GPLindsey

I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. I've always understood that the distinction between the two is that an atheist thinks that the evidence around us comes down hard on the side that there is no God. An agnostic, on the other hand, thinks that the evidence for and against a belief in God is roughly evenly balanced. An atheist thinks the scales are tipped 80-20 or 95-5 against the evidence for God, whereas an agnostic thinks the scales are at 50-50.

Note, though, that an atheist does not assert that we can prove God does not exist, or that we can know with absolute certainty that God does not exist. This is because nothing can really be known with absolute certainty. Am I sitting at a computer typing this, or am I in a coma in a hospital someplace, dreaming all this? I have to concede that there is a very remote possibility of the latter, but I am "certain" of the former in the everyday sense of the term--beyond any reasonable doubt, not ALL doubt.

Demanding that an atheist prove that God does not exist beyond all doubt is an unreasonable standard. If my neighbor asserted that there is intelligent life on Pluto, I cannot prove him wrong with absolute certainty unless he and I travel there ourselves and scour the planet for life. Does that mean that the evidence for or against intelligent life on Pluto is 50-50, because I cannot disprove it? No. The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proof, and until they produce it, the proper course is to be reasonably certain that the extraordinary claim is not supported.

With all due respect to the agnostics out there, I think their position is sort of a safe "fence sitting." In the U.S., people don't get nearly as upset with you if you say you are an agnostic rather than an atheist. If someone says they are agnostic because they cannot know with absolute certainty that God does not exist--the scales are at 95-5 against, but the 5 bothers them--they can still reach a conclusion based on what they do know. They are atheists but don't want to speak it publically. If there are agnostics out there who think the scales are truely at 50-50, then they are simply wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi

The reason you will never be able to comprehend any answers given to you is because you have been conditioned to accept a premise as true that has never been demonstrated to be true.

Theism is an imposed belief structure. It is not "natural," it is forced upon you.

You don't think so, but that's irrelevant. It is.

To use a computer analogy, your parents and/or cult leaders replaced your "natural" operating system for "Goddidit 6.66." This means that you are incapable (repeat, incapable) of comprehending anyone who does not automatically default to goddidit. It literally doesn't "compute" (or, if it does, before you can process it fully your system will crash, because that's how it's been designed).

It doesn't even matter to you that when you use the word "God" you have absolutely no idea what it is you're actually talking about, you just know "default to goddidit."

You (and your teacher) are not talking about Agnostics, you're talking about Atheists, a common and deliberate mistake.

Atheism means: the absence of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Absence of belief.

It is not a religion or a movement or an organization or any of those demonizing terms that cult leaders use to make you fear/ridicule it.

It is also the default "natural" state of existence. Obviously, you are not born believing in two thousand year old Middle Eastern Jewish warrior-deity myths.

That means, of course, that your cult claims are aberrant; not normal, not "natural." They are implanted.

That, in turn, means that it is entirely the responsibility of your cult leaders to demonstrate the veracity of their claims. They are the ones who are saying to you, "only this particular collection of anonymous, ancient Middle Eastern Jewish warrior-deity cult stories is true, everything else (including stories that were once considered to be part of the same cult mythology, mind you) are lies that will damn you to hell."

So, the only question you should ever be asking (and not us, but your own indoctrinators), is, "What is the evidence you have for such a claim?"

They will say, "the Bible."

Think about that for one second.

They will say, "The evidence that these particular ancient, anonymous Middle Eastern Jewish warrior-deity stories is true, is because the anonymous authors of those stories said that they were true."

That's it. There is nothing else. I don't care what smokescreen they throw up--archeology proves! extrabiblical proves! boy in Argentina grows a new foot proves! we've seen them all--there is absolutely no other justification than that one declaration.

It's true because the authors said it was true, which of course translates into, "It's true, because we say it is true."

That is the entire basis for your beliefs; the entire basis for Islamic beliefs; the entire basis for Jewish beliefs; the entire basis for all such blatant snake-oil belief scams such as these.

It's true, because we say it is true.

Now, bearing all of that in mind, who is it you should be directing your questions toward?

Us? Why? We know fictional creatures don't factually exist.

We especially know that fictional creatures from the selective, anonymous, two thousand to five thousand year old Middle Eastern Jewish warrior-deity mythologies don't factually exist just because someone tells us they exist.

So, the question doesn't apply to us at all.

You have literally asked us, "Why do poeple believe that we can never know if The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo is real?" It is, literally, nonsense.

You seem to be a fairly intelligent kid, so if you can't figure out that it is your own indoctrinators that are the ones who must answer the questions, then that alone should tell you all you need to know about how skewed your thinking has become as a direct result of having been programmed by these people.

It doesn't matter how earnestly you or others believe or even if you think you actually have "always believed." You haven't.

You have been programmed just as surely as you would now be a muslim had you been born in Palestine and if you can't even admit that, let alone recognize that fact for the obvious impact it has on what you're now being fed, then no amount of posting here will ever enlighten you and you might as well shave your head and throw on a frock, because it's over.

