The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

cowboy2579 · #1 11-11-2007, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

DougShrapnel · #2 11-11-2007, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and have beliefs about it? Here is an example of a agnostic theist, man all this god stuff is so confusing, it';s just impossible to know about GOD, but I should believe he exists anyway just in case. Pascals wager you know. Why are you so addamnant about agnostic and atheism being mutually exclusive?

luckyme · #3 11-11-2007, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

cowboy2579 · #4 11-11-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.

What is your education? You appear to be confortable assuming you know mine, so..?

luckyme · #5 11-11-2007, 09:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly means -- actually take the time to read the words AND the message they contain ... then respond. Rather than typing the reply while reading.
The condescending connotation was just a lucky coincidence.

luckyme

cowboy2579 · #6 11-11-2007, 10:16 PM

Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

DougShrapnel · #7 11-11-2007, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]I guess that would be OK, but what is wrong with this? A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), they have a default position about things that cannot be known and that is to not believe in them, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

vhawk01 · #8 11-11-2007, 10:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not "I have no belief in god." That covers the atheism part. Is it even possible to find out if God exists? Depends on what kind of God. That covers the agnostic part. Atheism is a LACK of belief in God, and actually, its just a lack of belief in any particular God, usually Allah because the major monotheists are egotistical/lack imagination.

FortunaMaximus · #9 11-11-2007, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliffs: There wouldn't be an ultimate power, but an infinite regression of power.

Well, yes and no.

The concept is that there is no ultimate God, but a succession of intelligences without end. So omnipotence would be illogical.

The agnostic atheist who understands the infinite would see there is no God, but a hierarchial progression. It's not a simple concept, and in this day and age, people are beginning to grasp quantum mechanics. There isn't a complete solution yet. The thing is, there will never be.

That's my personal take on it anyway. I assume there already or will be a type Omega civilization (see Kardashev Scale) and that such an intelligence exists or will exist. And the power and talent set of such is limitless. The universe itself is just a closed mathematical set in their understanding.

And that perception of time isn't linear but an expanding solution set with interconnections appproaching infinity but never getting there.

I see basic deity-based religion as a panacea for individuals that have not come to terms with their own individual death and need to grasp at that to allay their fears of such.

Just thoughts from an agnostic atheist. Felines have it simpler.

madnak · #10 11-12-2007, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

We think different things. We tend to oppose organized groups with specific beliefs, and authoritative pretensions to knowledge. So our ideas vary considerably from person to person.

Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist. That is, for all intents and purposes there is no God.

In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).