Atheist vs. Agnostic Label

[Habitat]

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

Indeterminism (which we know exists) is the exact opposite of classical determinism.

Huh  ?  Indeterminism is the idea that things happen that are not just the result of antecedent causes. You are telling me everything that happens has a cause.

[Horta]

On 4/17/2019 at 6:54 AM, XenoFish said:

Funny. Conscious this, free will that. We still don't even have a clue what consciousness is exactly. 

We do actually know what consciousness is. We don't understand it in the depth we would like though. Yet we know as much about it as we do of many other things that we have no trouble accepting. It is a brain state/property of the brain that arises from chemical and neural activity. In much the same way as "heat" is a property arising from the vibration of atoms and molecules. Despite no one ever capturing a piece of "heat" to study, we have no trouble accepting it. The reason we don't with consciousness is because of our biases.

[Horta]

28 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Huh  ?  Indeterminism is the idea that things happen that are not just the result of antecedent causes. You are telling me everything that happens has a cause.

Not so.

Indeterminism is the fact (if you accept a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics) that certain outcomes can't be predicted, they are random. That doesn't mean they have no preceding cause. They do. Like everything else. 

ps from wikipedia (lol). Underlined the relevant part.

Quote

Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically.

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Horta

[Horta]

As far as we know, the genetic mutations that drive evolution are indeterminate, they can't be determined or predicted, they are random. That doesn't mean they have no preceding cause. The cause is well known and understood, even though the result is considered random. Although when subject to natural selection predictions can be made.

[Habitat]

Hmmm......this conversation sounds like an invitation to pallidin to pop up with his theories about the "beyond" operating through the agency of quantum mechanics. If "indeterminism" is in the equation, it is indeterminate what effect it has, as well. One gets the sense that we can't step back from this situation to evaluate it, because we are immersed in it. Like a fish trying to understand the concept of wetness.

[Horta]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Hmmm......this conversation sounds like an invitation to pallidin to pop up with his theories about the "beyond" operating through the agency of quantum mechanics. If "indeterminism" is in the equation, it is indeterminate what effect it has, as well. One gets the sense that we can't step back from this situation to evaluate it, because we are immersed in it. Like a fish trying to understand the concept of wetness.

It really doesn't matter though. Unless you can explain from this how physical matter can have "free will".

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Horta said:

It really doesn't matter though. Unless you can explain from this how physical matter can have "free will".

Don't know, I don't know anyone does.

[Horta]

Just now, Habitat said:

Don't know, I don't know anyone does.

I agree. There are no logical arguments for it. Every logical argument arrives at the opposite. That we merely have the illusion of free will. Experiments support this idea also.

[XenoFish]

There needs to be a primary choice first. If the same or similar choice is made enough times it becomes a habit. A habit is just a way to do something more efficiently. 

This is why I say 5% free will and 95% subconscious. Over our lives we make enough choices to run practically on auto pilot. 

The problem I see with the whole "no free will" argument is personal responsibility. If you have no free will, then how can anyone be responsible for what they do. They are nothing more than a automation. I know machines, you create a program and it runs. You first need to create the program. 

Of course I'm wrong on all this as I suspect I will be. 

[Habitat]

Impossible to get the head around it.

[Will Due]

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There needs to be a primary choice first. If the same or similar choice is made enough times it becomes a habit. A habit is just a way to do something more efficiently. 

 

The problem I see with the whole "no free will" argument is personal responsibility. If you have no free will, then how can anyone be responsible for what they do. They are nothing more than a automation. I know machines, you create a program and it runs. You first need to create the program. 

 

Xeno,

You're right. I agree with you 1000%

 

 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Xeno,

You're right. I agree with you 1000%

 

 

Hell has frozen over.

[Horta]

 

45 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There needs to be a primary choice first. If the same or similar choice is made enough times it becomes a habit. A habit is just a way to do something more efficiently. 

I get what your saying which seems well established regarding behaviour, but why does any initial choice need "free will" to begin with? Because it makes an appearance in the "conscious" part of the brain? As far as we can tell even these choices originate from the subconscious regions of the brain first.

Quote

The problem I see with the whole "no free will" argument is personal responsibility. If you have no free will, then how can anyone be responsible for what they do. They are nothing more than a automation. I know machines, you create a program and it runs. You first need to create the program. 

If you crash your car, who else could be responsible for this other than the physical organism known as "you"? Regardless of the subject of free will.

