Something that I don't get with religious people, is how do they know that their religion is right? Many of them say that their religion is the "true" one, but never give reasons for it.

There is hundreds of religions out there. What makes them so sure that their religion is the correct religion? What makes them "stick" to it and not another one?

This wasn't an anti-religion thing or anything. I'm just curious. So could somebody (prefeably religious) out there give me an answer?

Thanks

Beacuse it was handed down from their anscestors. "Our fathers were our models for god, if our fathers failed, what does this tell us about god" -fughtclub, just about sums it up.

I think you are referring to the middle eastern 3: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Mine doesn't say there is only one right faith.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

I think you are referring to the middle eastern 3: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Mine doesn't say there is only one right faith.

Isn't athiesm the right religion?

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

Isn't athiesm the right religion?

Yeah it is, and you know how I know it is, because science, common sence, sanity, logic, and just not being a deuchebag say it is.

Atheism is full of douche bags with their, I'm right your wrong attitude. Go agnosticism!

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

Atheism is full of douche bags with their, I'm right your wrong attitude. Go agnosticism!

And like agnosticism isn't jam-packed full of pseudointellectual emos?

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

Atheism is full of douche bags with their, I'm right your wrong attitude. Go agnosticism!

Agnosticism is weak athiesm... btw.

Agnosticism is not a Religion. It's a conscious choice to be indecisive or to continue seeking evidence of one side or the other before committing to a belief.

Agnosticism is fear of being wrong...

I'm not condemning Agnosticism in principle, I am saying that those who are using Agnosticism as thier "religion" as if it were a conviction are weak willed fence-sitters with no active drive to find their own personal truth. "I don't know" is not a final destination...it's a way point on a road.

Atheism means lacking a belief in a god or gods. Adding weak to it shouldn't make it the same as agnosticism. Just use agnosticism!

Of course agnosticism isn't a religion, but it belongs with religion since there are those who believe in gods and those who do not. And I am agnostic. How am I fearful of being wrong? I just understand that there isn't proof on either side proving their beliefs.

There is hundreds of religions out there. What makes them so sure that their religion is the correct religion? What makes them "stick" to it and not another one?

This is going to vary from person to person. The differences stem from a host of internal and external sources. No one knows what the right religion is, or if there is even a right religion. This term is too broad. But, if we were to reduce our rationale by a fraction of a fraction, of a fraction, what would the sum equal? We would have to define reality. I mean, afterall, what IS reality? How do we define it?

The natural man recognizes the obvious and in some way expects to recieve accalaids for it. He gauges the whole of life through his five senses. This is a good thing, until he arrogantly supposes that he is the very champion of rationality, or that he presupposes that nothing could extend beyone what he personally knows to be true.... Or, thinks he knows to be true. He is a slave though, to his own desires. The more he seeks to satisfy the baser appetites of the flesh, the hungrier he becomes. His thirst is never quenched, because the flesh always wants more. The only god he knows is nestled precariously, somewhere between his stomach, and his genitals. He's a creature of instinct instead of intellect. He may be intelligent, but he is still a fool. He will die as a fool, as he lives, only to die like the beast of the field.

The man who knows God has weighed the juxtaposition between all the clever nuances that a worldy system has to offer. He is released from the cynicism that oppressed him.

Let me say this much: Religion is lame. You will never find the answers you're looking for in it. Relgion is man's puny attempt to reach God/god/gods/goddeses, whatever. But God is reaching for man, not man striving for God. We can't give Him anything, and we owe Him nothing. This leaves the adherent in a stupor. He can't earn it, he can't work for it, and he does not deserve it. When he humbles himself as a child does, it becomes so clear. And for the first time in his life, he knows what peace is... True peace, not this synthetic, worldly and vain system that many follow.

Stop looking at Christianity and start looking at Christ.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

...Agnosticism is fear of being wrong...

I have no fear of being wrong. I simply understand that there is no possible way to prove or disprove the existance of a god. Thus agnosticism is more logical.

While I find that the existance of a god to be extremely unlikely, it is possible.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I have no fear of being wrong. I simply understand that there is no possible way to prove or disprove the existance of a god. Thus agnosticism is more logical.

While I find that the existance of a god to be extremely unlikely, it is possible.



Truck is right... I used to be agnostic, because it makes more sense than atheism. Besides, it's impossible to be an atheist.

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

Atheism is full of douche bags with their, I'm right your wrong attitude. Go agnosticism!

agnosticism is hypocritical.

by being agnostic, you say there could be a god, but there also could not be a god. you are serving two masters, something which God condemns. so by being agnostic you are damning yourself by doing what the god you say could exist says you're not supposed to do.

PirateJoe that is quite possibly the stupidest post I have ever read, keep up the good work.

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

agnosticism is hypocritical.

No Joe, it really isn't. It's the intelligent choice of the two. You can't empirically prove God's existance through the material universe, only see certain of evidences through nature. We must know God by faith. (His rules, not mine.)

