Rayman Pirate-Community

I completely agree. The mere fact that people are creating arbitrary classes for the supernatural ("god", etc) pretty much determines beforehand that they are, with a probability higher than anything ever measured, wrong. The only important question is whether or not supernatural forces (of any kind) exist, and whether or not they have anything to do with the state of our universe.

I may say I am agnostic because it aligns closest with my views. If I am not agnostic, what am I? I am not atheist. I am labeled as catholic but don't do anything with church nor do I believe in it.

I just know that I don't believe there is any super natural force, since I see no visible proof. Beyond that, I do not care to find proof. I just want to live my life. I don't know if there is a god and don't care.

That's the textbook definition of atheism. Atheism doesn't make any hard claims, it's simply a rejection of religious belief. You're an agnostic atheist, which, definitevely, is the only rational mindset.

That makes sense. Do consider that I'd marry and pretend like I'm catholic simply to reap the benefits of marriage, if I felt like I was cornered in life and my only option is to marry. (Or if girl I fall in love with wants to marry) I would prefer to make the marriage small and not related to the church though if possible.

Isn't it interesting when someone calls you an angel? There was this one time this lady was getting scammed on the phone while I was trying to nap in front of her (in college) after she got off the phone I said "Hey. I think that's a scam." Bam, awakened. She called me an angel. (She got robbed)

Ambidextroid wrote:If you're talking about agnosticism as in you're not convinced there's absolutely no force behind the creation of the universe other than random chance, then I can respect that point of view, but it feels like most people who subscribe to the "agnostic" view have an equal uncertainty that everything in the universe was either made by the singular beard clad/robe laden/elephantine "God" or made by chance, which I can't see as a rational viewpoint. The chance that any specific religion is correct is practically (in the avoiding-philosophy-way) zero.

Agnosticism does not require any estimation of the probability of God's existence (which may encompass many more forms than the caricatural ones you mentioned). You may also want to read about the difference between probability and likelihood.

In any case, none of your estimations of that probability, whether 0.5 or one much closer to zero, are rational unless supported by a mathematical argument.

Also I'm pretty sure I posted in this thread many years ago and would love to find my old post to find how silly I used to sound regarding religion.

I found 2009 me! Page 11:

neo wrote:I don't know. Does Deism seem pretty close? I mean, still believe in god, but also believe that he just ignored the whole world after he put it in motion.

My beliefs, I don't really know. I'd rather go off logic, but still go off a lil faith.

As you can see, I was forcing myself to believe, even though I didn't really know. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Also what helped me lean this way was smoking marijuana, and learning more from a person that isn't in my school than school itself. Life has many wonders.

neo wrote:As you can see, I was forcing myself to believe, even though I didn't really know. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Also what helped me lean this way was smoking marijuana, and learning more from a person that isn't in my school than school itself. Life has many wonders.

And now you're giving the other side the benefit of the doubt. Both are beliefs.

Hunchman801 wrote:Agnosticism does not require any estimation of the probability of God's existence (which may encompass many more forms than the caricatural ones you mentioned). You may also want to read about the difference between probability and likelihood.

In any case, none of your estimations of that probability, whether 0.5 or one much closer to zero, is rational unless supported by a mathematical argument.

I intentionally used the words chance and likelihood rather than probability, as I'm not talking about mathematical proof. Agnosticism doesn't require any specific estimation of the probability of God's existence, but it does require factoring in a possibility, hence use of the word chance. My point was that many ex-believers convert from "being certain that their God is the only God" to "uncertain whether their God is the only God or there's absolutely no God at all", and I think this is mainly due to people describing agnosticism as being "unsure whether God is real or not" which automatically makes people attribute their specific former God to the word "God" in that description, rather than what I think agnosticism really means, which is being unsure whether there was any intelligent force behind the universe at all ("god" or otherwise) or none. I think this is much more rational a position, as you are not assuming details about God which you couldn't possibly know.
Also what I said about the likelihood of any specific religion being correct must be true, you don't need mathematical proof to prove it.
The more you guess about the details of something you have no idea about completely by random, the less and less likely it is to be correct. If someone picked a card at random and I guessed it was a spade, I'd have a much higher chance of being correct than if I guessed it was an ace of spades. This was simply my point; it makes sense to be unsure whether there was any godly force behind the universe at all, which is a position I can respect, rather than allotting more likelihood to the possibility that this God resembles one of any specific religious faith more than another.

