Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?

I think everyone has to be technically "agnostic" when it comes to immaterial beings including theists-- we can't "know" whether such beings exist or not, but since they tend to be indistinguishable from non-existent (or mythical) beings, it's rational to treat them as such.In my experience it's theists who claim knowledge they don't actually have. It's they who claim to "know" certain invisible beings exist (gods, souls, angels, and demons) while being certain that others don't (Xenu, fairies, incubi, Thetans, invisible penguins, gremlins etc.) Moreover, they often claim to know what these invisible beings did, think, do, want, etc. Of course, they don't agree with each other, and brain scans show that theists tend to imagine that their god thinks just like them. Just a moment... Atheists don't lay claim to divine knowledge or "higher truths". I want to know what believers are using to determine the real immeasurable entities and realms from the imaginary ones. I don't think there is a valid method for doing so, though every believer in the supernatural seems to think they've found the secret. I'm not even sure I've heard a clear definition of god.I see no evidence that any immaterial/divine/magical beings exist and so I disbelieve in all of them. I think if there were evidence for such things, scientists would be testing, refining, and honing that evidence to distinguish such things from illusions. I don't even know what an immaterial being would be-- how it could think or feel or perceive anything without sensory organs and a brain. As far as I'm concerned, they are all cut from the same cloth as the proverbial emperor's new clothes. Sure, there could be invisible fabrics that only the "chosen" can see, but...A lot of agnostics seem to think that agnosticism is "being on the fence" about the existence of god-- but why would you be on the fence about god if you aren't on the fence about gremlins or invisible penguins? Heck I'm not even on the fence about alien visitation. I don't believe that aliens are visiting people even though I understand that some people truly believe they ARE getting such visits and there are very likely to be aliens on other planets.I think a lot of people fear consequences of non-belief in god, and so they claim to be on the fence in case some invisible overlord cares and would punish them for lack of faith. I also think the religions have indoctrinated people to hear the term "atheist" as being scary. People have been indoctrinated to believe that "having faith" is the equivalent of "being moral". Edited by articulett, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Of course.
I can imagine an absolutely straight line, latitude and longitude, several magnitudes of "infinity", parallel lines that meet and even cross, dragons and elves, even the god you try to market.

---

Disagree. All of that already exists; lines, latitudes, etc are not something NEW that never existed. But one cannot imagine infinity, not even theoretically; we strive to, but really we cannot. Infinite is a pristine 'ONE' - irreducible and indivisible, and thus not subject to change. We cannot percieve anything not subject to change, thus we cannot fathom or even imagine infinity - it does not exist in this universe. Thus, GD IS ONE.This begs the question, is a new song new? All the notes existed and were at all times dangling in the atmosphere. Next it asks, from where did the imagined thought emerge from, if it never existed before? This is why one must always state their preamble up front and up top: if we subscribe to a finite universe, then that thought is post-universe; it always existed.Its about ex nehilo [something from nothing]. Of note, this premise was introduced in Genesis' first chapter. Here, we find the term CREATE as used only in this first chapter; thereafter it is replaced with the word FORMED [something from something else]. It is no typo!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

So background radiation ever existed 500 years ago? And the earth was flat before the telescope?

Please learn to actually read what people write and respond to what was written and in particular, stop misrepresenting what I say.I'll repeat so perhaps you can get someone to read it to you slowly. Read ALL the words.

What?

The evidence for these things existed even before we discovered such things. Contrast this to gods and such-- people appear to believe in all sorts of invisible magical and mystical beings despite there never having been an iota of evidence for any such being and lots and lots of evidence that people are prone to delusions on the subject. Moreover, whenever we find a real explanation, it never is a supernatural explanation... in fact, believing in the supernatural, often makes it very hard for people to understand actual facts.If it rains after a rain dance, you are less likely to learn that dances have no affect on the weather. And if it doesn't rain and yet you believe rain dances affect weather, then you would probably just conclude that you need to try harder and add a few steps or something. The believer in rain dances is, not only less likely to learn actual causes of rain, they are unlikely to learn about drought resistant crops and irrigation techniques and other scientific advancements. I'd say the same is true with all superstitions including those involving gods.(Remember people invented their gods back in a time when they were not aware of things like schizophrenia, logical fallacies, the scientific method, and such. Science has error correcting mechanisms; faith does not.)

quote:

---

In my experience it's theist who claim knowledge they don't actually have.

