Agnosticism - An Alternative Path

a reply to: Woodcarver

We know that perfectly healthy minds hallucinate for many reasons.

Can we know for sure that the "hallucination" was a misrepresentation of reality and not a glimpse into another form of reality? Forgive my total ignorance on the subject of neurology. For example, if there are multiple planes of reality and a person sees angels - can we positively claim that person is not seeing reality?

Furthermore, saying someone has a hallucination would seem to imply that we know what reality is. Do we?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Woodcarver
Can we know for sure that the "hallucination" was a misrepresentation of reality and not a glimpse into another form of reality?

Nope, but we do conclusively know that Hallucinations not only exist, but are relatively common. Which means it holds more weight than an unfalsifiable claim.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Woodcarver
Furthermore, saying someone has a hallucination would seem to imply that we know what reality is. Do we?

Absolute knowledge? no, of course not. But thanks for yet again adding your empty diversionary tactics to the conversation.

Reality has a lot of evidence for it, but we also create it. A good example would be money. What is money, in reality? It's just a worthless piece of paper. We place value on it, and at a collectively we alter that reality to some degree. Money is basically make-believe, but it is a useful, sometimes destructive make-believe.

As for the physical realm of reality, read up on Quantum Physics.

Even if we have it all wrong, and the physical realm that we perceive to be reality were an illusion, it would not matter since we would live as if it were real.

Now, if you could actually provide some context to this discussion, rather than time and time again using diversionary tactics, we wouldn't need to explain useless things for no reason at all.

a reply to: Ghost147

Nope, but we do conclusively know that Hallucinations not only exist, but are relatively common.

You've just contradicted yourself. Either we know there is no possibility what a person is seeing actually exists and hallucinations are real - or we don't know and have to accept the possibility that "hallucinations" are really occurrences of people receiving input from another dimension/reality/whatever term suits one best.

Absolute knowledge? no, of course not. But thanks for yet again adding your empty diversionary tactics to the conversation.

Empty? Such as making "conclusive" claims on something you admit to not actually knowing for certain?

Reality has a lot of evidence for it, but we also create it. A good example would be money. What is money, in reality? It's just a worthless piece of paper. We place value on it, and at a collectively we alter that reality to some degree. Money is basically make-believe, but it is a useful, sometimes destructive make-believe.

True. So would you argue that reality is subjective or objective?

As for the physical realm of reality, read up on Quantum Physics.

If I had the time I would - or if a time machine becomes available, I'll get a degree in that. For the time being, I have read some literature from quantum physics - and it seems that at least some theories currently point to everything being an illusion (maybe "representation" is a better word). I do like the Buddhist concept of two types of reality - the ultimate reality and the reality that we experience.

Even if we have it all wrong, and the physical realm that we perceive to be reality were an illusion, it would not matter since we would live as if it were real.

No argument here. Pointing out that hallucinations could be information gathering from a dimension unknown to us is not to say that hallucinations do not occur in the material world that we experience. Rather, the point is that if hallucination is thought of in terms of something not being present, then it could be an unfair application.

TextNow, if you could actually provide some context to this discussion, rather than time and time again using diversionary tactics, we wouldn't need to explain useless things for no reason at all.

I am not using any "diversionary tactics." Just don't claim something is "conclusive" or that you "know" something if that isn't the case.

No knowledge is useless. Whether that be understanding the processes of the sensible world or inquiring into the possibility of other forms of reality we (most of us, at least) cannot experience save through intuition. As for context, what do you want? Perhaps I'm not clear - for a hallucination to be real, it has to be created by the mind. Unless we can say with absolute knowledge that what we perceive as hallucination is not really a person receiving input from another source undetectable to others (rather than produced in the mind), then we can not make the assertion that so and so had a "hallucination."

If we were to explore the possibility that "hallucinations" are events that occur as a result of an input rather than the mind creating it, we could perhaps gain more knowledge than what is available to the senses. Of course, it could lead to a useless dead end.

