Agnosticism

  • larsus

    larsus (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United States
    "If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another."

    ^^I found that here and there are more on that site.

    I've also read, again in my science book, that every organism forms itself, and can not reproduce into a different animal or species no matter how mutated it is.
    January 12th, 2010 at 04:07am
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    38
    Location:
    Australia
    Quinncidence.:
    "If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another."

    ^^I found that here and there are more on that site.

    I've also read, again in my science book, that every organism forms itself, and can not reproduce into a different animal or species no matter how mutated it is.
    One: Macroevolution results from microevolution. You can't get macroevolution without it.
    Of course, one organism can't evolve into another right away, it's a very long process.

    By the way, this article is actually refuting what you believe. It is FOR evolution not against it. Read the rebuttals...
    January 12th, 2010 at 04:52am
  • larsus

    larsus (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United States
    Even so,
    Evolution has been debated for years and years,
    there is absolutely no way I can persuade you to believe what I think in this short amount of time over the internet, and vice versa.
    January 12th, 2010 at 05:21am
  • ThePiesEndure

    ThePiesEndure (115)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    38
    Location:
    Australia
    Quinncidence.:
    Even so,
    Evolution has been debated for years and years,
    there is absolutely no way I can persuade you to believe what I think in this short amount of time over the internet, and vice versa.
    To be honest, there's no way anyone after any amount of time can convince me that evolution is wrong, considering that there has never been any reputable exposes on evolution being disproved. Until a reputable scientist, not a so called Creation Scientist tells us that evolution is not real, I won't change my mind. The majority agree with evolution.

    And the same will be with me trying to convince you. So, I won't. I will agree to disagree. :).
    January 12th, 2010 at 05:42am
  • It's In The Blood.

    It's In The Blood. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    33
    Location:
    Great Britain (UK)
    Quinncidence.:
    Even so,
    Evolution has been debated for years and years,
    there is absolutely no way I can persuade you to believe what I think in this short amount of time over the internet, and vice versa.
    May I just ask if you were (or are being) taught about evolution in school? Or if you're being taught Creationism? I've been interested in how what we're taught in school affects our personal beliefs for quite a while.

    Thank you for explaining your reasoning before, as well =)
    January 12th, 2010 at 11:30am
  • larsus

    larsus (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United States
    It's In The Blood.:
    May I just ask if you were (or are being) taught about evolution in school? Or if you're being taught Creationism? I've been interested in how what we're taught in school affects our personal beliefs for quite a while.

    Thank you for explaining your reasoning before, as well =)
    We are being taught neither, so far.

    Last year, we were taught what I've already put (about cells can not produce something else, yadda yadda) but that was life science, and we aren't taught that this year.

    I will say, however, that our teachers, when it is brought up in class, are allowed to teach us whichever they personally believe and how they see it. I live in Alabama; I don't know how it is anywhere else.

    And you're welcome, I was happy to explain.
    January 13th, 2010 at 01:29am
  • Miss Authoress

    Miss Authoress (200)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    United States
    I consider myself to be an agnostic...I think. I mean I think there may be a higher power, but I don't think this higher power is there to judge us or even made us. I think this higher power is just there to keep us company (makes no sense, I know).

    I was raised Catholic and went to religious education and did my communion. When it came to make my conformation, my mother asked me if I wanted to continue. Then I told that I did not because I did not believe what I was being taught. I was very good in religious education classes, but I didn't believe in it. To me, it felt like a story class. I found the Bible to be so interesting...as a story, not as a way of life. (Not to knock anyone, if you believe in the Bible, that's great)

    So I didn't really know what to call myself. I'm not an atheist, because I am not set in the fact that there is no God and I do think that perhaps there is something there. I'm not religious and I'm not going to put my faith in something that I'm not sure is there. However, then I found out what it was called and here I am...

    My beliefs are all muddled XD
    December 2nd, 2010 at 05:03am
  • solarflarestares

    solarflarestares (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    25
    Location:
    United States
    the lover.:
    I'm Agnostic. I find it hard to think that this universe or multiverse was an accident, that someone who's undoubtedly the biggest nerd ever planned it out from the word, BOOM. But I'm pretty sure that an all-loving higher being wouldn't let his or her people suffer the way we do so whoever's "up there" is probably, in my opinion, an indifferent bastard.
    Weird
    December 6th, 2010 at 11:21pm
  • Rango

    Rango (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    United States
    Well....

    I used to be... I guess it would be Christian? But I never understood the point of the whole thing, I mean, I loved going to church with my grandma when I was younger, and then there was going with my friend, and then eventually me and her just kind of talked each other out of the glam of it all. We still went to youth group, because my mom thought it was doing me good.