What it negates is the notion of moral responsibility. This is what freaks people out. It probably shouldn't as the same rules, deterrents and so on will still be necessary. Responsibility will still be apportioned appropriately. All it will do is remove the justification for doing this with irrational hatred. This is probably why it will never catch on, no matter if it is demonstrated completely. We love to hate, it is one of the most natural and pleasurable instincts we have.

Quote

Of course I'm wrong on all this as I suspect I will be. 

Lol.

There is no right or wrong as yet. Only opinions.

Though I will say, one opinion seems to have more to back it than the other at this stage.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

 

I get what your saying which seems well established regarding behaviour, but why does any initial choice need "free will" to begin with? Because it makes an appearance in the "conscious" part of the brain? As far as we can tell even these choices originate from the subconscious regions of the brain first.

That's the tricky part. You need to create the experiences before they because a subconscious influence.

If you crash your car, who else could be responsible for this other than the physical organism known as "you"? Regardless of the subject of free will.

True. It seems though the free will/no free will argument is used for personal responsibility or not responsible. 

What it negates is the notion of moral responsibility. This is what freaks people out. It probably shouldn't as the same rules, deterrents and so on will still be necessary. Responsibility will still be apportioned appropriately. All it will do is remove the justification for doing this with irrational hatred. This is probably why it will never catch on, no matter if it is demonstrated completely. We love to hate, it is one of the most natural and pleasurable instincts we have.

Hate is a habit based on negative experience or a belief. 

Lol.

There is no right or wrong as yet. Only opinions.

It's all guess work to me. We may never really know the answer. Hell, "free will" might be an evolutionary glitch. Meh...

Though I will say, one opinion seems to have more to back it than the other at this stage.

Again, I don't 100% know. Not sure I ever will. 

To be honest. "Free Will" might be the wrong word. Maybe primary choice or initial choice would be better?

[Horta]

Anyway, free will is a subject worthy of its own thread. So I'll stop and get back to the topic.

What do people have in mind when someone tells them they are an "agnostic"? I honestly don't know, it's use has become so vague. I often find myself trying to infer beliefs based on what else I know of the persons general opinions.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

What do people have in mind when someone tells them they are an "agnostic"? I honestly don't know, it's use has become so vague. I often find myself trying to infer beliefs based on what else I know of the persons general opinions.

For myself it's the I don't know stance. Both atheism and theism to me are positions held with 100% certainty. Since I have never seen an actual god I could say that it doesn't exist, then again what would such a god actually look like. So I find that being either for or against the existence of god to be equally absurd. I don't know is a good answer for me. Then again, the "three camps" are; I don't know, maybe/maybe not/ don't care either way.

[Horta]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

For myself it's the I don't know stance. Both atheism and theism to me are positions held with 100% certainty. Since I have never seen an actual god I could say that it doesn't exist, then again what would such a god actually look like. So I find that being either for or against the existence of god to be equally absurd. I don't know is a good answer for me. Then again, the "three camps" are; I don't know, maybe/maybe not/ don't care either way.

I see that as atheism. Simply because there is no belief in any god. I also don't know if there is a god of some type, though I claim the Abrahamic god doesn't exist and feel a good argument exists for that position. I find this no more absurd than claiming fairies don't exist. That doesn't rule out the entire concept though.

I know agnostics exist who use the label to express that the question is scientifically irrelevant, they prefer knowledge over beliefs. Not the sort of people who would normally go out of their way to discuss the subject though. Usually quite the opposite. I can understand this position.

There also seem to be "agnostics" who take the proposition of an old man in the sky/personal/biblical god seriously enough that they can't make up their mind. Like it's a 50/50 thing. I find this in many ways more difficult to understand than believing. 

 

 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Horta said:

I see that as atheism. Simply because there is no belief in any god. I also don't know if there is a god of some type, though I claim the Abrahamic god doesn't exist and feel a good argument exists for that position. I find this no more absurd than claiming fairies don't exist. That doesn't rule out the entire concept though.

I know agnostics exist who use the label to express that the question is scientifically irrelevant, they prefer knowledge over beliefs. Not the sort of people who would normally go out of their way to discuss the subject though. Usually quite the opposite. I can understand this position.

There also seem to be "agnostics" who take the proposition of an old man in the sky/personal/biblical god seriously enough that they can't make up their mind. Like it's a 50/50 thing. I find this in many ways more difficult to understand than believing. 

I'd say that I'm uncertain of the existence of an actual creator force. I could say that I'm more of an Ignostic than anything. The only god that "exist" are man-made. They exist within the minds and imaginations of believers. An objective creator is simply unknowable. Mostly because we'd have to actually know what to look for, and if we actually knew, then we wouldn't have such god exist/does debates. 