There's the other extreme as well - namely that everything is a hallucination. Personally, I think all possibilities are worth exploration and discussion. If you keep insisting on trying to ground philosophical inquiries as either subject to scientific inquiry or useless, we will make no headway. If you personally believe that knowledge (or the pursuit thereof) which cannot be scrutinized scientifically is useless, then I would defend your opinion. I just respectfully disagree with it.

Anyhow, my compliments on taking up the ask anything challenge. It's a rather good thread I hope will get a lot of traffic. Even those (such as myself) who believe in evolution may not know all the details and can learn something or two.

I think the idea of a third position is false. What we have is a this or that classification. Everyone is either Atheist or Theist. The third position of Agnostic doesn't belong. It belongs with Gnostic in a different classification of it's own.

So either someone is Atheist or a Theist, period. They can also either be a Gnostic or Agnostic, period. Mixing one or the other into either side just causes confusion and serves no purpose. It's a way to try and make a non-answer into an answer or some special classification of which there isn't any. The terms themselves allow for only a this or that answer. There is no grey area. You cannot equally answer Yes and No at the same time. Yes is Yes, No is No and I don't know or any other answer falls into the no spot too as it would be the default.

No is the default rather than yes because if it was the other way around we wouldn't have a history of different gods and religions all claiming different Gods. They are all trying to prove this or that God versus No Gods making the No Gods the default position.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think the idea of a third position is false.

I can't argue here. Not because I agree, but because arguing this would entail me telling you what you think.

However, I will argue the notion of there being no third way. This, to me, limits us to dichotomies.

Mixing one or the other into either side just causes confusion and serves no purpose.

Hence my advocation for separating the terms.

You cannot equally answer Yes and No at the same time. Yes is Yes, No is No and I don't know or any other answer falls into the no spot too as it would be the default.

English doesn't have a word...German does, though - "jain." "No" and "I don't now" are not the same at all.

No is the default rather than yes

Actually, the default is "I don't know." Saying 'yes' or 'no' is making a judgment call on something. Belief without any form of knowledge- whether or not that knowledge is accepted by everyone - is the blindest type of faith there is. Saying "I don't know" means that one does not have enough knowledge to make the judgment call of "yes" or "no." Agnosticism is the belief we never will be able to make that call.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Either we know there is no possibility what a person is seeing actually exists and hallucinations are real - or we don't know and have to accept the possibility that "hallucinations" are really occurrences of people receiving input from another dimension/reality/whatever term suits one best.

Uh, no. We can definitely prove that hallucinations occur by actually inducing them and directly effecting them. It's not a glimpse into some other realm, because we can see the neurological patterns that directly replicate that of normal functionality. Not only that but we can also now primitively project a persons visual thoughts/dreams into an externally viewable source. And what occurs in that test also confirms the same brain activity as we had seen before.

We also are aware that the body has an internal 'clock' which helps rejuvenate specific parts of bodily and neurological function. We also know the evolutionary reason why things like dreams exist, and why it is an advantageous trait.

Conversely, we can also state that we cannot possibly know anything for certain. However, that does not mean we cannot make valid, accurate, predictable observations and explanations just because "anything could exist".

Once again, your position holds absolutely no weight, and is basically a diversionary tactic that offers no substance, and is utterly pointless.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Empty? Such as making "conclusive" claims on something you admit to not actually knowing for certain?

Read above.

The difference between my position and yours is that you for some reason seem to view yours as just as likely or reasonable as observable, testable evidence. Which it is not. It's an empty, unfounded position that is infinitely interchangeable with everything else that is unfalsifiable. That's why it is empty. It provides no worth to the discussion at hand.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
True. So would you argue that reality is subjective or objective?

Both. The answer to that question is in the very quote you used.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
No argument here. Pointing out that hallucinations could be information gathering from a dimension unknown to us is not to say that hallucinations do not occur in the material world that we experience. Rather, the point is that if hallucination is thought of in terms of something not being present, then it could be an unfair application.

