Metanet Forums

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

An interesting 2D model of belief and knowledge. Is this an accurate representation of human metaphysical standpoints? Where do you fit in? I'm probably very strong agnostic, weak atheist.

Accurate enough. Doesn't quite make one of the distinctions that I find important with my own beliefs (atheist agnostic), which is that I utterly reject in a strong atheist sense the gods of all religions that humans have made up, while accepting that some sort of god could still exist.

skiptrace wrote:Accurate enough. Doesn't quite make one of the distinctions that I find important with my own beliefs (atheist agnostic), which is that I utterly reject in a strong atheist sense the gods of all religions that humans have made up, while accepting that some sort of god could still exist.

YOU BASTARD

YOU FUCKING BASTARD

That shit's registered though, bitch.

Incredibly interesting!

Myself? I've been stating myself as an Agnostic Theist for a while now. If I had to place myself... It'd be 100% agnostic, slightly theist. I don't believe there's any debate over Agnosticism and Gnosticism, and as such, couldn't move an inch off the top line. Theistically, I dunno. I could lean left or right a number of degrees depending upon the subject-at-hand; Supernaturalism and miracles and such.

skiptrace: That's almost precisely my viewpoint, and as such, I define theism vs. Atheism simply a personal belief system in some symbolic divine, whether it be of the existing choices or one lying outside of said choices.

I'm about in the same boat as Blizzy. I think there is no possible way we could know whether a god/gods/magical floating orbs of power exist (which is why I find everyone who says you can disprove the existence of god to be idiotic), and tend towards the magical floating orb view (actually my belief lies somewhere around the idea of karma (whether divinely controlled or not), in that if you generally try to be a good dude and not fuck with people, things generally work out, as has been my life thus far)

I'm an ignostic, I guess. Not sure where that puts me on the charts. I had a teacher once who got me into epistemology, and that's how I ended up with such a strange viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

I'd further throw into question the definition of "existence", though.

scythe wrote:I'd further throw into question the definition of "existence", though.

You would.

I think there is no way to logically prove or disprove the existence of a higher power (i.e. agnostic), but from experience believe that if such a power exists, it does not care or chooses not to interfere with our lives. Based on this, the existence or nonexistence of such a being wouldn't matter in the slightest, so I wouldn't define myself as being anywhere on the distinction between atheist to theist, except that calling myself atheist is the simplest explanation in most settings. So, hehe, I'd be a horizontal line on the top of the graph.

To clarify, I wouldn't put myself in the middle of the top because I don't actually hold a conscious view anywhere along the x axis.

This is a ludicrous claim on my part, so I'll only hint at it rather than state it bluntly.
I've been an avid reader of a number of freethinker / skeptic / atheist / antitheist / etc. blogs (and miscellaneous non-blog information sources) for a number of years, but I have never seen this specific delineation between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism, particularly with the enumeration (with description) of the four possible combinations... before I did it and threw it into as many faces across the interwebs as I could.

Just sayin'.

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:This is a ludicrous claim on my part, so I'll only hint at it rather than state it bluntly.
I've been an avid reader of a number of freethinker / skeptic / atheist / antitheist / etc. blogs (and miscellaneous non-blog information sources) for a number of years, but I have never seen this specific delineation between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism, particularly with the enumeration (with description) of the four possible combinations... before I did it and threw it into as many faces across the interwebs as I could.

Just sayin'.

You know, I did think that it sounded like the exact shit you used to rant about back in the metanet.2.forumer.com days, but I assumed you had just taken the idea from some famous philosopher or something.

I'm one of those guys that goes to church every wednesday, friday and sunday, who shun people for coveting and has church hymns on my iPod

That's agnostic isn't it? :o

I'm very much the gnostic atheist. And I'm appalled at you guys for thinking a god might exist because we can't disprove him! Common sense disproves him. We can't, with the technology we have now, disprove a giant flying spaghetti monster in space, but does that increase its chance of existing? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that a god living somewhere in space and just chillin' is ludicrous. We should be rejecting the notion as a matter of common sense, not pondering its existence based on the fact that we can't disprove it.