    We liked to consider ourselves agnostic. We stopped going to youth group after we expressed the view that "well... why can't everyone just believe what the want to believe, and then they can all go to their own damn heaven, or recreation or whatever it is that they believe in."

    We were like... 11. And we were berated in front of the entire group. We were told that we would be in her prayers so we could find our way so we wouldn't go to hell. We giggled about it for weeks afterwards. It truly was funny, I have no idea why people get so caught up in it like that... oh well.

    I mean, I like to believe that people get rewarded for whatever it is they believe in. There's some stuff that's pretty neat to hear about, like religion or prayer seemingly helping. Meditation helping, etc etc.
    December 7th, 2010 at 08:27pm
  • DarkestStorm

    DarkestStorm (335)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United States
    I consider myself a Christian..
    December 30th, 2010 at 12:18am
  • folie a dru.

    folie a dru. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    36
    Location:
    United States
    DarkestStorm:
    I consider myself a Christian..
    This is the Christianity thread.
    December 30th, 2010 at 12:23am
  • dressedtokill

    dressedtokill (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    Is being agnostic believing what you want? I'm really confused because some people who say theyre agnostic believe in god and some don't... Thanks:)
    January 13th, 2011 at 10:40pm
  • folie a dru.

    folie a dru. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    36
    Location:
    United States
    dressedtokill:
    Is being agnostic believing what you want? I'm really confused because some people who say theyre agnostic believe in god and some don't... Thanks:)
    I was under the impression agnosticism was believing in the possibility of a higher power.

    I don't know how one could believe in a specific deity and call themselves agnostic. Think It miht be kosher, I just was under the impression it didn't work that way.
    January 13th, 2011 at 10:48pm
  • pierrot the clown.

    pierrot the clown. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    Mexico
    Gnosticism is knowing. Theism is believing.

    Agnostics can be theists or atheists; gnostics can be theists or atheists. An agnostic theist would say "I believe in God but can't know for certain that He exists." A gnostic atheist would say "I know that God doesn't exist and don't believe in Him." And so on and so forth.

    And then there's people like me, who identify purely as agnostics; neither theistic nor atheistic. I don't have an answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" so that's the only label that makes sense for me to identify with.

    Yes, I know, blah blah blah logical fallacy blah blah blah it's an either/or matter blah blah blah the answer can only be affirmative or negative. Doesn't change the fact that I can't answer the question. The human mind, and the concept of God itself, are more complicated than that.
    January 14th, 2011 at 09:39pm
  • folie a dru.

    folie a dru. (1270)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    36
    Location:
    United States
    ^
    So is it self-identification? Because I'm a Christian and I admit that I can't know God exists for sure.
    January 14th, 2011 at 09:48pm
  • kafka.

    kafka. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I find that theist agnosticism runs in circles. The Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia tells us that belief means "psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true". Now when you say that 'proposition X is true' you base this belief on some kind of proof - human beings are not that irrational, they don't just believe in random things. For something to be a true proposition to you, you must have proof that it is true. How is it then humanely possible to think that a premise is true (implicitly to have proof that the said premise is true), while at the same time saying that there's no proof that shows that premise is true or false?
    January 14th, 2011 at 09:58pm
  • Jack Donaghy

    Jack Donaghy (450)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    33
    Location:
    United States
    ^Isn't there a difference between believing and knowing, though? Like, I believe in God but I know it's possible He doesn't exist. I believe all my beliefs are true, but I know logically some of them are false. Your definition of belief as necessitating evidence works for a lot of things, but some beliefs come from flat-out irrational places. It doesn't mean a person doesn't still hold them to be true, even if they know they're not based on rational evidence..

    I dunno if that makes sense though, 'cause I engage in a lot of doublethink, especially with regard to religion. Shifty
    January 14th, 2011 at 10:44pm
  • pierrot the clown.

    pierrot the clown. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    Mexico
    Mr W. H.:
    I find that theist agnosticism runs in circles. The Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia tells us that belief means "psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true". Now when you say that 'proposition X is true' you base this belief on some kind of proof - human beings are not that irrational, they don't just believe in random things. For something to be a true proposition to you, you must have proof that it is true. How is it then humanely possible to think that a premise is true (implicitly to have proof that the said premise is true), while at the same time saying that there's no proof that shows that premise is true or false?
    That dictionary definition doesn't state that one needs proof. Then again, what do you define as proof? If I remember correctly, you believe in God. What is your proof that He exists? Maybe you do have it, but I'm fairly sure that it's not tangible, visible proof that everyone would agree on.

