Not Using "Agnostic" Anymore

[naimless]

Yes but it is impossible. You never know how many definitions of words another person knows. For example, there is the assumption I understand what you understand "should" means. Then the intonation of the phrase is another issue. My reply, right now, is probably not teaching you anything new. It's just attempting to find common ground and reinforce similar definitions. But you knew that, too, and so on...

In any real debate, definitions should be agreed upon, whether it happens at the very beginning, or as the convo goes. Ideally, this should happen beforehand.

We don't live in an ideal world. Ideal, perfection, logic, rational, objective... these are generally words assigned by humans that we give to things that aren't human. We are imperfect. True love between humans is accepting the imperfections of each-other. It's unconditional, and quite frankly, it doesn't make sense.

I understand what you are saying. But I also understand how someone can know for sure. Think of how many things we know for sure, with regards to science, that will not be for sure in 200,000 years. You can't. In 200,000 years, is my belief of a flying spaghetti monster the truth? Genuinely calculating it, I'd currently give it a 1/2,589,300,000,000,000,000 chance. That isn't factoring in my objective chances of being right - that is just me factoring objectivity from my subjective position.

But, I didn't say anything about what we might know in the future. I was referring to evidence, or the lack of it, we have now.

Yep, but chances are someone else has their faith in the future. It's faith or drugs. You either pray shit will be better, or you distract yourself from the negative shit some other way.

I hear living in a bubble of a good job, partner and living environment also helps but I am yet to stumble upon that journey.

Only if you trust the current human perception of objective reality. We have limited senses.

Really? There are so many fallacies in this, I don't know where to begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUNrpX8Rx4

Apologies, my mind generally consists of Breaking Bad, and exploring space and dark matter.

Dawkins, in his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker:
“This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.”

I think that is a fallacy. 96% of this universe is unaccounted for.

I don't believe the universe is free enough for it to be their fault either though. We can agree to disagree on that if you wish.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I mean we didn't choose the 13.7 billion years that led to who we are in this moment. I don't blame people for the cause and effect they had to go through. I don't find them particularly arrogant or insulting. At least I don't particularly care. I'm pretty tolerant about intolerance. It evolved just like everything else.

[rexbeccarox]

In any real debate, definitions should be agreed upon, whether it happens at the very beginning, or as the convo goes. Ideally, this should happen beforehand.

We don't live in an ideal world. Ideal, perfection, logic, rational, objective... these are generally words assigned by humans that we give to things that aren't human. We are imperfect. True love between humans is accepting the imperfections of each-other. It's unconditional, and quite frankly, it doesn't make sense.

OK, I'll give you that. It really has nothing to do with the thread, anyway... and, wait. What's love got to do with it?... and on that note, what's faith got to do with it?

But, I didn't say anything about what we might know in the future. I was referring to evidence, or the lack of it, we have now.

Yep, but chances are someone else has their faith in the future. It's faith or drugs. You either pray shit will be better, or you distract yourself from the negative shit some other way.

I hear living in a bubble of a good job, partner and living environment also helps but I am yet to stumble upon that journey.

Really? There are so many fallacies in this, I don't know where to begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUNrpX8Rx4

Apologies, my mind generally consists of Breaking Bad, and exploring space and dark matter.

Coincidentally, the dark matter in my brain consists of Breaking Bad and exploring space. Funny

Dawkins, in his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker:
“This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.”

I think that is a fallacy. 96% of this universe is unaccounted for.

???

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I mean we didn't choose the 13.7 billion years that led to who we are in this moment. I don't blame people for the cause and effect they had to go through. I don't find them particularly arrogant or insulting. At least I don't particularly care. I'm pretty tolerant about intolerance. It evolved just like everything else.

That's an interesting viewpoint. I am too, for the most part.

[Ryantology]

When this issue comes up, I simply state that I am willing to take the tiny leap of faith and state that God does not exist, because the possibility of God existing is so extraordinarily small that it does not warrant my serious consideration.

[naimless]

What's love got to do with it?... and on that note, what's faith got to do with it?

People who are theists have faith in the future and generally predict a positive outcome for themselves. Love can stimulate similar feelings.

Running on purely science, I don't feel that. I have to take that experience into account whenever I converse with anyone else. They have about a 3/4 chance of believing in a better future for themselves with no evidence of it whatsoever, regardless of religion.

Dawkins, in his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker:
“This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.”

I think that is a fallacy. 96% of this universe is unaccounted for.

???

There is the possibility that a person on earth could be god, no matter how slim that is. There is also a possibility santa and tooth fairies could be real. There is also the possibility of a similar universe or solar system or planet or species...

I know you are focussing on what we have now, and I agree there is no evidence for this shit. But equally I can't experience what anyone else experiences. I've had pretty intense hallucinations and dreams before. I've known schizophrenic people. When you consider the size of the universe their experience is just as significant as mine.

[rexbeccarox]

But, naimless, the point was that everyone is agnostic. No one KNOWS if there is a god or gods. That's it. Perception, faith, belief, mental illness, etc. None of those have to do with knowledge. As far as this thread goes, that's what I'm trying to focus on.

[naimless]

I agree but I've felt that I have known in the past so I am empathetic of those who do. Sometimes god is just a synonym for having positive faith in the future and the unknown. That kind of visualisation can actually scientifically make it more probable that something of positivity will happen, thus people feel that they know their personal belief to be true.

As long as people keep feeling that, they will claim to know it. Nothing can really replicate that feeling.

[Ryantology]

Claiming to know something, or feeling like you know something, is not evidence that you actually possess any knowledge.

[naimless]

Again, I don't disagree, but one of my housemates doesn't get imagery or dream or compose songs in his head.

The rest of us are musicians and artists of some degree (as well as scientists at uni).

Point is, he could easily say there is no evidence we possess what we say we do.

[rexbeccarox]

Naimless, I honestly don't understand where you're coming from. I feel like you're debating something/someone else/another topic. Are you trying to tell me I should be more tolerant when it comes to people who claim to "know"? That I should continue to tack the "agnostic" label to myself? I'm really confused.

[naimless]

Nah, I'm just being naimless.