Secondly, to be an atheist is an impossible act for mankind. You cannot ever prove something doesn't exist, if it in fact, doesn't exist. Therefore, stating that you are an atheist is making an absolute statement. It is claiming to have all knowledge. (In which case, if you possessed all-knowledge, you would be God, and subsequently would ruin all chances to be an atheist.)

you are serving two masters, something which God condemns. so by being agnostic you are damning yourself by doing what the god you say could exist says you're not supposed to do.

What difference should that make to a person who neither believes in God or disbelieves?

So you see, agnosticsm is a fair alternative to the one who is undecided in their faith.

Either way, I don't see your qualm with it. We all know agnosticism is 'soft-atheism' anyway. I've never met an agnostic that was leaning more toward a deity than those who are repelled by the notion.

[/B]

1)name one 'certain evidence' of god

2) you're right, i cannot prove that something does not exist. but if there is overwhelming evidence for one side of the argument, and no evidence for the other side, which are you going to pick?

3)because the agnostic knows there could be a god. he has a 50-50 chance of fucking himself over and he knows it.thats the key.

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:

PirateJoe that is quite possibly the stupidest post I have ever read, keep up the good work.

thank you boblong, that was a very insightful post. mind posting why you think mine was a retarded post?

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

1)name one 'certain evidence' of god

2) you're right, i cannot prove that something does not exist. but if there is overwhelming evidence for one side of the argument, and no evidence for the other side, which are you going to pick?

3)because the agnostic knows there could be a god. he has a 50-50 chance of fucking himself over and he knows it.thats the key.

No sir, that's not the key. The key is that we do not blindly follow the beliefs of atheists or theists.

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:



by being agnostic, you say there could be a god, but there also could not be a god.



No, the agnostic's belief is that there isn't sufficient proof of god/no-god. You don't have to have a belief of the afterlife.

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:



you are serving two masters, something which God condemns.



Idiot, agnosticism is not a polarity, but a neutrality. If this was a political stage, it wound be anti-democrat, anti-repulican, pro-middle.

Something which god condemns? Agnosticism do not believe in God - well, most of them. They only belief there might be a God. You say "God" like he exists but he is only your imagination.

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:



so by being agnostic you are damning yourself by doing what the god you say could exist says you're not supposed to do.



WHAT FUCKING GOD? The Christian God, Islamic Allah, Bhuddist God, BoB? I think you don't understand what theism means:

"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

I don't know what my religion is, but people tend to refer to me as "badass". I sure like the sound of "badass" far better than some sissy shit like "Christian" or "Islamic" or "Atheist" or some dumb shit like that.

I am agnostic when it comes to the physical existence of the gods, but I still believe in them.

I know that one can never prove it either way, so why make a claim you can't back up?

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

Isn't athiesm the right religion?

It is, in any case, a religion, in its own right. And, oddly enough, totally dependant on theism...

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Yeah it [atheism] is [the right religion], and you know how I know it is, because science, common sence, sanity, logic, and just not being a deuchebag say it is.

Science makes no actual predictions about gods, one way or the other*.

Common sense also tells you that the earth is flat.

Logic does not equal truth.

There are deuchebags (or douche bags, rather) in, as well as outside of, all religions and systems of belief...

*The "hard" sciences, and its scientists, seldom mention god(s), or even relate their theories to god(s). And as far as they do, they are certainly not making attempts to "prove" anything about god(s).

---------------

In his book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for -- a so-called "theory of everything" -- then they will have seen into "the mind of God".

Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about?

Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.

Source (broken link or not):

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/cosmohaw-body.html

--------------

The only "hard" scientific theory I can think of, that actually refers to god, is the Omega Point theory:

http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html

And that particular scientific theory supposes the existance of a god!

Note the last sentence in the earlier quote:

"The question of just what is 'God' has taxed theologians for thousands of years;"

...compare it to this statement:

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

you are serving two masters, something which God condemns. so by being agnostic you are damning yourself by doing what the god you say could exist says you're not supposed to do.

...and then remind yourselves that a vast majority of Theologians are theists, belonging to one, or another, particular religion...

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

agnosticism is hypocritical.

I guess that you, like most intelligent people (and some foxes), look both ways, before crossing a street. Does that make you and me hypocrits as well?!

quote:by being agnostic, you say there could be a god, but there also could not be a god.

So far, so good, but then it goes wrong:

quote:you are serving two masters,

No. The agnostic is more correctly described as serving no master(s).

And the possible absence of a god, cannot be a master to serve -- not even in theory, and/or for the sake of argument.

Which makes this:

quote:you are serving two masters, something which God condemns.

...invalid, even if there is a god, that actually happens to claim monopoly...

quote:so by being agnostic you are damning yourself by doing what the god you say could exist says you're not supposed to do.



Most unlikely, if the god in question finds it reasonable to evaluate human actions and thought processes within the grasp of same.

Believe me or not, but...

It is perfectly safe to stand nowhere!

