Why isn’t God more obvious?

[SVRP]

The alleged evidence from ancient non-Christian and apocryphal sources is the usual dose of supposed evidence, but unfortunately most of these documents were compiled well after the death of Jesus, and the early Christian Church had been well established by then. The most often quoted so called “contemporary” commentary on Christ, by Josephus Flavius (37-97AD) is widely considered to be later interpolations (linguistically), but nevertheless he only wrote “Antiquities” in 93CE, after the first gospels were already written. For the rest of the commentary all these people were born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account. What it boils down to in essence, is that it doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give examples of hearsay.

Indeed, stretched, but can you use the same approached when viewing other ancient documents like the existence of Socrates, who is found in Plato’s writings, yet the earliest copy of Plato’s writings is dated 1,200 years after Plato’s life? The existence of Socrates should also be suspect since Socrates wrote nothing if we used your approach. Fortunately historians don’t do that.

This link is new to me and interesting and even has an impressive “Research Professor of Philosophy” Dr. William Lane Craig as the author, albeit a professor of Theology. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bill...ediscover2.html)
And it is a fair argument, but I have a major difference of opinion regarding this statement:
“5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.”

I think this statement is naïve in the face of the inconsistencies found in the gospels. Dr. William Lane Craig derives the bulk of his argument for historical evidence from the gospels, and therefore faith once again is key to these conclusions.

He has good reason to believe in there historicity because Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, and fifteen years to discredit Luke’s writings. After his intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time.

My reasonable conclusion would be that, as Jim Walker sums it up, “all these early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of Christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular religious times.”
(from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)

Mr. Jim Walker makes a lot of hypothetical questions and extrapolated assumptions, which he doesn’t prove himself, but states them as possibilities of explanation. Are you considering these 'possibilities of explanation' as factual? Not very rational or logical to do so for one who is looking for the truth.

 

[one_raven]

I like the way it completely changes the whole point of the question and makes it mean the opposite of the intended meaning.
It did to me, at least.

 

[water]

Agreed. The tendency toward fundamentalism is probably my single biggest problem with religion and those who subscribe to it.

People have certain personality traits that seem to be independent of what they believe -- possibly implying that their belief doesn't cover all of what a person is about, or that their personal faith is not strong.

There are nervous and frustrated non-religious people, as well as nervous and frustrated religious people.
There are also shiny happy non-religious people, as well as shiny happy religious people.

What makes the difference is that some religious people use their belief to live out their personal frustrations, or that they say it is their religious belief that makes them happy -- and that without their religion, they would be unhappy.

I think people are unhappy when they don't have faith -- and it is not about lacking faith in the religious sense.

It is the simple human strife for balance that can be fulfilled in many different ways -- and a religious belief is only one of those ways.

Fundamentalism can be found anywhere, not just in religion: in politics, fashion, the mentality of the middle class, science. Religious fanatism is one of the more obvious ones -- as it has scriptures to quote from. But the same have Neonazis, feminists etc. Religious fundamentalism just has the longest tradition, that's all.

I suppose I'm a tad more cynical on that point. While I concur that mankind would benefit greatly from another iconoclast revolution of sorts, a stripping away of all preconceived notions about God, I can't believe that even that would produce any sort of agreement about the nature of God.

This is probably due to humans not being cooperative by nature; in fact, in order to survive, one must minimize one's cooperation. As Game Theory has it, a rational agent will minimize his cooperation, and thus universal agreement is an unnatural thing.

While an agnostic myself, I have a certain respect for the Gnostics, who were less about labeling God and more about exploring him. And while I believe their version of religion, no matter how misguided, would be a better template for today's modern faiths, it would not solve the problem of fundamentalism. All attempts at mysticism or liberal religious thought will eventually breed a clan of elitists, who claim the "secret of God" is known only to them. Then the cycle of hegemony starts all over...

Hierarchy and eltism seem to be innate to human nature, it's a form of herd behaviour. Whether the criteria for making this hierarchy is economy, religion or politics, is secondary.

Yes, Jenyar and I have had it out on that topic numerous times. My general position is that Jenyar is far too quick to grant amnesty for the atrocities of the Bible, but hey, as a card-carrying member of Amnesty International, maybe I shouldn't be complaining.

Indeed, it seems advisable to start at one's own treshold ...

I'm always curious, though. If Osama bin Laden and his followers wrote a book about how God inspired them to kill the infidels and take down a great empire of sin and it was buried in the sand for a few thousand years or so, what would be the result? Would we have soccor moms going to church in the year 5057 reading the "word of God" written by bin Laden? And would they assume that all the massacres and atrocities presented in the book were fully justified simply because the writers of the book said they were? And how different would that be from believing the cruelty in the Bible was justified?

A scary thought: but yes, it is possible. The human mind is such that it always tries to make sense out of everything it is presented, and it can combine any two things into a cognitive scheme. So ...

Now, I would be a flaming hypocrite, with my Bill Hicks avatar, if I didn't admit that I don't like to hear my "enemies" get verbally lashed occasionally (hey, it's fun!), but part of what turned me off about Christianity was the burden of having to walk around and believe that most people I saw were going to Hell or deserved eternal torture. I found that being Christian meant that I had to also be a judge, constantly scanning the horizon for threats to my worldview. After a while, that grew tiring and I realized my own standards for "judging" people had nothing to do with what I actually thought; they were merely rules drilled into me by my faith.