No. Pointing out that hallucinations could be information gathering from another dimension is a pointless point to make, because it is unfalsifiable, infinitely interchangeable with whatever else that is unfalsifiable, and there for is an empty, weightless, and worthless position to begin with.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
I am not using any "diversionary tactics."

All you ever argue with is unfalsifiable claims. The very fact that those claims do not offer any substance to any topic mean that it is a diversionary tactic because I could easily make the same absurd, generic and infallible claims with different details and they would be just as valid as yours. It brings an otherwise reasonable discussion to a state that is absolutely pointless, hence the diversion.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Just don't claim something is "conclusive" or that you "know" something if that isn't the case.

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you that when I, or science, says "conclusive" or that 'we know' it means that so much evidence points to that direction, that we can claim beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is correct.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
No knowledge is useless. Whether that be understanding the processes of the sensible world or inquiring into the possibility of other forms of reality

You're not giving any knowledge to the conversation, your pointing out the obvious, and saying "well it could be [infinite amount of whatever garbage you want to place, here]". Your position is one of absolutely no worth.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
we (most of us, at least) cannot experience save through intuition.

In almost every post I make in rebuttal to one of yours, I have to reexplain to you that I acknowledge that "anything could happen", but that using that as a primary argument is useless.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
As for context, what do you want? Perhaps I'm not clear - for a hallucination to be real, it has to be created by the mind.

Which we've confirmed....

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Unless we can say with absolute knowledge that what we perceive as hallucination is not really a person receiving input from another source undetectable to others (rather than produced in the mind), then we can not make the assertion that so and so had a "hallucination."

Again... we've confirmed that it isn't in the cases where we directly monitored brain activity.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
If we were to explore the possibility that "hallucinations" are events that occur as a result of an input rather than the mind creating it, we could perhaps gain more knowledge than what is available to the senses. Of course, it could lead to a useless dead end.

We don't explore this as a possibility because nothing suggests that it is what is occurring.

Your like a creationist who wants to put creation in science class and forgets that their concept isn't the only unfalsifiable creation claim. If we test for an alternative dimension that is sending us brain signals, then we must also test that invisible unicorns that have hallucinogenic feces are pooping on our brain every once in a while.

There is nothing to suggest that hallucinations are a result of anything else than what we've already observed.

Science doesn't come up with ideas, and then try to prove they exist. Science makes observations, and then tries to explain how that observation functions.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Personally, I think all possibilities are worth exploration and discussion.

No... they're not. Because all possibilities are not equal to the ones that we already have observed. Exploring every literal possibility is a waste of time until that possibility actually has some evidence that it exists in the first place.

a reply to: scorpio84

Like you said earlier, technically everyone is going to be Agnostic because nobody "knows" anything. However, my point was that as far as people being Atheist or Theist I think it has to be one or the other. Atheist being the default position for anything other than Theist. Agnostic would actually be almost a umbrella term over the top of Atheist/Theist that both would be under. Since even a Theist is about belief or faith rather than knowing. But including Agnostic within the subset of Atheist/Theist I don't think would apply since there is only two choices and not three.

Not that it's really all that important actually. It's just a made up word and other made up definitions anyway. But it might help make things simple.

a reply to: Ghost147

No... they're not. Because all possibilities are not equal to the ones that we already have observed. Exploring every literal possibility is a waste of time until that possibility actually has some evidence that it exists in the first place.

Alright, I'll leave you to your opinion.

If we test for an alternative dimension that is sending us brain signals, then we must also test that invisible unicorns that have hallucinogenic feces are pooping on our brain every once in a while.

Why does it have to be unicorns? More to the point - "testing." Not everything can be reduced to scientific explanation, but that doesn't mean those things are not worth exploration through other means, such as philosophy. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're not giving any knowledge to the conversation, your pointing out the obvious, and saying "well it could be [infinite amount of whatever garbage you want to place, here]". Your position is one of absolutely no worth.

I didn't realize I was intending to give knowledge by asking a question. Is asking questions how you usually impart your wisdom?

Your like a creationist who wants to put creation in science class and forgets that their concept isn't the only unfalsifiable creation claim.

