Amos

Nature has no mind to design. If we place God in nature we must place God within each of the organisms we refer to as nature . . . such as the bread and the wine that we set aside and consecrate in memory of our recognition that we must consume our equals to stay alive in a changing biological environment. This makes us equal and not better than the food we eat.

Amos

Nothing that we have knowledge of can be unknowable or we would have no knowledge thereof.

If we place God in nature we can isolate god in nature or we could not have put God in nature.

It is foolish to say that God is not knowable because we invented God.

Primal

Atheistic-naturalism represents the more rational position because it is superfluous.

The agnostic seems to be saying that given the evidence, both these claims: "There is a God" and "There is no God" are equally likely to be true. Others would say agnosticism simply means theism is possible, and there is no absolute proof against god, in which case one must be an agnostic towards creationism, flat earth theory, spntanious generation and vitalism because there is no absolute disproof against any of those views.

The atheist sees this kind of special treatment of the God claim as rather silly, notices how theism has the burden of proof and is thus superfluous and hence bets on the claim "There is no God" as more warranted likely to be true. I am aware of the fact that many atheists define atheism as "nonbelief in a God" which is fine as well. I am merely pointing out that the agnostic being unsure; seems to more be saying the evidence is equal or inconclusive, whereas atheists like me think it points in an obvious direction. Just like evolution. Is Young Earh Creation still possible? Yep,(the evidence can lead us astray) but does that mean I should be agnsotic on the creation/evolution debate? Nope, because the two sides are not on equal epistemic standing.

If someone were to say "Joe in two seconds will be hit by lightning 30 times in a row" and you were to say "I don't think so" or "Unlikely" or "Not gonna happen" does that make one irrational? Does that mean we should be agnostics on the issue?

And theism is even less likely given what we know then either creationism or the lightning scenerio. Because the theory is supefluous, completely and utterly superfluous. It has the same chances of being realy as George Lucas's Starw Wars has. Maybe in a Galaxy far,far away the Rebels are fighting the Empire, maybe: but not likely.

Maybe there is a big all powerful creature named God floating around in another dimension, hiding his existence for whatever reason: it's possible and it's not likely. And I'd put money on the claim "there is no God" being true.

That is what establishes the atheist position: probability based on evidence. So it doesn't matter whether theism can be disproven absolutely or not, we do not need to search the universe. We can make bets and we often due, based on current evidence. For example most believe that other planets are made of atoms, is this absolutely known for sure? Is it even known absolutely for sure that this planet is made of atoms? Nope. But its reasonable to assume that things are made of atoms and not monads, and that incedentally monads do not exist. Why? Because the idea of monads is superfluous given our knowledge of atoms.

Likewise a naturalist conception of the universe is far less superfluous then a supernaturalist conception. And since atheism is derived from a naturalistic/materialistic outlook, atheism is better supported by the odds(i.e. the principles of evidence) then either agnosticism or theism.

ksagnostic

Absolutely. Considering the fact that the term agnosticism was coined by a prominent, 19th century natural scientist, I don't see why it could not be. Agnosticism is, after all, a form of the same sort of skepticism that is practiced by the natural scientist.

(italics added by me-ks)

Nope. Because making an allowance for the possibility of gods does not necessarily involve any sort of allowance for "supernatural" phenomena.

I personally think that the term "supernatural" is an incoherent, nonsensical concept. If a theistic god of the transcendent sort were to exist, the natural world would be a product of the actions of such a being, which would mean that the being a) had a physical existence and b) is/was therefore an aspect of the natural world.

Agnosticism is a process. Atheism is a conclusion (strong or tentative) on a single set of questions. A person can satisfy both definitions, but can consider one or the other unimportant in choosing which label to describe him/herself by.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Buffman

Amos

All sentient beings have an instinct and the instinct is the memeory of their soul and if they have a soul they must have a conscious mind which is used to feed the soul for the purpose of survival and adaptation. So there you have the intelligent design of animals within nature.

1. Define sentient beings.
2. Prove that sentient beings have instincts rather than drives. (If humans are sentient beings with instincts for survival, they could not commit suicide. Birds are born with the instincts to build nests. Do you know any humans born knowing how to build a house?)
3. What is your verifiable evidence that an instinct is a memory of a soul? (If instinct is the memory of a soul, then all living things with instincts have souls. Is that what you are attempting to say?)
4. Nope! No sale on your ID within nature.

Nature has no mind to design. If we place God in nature we must place God within each of the organisms we refer to as nature . . . such as the bread and the wine that we set aside and consecrate in memory of our recognition that we must consume our equals to stay alive in a changing biological environment. This makes us equal and not better than the food we eat.

1. I don't recall claiming that Nature has a mind. I think I said that some humans assign it a mind.
2. I place God in only one place...the mind of Man. I also place other superstitions and myths in the mind of Man. So in that sense only would I place a make believe God in nature.
3. I consecrate no bread or wine. I eat and drink it.
4. I agree! The natural environment is in a constant state change...even if only through transmogrification/transmutation. (There is a distinct possibility that we may actually become the food and water that others eat and drink. So?)

Might I recommend that you consider whether human self-awareness is composed of energy, and if that energy form remains intact and self-aware after the death of the transmitting station.

R.H.

I'm getting in over my head; but don't "require" and "allow" lead us into the differences between agnosticism and atheism? Isn't that where you are heading?