FoxLeonard *posting from the void*



[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-10-2005).]

malaria!

It is not my intention to make fun of you, but when you say:

quote: Originally posted by malaria:

I am agnostic when it comes to the physical existence of the gods, but I still believe in them.

I can't help that I come to think of Niels Bohr, one of the "fathers" of Quantum Physics:

A visitor to Niels Bohr's country home noticed a horseshoe hanging on a wall and teased the eminent physicist about his apparent superstition.

"Can it be," the visitor asked, "that you, of all people, believe it will bring you luck?"

"Of course not," Bohr replied, "but I understand it works whether you believe it or not."

On a more serious note, it would be interesting if you could elaborate on your statement...

...if it is possible to elaborate on, that is...

quote:I know that one can never prove it either way, so why make a claim you can't back up?

It is possible to know, without being able to tell, much less "prove".

Gnosis is not transferable...

Religions are founded on what mystics say when they come back. But what they say when they come back is not what happened to them!

There are indeed things that cannot be put into words...

FoxLeonard

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

Of course agnosticism isn't a religion, but it belongs with religion since there are those who believe in gods and those who do not.

We agree on this.

quote: And I am agnostic. How am I fearful of being wrong? I just understand that there isn't proof on either side proving their beliefs.

Read the entire post again, not just the single sentence sandwiched in the middle of spaces. Not every agnostic fears being wrong, but to be agnostic one must be uncertain enough to not make a decision to go one way or the other in the boolean equation of theism/atheism. Unfortunately, the logic forces you to choose "maybe" because you have not observed enough evidence one way or the other. However, when it comes to things like theism/atheism, there simply cannot be "enough" evidence of a subjective nature to prove one side or the other, thus leaps of faith and subjective evidence comes into play. It is the fear of abandoning limited logic that prevents any leaps of faith or experiencial evidence to accrue to allow the agnostic to make an ultimate leaning on the matter, whether it be for or against. There is nothing wrong with logic. But logic alone will never find the answers. Logic must be tempered with curiosity, hunger for experiences and information, and an active pursuit of some THING to give one sufficient "evidence" in their own mind to decide what exactly they believe.

Agnosticism, by nature, MUST be incorrect, as far as a belief or conviction. The answer cannot "logically" be Yes AND No. Thus the state of being an agnostic for logic's sake, is, by logic, a way point on a journey to discover that evidence you lack to choose one or the other. Agnosticism is not a belief, it is a failure to believe, or conscious choice to withhold belief pending further "information".

Being a seeker is one thing, but being a career agnostic is to fear to make the wrong choice, or the wrong leap of faith, or to experience the wrong thing...to fear to commit, lest your information or the processing of it should be flawed...

As I said before, Agnosticism is not a destination or goal, it's an indecision at a crossroads. Being proud of indecisiveness is lunacy. Being proud of the ability to admit indecisiveness and work through it is acceptable, however.

Are you proud to be Agnostic? Or are you proud to know you can admit you are indecisive and endeavor to work past it?

Excellent post and reasoning, Mr Wyrm!

Just a few comments:

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

leaps of faith and subjective evidence comes into play.

Yes. And then again, when the subjective becomes evidence, it is not any longer subjective...

quote:It is the fear of abandoning limited logic that prevents any leaps of faith or experiencial evidence to accrue to allow the agnostic to make an ultimate leaning on the matter, whether it be for or against.

I very much doubt that fear is the most common reason for agnostic standpoints. Not fear of abandoning logic -- limited or not -- anyway. Nor fear of being wrong, if chosing one or the other. But probably, to some extent, fear of taking the leap.

quote:There is nothing wrong with logic. But logic alone will never find the answers. Logic must be tempered with curiosity, hunger for experiences and information,

True, and not only in this particular context.

However, it is in this context that what you say next:

quote:and an active pursuit of some THING to give one sufficient "evidence" in their own mind to decide what exactly they believe.

...goes wrong. Because an active pursuit will only take us further away...

quote:Agnosticism, by nature, MUST be incorrect, as far as a belief or conviction.

No. Agnosticism is seemingly incorrect, when discussed (in this manner), but it is correct for the "unconvinced" individual. S/he cannot possibly be in the state of "after the leap" before said leap has occured.

It is, however, possible -- even likely -- that the leap is delayed, by a "too" agnostic stance...

quote:The answer cannot "logically" be Yes AND No.

"There are trivial truths and profound truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth."

Said by Niels Bohr, who also, to one of his students, said:

"No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."

quote:Thus the state of being an agnostic for logic's sake,

To be agnostic for logics sake is to put the carriage before the horse.

quote:Agnosticism is not a belief

Erm, no it is not. But who claimed that it is? Agnosticism can, however, be the expression of knowledge about the lack of same.

quote:Being a seeker is one thing,

There are far too many "seekers" as it is. Become a finder instead!

quote:Agnosticism is not a destination or goal, it's an indecision at a crossroads.