You clearly do not understand my position. Ask me to clarify it, and I'll respond that I already have, many times. If it isn't clear yet, it never will be. Maybe it is that you are unable to think in wider terms than "this and that is observable" or that I am unable to adequately explain it.

In almost every post I make in rebuttal to one of yours, I have to reexplain to you that I acknowledge that "anything could happen", but that using that as a primary argument is useless.

You need explain nothing. If you acknowledge anything could happen, then you have no right to dismiss anything as false. Is there a reason that is not clear?

All you ever argue with is unfalsifiable claims. The very fact that those claims do not offer any substance to any topic mean that it is a diversionary tactic because I could easily make the same absurd, generic and infallible claims with different details and they would be just as valid as yours. It brings an otherwise reasonable discussion to a state that is absolutely pointless, hence the diversion.

Even unfalsifiable claims could be proven illogical. In the other thread a person gave Epicurus' refusal of theism on the basis of good and evil. That claim is easy to refute by simply saying that "good" and "evil" are human constructs that don't exist. However, I've yet to hear anyone answer if God could make a stone so heavy even He can't lift it. That question illustrates that it is illogical to believe in, for example, the Judeo-Christian God or Allah. Yes, the christian claim the god exists is unfalsifiable, but it can also be shown to be illogical.

So, instead of griping about unfalsifiable claims - which is what philosophy is (and in case you didn't notice, this thread is in the theology section) - try to use reasoning to show a claim, even if unfalsifiable, is illogical. You consistently hide behind the mantra of if it's not observable, it's not worth discussing. If you wish to persist in that view, cease commenting on posts I make regarding philosophical views as it gets neither of us anywhere. No, I do not ignore the science - I just wish to move beyond it.

Anyhow, I will leave the rest of your post without reply as I do not see the point in trying to discuss philosophical topics with you. If I based philosophy purely on falsifiable claims, then we'd just be discussing science - which I do enjoy as well, just not in this particular thread or at this particular time.

we can see the neurological patterns that directly replicate that of normal functionality. Not only that but we can also now primitively project a persons visual thoughts/dreams into an externally viewable source. And what occurs in that test also confirms the same brain activity as we had seen before.

Okay, one question about science. Does this mean the neurological activity of a person having a hallucination is the same as one not having a hallucination? I knew about the dream projector (I don't know the actual name) - are dreams considered a form of hallucination or are there different neurological processes taking place?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Alright, I'll leave you to your opinion.

It's not an opinion. It's what is logical and rational.

Could you explain to me why you believe that any and all possibilities hold equal ground as what we've observed and tested?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Why does it have to be unicorns?

Exactly, it could be ANYTHING else, interchangeably. That is the point. Saying that hallucinations could be the product of immaterial invisible unicorn poo is just as valid as saying that hallucinations are caused by interdimensional intrusions. There's no way to prove that it is not either of those things, or anything else we can imagine.

That is the point I'm trying to make.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
More to the point - "testing." Not everything can be reduced to scientific explanation, but that doesn't mean those things are not worth exploration through other means, such as philosophy. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It doesn't even need to be about testing. It can simply be that we've observed it. Offering up an infinite amount of unfalsifiable claims solves absolutely nothing. It really does mean that it's not worth exploring if there is no reason to go explore it.

Tell me why we should explore the possibility that Hallucinations could be interdimensional intrusion instead of Hallucinogenic invisible unicorn poo?

Are they both worth looking into?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
I didn't realize I was intending to give knowledge by asking a question. Is asking questions how you usually impart your wisdom?

You said "No knowledge is useless". Did you not mean that you had knowledge to offer?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You clearly do not understand my position. Ask me to clarify it, and I'll respond that I already have, many times. If it isn't clear yet, it never will be. Maybe it is that you are unable to think in wider terms than "this and that is observable" or that I am unable to adequately explain it.

Clearly not, since I've told you probably 10 times now that I acknowledge that 'anything could be possible'.