Hunchman801 wrote:

neo wrote:As you can see, I was forcing myself to believe, even though I didn't really know. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Also what helped me lean this way was smoking marijuana, and learning more from a person that isn't in my school than school itself. Life has many wonders.

And now you're giving the other side the benefit of the doubt. Both are beliefs.

Other side as in atheists or something? I think the reason I don't believe in god anymore is because the religion calls for 'faith' when I just can't really work on just faith. I need proof, to see things with my own eyes. So I'd be fine with being 'I don't know, don't have proof' mode and I won't blindly agree to 'the bible is faked' but I might lean towards it being fake more than not. I just won't take it as fact.

Ambidextroid wrote:Agnosticism doesn't require any specific estimation of the probability of God's existence, but it does require factoring in a possibility, hence use of the word chance.

How so?

Ambidextroid wrote:My point was that many ex-believers convert from "being certain that their God is the only God" to "uncertain whether their God is the only God or there's absolutely no God at all", and I think this is mainly due to people describing agnosticism as being "unsure whether God is real or not" which automatically makes people attribute their specific former God to the word "God" in that description, rather than what I think agnosticism really means, which is being unsure whether there was any intelligent force behind the universe at all ("god" or otherwise) or none. I think this is much more rational a position, as you are not assuming details about God which you couldn't possibly know.

Agnosticism is not about being unsure that there's a God, it's about believing that we cannot prove or disprove his existence. And once more, there is nothing rational about either position. One view is just more (or equally) likely to hold true than the other.

To clarify, when I said this:

Adsolution wrote:You're an agnostic atheist, which, definitevely, is the only rational mindset.

I was referring to being agnostic as an atheist, as there's nothing technically irrational about different people having different requirements for what constitutes as sufficient proof to them, when it isn't purely a question of logic. The scientific method is simply a very practical, but nonetheless man-made way of producing seemingly accurate models of reality.

Hunchman801 wrote:Agnosticism is not about being unsure that there's a God, it's about believing that we cannot prove or disprove his existence.

I agree with this. I was originally saying that I was annoyed that most people subscribe to a different form of agnosticism which has a different and, as far as I'm concerned, incorrect definition, which is where you're not sure that God exists. This definition promotes people to apply it to their own thinking, stopping them from taking it a step further and considering that God's existence is unprovable yet not disprovable.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Ambidextroid wrote:Agnosticism doesn't require any specific estimation of the probability of God's existence, but it does require factoring in a possibility, hence use of the word chance.

How so?

Well if agnostic means to believe that god's existence is not provable or disprovable then you'd have to also believe there's at least some possibility of his existence. If you believed he didn't exist with 100% certainty you would be claiming to know a fact about his existence/nonexistence.

Hunchman801 wrote:And once more, there is nothing rational about either position. One view is just more (or equally) likely to hold true than the other.

I would argue that if one position is more likely to be true than another, then it's more rational a position to have. There's a principle called Occam's razor which, if I remember correctly, basically says that the hypothesis that needs the least assumptions is more likely to be true. I follow this logic when debating God's existence, and I make the leap of assuming he doesn't exist. If I didn't apply this logic to most of what I do then I would be walking around wondering whether I was in the matrix or not which I treat in the same way and assume it's not true, which is why I'd consider myself an atheist and not an "agnostic" in its most popular form even though like anyone else I cannot be 100% certain.

Edit: I'm not sure if Occam's razor is exactly what I'm thinking of, but what I mean is the principle that if an assumption cannot be proven or disproven, it's not worth considering

Well if agnostic means to believe that god's existence is not provable or disprovable then you'd have to also believe there's at least some possibility of his existence. If you believed he didn't exist with 100% certainty you would be claiming to know a fact about his existence/nonexistence.

