Bad faith of the agnostic

domer76 said:
That’s all fine and good, but when one’s myth starts to influence everything from law to foreign policy in our country, it goes beyond understanding the universe.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...which is why rational, sane, responsible people have to fight against laws or restrictions that have to do solely with appeasing some god...or solely with "we are doing it because it offends our god."
 
domer76 said:
Some atheists, Biblical scholars for instance, make it their living and are passionate about it. There are atheists who left their evangelical past that wish to frequently talk about it. Maybe constantly.

Personally, I find ancient archeology and the origins of man and his religions pretty fascinating.
Click to expand...
I find ancient Jewish religion and Christianity to be insufferably boring,
 
Commander Dutch said:
Disagreed since I'm arguing from a position of both education and experience, which often bears out my education and training. If 75% of what I was taught/trained turns out to be true in life experience, is it logical for me to presume that the remaining 25% is likely to be true? Yes, IMO, it does. Again, YMMV

Notice that the main people being heavily influenced by the Internet are the young (inexperienced and ignorant) and the truly stupid.

Most religions are composed of adults, not college kids.
Click to expand...
Sure if you're talking about math or science, I think we can safely assume, with 99.9% certainty, that 2+2 is 4, Pythagorean theorem is accurate, the earth is not flat, etc. I'm talking more about day-to-day things that we have no first hand experience with and no way to truly get the behind the scenes info.

"Notice that the main people being heavily influenced by the Internet are the young (inexperienced and ignorant) and the truly stupid. "

Yes. That is scary for the future, but there are a concerning number of people on here who post a Tweet from some rando as though it means anything!
 
Obtenebrator said:
It is a philosopher's type of god. A construct meant to serve the role of housing that which we don't yet know (or possibly can't know) and it carries no real explanatory value or informational value.

Some "philosophers" like Cypress look at the universe and are rightfully awed. No answer is forthcoming as to what caused all this so they create "God" as the placeholder.

But unlike the Believer's God it lacks any firm attributes which could be questioned or tested for. It is, effectively unfalsifiable and as such, again, of no real explanatory or informational value.
Click to expand...
He was talking about my description of what I meant when I use the word "god."

Still reaching out to me, I see...and still not telling me if you have ever seen Pulp Fiction.

C'mon, tell me.

Then we can start another thread to discuss it. You will be able to discuss something you handle there.
 
ZenMode said:
Like everyone, I DO feel like there is a self floating around somewhere behind my eyes, riding inside my body. I feel like I'm REALLY making choices when I decide to mow or not mow the yard.

The more you continue to remind yourself that there is no self, the more it just becomes apart of your everyday existence. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you are almost instantly reminded that they had no choice and the anger dissipates more and more quickly each time it happens.
And yes.... determinism is 100% true 😀
Click to expand...
Why would you "remind yourself" that "there is no self."

There is nothing wrong with you blindly guessing that there is no self...but you may be wrong.

The statement makes no logical sense.
 
Commander Dutch said:
Yet you really believe that someone else or something else is driving that decision according to your earlier posts.

I think you are taking only part of Buddhist philosophy and twisting it to your own ends. Another perspective on the "self is an illusion" philosophy is that we are all one. That our separation from one another is an illusion. In that regard, there is a greater "self" from which we, as individual mortals, are only temporarily split off from. None of which has anything to do with the decisions we make at present.
Click to expand...
The Buddhist philosophy of no-self, I believe, just happened to be right by chance. Ancient Buddhists probably didn't have ANY scientific knowledge of the brain.

"I" make decisions (not the same a "choices" because I don't have choice). I'll give you a real-world example.

I came home the other day and noticed that the grass really needed to be mowed. My initial thoughts were something along the lines of "Fuck. It's really hot (I live in AZ) and I really want to do xxxxx." (an inside activity where it's not 105 degrees). I sit there in my car for a few seconds and make the decision to do it the following morning. A Saturday morning when I can get up, don't have to go to work and can mow before it's hot.

I go inside, perfectly content with my decision and my wife says "Don't forget the (insert last names - close friends) are coming over tonight." Well, shit. I don't want our yard, front or back, looking like hell. I guess I'm mowing.

I KNEW our friends were coming over. I'd known it for a week, but the thought that they were coming over, one that was a determiner in my actions to mow or not mow, didn't occur to me as I was making the initial decision.

Did I have a way to make that thought occur to me at the moment I decided to delay mowing until the next day? Could I have used my free will to make that thought enter consciousness Which would have resulted in a different decision at that moment?
 
Last edited:
Ross Dolan said:
Why would you "remind yourself" that "there is no self."

There is nothing wrong with you blindly guessing that there is no self...but you may be wrong.

The statement makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...
Because an understanding, via constant reminder, that people, especially kids (I have 2 teenagers), truly don't control who they are how they respond, and are nothing but the result of outside influences, takes the emotion out of situations. It allows you to be more reasoned and not respond angrily.
 
ZenMode said:
Because an understanding, via constant reminder, that people, especially kids (I have 2 teenagers), truly don't control who they are how they respond, and are nothing but the result of outside influences, takes the emotion out of situations. It allows you to be more reasoned and not respond angrily.
Click to expand...
So you believe you have zero influence on your children? Even the law does not recognize that.
 