It's you that cannot fathom why an Unfalsifiable claim is utterly empty. Again, Should we seek to see the possibility that hallucinations could be a product of Interdimensional intrusion? or Should we seek to see the possibility that hallucinations could be caused by invisible unicorns pooping on our brain?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You need explain nothing. If you acknowledge anything could happen, then you have no right to dismiss anything as false. Is there a reason that is not clear?

YES! and I've already told you countless times why! It's like you don't even acknowledge I'm responding to you half the time.

Once again, we can logically acknowledge that 'anything could happen', yet also make claims that "This is the correct answer" not because there is absolutely no other possible answer, but because every scrap of evidence and observation we have made leads to that conclusion. It is then irrational to even suggest something else might be the cause, using nothing but an unfalsifiable claim, when all the evidence we have points to that conclusion.

Nobody is saying "This is the way it is, and nothing else is possible" we're saying that "We can be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that this is the correct answer"

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Even unfalsifiable claims could be proven illogical.

ONCE AGAIN, nobody is denying that! Sure, an unfalsifiable claim good eventually be proven correct. But, when it is proven correct, it's no longer unfalsifiable, is it? It means that there was something there to back up the claim. However, when a claim is made that is unfalsifiable, it is an empty, baseless, useless claim that provides nothing of value to anything.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
However, I've yet to hear anyone answer if God could make a stone so heavy even He can't lift it.

The answer is that "being all powerful cannot exist."

Its the same thing as saying "Can god make a choice that he didn't already know he was going to make"

The answer is "Omniscience and omnipotence cannot exist simultaneously"

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
That question illustrates that it is illogical to believe in, for example, the Judeo-Christian God or Allah. Yes, the christian claim the god exists is unfalsifiable, but it can also be shown to be illogical.

I've already explained this to you a number of times before. A generic claim that "a god exists" is unfalsifiable, but when you attribute traits such as omniscience, or omnipotence, or that god did this and that to create this and that, the claim because falsifiable. It is no longer generic.

A Christian claim that god exists is not unfalsifiable. Clearly.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
So, instead of griping about unfalsifiable claims - which is what philosophy is (and in case you didn't notice, this thread is in the theology section) - try to use reasoning to show a claim, even if unfalsifiable, is illogical.

I already have.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You consistently hide behind the mantra of if it's not observable, it's not worth discussing. If you wish to persist in that view, cease commenting on posts I make regarding philosophical views as it gets neither of us anywhere. No, I do not ignore the science - I just wish to move beyond it.

You don't move anywhere by making unfalsifiable claims. Why? because there's nothing to go off of to begin with. Unfalsifiable claims are empty for a reason. It suggests nothing of value, it gives no substance to anything, it is adding with Zero.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Does this mean the neurological activity of a person having a hallucination is the same as one not having a hallucination?

Identical in it's totality, no. But specific parts of the brain do activate just like they normally would when responding to an event that uses any of these senses: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
are dreams considered a form of hallucination or are there different neurological processes taking place?

Dreaming is essentially the same as hallucination, only the individual is unconscious.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369

Funny, I said pretty much that same thing in the OP

And yet you make claims such as:

However, the atheist cannot work within the framework of theology, because theology presupposes that God exists, a notion which atheists reject as either untrue or - more commonly -absurd/improbable.

And you continue to make such claims throughout this thread.

I'll say it once more in the hope it's going to sink in....

Atheists merely reject the claims made by theists, nothing more nothing less. And this rejection is not itself a claim of any sort. It's the same as a case being thrown out of court due to a lack of evidence, no positive judgement has been made either way as the case was not convincing enough.

The problem isn't that agnostics don't have the cajones to admit to being atheist, it's that atheists deny existence of any deity (if they don't, then which deity do they not deny?), yet lack to conviction to commit to anti-theism. Furthermore, in order to do this, atheists tend to define themselves in almost agnostic terms.

To deny is to refuse an obvious truth (such as the holocaust and evolution), and once again you assign properties to atheists that are of your own creation....