Heartattack wrote:I'm very much the gnostic atheist. And I'm appalled at you guys for thinking a god might exist because we can't disprove him! Common sense disproves him. We can't, with the technology we have now, disprove a giant flying spaghetti monster in space, but does that increase its chance of existing? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that a god living somewhere in space and just chillin' is ludicrous. We should be rejecting the notion as a matter of common sense, not pondering its existence based on the fact that we can't disprove it.

So, like, how does your science say all of this exists?

I mean, really, I'm not saying a Pasta Creature is not our creator. I know nothing about him, but Tanner once said that when he looked at the stars, he found the universe a little too perfect to think there wasn't some level of design in it.

Religion is ludicrous, sure. It's a crutch for the emotionally crippled. (And sometimes, a crutch by the emotionally evil. But that doesn't make the idea of a higher power impossible. It just means we should stop trying to group up and make definitive statements about him or her or it and live our own lives.

Kablizzy wrote: Myself? I've been stating myself as an Agnostic Theist for a while now. If I had to place myself... It'd be 100% agnostic, slightly theist. I don't believe there's any debate over Agnosticism and Gnosticism, and as such, couldn't move an inch off the top line. Theistically, I dunno. I could lean left or right a number of degrees depending upon the subject-at-hand; Supernaturalism and miracles and such.

This, actually.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

Tanner once said that when he looked at the stars, he found the universe a little too perfect to think there wasn't some level of design in it.

Just for the record, this is not a very compelling argument.

Oh? Can you ... elaborate?

SlappyMcGee wrote:So, like, how does your science say all of this exists?

I think you've tragically misunderstood what I was saying; I was insisting that just because such things couldn't be disproven didn't make them viable idea that should be encouraged.

Mute_Monk wrote:*I'll say something that adds nothing to the conversation, but hey I'm gettin some attention, right?

Please don't do this. I know I'm not a mod, but it annoys everybody.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Yeah.

Saying that something "seems designed" is not a good reason to believe that it is. It's a veiled form of argument from personal incredulity, i.e. "I cannot conceive of some process that would lead to this universe, apart from a designer, so a designer must exist." It's a well-documented logical fallacy.

That's interesting. I don't think it's an argument that necessarily proves or disproves the existence of a God, surely. I'm not arguing that there is definitely a creator because I can't understand how the stars came to be so beautiful. I'm not even saying that I do not understand Big Bang Theory and that because we don't know more about that, I think God is viable. It just seems to me like.. you know that joke about all of the monkeys with typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare? Well, it's simply untrue. The monkeys won't write Shakespeare. Paint does not just accidentally fall to canvas and make the Mona Lisa.

Heartattack wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:So, like, how does your science say all of this exists?

I think you've tragically misunderstood what I was saying; I was insisting that just because such things couldn't be disproven didn't make them viable idea that should be encouraged.

Right, that makes sense with a religious God. But believing in a higher power without making assumptions about him... I thought that was where your argument had holes.


And don't backseat moderate. I thought MM's post was fine.

Kantian "You-Can't-Prove-Me-Wrong-So-X-Is-Real" is every bit the irrational argument that "Because-I-Can't-Prove-You-Wrong-X-Is-False" is. Human perception and observation and scientific progression has made the existence of a God much less probable, not less possible, which is probably impossible.

You can't divide the unknown into right and wrong, but you can choose to perceive the possibilities as rationally as possible.

=w= wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Yeah.

Saying that something "seems designed" is not a good reason to believe that it is. It's a veiled form of argument from personal incredulity, i.e. "I cannot conceive of some process that would lead to this universe, apart from a designer, so a designer must exist." It's a well-documented logical fallacy.

