what is agnosticism?

Can you describe sex to a virgin?

Can you describe an orgasm to one who has not had one?

 

You are saying that is it is strictly a feeling? A rush of happiness, of comfort?? I realize you know that I will not accept something that is a result of chemical changes as personal contact with God.

 

No, I am saying that it takes experience to know God. Not one specific kind of experience either. It's like getting to know a person, yet far deeper.

Say I pick up a girl at the bar and make sweet love all night. Does this mean I know her, or do I just know a tiny bit about her body and personality?

Hanging out with her for 8 or 9 months, I get to know her a little bit, but I till only know a tiny percentage of what she really is. I hang out with her for 6-7 years, we get to know eachother pretty well, yet I still don't know everything about her. I recognize her moods, attitudes, etc. but these things change with time as a person becomes more mature.

With God, it's a little different. God doesn't change over the years, you just get to know God better, so you change.

There is feeling involved, as well as intellectual, physical, and spiritual activity. Describing one experience can't convey what knowing God is, nor can describing 20 experiences. The experience of "knowing God" is so deep that you can't convey it to one who does not know God.

I can only tell you stuff about God, which you may or may not accept as true.

The thing is, as long as I speak the truth, one of the times I say it to you, you are going to get it. Maybe you will forget what I said, forget the truth of it, but the truth will still be out there and you will relearn it again and again until it becomes a permanent part of your soul.

 

HippyGirl

And here you have cut to the core of it.
Agnosticism is simply a 'religious sounding philisophical position'
That is actually just the same rational position most of us take when it comes to the real world.
Occam took the concept of god, and fed it through the same process used for everything else.
-----------------
When all perception through the senses is second hand information.
What do we know?
What we all agree to know, what we agree to call fact.
NOT what one persons perceptions define.
But a non contradictory compilation/agreement between many many humans. Science, is just the foremost facet of that agreement.
The facet that has used the agreement to fashion technology from the 'facts' that we have come to agree on. And actively persues such

Occam has not been to London.
So how does he 'know' there is a place called London?
Perceptually he does not. Then how?
Because if it was struck from the list of real places. The result would
CONTRADICT a billion seperate and independent links the the place called london.
A huge edifice of non-contradictory fact has been built by human thought.
We call it what we know.
--------------------

You are not satisfied?
Then you must continue persuing the question.
Our perception remember, operates to allow us to function in reallity.
But our imaginations are not nearly so constrained

Occam can look at a thing just about every human would agree was a tree.
And strip away the external face of it using imagination.
To gain a perspective of what 'the tree' really is. An increadable stucture
of information built from a trilliontrilliontrillion little understood things called subatomic particles.
SO MUCH information and structure it makes the complexity of human society seem as nothing.
Yet the 'tree' is 99.9% nothing. Vitually 'empty' space. As are we and the world. Take away the space between atoms in our planet earth.
And you could hold it in your hands.

Heres an interesting one about perception. Imagine if we could only
'see' radio frequencies in the EM spectrum instead of what we call 'visible
light.'
The sun would go away, as would most of the stars,leaving a world illuminated by radio transmitters.
Blinding becons of the NEW 'visible light' on top of towers and buildings.
Humans would now live in a ghostly world where most things can be seen through like smoke.
And from space, our world would shine as bright than the sun does to us now.

Talk to U soon

Occam

 

Kharakov

And thats the problem. YOU say the truth is 'out there'
You, know the truth from what is out there,, that is, outside you.

Occam proposes that your truth is INSIDE.
An interpretation BY YOU of what you experience as the real world.
If you experienced truth from an external agency.
An existing part of reality.
You could show it to us. You cannot.
Thus your truth is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what we ALL experience.

What is beauty?
An interpretation .
What is justice?
An interpretation.
What is your 'truth about god'
an interpreation
Yes, beauty and justice, and your interpretation 'truth about god'
exist.
But only as human concepts.


Occam

 

It's not a problem. The truth is out there and when you finally learn the truth it becomes a permanent part of your soul (it is inside you).