I say almost because it is not the same, as I'm apparently having trouble helping you understand. If you lack belief based on claims, you have made a judgment call. Agnosticism makes no such judgment.

See above, the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim....

What change in definition? I've maintained the whole time that theists believe there is evidence for God (and thus believe), atheists believe there is no evidence for God (and thus do not believe), and agnostics don't hold that the evidence presented does not sway them one way or another.

Theists do not require evidence as a given, nor do atheists. And unless a person accepts the claims made by a theist, guess what?

The argument given that agnostics are atheists goes somewhat like this: agnostics do not have a positive belief in God, ergo, atheism. The problem with this is that agnostics do not have a belief either way. Also, keep in mind that I am aware of the definitions and that, technically speaking, every person on Earth is either a). agnostic b). full of it or c). seriously holding out on some major mind-blowing discovery. In the context of the OP, the question of agnostic vs. atheist is not about definitions, but about how words are actually used - and moreover, why agnostics don't commit to atheism.

You either accept the claims or you don't.....and if you don't you're not then saying anything other than the fact that you don't accept the claims, not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

It is interesting that you argue that agnostics are really atheists, yet don't mention anything about us really being theists.

It's a given that most theists are Gnostic theists, they claim that they know a god exists. But why would I mention that in the context of this thread? was it really that interesting?

Theists accept claims of God. Agnostics do not reject claims of God. If you do not reject something, it follows that you accept it, does it not? Ergo, agnostic=theism.

You're not a theist are you? you must have rejected the claims...

So, is agnostic=atheism, is it the same as theism - or is it just something on its own.

No i'd say 90% of atheists are agnostic atheists, they have not accepted the claims but do not claim to know there is no god.

I've also seen the assertion that we are all born atheist. I reject that assertion and state that instead we are born agnostic (and we remain so). It comes down to labels. Both theists and atheists use rationale to defend the claim that there probably is or isn't a god. You can try to mince words and say that "disbelief" and "lack of belief" are different all you want. Do you believe in God? If you answer "no" then you do not believe - disbelief.

Babies are born without a belief in a god making them atheists.

And not believing in gods, the rejection of the claims for gods, is not the same as saying that you know there are no gods.

If I believed that evidence was tipped in the favor of not believing in God, I would certainly identify myself as atheist. The thing here is, I do not believe evidence is tipped in the direction of atheism or theism - it is firmly balanced. Yet, if you persist in saying that so long as I do not say "I believe in God" that I'm an atheist, and there's no middle ground - then sure, by your understanding of atheism, I am an atheist.

Not my definition, but the commonly used and accepted definition. Your position and thread falls through once you have the stones to come to terms with this error.

However, why label yourself atheist and not agnostic, if the two terms are interchangeable? Could it be that you place more importance on assumptions than knowledge?

As I have said neither is mutually exclusive. You are an agnostic atheist, just like me.

Why is it, you guys, and gals, that no matter how many threads I make or read or reply to....

I just don't know what to think about "God" and religion?..except:

I just don't know.

I don't know!!!

I can't force myself to believe - and I can't convince myself not to, either. Truly:

I DON'T KNOW.


And I'm kind of fine with that -- I guess I have to be....so, it's okay at this point in my life.
I don't know. I just don't know.

Can that not be an acceptable stance?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Not my definition, but the commonly used and accepted definition.

Commonly used and accepted by whom - the atheist community? Yes, okay, the same community that took an already well-defined term and changed its meaning for some reason or another. Having no position on the matter of whether or not God exists is agnosticism. This is not atheism, which is the position that God does not exist.

Babies are born without a belief in a god making them atheists.

I'll concede this point. Agnostic atheist, eh?

As I have said neither is mutually exclusive. You are an agnostic atheist, just like me.

Not quite. I am agnostic in the truest sense. I have no beliefs one way or another. However, I would say that what makes the most sense to me is monism (at least from what I know of it). However, if I were shown science that shows monism to be utter horse crap, I'd go with the science. Still, I don't believe in monism. As far as God as presented in Christianity and other religions with a similar concept of God (minus the whole resurrection) thing - seems rather unlikely.