(Oooops! It appears 'Primal' got there ahead of me.)

ksagnostic

Actually, I'm not sure I know of any self proclaimed agnostic who says that the claims are equally likely to be true. Most are making a statement about their own knowledge state, but that certainly is not the same thing as assigning equal probabilities to differing claims. This is the worst strawman ever directed at agnostics.

Nonsense. An agnostic is, again, simply making a claim about what s/he is certain s/he knows, and does not know. I do not take creationism, flat earth theory, spontaneous generation and vitalism, or for that matter the existence of Jehovah, any more seriously than you do, and yet I consider the term agnostic a much more accurate description of me than the term atheist.

But all god claims are not equal. For example, deism or scientific pantheism do not equal Christian theism. For that matter, I am equally agnostic (or skeptical) when it comes to the claims of Buddhists or spiritual religions which make no god claims at all. Agnosticism is a process. Atheism is a conclusion. Some atheists seem to like to make the argument that it is agnostics who are subjecting a "god claim" to "special treatment". I consider it is exactly the opposite. Why is a "god claim", or theism, sufficiently special enough to warrant labeling myself by whether I agree with it? I don't go around calling myself an "aspiritualist" either.

Again, based on the straw man that an agnostic takes all truth claims equally seriously.

Agnosticism is not a conclusion. Agnosticism, particularly as it was originally defined, simply indicates something to the effect that there is a reality, and that claims about that reality do not change the nature of that reality. Therefore, one should be careful about making absolute claims about reality without sufficient evidence. This does not mean that claims, or the investigation of claims, are avoided.

Atheism and theism, on the other hand, are terms describing conclusions regarding what one decides to believe, or not believe, about the existence of deities. But to compare these two labels of conclusions, with a term describing a process, is in my view inappropriate (but all too common hereabouts).

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Amos

</strong>

1.Sentient beings can respond to sense perception.
2.It always takes a mind to drive organisms and motivate sentient beings. It is stupid to commit suicide because the wrong identity is annihilated. Conflict is always between the conscious and subconscious mind and in effort to resolve this conflict only the ego needs be annihilated and not the actual being.
3.All sentient beings have a soul. Plants do not.
4.As you wish.
</strong>

1.Possibly true and not really important.
2.The mind of man (and of every sentient being) is God so you don't have to place it there.
3. . . . . and be merry.
4.Oh sure, Hollywood in nature and mutations to answer for the unexplainable. Sounds like a theory from oblivion. I am actually heading no place and never really looked into your definition of agnosticism and atheism.

Amos

Sorry but agnostic is as old as gnostic because these two are opposite to each other.

Your prominent natural scientist was just a wishfull thinker and a dreamer perhaps who did not understand that a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other.

Buffman

Amos

1.Sentient beings can respond to sense perception.

Hmmmmm? Are all primates sentient beings? They have sense perceptions, and many of them are better than those of humans.

[b] 2.It always takes a mind to drive organisms and motivate sentient beings. It is stupid to commit suicide because the wrong identity is annihilated. Conflict is always between the conscious and subconscious mind and in effort to resolve this conflict only the ego needs be annihilated and not the actual being.

Hmmmmm? The issue was instincts vice drives. Does an amoeba have a drive or an instinct? It has senses.---- Exactly how many identities do humans have? --- If the conflict is "always" between the conscious and the subconscious, which of them is good and which is evil? --- What role does the superego play in the conflict?

3.All sentient beings have a soul. Plants do not.

Oh? Are plants not born? Do they not grow and mature? Do they not eat, drink and breathe? Do they not reproduce? Do they not bleed when cut? Do they not grow old and die? Have the plants personally told you that they have no souls? (I just had to ask.)

2.The mind of man (and of every sentient being) is God so you don't have to place it there.

Perhaps it would help if I understood your definition of God.

4.Oh sure, Hollywood in nature and mutations to answer for the unexplainable. Sounds like a theory from oblivion.

Sorry! I don't understand what you are attempting to say here. Are you insinuating that mutations do not occur in the presence of radiological or chemical contamination of the environment? Are you saying that you have never seen a caterpillar turn into a butterfly? A polliwog turn into a frog? Have you never seen a lizard grow a new tail? I am not offering any theory. I merely using my "senses" to make observations about the natural world and attempt to discover how these things happen/occur. Once I think I have collected enough data/evidence, I will make a hypothesis that others can test. If their tests invalid my hypothesis, I will be thrilled because I won't waste any more precious time and resources in that direction and be one step closer to finding a hypothesis that testing will validate.---Just because something is currently unexplainable doesn't mean that that will always be the case. So, rather than declaring it is a miracle and forgetting about it, I continue the quest for increased accurate knowledge and insight. Just imagine the day when geneticists unlock the regeneration process...and we are much closer to that day now than we were yesterday. How wonderful! How exciting! How challenging! How meaningful! How "enlightening!" Hollywood doesn't have anything like it...nor does inerrant religiosity.

Your prominent natural scientist was just a wishfull thinker and a dreamer perhaps who did not understand that a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other.

Some of history's most eminent scientists studied the Kabbalah...even though they were practicing Christians. Isn't that interesting?

Jayhawker Soule

With all due respect to both of you, it has been my experience that attempting a sustained dialogue with Amos is a fool's errand that is almost certainly guaranteed to have the unintended consequence of sabotaging the thread.