That's interesting. I don't think it's an argument that necessarily proves or disproves the existence of a God, surely. I'm not arguing that there is definitely a creator because I can't understand how the stars came to be so beautiful. I'm not even saying that I do not understand Big Bang Theory and that because we don't know more about that, I think God is viable. It just seems to me like.. you know that joke about all of the monkeys with typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare? Well, it's simply untrue. The monkeys won't write Shakespeare. Paint does not just accidentally fall to canvas and make the Mona Lisa.

I can see what you're saying, to the point that the universe wouldn't have just happened by chance. But let me point out that both the Mona Lisa and Shakespeare were decidedly human works that were created with by people with creativity and junk. But I think in order for you to apply that principle to the universe you first have to understand how mind-blowingly huge it is. Honestly, with that much area and possibility, if solar systems--->monkeys and planets---> words, I think somewhere, Shakespeare would exist based formed purely from chance.

Heartattack wrote:

=w= wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Yeah.

Saying that something "seems designed" is not a good reason to believe that it is. It's a veiled form of argument from personal incredulity, i.e. "I cannot conceive of some process that would lead to this universe, apart from a designer, so a designer must exist." It's a well-documented logical fallacy.

That's interesting. I don't think it's an argument that necessarily proves or disproves the existence of a God, surely. I'm not arguing that there is definitely a creator because I can't understand how the stars came to be so beautiful. I'm not even saying that I do not understand Big Bang Theory and that because we don't know more about that, I think God is viable. It just seems to me like.. you know that joke about all of the monkeys with typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare? Well, it's simply untrue. The monkeys won't write Shakespeare. Paint does not just accidentally fall to canvas and make the Mona Lisa.

I can see what you're saying, to the point that the universe wouldn't have just happened by chance. But let me point out that both the Mona Lisa and Shakespeare were decidedly human works that were created with by people with creativity and junk. But I think in order for you to apply that principle to the universe you first have to understand how mind-blowingly huge it is. Honestly, with that much area and possibility, if solar systems--->monkeys and planets---> words, I think somewhere, Shakespeare would exist based formed purely from chance.

And what I'm saying is that there is no chance. The Monkeys do not write Shakespeare, even if you have infinite monkeys.

I don't believe in infinity, anyhow.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

Tanner once said that when he looked at the stars, he found the universe a little too perfect to think there wasn't some level of design in it.

Just for the record, this is not a very compelling argument.

If you find something on the ground, you can almost always tell if it is natural or man-made. Therefore, it must be possible to determine the origin of an object based on its structure, no? I understand that this doesn't always hold true, but you can't disregard the "beauty" and sublimity of the universe as at least a possible indicator of its creation.

=w= wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Yeah.

Saying that something "seems designed" is not a good reason to believe that it is. It's a veiled form of argument from personal incredulity, i.e. "I cannot conceive of some process that would lead to this universe, apart from a designer, so a designer must exist." It's a well-documented logical fallacy.

That's interesting. I don't think it's an argument that necessarily proves or disproves the existence of a God, surely. I'm not arguing that there is definitely a creator because I can't understand how the stars came to be so beautiful. I'm not even saying that I do not understand Big Bang Theory and that because we don't know more about that, I think God is viable. It just seems to me like.. you know that joke about all of the monkeys with typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare? Well, it's simply untrue. The monkeys won't write Shakespeare. Paint does not just accidentally fall to canvas and make the Mona Lisa.

The counterargument is the anthropic principle. That is, we're wired to find the Universe interesting, not the other way around. Which makes sense, considering that studying the Universe is what got society to where it is today; finding the universe interesting clearly presented an advantage for humans.

scythe wrote:
The counterargument is the anthropic principle. That is, we're wired to find the Universe interesting, not the other way around. Which makes sense, considering that studying the Universe is what got society to where it is today; finding the universe interesting clearly presented an advantage for humans.

I like this. Any good books on the subject?