By your (and most of the atheist community's) understanding of "atheism" - then yes, I'm atheist. Born and raised, in fact. Still, I would label myself agnostic over atheist, because I find the evidence to support there being no god equally lacking.

You're not a theist are you? you must have rejected the claims...

To me, rejecting something can only be done with knowledge. If I "reject" the claim that there is a god, this is the same as saying I know there is no God. I would say that I do not agree that the definitions/explanations of God are rational.

This quote pretty much sums my own view up pretty well:

"Apathetic agnostics believe the question of the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant." [citation]

Still, unimportant does not mean "not interesting"

a reply to: Ghost147

First, my apologies in taking so long to get back to you regarding this particular reply.

Could you explain to me why you believe that any and all possibilities hold equal ground as what we've observed and tested?

Simple - additional knowledge. I'll elaborate a little by stating I agree with you that it is a waste of time to explore every literal possibility - at an individual level. However, I think there is nothing irrational about individuals being curious and exploring on their own. Maybe it will just lead to dead-ends, but maybe some useful knowledge could be gained. Would I advocate dedicating tax-payer money to researching something like extra-dimensional beings - no.

There's no way to prove that it is not either of those things, or anything else we can imagine.

That is the point I'm trying to make.

Point well-made, understood, and conceded.

The answer is that "being all powerful cannot exist."

Ha, I'd like to see a theist use that logic.

You don't move anywhere by making unfalsifiable claims. Why? because there's nothing to go off of to begin with. Unfalsifiable claims are empty for a reason. It suggests nothing of value, it gives no substance to anything, it is adding with Zero.

I'd agree in general, but not in the context of hallucinations. While I'm fairly sure we will never get to a point when we have evidence for or against God, it is conceivable, at least, that we could have evidence for other dimensions - I believe there may already be some indications for this and I know there is research going on (such as at CERN) looking for this. I realize that extra-dimensional beings inducing hallucinations is far-fetched - but I would not go so far as to label it "unfalsifiable." It wouldn't even have to be a "being" so much as something - even unicorn feces.

Identical in it's totality, no. But specific parts of the brain do activate just like they normally would when responding to an event that uses any of these senses: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive.

I'm still unclear. Does this mean if you look at the individual parts, it would appear the same, but if you looked at it as a whole, you'd see abnormalities? If you don't want to be bothered to explain further here, could you just link me to the pertinent information?

Dreaming is essentially the same as hallucination, only the individual is unconscious.

Interesting. Can a person engage in lucid dreaming while unconscious? Or is this a type of being awake that somehow still allows for a restful sleep?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369
Commonly used and accepted by whom - the atheist community? Yes, okay, the same community that took an already well-defined term and changed its meaning for some reason or another. Having no position on the matter of whether or not God exists is agnosticism. This is not atheism, which is the position that God does not exist.

And this is why your thread and position is based on a false premise and why it ultimately fails.

I'll concede this point. Agnostic atheist, eh?

Yep just like you and I.

Not quite. I am agnostic in the truest sense. I have no beliefs one way or another. However, I would say that what makes the most sense to me is monism (at least from what I know of it). However, if I were shown science that shows monism to be utter horse crap, I'd go with the science. Still, I don't believe in monism. As far as God as presented in Christianity and other religions with a similar concept of God (minus the whole resurrection) thing - seems rather unlikely.

By your (and most of the atheist community's) understanding of "atheism" - then yes, I'm atheist. Born and raised, in fact. Still, I would label myself agnostic over atheist, because I find the evidence to support there being no god equally lacking.

Evidence one or the other has no bearing on this issue, what does however is your lack of belief.

To me, rejecting something can only be done with knowledge. If I "reject" the claim that there is a god, this is the same as saying I know there is no God.

If a jury rejects the claims of the prosecutor they find the defendant 'not guilty' and not 'innocent'. Atheists, by default, find the case for a god to be 'not guilty'.

