Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[khemist]

This thread has gotten out of control...

It seems that the simple explanation for not believing in a god, because of the absurdity behind it, cannot be accepted! It is, like others have stated, its not a disbelief in god, but rather the acceptance that it either doesn't matter, or that the belief in a supernatural being, whether it is physical or not, is rather absurd...

Math is not something that is used to control the universe, but rather to describe the universe! In my opinion, this whole forum is created to explore the unknowns and to attempt to solve them through observable phenomenon and to attempt to explain things through a universal language, which happens to be math!

I can appreciate why some people need a "god" in their lives, and why some people turn to religion. I, for one, would never do such things, because I would rather put that faith that those people put in a unprovable deity into myself.

The mind is an INCREDIBLY powerful thing. One only has to take some mushrooms, acid, DMT, etc to discover that. But to attribute the ability of the mind to perceive so many things to a higher being is almost to the point of ignorance...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

jimmy, let me see the link you have that defines a person that completely lacks belief of any diety(ies) as agnostic.

The Agnosticist is absent of belief, where theism and atheism require faith that there is or is not a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This thread has gotten out of control.

Actually, it started out that way. The person that the OP came across makes a logical fallacy. They say

Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven.

That is, all religions rely on axiomatic assumptions, therefore, everyone who relies on axiomatic assumptions is religious. This is a fallacy called affirming the consequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent"

 

[Borek]

I hate you all. Up to now I thought I knew what I am, but after reading last two pages of the thread I am no longer sure.

 

[lisab]

I hate you all. Up to now I thought I knew what I am, but after reading last two pages of the thread I am no longer sure.

Lol, I was thinking the same thing...now I'm just confused ...note to self: never, ever read philosophy-like threads...

 

[Evo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"

Jimmy, you just reiterated what I said. Look at what you posted again.

The Agnosticist is absent of belief, where theism and atheism require faith that there is or is not a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."

Agnostics are two parters, they swing both ways. They neither confirm nor deny a deity.

An atheist only lacks faith that one exists.

You're getting old Jimmy.

 

[disregardthat]

Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of agnosticism is that they consider that which is beyond phenomena of experience is unknowable, i.e. that we cannot know whether something exists or not if it is not part of phenomenal experience, or that either makes no sense. An agnostic would perhaps say that "existence" is only a property of physical objects, and extending it beyond that would be nonsense. I don't think it's so much "swinging both ways" or "fence-sitting" than distancing themselves to the dilemma entirely. Agnosticism with regards to deities (that deities are not physical entities and are therefore unknowable in principle) is to me the most appealing position.

The worst thing I hear is that agnostics consider the probability of that god exists is 50 %.

 

[Evo]

Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of agnosticism is that they consider that which is beyond the phenomena of experience is unknowable, i.e. that we cannot know whether something exists if it is not part of phenomenal experience. I don't think it's so much "swinging both ways" or "fence-sitting" than distancing themselves to the dilemma entirely.

That's another definition that separates agnosticism from atheism which confirms my earlier definition of agnosticism that agnostics claim they "cannot know".

 

[disregardthat]

That's another definition that separates agnosticism from atheism which confirms my earlier definition of agnosticism that agnostics claim they "cannot know".

Correct, but not only can they not know; it is in principle unknowable. There are certain things we can't know about the universe due to physical limitations, but they are not in principle unknowable. I think this is a distinction worth to be made, if it is not already obvious.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've fallen way behind on this thread, and will not be able to catch up completely, but briefly:

1. Jarle, I believe you interpreted my posts correctly (at least the part that was in contention)

2. Jimmy, an agnosticist is a different creature than an agnostic (so perhaps that's the term you want to use?) (While I also disagree with the characterization within that paragraph - it clearly contradicts the definitions in the main articles - I'm not going to follow up on that issue any more.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

An atheist only lacks faith that one exists.

In the post that this post links to it says:
theism and atheism require faith
No wonder I get old.

 

[Evo]

I can't find agnosticist, I thought he'd mispelled it. Did you find a definition in the English language gokul?

I found this definition

“Atheism is a non-prophet organization.”

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I found this definition "Atheism is a non-prophet organization"

For people with no invisible means of support.

 

[Gokul43201]

Jeez, I was hoping to not get sucked back into this thread.

What is it in human cognition that facilitates conviction that reality is in fact real and not a dream, fantasy, hallucination, or something else subjective but lacking objective foundations?

Even as an empiricist you don't need to have faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (to pick an example). You could wager a lifetime's salary on it, or plan your next several thousand sunrises in advance, but neither those nor any other action that is dependent on the cyclic continuation of this event need belie a faith in its inerrancy.

PS: Please keep the psychoanalysis out of the discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Evo, I had not heard that term (agnosticist) before, and couldn't find it anywhere else with a quick search.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Evo, I had not heard that term (agnosticist) before, and couldn't find it anywhere else with a quick search.

It's not in the oed either. Clearly it is a spelling error.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I had not heard that term (agnosticist) before, and couldn't find it anywhere else with a quick search.

Good ol' wikipedia. Thanks, I was wondering.

I think we've beaten this topic to death. Too many different definitions. Closing.

 

[Evo]

For people with no invisible means of support.

I had to end with an LOL.