    Everyone would hold the same beliefs if that kind of universal proof was needed to believe anything.
    January 14th, 2011 at 10:55pm
  • kafka.

    kafka. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    If you believe that something is true, it doesn't mean that you know something is true, but that you have evidence (not absolute proof, but some kind of evidence) that the said premise is true, beliefs don't just come to you like thoughts, you reason them out.

    For example, let's presume that I walk into a library and see a book written by André Malrau, I could say: 'I believe André Malrau is a French writer.' even if I don't know if he's French, he has a French-sounding name so I draw the conclusion that there is a strong possibility of him being French. Why don't I say 'I believe André Malrau is a Spanish writer'? Because I had no valid premises from which to draw this conclusion. Logic is fascinating, the thought process of developing a belief from observations is like this:

    1. (I observe that) André Malrau is a French sounding name.
    2. (I observe that) Most French sounding names belong to people who are French.
    ---
    Conclusion: (I believe) André Malrau is French. This doesn't mean that I know André Malrau is French, I don't, but I believe he is.

    That works for any other kind of belief. It could be a bit more complicated and look like this:

    1. Most of the actions of human beings are dictated by moral values.
    2. Moral values are not useful from an evolutionary point of view, which means they're not the result of evolution but of an external force.
    ---
    Conclusion: God exists.

    Now it's entirely possible to think that we can't know for certain that moral values are not useful from an evolutionary point of view, but that means that I think premise 2 doesn't have any value, which means that my conclusion can't have any kind of truth value (it can't be neither true nor false).

    Conclusion: if you say that we can't know whether the evidence in favour of God's existence is true or false, you can't say that the conclusion to which these premises leads us is true or false. The moment you admit that there is evidence that suggests that God exists, you automatically admit that it's possible to know whether God exists or not.
    pierrot the clown.:
    That dictionary definition doesn't state that one needs proof. Then again, what do you define as proof? If I remember correctly, you believe in God. What is your proof that He exists? Maybe you do have it, but I'm fairly sure that it's not tangible, visible proof that everyone would agree on.

    Everyone would hold the same beliefs if that kind of universal proof was needed to believe anything.
    Why would it be important that everybody agrees with the proof? The world is full of Holocaust deniers, people who still believe the Earth is flat and those who believe AIDS isn't a real disease, their mere existence doesn't alter empirical data enough to make the Earth seem flat, does it?
    January 14th, 2011 at 11:05pm
  • pierrot the clown.

    pierrot the clown. (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    Mexico
    Mr W. H.:
    If you believe that something is true, it doesn't mean that you know something is true, but that you have evidence (not absolute proof, but some kind of evidence) that the said premise is true, beliefs don't just come to you like thoughts, you reason them out.

    For example, let's presume that I walk into a library and see a book written by André Malrau, I could say: 'I believe André Malrau is a French writer.' even if I don't know if he's French, he has a French-sounding name so I draw the conclusion that there is a strong possibility of him being French. Why don't I say 'I believe André Malrau is a Spanish writer'? Because I had no valid premises from which to draw this conclusion. Logic is fascinating, the thought process of developing a belief from observations is like this:

    1. (I observe that) André Malrau is a French sounding name.
    2. (I observe that) Most French sounding names belong to people who are French.
    ---
    Conclusion: (I believe) André Malrau is French. This doesn't mean that I know André Malrau is French, I don't, but I believe he is.

    That works for any other kind of belief. It could be a bit more complicated and look like this:

    1. Most of the actions of human beings are dictated by moral values.
    2. Moral values are not useful from an evolutionary point of view, which means they're not the result of evolution but of an external force.
    ---
    Conclusion: God exists.

    Now it's entirely possible to think that we can't know for certain that moral values are not useful from an evolutionary point of view, but that means that I think premise 2 doesn't have any value, which means that my conclusion can't have any kind of truth value (it can't be neither true nor false).

    Conclusion: if you say that we can't know whether the evidence in favour of God's existence is true or false, you can't say that the conclusion to which these premises leads us is true or false. The moment you admit that there is evidence that suggests that God exists, you automatically admit that it's possible to know whether God exists or not.
    If you acknowledge that belief and knowledge are two different things, why is agnostic theism "running in circles"? Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge, not thinking that there can't possibly be proof of God's existence.
    Quote
    Why would it be important that everybody agrees with the proof? The world is full of Holocaust deniers, people who still believe the Earth is flat and those who believe AIDS isn't a real disease, their mere existence doesn't alter empirical data enough to make the Earth seem flat, does it?
    ... I never said it was important.

    My point was that everyone agreeing on the proof <=> everyone holding the same beliefs. Since people's beliefs vary, that must mean that not everyone agrees on the proof. At the moment, you hadn't mentioned what you defined as proof, so I thought you meant tangible, visible proof, not "some kind of evidence."
    January 14th, 2011 at 11:15pm