You do not have to make a positive claim of anything in order to reject a claim.

This quote pretty much sums my own view up pretty well:

"Apathetic agnostics believe the question of the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant." [citation]

Still, unimportant does not mean "not interesting"

Kinda does, it's synonymous with insignificant, inconsequential, insubstantial, immaterial, trivial etc.

But even if find the question to be irrelevant and unimportant, you still lack the belief theists hold which in turn would make you an atheist.

I understand people want to be special, to be privy to knowledge when others are not (we are on ATS after all), but there is no third option, you either have a belief in god/s or you don't, you either collect stamps or you don't...

a reply to: Prezbo369

If I wanted to be special, I'd just say I was God.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Is this your blog?

Or is the "stamps" argument a common one?

Here's the situation. We have a term "atheist," which means "without God." Originally this meant a belief that there was no God. Agnostics were the ones who "lacked belief."

The problem came with burden of proof. Theists make the positive claim - so they have burden of proof. However, if atheists say "there is no god" - they, too, have burden of proof. So, how do you get past this? - by making the definition of "atheist" broader so that it now includes agnostics.

Atheism, at its core, is the belief there is no God. The truth is, without changing the definition, atheism would be as untenable as theism. What before we called atheists and agnostics, today are called anti-theists and agnostic atheists.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369

Is this your blog?

Or is the "stamps" argument a common one?

Not my blog and the stamp collector analogy is common as it demonstrates the point very well.

Here's the situation. We have a term "atheist," which means "without God." Originally this meant a belief that there was no God. Agnostics were the ones who "lacked belief."

Agnosticism is a relatively modern word unlike atheist which actually originally and etymologically meant:

A - without

Theism - Belief in a god

Again your argument only makes any sense if you attempt to twist and change definitions.

The problem came with burden of proof. Theists make the positive claim - so they have burden of proof. However, if atheists say "there is no god" - they, too, have burden of proof. So, how do you get past this? - by making the definition of "atheist" broader so that it now includes agnostics.

As I have explained, the vast majority atheists do not claim that there is no god and never have done. They just have not been convinced of the claims made by theists. In the past the people defining the word were for the most part theists who simply couldn't comprehend the fact that these people didn't share their belief (I've not eaten a single baby this year).

Atheism, at its core, is the belief there is no God. The truth is, without changing the definition, atheism would be as untenable as theism. What before we called atheists and agnostics, today are called anti-theists and agnostic atheists.

'The truth is'....lol

Once again you're making up tales and as I previously said, 'talking out of your ass'.

And claiming you're a god would mean you're insane, very different to wanting to be a special snowflake.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Ah, I see...now it's me changing the definition? I'm going to just end this back and forth right here. At this point we are arguing about terminology and I have bigger fish to fry. I prefer to be labeled agnostic not for fear of being called atheist (I proudly claimed that title from when I could start talking until I was in my 20s)- but simply that my focus is on not knowing. I am not concerned with theists proving that their god exists - the concern is with showing them how their belief is illogical.

Anyhow, this particular argument is over - it is serving no one.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369

Ah, I see...now it's me changing the definition?

No not now, you've been doing that since the OP, and I've said as much a few times...

At this point we are arguing about terminology and I have bigger fish to fry.

Ah yes, attempting to convince theists that their beliefs are irrational, unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable; absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous, silly, foolish, senseless etc etc. Seems to be at odds with your apparent position.

I prefer to be labeled agnostic not for fear of being called atheist (I proudly claimed that title from when I could start talking until I was in my 20s)- but simply that my focus is on not knowing. I am not concerned with theists proving that their god exists - the concern is with showing them how their belief is illogical.

No you seem to be concerned with theists having 'irrational' beliefs?

But you really proudly "claimed that title from when I could start talking"?.....how would you even know that that was what you were at such an age?

And once again, atheists by default do not claim to know...

Anyhow, this particular argument is over - it is serving no one.

You've argued yourself into an untenable position, so other than the above the only option you'd have now would be to concede.