But often enough an indecisiveness for good reason.

quote:Being proud of indecisiveness is lunacy.

Is it not equal lunacy to prematurely chose a standpoint "for" or "against"?!

quote:Being proud of the ability to admit indecisiveness and work through it is acceptable, however.

"Acceptable", as in: "still somewhat wrong"?!

quote:Are you proud to be Agnostic? Or are you proud to know you can admit you are indecisive and endeavor to work past it?

I understand that I can not fully understand, that I can't understand...

Thus I do not know that I can not know...

Wich makes it possible for me to learn more, to understand even less...

FoxLeonard



[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

On a more serious note, it would be interesting if you could elaborate on your statement...

...if it is possible to elaborate on, that is...

It is possible to know, without being able to tell, much less "prove".

Gnosis is not transferable...

Religions are founded on what mystics say when they come back. But what they say when they come back is not what happened to them!

There are indeed things that cannot be put into words...

That's what I meant by not being able to prove it. You said exactly what I was thinking, you can't put some things into words.

I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on, though.

Well, I think you just did, if only to some extent, perhaps.

As you claim to be in agreement with what you quoted from me, that might be all you can say -- by the use of language...

Thoughts and language are not the instruments. But there are no other instruments -- for this...

Which makes it equally near impossible to put questions, of course.

Perhaps we should post in silence...

But I'll make one attempt:

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

I am agnostic when it comes to the physical existence of the gods, but I still believe in them.

Does that belief actually equal a knowledge, of a kind that cannot be put into words?

Am I correct if I say that you seem very comfortable in this position of part agnosticism, part belief/knowledge?

I'm fully aware that it might be impossible to answer even "yes/no" to the first question.

FoxLeonard -- a curious canine

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Does that belief actually equal a knowledge, of a kind that cannot be put into words?

I wouldn't believe in them out of mere 'hope' of their existence, if that helps you any.

quote:Am I correct if I say that you seem very comfortable in this position of part agnosticism, part belief/knowledge?

I am 100% agnostic and 100% believer at the same time. It must be one of those paradoxes like Jesus the man as a living God http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif).

I know I can never prove to anyone else what I know to be true, so I am agnostic in that respect that it can never be proven beyond myself. That probably makes no sense, but it does to me.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

I wouldn't believe in them out of mere 'hope' of their existence, if that helps you any.

That clarifies your standpoint, and confirms my (silent) guess.

quote:I am 100% agnostic and 100% believer at the same time. It must be one of those paradoxes like Jesus the man as a living God http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif).

Then you are in good company http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:I know I can never prove to anyone else what I know to be true,

But do you need to? Would you attempt to prove it, if you believed it to be at all possible?

quote:so I am agnostic in that respect that it can never be proven beyond myself. That probably makes no sense, but it does to me.

Makes perfect sense to me, I can assure you.

However, if I look at the first part of your original statement again, and take it in its most literal sense, it says (emphasis added by FoxLeonard):

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

I am agnostic when it comes to the physical existence of the gods

Is the lack of a(n obvious) physical existence, of the god(s), the (only) reason that you cannot prove "anything" to anybody but yourself?

Or, is it also -- even first and foremost -- the lack of an appropriate language that hampers you (and everyone else)?

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

But do you need to? Would you attempt to prove it, if you believed it to be at all possible?

No, I don't need to. I don't believe in converting people. Staying agnostic in this respect leaves me out of the inevitable 'prove it/they exist' debate, which I have no interest in getting into.

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Is the lack of a(n obvious) physical existence, of the god(s), the (only) reason that you cannot prove "anything" to anybody but yourself?

Or, is it also -- even first and foremost -- the lack of an appropriate language that hampers you (and everyone else)?

Physical evidence always seems to be subjective, so I feel it is impossible to provide any.

It is also the lack of an appropriate language, though. How does one communicate something incommunicable?

With that said, most people don't know what I believe and I generally keep it that way. It's difficult to begin to explain to people who are not even remotely familiar with religion (even their own), so it's best to be ambiguous, I find.

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:



2) you're right, i cannot prove that something does not exist. but if there is overwhelming evidence for one side of the argument, and no evidence for the other side, which are you going to pick?

Are you saying that there's overwhelming evidence for atheism? If so, please tell me what the evidence is, I'd love to hear it.

Agnosticism is the most logical in my opinion.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

It is also the lack of an appropriate language, though. How does one communicate something incommunicable?

Perhaps by using another language, instead of the thought/spoken/written word?

quote:It's difficult to begin to explain to people who are not even remotely familiar with religion (even their own), so it's best to be ambiguous, I find.

Is it significantly more easy to explain -- even discuss -- your personal standpoint and faith, to people who are familiar with religion?

Is it significantly more easy to explain -- even discuss -- your personal standpoint(s), to people who belong to one or another religion?