You're a cult member.

I (we) know this, by the way, because I (we, well most of us) were once cult members, too. We speak from experience.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Automaton

How may one sum up 95% of Koyaanisqatsi's posts? "You're a cult member." Rinse and repeat with minor variations thereof as many times as necessary to sufficiently belittle and mock our theistic friend, for no apparent reason other than to possibly bolster Koy's smug superiority complex. What does one call the throwing around of empty terms solely for the purposes of emotional impact? We call it propaganda (amusingly, one the very things this guy claims to despise). And he is a master at his art. Let's examine his rantings, shall we?
This has nothing to do with Half-life's question. So why do you automatically jump to assumptions about his character? Is it impossible for you to comprehend that some people believe in God not out of emotional conditioning as a child, but out of logical exploration? Would you be willing to accept any evidence for the existence of a deity at all, no matter how strong it might be? If not, then you sir, are the conditioned one.
How about scientific knowledge? Is that "natural" or "imposed", as you put it? Are the only beliefs one can hold are those that nature has innately bestowed upon us?
Now class, can we all say, "Unsupported assertion"? Good.
What the hell is a "natural operating system"? The BIOS?! If you consider the "parents" of a computer to be its manufacturers, then they would be the bestowers of the "natural" operating system in the first place. Whacky analogies won't get you anywhere.
How cute.
This analogy is terrible. What happens if he installs a GodDoesNothing emulator? Can computers experience cognitive dissonance?
Simply asserting that an opponent has "no idea what they're talking about" is a very poor way to argue. How would you like it if a theist told you that you are unable to argue against God because YOU have no idea what YOU'RE talking about?
How can a mistake be deliberate? And actually, the teacher is talking about the validity of the strong agnostic position (that any knowledge of the existence, or lack thereof, of God cannot be obtained). He posited that since direct empirical evidence of God can seemingly be demonstrated, how is strong agnosticism justifiable? It's a far deeper philosophical question than your misdirection of it gives credit for.
The misdirection continues, setting the path for some nice, irrelevant ranting.
When did Half-life ever imply this sentiment in his post?
So all knowledge must be solely a priori... No more science, and no more actual world outside one's own head for that matter.
A swift bunnyhop to demanding empirical justification, so that you don't appear too unreasonable with that "implanted" bullshit.
Yet again, you blatantly contradict yourself! First, you say "the ONLY evidence they offer is the Bible", then, in the very next paragraph, you claim they give a host of other evidence! (And no, the fact that you think the other evidence is unsubstantiated has nothing to do with the fact that you just outright contradicted yourself.) How can you possibly doublethink like this? I thought such blatantly irrational thought was limited to the so-called "cult members".
Do you know that there are arguments FOR the existence of God? If there weren't, why the hell do we have a discussion forum pretty much devoted to the soundness of those arguments? Many believers indeed believe for no good reason at all, but that doesn't justify your sweeping generalizations.
That's kinda loaded, don't ya think? By definition, to be "fictional", something has to not exist in actuality. Is this the best you can do, try to define things out of existence? That's as bad as the ontological arguments that try to "prove" God by definition alone.
You just love saying "ancient Middle Eastern Jewish warrior-deity mythologies" don't you? Maybe this will replace the phrase "cult member" as your preferred propaganda slogan?
I'd like to remind everyone that the question is about strong agnosticism. All that previous rambling had nothing at all to do with it.
That question WOULD be equally as valid, because the whole point of strong agnosticism as about knowing of the existence of beings beyond our comprehension. God is merely the prime example of this. ("Literal nonsense." As opposed to "metaphorical nonsense"?! Does this guy make ANY sense to you guys?)
Some coherent thought for a change, too bad Koy has reitterated it in some form or another countless times, over and over and over. It's profound the first time you read it, irritating the seven billionth.
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />
You may be an atheist now, but I assure you, you still have the mind of a rabid Fundy. The end.

Samhain

We cannot have knowledge or "know" the supernatural, because it is just that. "Super" meaning above/beyond nature. Why can we not have knowledge of the supernatural? If something is above or beyond nature, then it is not possible for us to percieve it within the natural world. We live in the natural world, therefore we are subject to natural phenomena only, supernatural phenomena does not concern us, because as soon as said phenomena enters the "natural" world, it is subejct to that natural world, and therefore, it must have some naturalistic explanation (even if we have not found it yet). Don't quote me on the above, I haven't taken a physics course yet, so I may not be entirely accurate in my statement.

Therefore if god exists in nature, or rather, if god is natural or has some naturalistic explanation, god is then subject to the laws of nature and logic. God, in this sense, cannot be timeless, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Therefore, if god is possibly natural, he/she/it is bound by the same laws that we are, and I think many would hold that this "god" is not worthy of worship, and it's doubtful that it could be a type of creator. It's the paradox of god, if you will.

Pomp

Moderator hat Off. This is merely my personal opinion.