Oh, I thought you meant something else. You're right indeed.

I would argue that if one position is more likely to be true than another, then it's more rational a position to have. There's a principle called Occam's razor which, if I remember correctly, basically says that the hypothesis that needs the least assumptions is more likely to be true.

Occam's razor is a heuristic technique, not something to evaluate likeliness with. While it may derive from the fact that in general, an hypothesis requiring less assumptions is more likely to be true, it does not indicate anything about the likeliness of a specific hypothesis. However—

I follow this logic when debating God's existence, and I make the leap of assuming he doesn't exist. If I didn't apply this logic to most of what I do then I would be walking around wondering whether I was in the matrix or not which I treat in the same way and assume it's not true, which is why I'd consider myself an atheist and not an "agnostic" in its most popular form even though like anyone else I cannot be 100% certain.

—I now understand what you meant by a position being more rational than the other. I'm not sure it's the correct wording, but the reasoning that led you to choose this position is indeed rational.

Edit: I'm not sure if Occam's razor is exactly what I'm thinking of, but what I mean is the principle that if an assumption cannot be proven or disproven, it's not worth considering

I think you meant Occam's razor, because I'm not sure how this principle relates to what you said above.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Edit: I'm not sure if Occam's razor is exactly what I'm thinking of, but what I mean is the principle that if an assumption cannot be proven or disproven, it's not worth considering

I think you meant Occam's razor, because I'm not sure how this principle relates to what you said above.

Oh yeah, whoops, got a bit muddled up there.
I think I meant to say that was what my example of the matrix was trying to explain, but I didn't remember what I had written

Bump, I wanna talk about religion again. Is agnosticism the only legitimate position to take? Religious and atheists can't prove they're right, but everyone can admit they don't officially know what's real. Checkmate.

I've said this before but I don't see the point in holding an agnostic point of view to be "safe", you might as well hold the same view about whether we are in the Matrix or not, and whether our politicians are lizard people, and any other random statement that cannot be disproven. Considering the fact that we are almost certainly not in the Matrix, to the extent at which I would say I'm certain we are not in the Matrix, I would say I'm certain there is no God.

Unless you just aren't bothered, in which case being agnostic make sense because I can see why you'd rather spend your time doing something fun or useful instead of spending the time to reach a conclusion that doesn't impact your life that much (to clarify, "your life" refers to the person who isn't bothered, I'm not saying this is true for everyone).

Doesn't this

Ambidextroid wrote:I would say I'm certain there is no God.

contradict this?

Ambidextroid wrote:If you believed he didn't exist with 100% certainty you would be claiming to know a fact about his existence/nonexistence.

Sorry, yes, when I said

Considering the fact that we are almost certainly not in the Matrix, to the extent at which I would say I'm certain we are not in the Matrix, I would say I'm certain there is no God.

I was trying to explain that I am practically certain that there is no God, as I assume God doesn't exist. However, I'm not technically 100% certain but I don't let that miniscule percentage of doubt get in the way of my "practical" certainty, if that makes sense.
In other words technically nobody can be certain about anything, which makes the word quite useless unless it's taken with a pinch of salt.

Ambidextroid wrote:I was trying to explain that I am practically certain that there is no God, as I assume God doesn't exist. However, I'm not technically 100% certain but I don't let that miniscule percentage of doubt get in the way of my "practical" certainty, if that makes sense.
In other words technically nobody can be certain about anything, which makes the word quite useless unless it's taken with a pinch of salt.

But then you actually are taking an agnostic stance, no?

Agnosticism is hardly a real form of believe, you're essentially just admitting that you don't know and are unable to prove any theory right or wrong. I lean towards atheism, but it's impossible to argue that's a certain believe. A "safe" point of view would be to decide that you know the answer and become a devout whatever without proven evidence. If people were honest with themselves everyone would be an agnostic who leans in a direction.

I don't think anyone is genuinely neutral on religion, even if that's what they claim. It's the same kind of thinking as people who claim they don't care about politics but then have very strong views on terrorist attacks or despise Trump.