Yes, that's two different questions, and I realize that you might have replied to one of them, at least in part, but in a somewhat murky way. Thereby not implying that my questions are less murky... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

And note that I refer to your personal standpoint -- the part-100%-agnostic-part-100%-believer -- and to your reasons, your faith, at the center of it (if you excuse the terminology).

----------------

At this point it might also be appropriate to point out that we are discussing one of the topic questions. The basic and most important:

quote:Originally posted by Drahcir:

Something that I don't get with religious people, is how do they know that their religion is right?

Said just in case one or another casual reader dismisses the thread because it seems to have veered off...

It has not!

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-12-2005).]

why are you morons seriously debating this? as if you're going to convince your opponent that you're right - it's fucking religion, so shut the fuck up - get along or just get a lobotomy.

and atheism is a religion. i said so. argue with me about it, you seem to think i'll change my mind.

[This message has been edited by icecreamtrepanation (edited 11-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Haddock:

Are you saying that there's overwhelming evidence for atheism? If so, please tell me what the evidence is, I'd love to hear it.

The supposedly "overwhelming" evidence for atheism is actually the lack of evidence for theism in the "hard" sciences, and the Paradigm they belong to.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of evidence for theism, within religion itself. Its science, theology, included. But all that happens to belong to another Paradigm; not aknowledged within the scientific Paradigm, while the latter is aknowledged in parts of religion.

Which means that the dichotomy of "proved atheism" and "proved theism" is superficial.

quote:Agnosticism is the most logical in my opinion.

Is logic the most valid prerequisite there is, for a system of (personal) belief?

If so, does that then mean that you don't "believe" in Quantum Physics?!

FoxLeonard

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Is it significantly more easy to explain -- even discuss -- your personal standpoint and faith, to people who are familiar with religion?

Not significantly, but it is slightly easier.

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Is it significantly more easy to explain -- even discuss -- your personal standpoint(s), to people who belong to one or another religion?

I think that makes it tougher, actually, because they always think in terms of what they're taught.

So, once again your replies confirm my own experiences and conclusions.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

I think that makes it tougher, actually, because they always think in terms of what they're taught.

"When dogma enters the

brain, all intellectual activity ceases", as Robert Anton Wilson put it.

But my actual point, or one of them, at least, is that the lack of understanding is not only, or even first and foremost, between "believers"/"religious people" on one hand, and "non-believers" on the other, but between individuals.

Any actual, profound, system of belief is, and must be, personal, and cannot possibly be explained (in words) and subsequently be understood (to its full extent), by any other individual, or group of people (not even within "the same faith").

The main obstacles are:

...that the experience in itself is personal -- to some extent different for all people -- and, therefore, not totallly compareable

...that we lack the instruments, as already mentioned above.

And that is actually the answer to the topic question:

quote:Originally posted by Drahcir:

Something that I don't get with religious people, is how do they know that their religion is right? Many of them say that their religion is the "true" one, but never give reasons for it.

Assuming that "religious people" refer to (groups of) "religious" individuals, and not to various "head quarters" of established churches and religions (such as the Holy See). The latter can tell us why their religion is the right one, but that does not mean that they can explain it, so that we actually understand. At that point they are as hampered by the lack of sufficient instruments, as the individual.

Not to mention that they will have entered a proverbial quagmire og being right and wrong at the same time, but that is for another topic...

However, we can follow their reasoning further, and learn more, if we acknowledge the fact that they are speaking from another Paradigm, in whole or in part; be it personal, or regulated by the particular Church's dogma (or a combination of the two).

If we don't aknowlegde that, then I'm afraid that we will just continue the headbanging...

FoxLeonard *posting without my hard-hat*

You can use hyroglyphx's and T-BagBikerStar's discussion in the A few questions topic:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004831.html

...as an example, as well as a "pilot project" for my above suggestion...

Note that they are both "right"...

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-13-2005).]

Explain the pilot project....

Ooopps... did that become inexplicable instead if just tounge in cheek?!

Sorry about the confusion...

In the post before I said:

However, we can follow their reasoning further, and learn more, if we acknowledge the fact that they are speaking from another Paradigm, in whole or in part; be it personal, or regulated by the particular Church's dogma (or a combination of the two).

Which connects to what I said about different Paradigms in an earlier post above: posted 11-12-2005 10:37

So, the "pilot project" (for those who've never tried before) would be to read your and T-BagBikerStar's discussion with that in mind, and thus aknowledge the fact that you speak from different Paradigms.

Something that you and Mr BikerStar would benefit from as well, I reckon...

I hope that clarifies what I meant, as well as my intentions. If not, please tell...

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-13-2005).]

That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure if you were compilimg data for a class or something. If there any responses surely I will partake of the discussion.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I wasn't sure if you were compilimg data for a class or something.

Almost LMTO-ed there http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I should have added that I have good reason to choose your and Mr BikerStar's discussion, because you obviously know what you are talking about, and you can describe/explain it as well (as far as language allows you).

Keep up the good work!