Yup. I cannot. Just like I can't explain calculus to 6 year olds who would rather watch pokemon, not that the 6 year olds can't learn calculus, they just don't listen. If you weren't so attached to your seemingly noble stance of not knowing the truth, maybe you would find it.

Some peoples experience of the truth is their interpretation of what we experience. Some are correct in their interpretation, so it holds up to all logical scrutiny. Some are caught up in minor parts of the truth, like physics, chemistry, politics, fantasy, etc. and miss the big wompum.

There are times when our interpretation is correct (some are correct more often than others ). Apparently agnostics can't conceive of this as they have never experienced the correct interpretation of reality (which is the reason they claim it is unknown and unknowable).

You know the funniest thing about arguing with agnostics? Agnostics don't know anything about the ultimate reality, but are more than happy to argue against it's existence and knowability.

You should learn from those who know a little bit of the ultimate reality and build upon it instead of holding onto your position of ignorance with such maniacle glee. This means you have to give up the only solid bit of truth you have: that you are ignorant of the ultimate reality. Big sacrifice if you ask me...

 

Kharakov

Ultimate reality?

Occam

 

Boom boom boom boom
gonna shoot you right down
on your feet
when your home with me
when your in my house.
boom boom boom boom
i love to see you walk
movin down the floor
when your talkin to me
that baby talk
i like it like that
when you talk like that
it knocks me dead..
knocks me off my feet.

It's all around you. It'll teach you. You just need to recognize that it is there and it will do the rest.

 

welcome to the forums, dirk.

yes, i would consider you to be an agnostic.

interesting that you say occam's razor requires faith. i think that the usefulness of that method consistently proves itself - if my car won't start, there are hundreds of "possible" explanations, but the preferable theory contains the least number of assumptions: that "i am out of gas" is preferable to "leprechauns stole my gas, and i am out of gas". and, it seems that without exception, the method proves true - hubby forgot to fill the tank, and there was no need for the additional assumptions. this method works.

i think i see the point you're making though, and it's similar to the point i was making when i started this thread - what can we know, at all? it seems that we cannot know anything. the method may work to an excellent degree, but does it work all the time? we don't know. perhaps the "ultimate truth" is fantastically complex and involves all sorts of extra help from unicorns and fairies and loops of logic; anyway, i wonder what occam will say. (that is, forum member occam.)

note: you can tell how much i know about cars when the only thing i can think of for a car not starting is "it's out of gas", HAHA....

peace,

 

yes, i see what you mean. the method is still based on assuming things. like i said, it may have a very admirable percentile probability of truth but that doesn't mean that you can 'psychically' say "yes, the car is out of gas" before checking it for yourself.

 

If the car won't start, you could start by taking the engine apart and see if it's that, or check all the wiring with a meter for shortcircuits or breaks. But logic usually leads to checking the simplest, most likely causes first. And no gas is often the first thing to check.

'For every problem there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong.' H.L. Mencken

 

342 is not 342.

Numbers are only symbols, they don't mean anything unless you apply them to something.

As symbols each 342 in your statement is it's own set.

The first set of symbols in your statement is identical to the second set of symbols but they are not the same set anymore than identical twins are the same person.

Same with the circle. It's only a concept until you apply that concept to physical reality.
Until then it's circular reasoning (sorry) in that all you're saying is "this concept is this concept" and "anything that meets the criteria of this concept meets the criteria of this concept".

Even when you do apply the concept to a physical object, pointing to any physical object and saying "this is a circle" can never be a known fact but is an act of beleif in that you beleive whatever instuments you were using to measure the circle were accurate.

 

thats the true description of my agnosticism. I don't agree with the original posters version because i doubt my senses and realize that all observation is subjectively biased, because of the observers sense organs

 

thanks naykidape; i understand what you said. i see how this is circular reasoning: "certainly the pattern of number-symbols "342" is meaningless, but the idea of 342 is always 342." what in the world does that prove? unfortunately this only sets me back to my original musing of - what can we know?

if you read back, my original version was the same as that, except i pushed it further, beyond "what do we know about deities" to "what do we know about anything". i think we agree.



peace,