Automaton said:

How may one sum up 95% of Koyaanisqatsi's posts? "You're a cult member." Rinse and repeat with minor variations thereof as many times as necessary to sufficiently belittle and mock our theistic friend, for no apparent reason...

I think your estimate of 95% is a bit too low...

Seriously, Koyaanisqatsi, do you really think it's necessary to respond to an apparently honest question like "So, I guess the main thing I need to know is why you believe we can never know if there is a God or not" with a long pointless rant about how brainwashed and indoctrinated the person asking the question is and how (s)he will never be able to understand any answer because of his/her cult programming? I personally find it quite offensive. I know that I don't appreciate the experience of visiting Xian boards where some asshole feels the need to shout about how evil and depraved atheists are without adding anything constructive to the discussion, and I'm sure that theists don't appreciate being told how brainwashed they are when they visit us here. It doesn't add to the ongoing discussion at all, and it only serves to chase away the more timid theists, back to where they will hear nothing but more "cult programming," and convince lurkers and fence sitters that their preconceptions about arrogant atheists are, indeed, true. Again, I'm not speaking as a moderator, because I don't think you've broken any specific rules, but as a participant who finds your general tone offensive and counterproductive. You are certainly not bound to take my opinion into consideration. I realize that you are very popular around the boards, and I'm probably going to catch quite a bit of shit from the Koy Fan Club, but I'm tired of seeing the same rant over and over.

One more point. You said:

This is factually incorrect. The belief that we cannot know whether or not any god exists is, indeed, agnosticism.

Samhain

I indeed enjoy reading any of Koy's posts as much as the next new atheist member of the Secular Web. I must say, I was actually somewhat entranced the first time I read one of his "cult programming" rants. I hold a lot of Koy's reasoning as indisputable. But not all.

I do not want to take part in any kind of Koy bashing fest, since I do like a lot of what Koy says. This, though, was in entirely bad form. Rational questions require rational responses. I think Half-life was genuinely interested on the questions he was asking, and they seemed very honest and rational. I'd certainly hate to lose a member seeking answers just because another member scares him away. If a person asks questions, and questions reasoning behind the answers we should not stamp them with the label of "brainwashed cult member." Just because they do not care for our rationale or do not understand it does not make them immediately and totally unresponsive to our reasoning. We provide what answers we can, but, we do not label others as others would label us. Putting words in Half-life's mouth and dissmissing him as a brainwashed delusional cult member is not at all helping matters. If we do that it makes us no better than those who try to restrict free-thought, and those cult members who make a business out of brainwashing others.

Perhaps you might try answering some questions constructively next time instead of immediately defeating the whole of our purpose, to break away from that brainwashing, in one post.

Pomp

My intent is not to bash Koy. I agree with much of what he says and he sometimes causes me to howl with laughter when he finds a particularly clever turn of phrase. I simply question his use of the same boilerplate rant for any question asked by any theist.

Samhain

*Nods* Ditto.

Pseudonymph

Koy simply needs to grow up and out of his little inferiority complex.
Ooh...YOUR a cult member...wait...YOU ARE TOO.
AND YOU...AND YOU AND YOU YOU YOU.

Seriously koy, get a life and stop bashing people who you know nothing about. You seem to speak 20 times faster than you think.(this is assuming you have an integrity and decency level that may well not be present.)Hopefully it isnt the other way around.

Amazing diagnosis...god what a jerk

Has everyone been "conditioned" that disagrees with you koy? you seem to think so.

you may think that that it is, but thats irrelevant. It isnt.

Sounds stupid dosent it?

How poetic. <a href="http://www.darkpoetry.com" target="_blank">www.darkpoetry.com</a> would love to have you. You sound like a depressed teenager.

Koy, use your brain. Slow down. THINK.
He asked what he asked. Spend less time writing and judging others, and more time learning the ancient art of comprehension skills.

No...YOU "especially" know.You cant speak for everyone(this may come as a shock). you are not the "one" ok? you are not the end all to end everything.
You are koy. thats it. Sorry to burst your ego-inflated bubble.

??...make up your mind.

Nice condescending, patronizing remark there.


You're a 56 year old transvestite juggler.
How did I make that assumption? who cares...I'm KOY!!!


Oh yeah thats REAL pertinent to the point here isnt it?

Koy you seriously need to step back and re examine how you judge people who you know nothing about(small posts notwithstanding)

Do you enjoy it? I hope not. I think it may have to do with the fact that people here(for some reason) say they "admire" the way you handle people. Why anyone would admire someone who acts like such an asshole to anyone and everyone who disagrees with him is beyond me.

In fact I'm surprised to find that anyone thinks anything you have to say is interesting. You've made a few points in the many posts of yours I've read. Good, so obviously you are intelligent and can convey thoughts and ideas. Why not learn how to do that in a more constructive way?

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but at this point I couldnt care less. You have been doing this to people for way to long, and its about time people started calling you on it.

Automaton

Hey, this was my beef. Don't just jump on the bandwagon, or it will become just that, a silly little bandwagon. Koy deserves to be criticised, but not ganged up on.