FoxLeonard *returning to my coffee*

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Assuming that "religious people" refer to (groups of) "religious" individuals, and not to various "head quarters" of established churches and religions (such as the Holy See). The latter can tell us why their religion is the right one, but that does not mean that they can explain it, so that we actually understand. At that point they are as hampered by the lack of sufficient instruments, as the individual.



Thomas Nagel points this out in "What's It Like To Be A Bat?". There are just certain aspects of qualia and understanding that can't be explained from human to human. For this, I am grateful. This is what true individuality feels like! Also why philosophical religious debates are often so damned circular.

This thread has been one of the more interesting revivals of this topic in here.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Excellent post and reasoning, Mr Wyrm! Thank you for that

quote:I very much doubt that fear is the most common reason for agnostic standpoints. Not fear of abandoning logic -- limited or not -- anyway. Nor fear of being wrong, if chosing one or the other. But probably, to some extent, fear of taking the leap.



Is that not exactly the same? What is there to fear in the leap if not those things I presented?

quote:...goes wrong. Because an active pursuit will only take us further away...



In what way? Perhaps you are interpreting "active pursuit" differently than was implied. Please elaborate on what train this phrase started to end up here.

quote:No. Agnosticism is seemingly incorrect, when discussed (in this manner), but it is correct for the "unconvinced" individual. S/he cannot possibly be in the state of "after the leap" before said leap has occured.

It is, however, possible -- even likely -- that the leap is delayed, by a "too" agnostic stance...

It can be an appropriate term for a medial state while in indecision. This was never refuted. In fact it is the very premise of my argument. The statement that it must be incorrect is a statement of it's absurdity as a conclusion, whereas I have not discounted its viability to describe a state of lack of conclusion. The very word itself loosely interprets as "not knowing"...

quote:"There are trivial truths and profound truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth."

Said by Niels Bohr, who also, to one of his students, said:

"No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."



"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

"Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."

Both above quotes are also by Niels Bohr.

I do not give credence to "profound truth" being the category under which god's existence or non-existence fits. "Profound truths" are not binary assertions, but "deep" or far-reaching truisms concerning broader option bases than YES/NO...Profound truths and their "opposite" profound truths are such things as "Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding." (Albert Einstein) and the opposite truth being Peace cannot be kept by understanding, so long as someone else does not understand to be peaceful in return. Violence does not require resistance, and understanding it doesn't make it any less violent.

Do you see what I'm saying?

quote:To be agnostic for logics sake is to put the carriage before the horse.

As opposed to being logical for agnosticism's sake? Please explain.

quote:But often enough an indecisiveness for good reason. Why one is indecisive does not alter the fact that one is indecisive. The premise here is still to address the simple fact that "Agnostic" = "Undecided", and regardless of why one is still undecided, there is no rational and logical reason to intend to remain so if the matter is important enough to you that you develop the indecisiveness into enough of a conviction to argue it's merits in a debate between the two decisive sides.

quote:Is it not equal lunacy to prematurely chose a standpoint "for" or "against"?!

This is a bit of a red herring as well. I have not advocated hasty decisions or premature choices. Bringing it up in this manner distracts from the discussion at hand by introducing an false premise as if it were implied.

By all means, gather information until you feel comfortable making a choice, even if you never get enough to reach that goal, at least you strive to progress beyond uncertainty to find a conviction, rather than asserting uncertainty as a conviction.

quote:"Acceptable", as in: "still somewhat wrong"?!

Yes and no. "Wrong" is a poor word choice here. More appropriate semantics would be "still somewhat short of ideal", which it clearly is. The "ideal" in this situation is obviously to choose one side or the other in this matter.

quote: I understand that I can not fully understand, that I can't understand...

Thus I do not know that I can not know...

Wich makes it possible for me to learn more, to understand even less...



This matter really is much simpler than all of that. Does god exist? Yes or No? By it's very nature, the question is asking for an opinion or a belief (subjective "fact") rather than having a "right" and "wrong" answer on which you will be graded by the test administrator (objective "fact") wherein the "correct" answer is known and verified and you are simply being asked to recount what is already known.

Opinions and beliefs, being subjective, may be supported by objective information and experiences, but it is not required.

If one feels there is either:

a) enough evidence on both sides to make a credible case for either, or

b) not enough evidence on either side to make a credible case for either,

then you are left with no compelling reason to not select the one which subjectively seems "right" at the time excepting that you are planning to pursue further qualifying evidence to rectify the situation.

As an aside, there can be no logical c) to the list above that would substanciate a claim of agnosticism other than the vanity of rebellion against choice to fit in with other agnostics, or the vanity of fearing association with adherants of your true leaning should you profess them honestly.

The title of this thread is "The True Religion" and Agnostics have asserted their belief here (and one or two have even cheered it on, whether facetiously or not). This simple irony is the spur that started this horse running (to answer your question, which I neglected to quote out of the post), and led to what is apparently a nested sub-debate on agnosticism itself.



[This message has been edited by ChaosWyrm (edited 11-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

Is that not exactly the same?

