserning theistic deities... there I'm a gnostic atheist. I know that they do not exist, just as I know I cannot "square a circle".
Theistic deities are founded upon an intuitive act of the personality where one centers the being. This execution of this act is via religious faith. If faith is lost here, the result is that there is no god; thus no center for the being. It all collapses.
Empirical investigation is something else. This is an act of knowledge. The "trust" here is not the the religious flavor (aka Faith), but founding investigation upon empirical evidences and theories that are possibilities for these evidences. An investigation utilizing even the most unreliable evidences that stem from an act of knowledge are not to be cofused with an act of the personality. Faith in the religious sense of the word does not enter the picture here. If an evidence or theory within this realm is deemed to be an error, the only thing that occurs here is a refinement of the scientific understanding of what can be accepted. Science is not nullified via a loss of trust in such an evidence.
Deal is this...
There is no empirical evidence to support any existence of any deity. Think about it...
How does one go about supporting a "supernatural entity"?
Via "natural evidences" of an empirical variety?
Sounds like a massive non sequitur too me.
The being "needs to be centered"... why?
Especially if there are no centers present in the universe/cosmos.
It all has to be "explained... why it is all created as it is"!
What?
First of all, do fact rely on our permission and awareness of them to exist?
Created... a temporal designation if I'm not mistaken. "Beginning and ends are intentional designation from the perception of a perceiver... us.
Would not placing the demand that the universe/cosmos "view things" from the "perception of beginnings and ends" (aka creation-destruction) not be an anthropomorphic extention of our ego upon the universe/cosmos? Gee... and I didn't happen to mention the thermodynamic crap about energy not being WHAT.... created or destroyed... so much for the perception of creation. Simply our ability to view collages of energies that are present, have always been present, will continue to be present, but become a thing... why... because we recognize them in such a manner to grant them "thingness". (Did Columbus discover America or did a bunch of natives discover Columbus on their beach?)
Assuming creation of the universe in saying that it must have logically been created, which defies the laws of thermodynamics and the underpinnings of matter and gravity within the universe/cosmos and is quite ILLOGICAL, assumes an anthropomorphic proxy of the will (ego) from the beginning; thus ignoring the fact that energy just is.
Circular reasoning works, because ciruclar reasoning works, because....
Sorry... I'm just playing here with a bunch of random thoughts.
If someone says that they believe in a theistic god deity via the proof of faith... I grant them that. I don't share in their faith, but I am not at liberty to rape them of their faith. If they claim that a theistic god deity exists via evidences found in our universe/cosmos (empirical evidences and futher observations of acts of knowledge) then they are fair game.
Religious faith is not empirical fact (acts of knowledge). If religious faith is held to the standard of empirical fact (acts of knowledge), then this religious faith is made trivial and it loses all potential dynamics of power for the individual. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who shares in the religious faith would make a trivial folly out of their faith. Odd as it is, me as a gnostic atheist, I have to remind people of faith what power their faith can have for them.
Ever try to help a fish back into the water?
Meow!
GREG
How's this....
The absence of all evidence for the necessity of X existing is evidence against the necessary existence of X.
I use this regarding deism or pantheism. Two cryptic and vague assertions, from my perspective. It seems to be that the only underpinning for them is an anthropomorphic perspective regarding the universe/cosmos.
Conserning theistic deities... there I'm a gnostic atheist. I know that they do not exist, just as I know I cannot "square a circle".
Theistic deities are founded upon an intuitive act of the personality where one centers the being. This execution of this act is via religious faith. If faith is lost here, the result is that there is no god; thus no center for the being. It all collapses.
Empirical investigation is something else. This is an act of knowledge. The "trust" here is not the the religious flavor (aka Faith), but founding investigation upon empirical evidences and theories that are possibilities for these evidences. An investigation utilizing even the most unreliable evidences that stem from an act of knowledge are not to be cofused with an act of the personality. Faith in the religious sense of the word does not enter the picture here. If an evidence or theory within this realm is deemed to be an error, the only thing that occurs here is a refinement of the scientific understanding of what can be accepted. Science is not nullified via a loss of trust in such an evidence.
Deal is this...
There is no empirical evidence to support any existence of any deity. Think about it...
How does one go about supporting a "supernatural entity"?
Via "natural evidences" of an empirical variety?
Sounds like a massive non sequitur too me.
The being "needs to be centered"... why?
Especially if there are no centers present in the universe/cosmos.
It all has to be "explained... why it is all created as it is"!
What?
First of all, do fact rely on our permission and awareness of them to exist?
Created... a temporal designation if I'm not mistaken. "Beginning and ends are intentional designation from the perception of a perceiver... us.
Would not placing the demand that the universe/cosmos "view things" from the "perception of beginnings and ends" (aka creation-destruction) not be an anthropomorphic extention of our ego upon the universe/cosmos? Gee... and I didn't happen to mention the thermodynamic crap about energy not being WHAT.... created or destroyed... so much for the perception of creation. Simply our ability to view collages of energies that are present, have always been present, will continue to be present, but become a thing... why... because we recognize them in such a manner to grant them "thingness". (Did Columbus discover America or did a bunch of natives discover Columbus on their beach?)
Assuming creation of the universe in saying that it must have logically been created, which defies the laws of thermodynamics and the underpinnings of matter and gravity within the universe/cosmos and is quite ILLOGICAL, assumes an anthropomorphic proxy of the will (ego) from the beginning; thus ignoring the fact that energy just is.
Circular reasoning works, because ciruclar reasoning works, because....
Sorry... I'm just playing here with a bunch of random thoughts.
If someone says that they believe in a theistic god deity via the proof of faith... I grant them that. I don't share in their faith, but I am not at liberty to rape them of their faith. If they claim that a theistic god deity exists via evidences found in our universe/cosmos (empirical evidences and futher observations of acts of knowledge) then they are fair game.
Religious faith is not empirical fact (acts of knowledge). If religious faith is held to the standard of empirical fact (acts of knowledge), then this religious faith is made trivial and it loses all potential dynamics of power for the individual. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who shares in the religious faith would make a trivial folly out of their faith. Odd as it is, me as a gnostic atheist, I have to remind people of faith what power their faith can have for them.
Ever try to help a fish back into the water?
Meow!
GREG
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
