Why are you Atheist Agnsotic?

Anyone care to explain?

 

Read the FAQS sticky thread by meagain

The 'empirical agnosticism' comes closest to occams position.

He holds that position because his method to understanding
grants no credence to any human 'verification' or 'description'
of a possible god.
This does not detract in any way occams belief that all have an
inherent right to believe whatever they wish.
[this in no way applies to acts]

Just that 'direction' in the observed universe is possible.
And probably more likely than not, but that is an intuition based on
indicative evidence.

Occam does not involve emotion in his method to undersanding [desire] Desire is THE ENGINE that drives us to know.
And should not rise above that prime motive application in the path to undrerstanding. [only]
If Ganesh or God/Allah or Ahura Mazda or Baal or Odin showed up in front
of occam and humanity and displayed god like powers.
[even after he gives them no credence] then so be it.
Occam will accept that they ARE what they are.
Beings with godlike powers. Thus technically, gods in the SO loose
human description of such.
In understanding
It maters not what occam desires.. only that he desires to understand
..what IS.

To occam, this is what an 'open mind' REALLY means.

Occam

 

Generally, I concur with Occam.

I'm what is known as a logical positivist. The very question "Does God exist?" does not arise and is not answerable or even suggestible, because there is no conclusive empirical evidence, or even any conclusive logical evidence, that suggests that a God exists.

While there are half a billion proponents of religion and various specific gods and goddesses, virtually all of them claim to have the truth, which is something that detracts from the suggestiveness that any of them actually do have the truth.

At the same time, many religious people are very prejudiced and narrow-minded (not to say that all religious people are stupid; there are many out there who are very intelligent), giving less credibility to logical arguments used to give the concept of a god credibility.

So as you can see, there is no evidence that even suggests that a specific god exists. Thus the question, "does God exist?" does not arise, and is not worth considering for truth or value, only worth considering for finding evidence of such (which is another action that does not arise unless you already believe in a god).

 

Occam I don't even know what to say. Your insane, you refer to yourself in the 3rd person. You need professional help fast, perhapts a stint in rehab. Your speaking like a buddhist saying desire is everything, yet in shedding desire you shed "this-worldly" things. Well what world are you aiming for? If nothing exists beyond the physical reality no realm of enlightenment or god.

 

Alright, I respect your statement, because it in fact does make sense. Why beleive in something when it is not logical or conclusive? Answer this...

In my other threads I have mentioned that the God we know in the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. are not the same God as the the above (the intelligent creator), but merely a more advanced form of human, an astronaut god if you will, the being with godlike powers.
All religions are based off the accounts of prophets and the ancients. If we are to take into account the ancient Sumerian and their texts, the first written records then it all makes sense when it coincides with history that a God can exist, just not the same one that created the universe.

Now I understand that archaeological records and writings don't really prove anything, nor does it matter. I merely accept their existence and ponder the fact that since no one knows this thats why religions are so screwed up. If they were true, which they very well could be, it still wouldn't change my opinion that theres still a higher supreme God, that created Earth and the universe, and these lesser Gods merely took advantage of it. Now this is just a basic assumption, my beliefs shouldn't differ from anyone else's, mainly because no one will actually know until they send us a birthday card with proof they exist (Hikaru ).

So building off of that...Do you believe that the universe, not necessarily human life on earth, but the phases in which life takes, such as the spiraling effects in nautilus shells, the fragile balance of life, and everything else so complicated in this world, were of intelligent design? Or do you beleive that they merely happened by chance and coincidence? The fact that we have such intricate laws such as gravity and physics, and the fact that we have become intelligent enough to actually question our own existence and purpose. This belief in a more intelligent creator isn't my opinion of our God, it is a more supreme, the One Love, or One conciousness that one can achieve.

 

Occam if you are referring to yourself in the 3rd person because your trying to say you have no ego, related that to saying I. because the classic Ego line is I AM. If you type that to me this is the only way you aren't gonna sound retarded and insane. Sorry dude!

 

I think it's more along the lines of, a step towards losing one's ego, which may very well be impossible, but that step is also a degree of ego lost.

 

Still no one talks like that. It sounds stupid. Like you wanna be a robot boy or something.

 

occam

 

Spirit

"Be who you are and say what you feel
because those that mind dont matter
And those that matter dont mind"...Dr Suess

 

r33f3r

[from 2nd post in thread]

"Just that 'direction' in the observed universe is possible
And probably more likely than not.
But that is an intuition based on indicative evidence"


Occam

 

So why cant indicative evidence be true? Maybe humans are subconsciously aware of this possibility and their own intuition is making them come to this conclusion.

 

So why cant indicative evidence be true in this case? Maybe humans are subconsciously aware of this possibility and their own intuition is making them come to this conclusion.

 

Because every other stance is epistemically sloppy and superfluous.

 

Iconoclast

LOL

Yeh, speaking from Hikys' Logical Positivism. You are quite correct.
Occam has placed much effort in epistemology
in creating his own method to understanding as a basis for a path in life.
Mainly because each of us have our own way of thought. Thus we all
require our own defined 'levels of acceptance'.
Occams 'bar of the probable' is 'probably' way higher than the average joe.
But less than logical positivism. Because occam thinks LP does not entirely allow for that which is right in front of us, but we cannot percieve.
This is OUR shortcomming, not realities.

Occam

 

r33f3r

Excellent.
Why indeed should indictive evidence not be enough?
The only arguement occam has is that he does not know if random
chance cannot result in the observed universe and it's complexity.
If he knew it could not.
Then the indicative evidence would become ..evidence.
And he would believe their was direction, and state such belief.

Yes.. maybe our intuition is far more accurate than our surface reason.
[intuition being called by occam, subconsious reason]

In all cases we cant answer accurately cause we a still mostly ignorant.

Occam

 

being massively ignorant, as i am, believe it or not, of formal phylosophy and it's doyans, i must none the less aggree with both of you.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Themnax

Ah yes, the doyans of philosophy.
Hardly known outside 'higher learning'
cause u cant tell kids someone thinks 'more better' than the government.
Occam has picked and stolen their ideas here and there and found them brilliant but hardly the be all and end all of human thinking.
They are the FIRST THINKERS..from socrates to the vienna circle, no more.
They are 'some of' the precursors of human thought for several thousand years to come, and in those years, many will take their ideas to a new level.

Occam thinks they would be much amused by this song.
One of the most incisive works from the python group
he would LOVE to sit with them in a tavern and sing it
[but secondary to life of brian,, truely a masterpiece.
"He's not the messiah..so fuck off"]

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. <[brilliant suggests occam]
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed."

Occam

 

Your argument is still based around an ad hominem. Just because you find the way Occam speaks to be objectionable, doesn't mean that it is any less filled with wisdom, or has any less of a valid point.

It's indicative. Not conclusive. It only indicates a possibility. Not necessarily the truth.

In the past, one could say "what goes up must come down," and back then that might have possibly been indicative that a God was causing that force to exist. Of course, nowadays, we have a better idea of what gravity is, so that possibility is nullified.

That's the problem: They are taking awareness of a possibility, and turning it into a conclusion.

You cannot conclude things from something that is inconclusive, such as a possibility.

-- Other than these things, I agree with much of what has been said in the past several posts.

 

Well could a God, not necessarily the Gods are religions have come to worship, but a higher intelligence be responsible for such intricacies as the laws of gravity?