Not exactly the same, no. Let me reiterate and compare:

You said:

quote:Originally posted 11-11-2005 07:19 by ChaosWyrm:

It is the fear of abandoning limited logic that prevents any leaps of faith or experiencial evidence to accrue to allow the agnostic to make an ultimate leaning on the matter, whether it be for or against.

To which I replied:

quote:Originally posted 11-11-2005 13:11 by FoxLeonard:

I very much doubt that fear is the most common reason for agnostic standpoints. Not fear of abandoning logic -- limited or not -- anyway. Nor fear of being wrong, if chosing one or the other. But probably, to some extent, fear of taking the leap.

So, you claimed that the main reason, for not taking the leap, is fear of abandoning limited logic.

I said that fear of taking the leap can be one reason, for sticking to (limited) logic.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

What is there to fear in the leap if not those things I presented?

To stay with the metaphor it could be said that the fear of taking an actual leap, is some kind of intellectual-spiritual Vertigo. And not, first and foremost, because it defies logic. Even if it, indeed, makes some people grasp for logic.

quote:In what way? Perhaps you are interpreting "active pursuit" differently than was implied. Please elaborate on what train this phrase started to end up here.

Sorry, that was a trifle abstruse, and meant to be. But it was intended to add to what you said, rather than to argue directly against it.

Some quotes may help to show what I was hinting at:

Carrying the self forward to confirm

the myriad dharmas is delusion.

The myriad dharmas advancing and

confirming the self is realization.

-- Dogen Zenji

Real Practice has orientation or direction,

but it has no purpose or gaining idea,

so it can include everything that comes.

-- Shunryu Suzuki Roshi

Realizing the Bodymind is being it real.

Not really making it real.

As it was and is real all the time.

We just need to be it.

-- Tenko Fu Shiryo

And I can also include your quote, from Niels Bohr:

"Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."

quote:It can be an appropriate term for a medial state while in indecision. This was never refuted. In fact it is the very premise of my argument. The statement that it must be incorrect is a statement of it's absurdity as a conclusion, whereas I have not discounted its viability to describe a state of lack of conclusion. The very word itself loosely interprets as "not knowing"...

All through your post you seemed to say that agnostics ought to be in a hurry out of their "intellectual limbo". I'm saying that it cannot and should not be hurried.

However we agree that it (the leap) can be "allowed", by openmindedness. In that sense it can be delayed, for no good reason, by a "too agnostic stance".

But then we are talking exclusively about personal leaps of faith, as it is highly unlikely that any new and overwhelming (intellectual) evidence will show up from "outside".

quote:I do not give credence to "profound truth" being the category under which god's existence or non-existence fits. "Profound truths" are not binary assertions, but "deep" or far-reaching truisms concerning broader option bases than YES/NO...

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes. You are making a good description of criteria for an actual and profound, personal system of belief. It cannot possibly be based on the single question of the existence of god(s). Any conviction, worthy of that name, includes much more than "god does/doesn't (might/might not) exist". And that is what makes this "truth" profound.

quote:As opposed to being logical for agnosticism's sake? Please explain.

No, not really. As opposed to follow one's actual feelings on the subject. Which might lead to logic...

quote:Why one is indecisive does not alter the fact that one is indecisive. The premise here is still to address the simple fact that "Agnostic" = "Undecided", ...//... in a debate between the two decisive sides.

No, the premise here, in this topic, is to discuss (rather than debate, as that is somewhat impossible) why people believe what they believe, and why they are convinced of being "right", while they, at the same time, fail to explain why they are "right".

The agnostic "before the leap"-position (be it implicit or explicit) is an important part of that discussion, and a valid standpoint in its own right.

quote:and regardless of why one is still undecided, there is no rational and logical reason to intend to remain so if the matter is important enough

We agree, even if you, here -- in your wording -- seem to be the one who is caught up in the "limited logic" that you, elsewhere, argue against.

quote:and regardless of why one is still undecided, there is no rational and logical reason to intend to remain so if the matter is important enough to you that you develop the indecisiveness into enough of a conviction to argue it's merits in a debate between the two decisive sides.

I think that, at least some of them, are saying:

'Your arguments for/against are weak (as usual) and I have, therefore, decided to remain indecisive (for the time being), and you should perhaps consider to do the same, if this is all "evidence" that you have.'

Nothing wrong in that -- even if it, in part, has fallen into the debate-trap. It may be based on false premises, but that is not (necessarily) visible from a "before the leap"-position.

quote:This is a bit of a red herring as well. I have not advocated hasty decisions or premature choices. Bringing it up in this manner distracts from the discussion at hand by introducing an false premise as if it were implied. By all means, gather information until you feel comfortable making a choice, even if you never get enough to reach that goal, at least you strive to progress beyond uncertainty to find a conviction, rather than asserting uncertainty as a conviction.

