Jayhawker Soule

To what purpose? Feeding fodder seems like an answer to hungry hay.

Shadowy Man

Modern definition of agnosticism, or Huxley's agnosticism?

DarkBronzePlant

I'm not quite sure what the jist of the question is. I could answer each of those points according to what I believe, if you'd like. But the point of my original post is this: if you yourself don't feel like you have enough information to make an accurate decision about something, and your life is just fine anyway--i.e. nothing is really hinging on making a firm decision--then there is no reason to force yourself to decide one way or another. To do so would be making a decision just for the sake of doing so, which seems wrong to me.

Example: I honestly don't have any idea if intellegent, extra-terrestrial life exists. I know some people are certain it does exist; some are certain it doesn't. I have no certainty whatsoever. So should I force myself to decide one way or the other? What would be the point?

Or even something like voting. Often at the polls, there will be issues I know nothing about. Candidates I know little or nothing about. Should I make myself decide to punch one of the chads? Or should I just say that I don't know which is the better choice and just decline to vote on that particular issue?

WJ

Hi reasonable!

"To what purpose? Feeding fodder seems like an answer to hungry hay."

Good question.., I suppose you'd have to ask then why should an atheist care to post their view's in an EOG forum? Really.

Or, perhaps the "hay" represents the mind's of those who believe complete objectivity is the smell test from which any convincing criteria should pass thru.

To that end, as Bill once asked, asking someone if they've stop beating their wife makes no sense particularly to the atheist who already believes God doesn't exist.

And your point?

WJ

Dark!

I couldn't help but notice your point or analogy about voting. This struck a little 'disonance' with me personally because I don't vote and people often get angry with me about that. The point is (and I hate to make the parallel to the wager), most voter's seem to vote with a fair amount ignorance, yet are completely comfortable making a decision about a candidate. They assume that they will never know everything about their respective candidates and select them for better/worse on particular issues.

On the other hand, saying 'i don't know' does much for opening the door for possibilities in the philosophical sense. But there are many other things in life we chose (and are not required to chose)and take various positions on yet don't really understand the complete reason and nature of their role in the world [existence]. Ethics, and a vast majority of other experiences from the phenomenon of living life still create conditions for us so dire that a decision has to be made, yet without complete understanding of their nature.

I agree I would say 'i don't know' if it didn't impact emminate danger to survival, but that already assumes there is nothing else to life but suvival in the jungle. The major distinction is the effectiveness of a 'good'. And I dare say you've had to make decisions that effected a common good without knowing or having to know everything about it, you only needed to realize the good consequences. Such is the case for medicine and the well Being of others.

Walrus

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

WJ,

Dissonance? I rather would've thought that my analogy had resonated with you instead, as it seems to support your actions.

At any rate, your point of many people voting (or making decisions in general) on things they don't fully understand is well taken, although a little outside the scope of my original point. To me, there is a difference between (a) at least being satisfied to yourself that you understand something enough to make up your mind, and (b) feeling that you don't understand something yet still forcing yourself to make a firm decision. While (a) isn't exactly a desirable situation if the person doesn't truly understand the issue, I think we're more talking about (b) here.

And you're right about the notion that there should be more than just survival at stake to motivate us into decision-making. But one point--that I am surprised you didn't bring up--had occurred to me as I was typing my last message: you as a theist would probably be far more likely to consider Ryanfire's original decision dilemna as a life-and-death situation (or worse!) than I as an atheist would. i.e. you might've said "Sure maybe there are some issues for which a firm decision is not necessary, but with regards to atheism/agnosticism/theism, we're talking about eternity!"; whereas I might say "Making a firm decision about this issue as about the same importance as making a firm decision on extra-terristrial life."

Ryanfire

But many of the people here on earth follow what others believe. My faith is based on somebody elses faith.. based on somebody elses faith..and so on.

It would be interesting to see if a bible did not exist, or churches, what the beliefs of humans would be. I can guarantee the % of religious people would be way down.

I think people would have to define their own gods, creators, beliefs, and listen to their hearts, not what somebody else has decided for them.

You hit it right on. Many people are forced into their beliefs out of guilt, not reason. I know it's hard to be an atheist or agnostic surrounded by god infected theists.

I've been told numerous times by xians that I will go to hell if I do not have faith or believe in Jesus Christ as my saviour. What a crock of bullshit for them to judge me and tell me how god is going to deal with me. If god is really that loving he would understand why I question his existence.

Or quite cleary, the common good is defined by your boundaries set by its surroundings. Such as family, friends, religion, government.

I would say the real common good is that which isn't defined by boundaries, set by its surroundings, but with logic and reason after seeing past the surroundings. Hence why I believe atheists should study theism. Theists should study atheism. And agnostics view both.

WJ

Ryan/Dark!

"Hence why I believe atheists should study theism. Theists should study atheism. And agnostics view both."

Asolutely agree, particularly if one wants to debate the EOG. Also, I agree with you Ryan on the what I'll re-phrase as the 'pragmatic' approach to making choices.

Also, as a clarification, Dark was right, I was going to touch on the distinctions between perhaps higher-levels of consciousness which is responsible for making decisions of 'life and death' more akin to ethical/moral/existential/religious issues such as immortality being one in the same as 'life and death', over what certain animals may possess (whew). But, I didn't want to say the obvious. Nevertheless, it 'is' icing on the cake!

Anyway, glad you brought it up!

Walrus

echidna

I don’t know.

Origins of the universe, the fundamental nature of our material world, and the existence of consciousness, remain quite inexplicable AFAIC. Attempt to do so seem quite speculative and often tenuous to date IMO.

For 2000 years science has objectively been proving concepts which have continually upended the world on its head. A god-thing ? I’m just too woosy to rule it out.