I'm personally more interested in how the God-Idea influences people. Some find meaning in it, other use it to justify all kinds of things.

[Horta]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I could say that I'm more of an Ignostic than anything.

Sounds like a reasonable position and the point about definitions is a good one. In fact afaik it sounds very much like the original meaning of an agnostic position.

I differ in that I at least hold open the possibility that personal experience of "god" and certain definitions could potentially lend themselves to validation. That they haven't yet doesn't necessarily discredit them. In a sense, I have some sympathy for those that believe from (certain types of) transformative, personal experience. 

Though it is possible that there could be some creative force that always evades our understanding.

[XenoFish]

37 minutes ago, Horta said:

I differ in that I at least hold open the possibility that personal experience of "god" and certain definitions could potentially lend themselves to validation. That they haven't yet doesn't necessarily discredit them. In a sense, I have some sympathy for those that believe from (certain types of) transformative, personal experience. 

Though it is possible that there could be some creative force that always evades our understanding.

I think that's what I mean by those who find meaning in religion and spirituality. The belief itself can range from casual to fanatical. 

[Horta]

47 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think that's what I mean by those who find meaning in religion and spirituality. The belief itself can range from casual to fanatical. 

Yes, I generally find trying to understand why people believe, far more interesting than the belief itself. Not only with god, but the paranormal in general. 

[GoldenWolf]

Seems like a fitting definition of an Agnostic:

[XenoFish]

28 minutes ago, Horta said:

Yes, I generally find trying to understand why people believe, far more interesting than the belief itself. Not only with god, but the paranormal in general. 

I'm the same. In certain ways magical thinking can have a benefit. Such as an athlete having a "lucky" pair of socks that they won't play without. On the surface it's just socks, in their mind and because they believe the socks are lucky, their performs changes. They might actually play better. I call this a magical placebo. 

A lot of the times I figure that belief in the afterlife and in ghost is just the fear of death being manifested. Similar to how believing in god might get a sense of certainty in life. Because lets face it, life is pretty much chaotic. However the belief in psychic powers kinda befuddles me. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by XenoFish

[XenoFish]

Even with my current intention-manifestation experiments. I know full well that my thoughts have no objective causal power. No weird esoteric quantum woo woo nonsense, it's all cognitive. By changing my focus, I redirect my attention. Simple as that. I guess that's what separates me from a lot of people, I try this stuff. 

Prayer can be a stress and anxiety reliever. Having faith that things will work out, same thing. I mean I do get it. But I don't as well. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

3 minutes ago, Horta said:

Yes, I generally find trying to understand why people believe, far more interesting than the belief itself. Not only with god, but the paranormal in general. 

I agree. People hold so many opposing viewpoints and I try to understand why they believe or disbelieve each one individually.

I do my best to explain my point of view.

I find that believers in the paranormal/supernatural simply have a much lower threshold to their beliefs in such. 

The worst is when the conversation boils down to, "Well, ya just gotta have faith."

To me, that means you don't have sufficient evidence or reason to back up your belief.

I find it absolutely insane that people believe Jesus rose from the dead. It's so far removed from everything I understand is possible. Without firsthand witnessing, I could never believe such a claim. But the crux of an entire religion depends on having the faith that it actually did happen.

I just read an article about a South African preacher claimed to bring a man back to life.

https://churchleaders.com/news/345138-south-african-pastor-claims-he-raised-a-man-from-the-dead.html

It's mind boggling to see how gullible people can be. It is good to see that he is now under investigation stemming from this incident. 

In another thread someone pointed out a man named Satya Sai Baba as being the main reason the believed in the supernatural. 

So, I looked this guy up and wasn't surprised to see he is shrouded in controversy. 

To me he was a simple magician doing sleight of hand parlor tricks. Coughing up eggs, pulling gold chains out of thin air, manifesting ash and sand out of nowhere. All basic and easily replicated magic tricks. Although the are plenty of other unverified claims to his name.

Yet somehow he has an estimated 100 million!!! followers. And left behind a 5.5 billion dollar fortune.

Does that change my mind about the possibility that he was truly God incarnate? Nope. 

To get it all back to the topic, I agree that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. It's just going deeper into saying that it's impossible to say yes or no.

As someone said earlier, it's about the specific definition. 

I can definitely say, no Thor is not real. There's no guy up there throwing lightning bolts around.

But there are definitions where I would have to say I don't know.