---

"IN ITS DUE TIME' applies. There is a good arguement that all was created in an instant, then disclosed in its due time. This says that knowledge comes from a higher realm and poured down into minds when its time has come - if this process breaks down and advanced knowledge descends before its due time, our minds would disintergrate instantly.If one ponders how an idea enters our mind, we will find that this is not always the result of deep contemplation or hard mental work: it can come in an instant with no pre-thought like a flash, and sometimes we see things by accident and shout Eureka! There has never been an example when a new idea comes before ts due time: examine every discovery of humanity. Thus this cryptic verse:'THERE IS NOTHING NEW' [K. Solomon].And'I SHALL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAIN AND THE LATTER RAINS.' Early and latter refers to its fastidious accuracy.

The question remains, where did the new thought come from? If from within the boundaries of this universe, then it cannot be new - despite that the thing never existed in our own particular reality. Understand the mechanics of a thought - it just connects with forces already existing in some form, and we merely connect them in new ways. So yes, parts of a unicorn and devls always existed - we connect things like horns in new ways just as we do with a new song.There is no 'from there' for something new to come from!

I'm not marketing anything, just making alternate positions just as everyone else is. There are always only two choices: there is a universe maker or not; the universe is finite or not.In my mind, there is no merit in belief; it is fully reliant in one's inculcation. Some may change their views, but critical mass applies - 99.9% do not. This becomes especially so with blackmail: if you don't believe in my version you are doomed to hell forever - or a blessing to kill. Huanity is still in its stupid phase, and this gave credence to atheism.

But I don't think the believer in the supernatural really knows anything... they just feel like they do. To me, the believer in the 3-in-1 Jesus-god is as deluded as the Mormon, the Scientologist, the Muslim, the rain dancer, the schizophrenic and the neighbor lady who thinks she saw a chupacabra.I don't see how any of their supernatural beliefs are any more likely to be true than the supernatural beliefs they dismiss. I understand that believers in such things FEEL like they have good reasons to believe, but in my experience, real things are distinguishable from delusions when tested. Believers seldom put their faith to such a test. They would rather keep believing than to find out that they were as wrong as all those other believers in the "wrong" faiths.Naturalists tend to be people who were once believers, but they got tired of fooling themselves. They'd rather admit to not knowing than to believe a lie. When you believe a lie, you are likely to confirm your biases and unlikely to learn the truth as it is discovered.
Those who imagine themselves saved for their beliefs have an especially strong interest in preserving their faith and finding ways to negate all information that threatens it.

Please learn to actually read what people write and respond to what was written and in particular, stop misrepresenting what I say.I'll repeat so perhaps you can get someone to read it to you slowly. Read ALL the words.Try to actually address what I write.

It sounds like you are describing progressive revelation. One might declare that they know something to be true, because eventually God will reveal it to be so. But that doesn't seem to serve as proof, merely as a belief in progressive revelation.Or am I misrepresenting your position?

quote:

---

Reply to: Message 37 by IamJoseph
08-27-2011 11:12 AM

​

But I don't think the believer in the supernatural really knows anything

---

We know 'EVERYTHING' there is to know - potentially. There is only one thing we do not know: the origins of anything. The B to Z is in our grasp; the A is elusive. We are ever chasing the A, dissatisfied with everything else given us - this is what the story of Adam and Eve metaphorically represents.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Thoughts evolved in creatures who survived better that their peers that weren't so thoughtful. So did pain. And the will to live. And socia skills.It's not really a magical mystery that requires us to invoke an immaterial magical thought giver.If our true natures were immaterial, why even invent matter-- without matter, there'd be no pain, hunger, poop, mess, etc. Why not heavenly perfection for all beings all the time.From my experience, god is a much bigger "conundrum" than he's supposed to explain. He doesn't really make any sense-- and I know theists are told that it's all part of the mystery of god and that it's arrogant to think you can understand god, but I don't think there's really anything there to be understood.

It does not rely on any theology. In fact the only truth in a theology is not that they know something; it is only an exploitation of a scientifically sound premise that a universe must have a universe maker. Its alternate is not a scientific premise, and one also exploited by atheism same as any theology does. The proof factor does not apply: it is neutralized by both parties not possessing this. Only the sound premise rules.