My apologies. As stated above, you gave me the impression that the agnostics "ought to be in a hurry out of their limbo". Perhaps I was mislead by your somewhat "overly debating manners". Nevertheless it was I who jumped to conclusions.

quote:The "ideal" in this situation is obviously to choose one side or the other in this matter.

Yes, but only out of personal conviction. Which means that we can ask them to be openminded enough to take the leap, when the opportunity occurs. But we cannot tell them that they ought to take the leap...

quote:This matter really is much simpler than all of that.

Yes, but:

quote:Does god exist? Yes or No?

...is only the symbol of the actual question(s).

It is a primitive form of thought that things exist or do not exist.

-- Sir Arthur Eddington

And "all of that" was actually my way of dodging -- or side-stepping -- the question about being proud...

Now, on a side-note, but one at the center of our particular discussion:

It seems to me that you are, first and foremost, "debating", and sometimes in a way that implies that you lean on "institutional" Philosophical studies, on one level or another. Am I right in this assumption?

No, you don't have to answer.

But I should perhaps "warn" you that I am not (often) "debating" in topics like this. I have little or no interest in ending up being "right" or "wrong". Nor do I stick to "the rules of Philosophy".

If I, thereby, happen to step on your paw ... err ... toes, it is unintentional, I can assure you.

A pleasure talking to you!

FoxLeonard



[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Thomas Nagel points this out in "What's It Like To Be A Bat?".

I haven't read it, but it seems to be a parallel to Wittgensteins:

""If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."

Which begs the question about foxes, perhaps...

quote:There are just certain aspects of qualia and understanding that can't be explained from human to human. For this, I am grateful. This is what true individuality feels like!

We are all one. But we are not eachother.

-- Tenko Fu Shiryo

FoxLeonard *just me*

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

agnosticism is hypocritical.

by being agnostic, you say there could be a god, but there also could not be a god. you are serving two masters, something which God condemns. so by being agnostic you are damning yourself by doing what the god you say could exist says you're not supposed to do.



How is admitting you have no way of knowing something hypocritical? Seems to me, hypocrisy would be pretending you know something when there's no way to be sure. So I guess, wether your pretentious or not, agnostism is the least hypocritical view of religion possible.

Nihilism

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Yes, but only out of personal conviction. Which means that we can ask them to be openminded enough to take the leap, when the opportunity occurs. But we cannot tell them that they ought to take the leap...

Agreed.

quote:Now, on a side-note, but one at the center of our particular discussion:

It seems to me that you are, first and foremost, "debating", and sometimes in a way that implies that you lean on "institutional" Philosophical studies, on one level or another. Am I right in this assumption?

Actually, I'm not debating the matter at hand per se. I tend to chime in at times to "debate" for the purpose of making people think through things they "take for granted" or to cause them to look deeper into their own convictions to see how strongly they really feel them.

As for "institutional" philisophical studies, I "lean" on many studies and disciplines throughout my life, and my postings here are no exception. I am not an avid fanatic of any particular dogma or philosophy; rather, I tend to slip in and out of whatever fits the moment or the situation to best advantage of the lessons, either for me or for others...If it tells you anything, I am very synergistic with the energy/spirit/godforms of Coyote, Loki, Eris, and Snake...(just some of the names it is known by in some of it's forms/expressions). I enjoy philosophy ("institutional" or otherwise) for it's own sake, but do not take it to heart but that which coincides with truth as I know it through my own "eyes"...

quote:

No, you don't have to answer.



Too late :P

quote:

But I should perhaps "warn" you that I am not (often) "debating" in topics like this. I have little or no interest in ending up being "right" or "wrong". Nor do I stick to "the rules of Philosophy".

Nor do I care for such things...my role here is not to "win" but rather to encourage others to think in ways they perhaps had not before, or to more closely examine something they had assumed needed no examination...

quote:If I, thereby, happen to step on your paw ... err ... toes, it is unintentional, I can assure you.



No worries, my paws can take it...

quote:

A pleasure talking to you!



Likewise. I am thrilled every time I can discourse with someone who is actually learned and well reasoned about such things. I am also thrilled to bounce ideas around with someone who has the wisdom to bring back to me the same kind of "prompted re-examination" I try to bring to others. I don't know you "in person", but I can say that I respect you, at least that part of you which shows itself on these boards...

I don't think it will come as a surprise to you, Mr Wyrm, if I say that I could have said most of that, as far as intentions, on forums and elsewhere, go.

To continue to quote Niels Bohr:

Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.

I'm a bit short of time at the moment, but I would like to ask you to do me a favour:

Could you please use the -- newly activated -- "send e-mail" option on my post.

Oops, that doesn't seem to work very well, so here we go instead:

fox_leonard at hotmail dot com

To explain, without making it much clearer, I can say that I'm working on a "project" where you, Mr Wyrm, fit right in.

Hope to hear from you soon...

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-16-2005).]

It's all bullshit, that's why there isn't only one religion. People don't like other religions so they will create there own.

It's really an industry more than anything.

Money money.