Commander Dutch said:
Yet you really believe that someone else or something else is driving that decision according to your earlier posts.
Click to expand...
ZenMode said:
The Buddhist philosophy of no-self, I believe, just happened to be right by chance. Ancient Buddhists probably didn't have ANY scientific knowledge of the brain.

"I" make decisions (not the same a "choices" because I don't have choice). I'll give you a real-world example.

I came home the other day and noticed that the grass really needed to be mowed. My initial thoughts were something along the lines of "Fuck. It's really hot (I live in AZ) and I really want to do xxxxx." (an inside activity where it's not 105 degrees). I sit there in my car for a few seconds and make the decision to do it the following morning. A Saturday morning when I can get up, don't have to go to work and can mow before it's hot.

I go inside, perfectly content with my decision and my wife says "Don't forget the (insert last names - close friends) are coming over tonight." Well, shit. I don't want our yard, front or back, looking like hell. I guess I'm mowing.

I KNEW our friends were coming over. I'd known it for a week, but the thought that they were coming over, one that was a determiner in my actions to mow or not mow, didn't occur to me as I was making the initial decision.

Did I have a way to make that thought occur to me at the moment I decided to delay mowing until the next day? Could I have used my free will to make that thought enter consciousness Which would have resulted in a different decision at that moment?
Click to expand...
For the record, if you find yourself questioning your beliefs, based on my last post, you have no control over that, either. 😁
 
Hume said:
So you believe you have zero influence on your children? Even the law does not recognize that.
Click to expand...
Everything in the world has influence on your children: parents, friends, TV, radio, social media...all of it. If parents tend to yell when angry, it's more likely that kids will yell when angry. The point is that they don't have a true choice in their reaction in any moment. They are only reacting based on all of the life experiences that have molded their brain and thoughts.
 
ZenMode said:
Everything in the world has influence on your children: parents, friends, TV, radio, social media...all of it. If parents tend to yell when angry, it's more likely that kids will yell when angry. The point is that they don't have a true choice in their reaction in any moment.
Click to expand...
Wow, never heard any parent or child subscribe to that idea.
 
ZenMode said:
Because an understanding, via constant reminder, that people, especially kids (I have 2 teenagers), truly don't control who they are how they respond, and are nothing but the result of outside influences, takes the emotion out of situations. It allows you to be more reasoned and not respond angrily.
Click to expand...
Okay...that is something to strive for...not responding angrily.

Not sure how that answers my question, but I accept it.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Okay...that is something to strive for...not responding angrily.

Not sure how that answers my question, but I accept it.
Click to expand...
When your brain learns something, like responding with anger, it's creates almost like a built-in memory to respond angrily. It takes time to undo that memory, kind of like it takes time to create new habits. People will say that it takes 21 days to create a new habit like, for example, always putting your bathroom stuff back in the medicine cabinet when you're done. The reason why I said I constantly remind myself that we don't truly have free will is because that helps to create that new habit of viewing people and situations differently by helping to remove emotion.
 
ZenMode said:
When your brain learns something, like responding with anger, it's creates almost like a built-in memory to respond angrily. It takes time to undo that memory, kind of like it takes time to create new habits. People will say that it takes 21 days to create a new habit like, for example, always putting your bathroom stuff back in the medicine cabinet when you're done. The reason why I said I constantly remind myself that we don't truly have free will is because that helps to create that new habit of viewing people and situations differently by helping to remove emotion.
Click to expand...
You asserted that "there is no self." You also asserted that "determinism is 100% true."

Asserting that you know those items (which have been and continue to be debated by the finest minds on our planet) to be facts seems to be a habit you ought to question more thoroughly.

I am not saying you are wrong, Zen. You MAY be correct. But...you might do well to question those kinds of things more seriously.
 
Ross Dolan said:
You asserted that "there is no self." You also asserted that "determinism is 100% true."

Asserting that you know those items (which have been and continue to be debated by the finest minds on our planet) to be facts seems to be a habit you ought to question more thoroughly.

I am not saying you are wrong, Zen. You MAY be correct. But...you might do well to question those kinds of things more seriously.
Click to expand...
I assert those things because, biologically/neurologically speaking, there is no self.
 
Hume said:
A man and woman sit in a cafe and the man reaches over and places his hand on the woman's hand. She neither embraces his hand nor pulls away. Sartre calls this bad faith because she refuses to make a decision.

The agnostic has bad faith in same sense by refusing to decide if god is there or not.
Click to expand...
Sartre is wrong here. It is one of four things:

1) The women is dead.
2) The women is unconscious.
3) The women is not able to send the pressure of his hand on hers.
4) The women has decide not to act and proceed further with the encounter.

None of these are about faith at all, good or bad.

Now to the agnostic, which stems from the meaning 'without God'. To the agnostic, there is no god or gods. That does NOT preclude a religion, it just means any religion he believes in has no god or gods. Examples of these are Buddhism, and Shintoism (including the American versions).
Another example, of course, is the Church of No God, a fundamentalist style religion that tries to PROVE there is no god or gods, and often tries to call itself 'atheism'.

The agnostic believes in their religion with just as much faith as any other religion. Who's to say it's 'good' faith or 'bad' faith?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top