Do you know Kohlberg's stages of moral development? (I posted a really short version in SouthStar's "With a heavy heart ..." thread, on page 13) Some people are simply stuck on one stage, and they rigidly judge everything. This has little to do with religion though (although religion is a very fertile ground for such rigidity); people simply have a certain morality, and within that morality, those six stages can be discerned (almost regardless of the brand of morality).

 

[water]

Evidence can take many forms that can provide both deductive and inductive conclusions. And something with a 99% inductive probability is a far more useful working theory than theistic fictions that have zero probability.

How did you *proove* that zero probability? Do you have measuring methods to prove that zero probability?

In contrast theistic religions throughout time have not provided anything of any practical value that we could not have achieved through non-religious means. The god concept is entirely redundant and useless.

No, this needs a correction: The ancient god concept of that old man with a beard is entirely redundant and useless in our present time.

Interesting history although seemingly irrelevant but are you not currently a Christian then?

No.

You are supporting Christian doctrine in your posts therefore you must be currently under the influence of Christian indoctrination, right?

No. You could easily find me "supporting" Buddhism, Hinduism or whichever other religion or belief system (if I knew more about them).

What I am *defending* is good communication. I hate to see those who bash a religion or a belief, esp. Christianity, but have really really lame arguments for that.

In fact, many of those who call themselves "atheists" are simply disillusioned Christians who bear a deep grudge against Christianity. Which is understandable.
But why not call that disillusionment by its name?
Why not simply say "I hate Christianity!"
Why make most elaborate "proofs" as to God's inexistence, why make all those rationalizations about how God is not necessary and such -- when the whole thing is simply about a deep distaste?!

By making all those argumetns and refutations of God, those "atheists" are simply poking in their (old) wounds, they seem to have a perverse pleasure from it.


So you don't believe in God, big deal. But why talk, talk, talk about it then?!!

As if you are trying to reassure yourself that he really doesn't exist and that you really don't believe in him.

And that emphasizes my original point that you disputed that the god concept is nothing more than the creation of human imagination. To show otherwise you merely have to show proof for a god.

No. You want a proof that *you* would believe, while at the same time you have, in advance, discarded any possibility of the existence of such proof. You are looking for God where you are sure to know that you won't find him. Yes, you may just as well say that he isn't there.

What you want is that old man with a beard. But since noone so far has managed to produce him -- you won't believe!

I have no definition of God other than it being an imaginative fictional concept created by theists that they cannot clearly define.

Won-der-ful. If you define it as imaginative, then -- lo and behold! -- then it doesn't exist anywhere else but in one's imagination! No wonder you can't see it!

My, your evading tactics are spectacular.

My only concern is that it represents an entity that either exists or does not and to date no one can show that such an entity exists.

Of course not. It is imaginative and fictional!


Look!
A pink elephant!!

 

[Cris]

Harry,

You have presented something of a brain dump covering too many areas for this thread so I’ll only respond to what I see as key concerns.

It would be vain for a man of today to ask for proof about the shape of the earth even though it would be very difficult for him to prove it without going into space.

The value of science is that the methods used to obtain knowledge are available to anyone. Once a discovery is made then the procedures and experiments used to achieve that discovery are published so that they can be repeated/examined by anyone. The fact that some experiments might be expensive or prohibitive to perform by individuals is another issue entirely.

I still don’t see any issue of vanity here.

We believe many things without having the means to prove it for ourselves. Even the landing of man on the moon was for some debateable so I don't expect you to believe the Bible without evidence.

One doesn’t have to believe anything unless they can be satisfied with the evidence. If you do not find the overwhelming evidence that we have set foot on the moon then by all means don’t believe it.

One cannot base matters of faith on evidence alone.

Faith is defined as a conviction of a truth without any evidence. Religions rely entirely on faith and specifically on NO evidence. If they had any evidence they would not need faith.

Does that mean it's not true just because we can't prove it?

No but it doesn’t mean it should be believed anyway. One can simply withhold belief until proof is available.

In relation to "Blessed are the ..etc" for starter anyone who is lucky enough to believe wholeheartedly in God without doubt and without need for concreate proof have a more hope of entering God's Kingdom.

To believe in such a case is simply irresponsible and irrational behavior.

If I told my son that a meteorite was going to hit the earth in a few seconds and we had too hide in the bunker, I would get very angry if he didn't believe me. If on the other hand he took my word for it, it indicates to me and likewise to God that He has the Ability to trust. TRUST is the key word here.

If you were a compulsive liar and your son knew it then he would have no reason to trust you. If on the other hand everything you have told him in the past has been seen to be true then he would have good reason to trust you. Here the issue is evidence to support the trust. One doesn’t trust a total stranger until some evidence is presented that they can be trusted.

Similarly there is no evidence that a god exists or that such an entity has done anything to aid in my survival in which case I have no reason to place any trust in such an imaginary deity.

If you want to believe in God you first have to exersize some trust in Him.

That is backwards. If such a god exists then he must demonstrate some evidence that he can be trusted otherwise there is no reason to trust such a thing. And so far I see no such evidence.

To do this one must first be clear in their mind's if the God they want to believe in has a personality or is just some neutral force. If the God you wish to believe in has personality then you have to learn what that personality is. In the case of Christianity a Loving and in some cases justice seeking God (putting it very simply).

A desire is little different to a dream. The first stance must be to determine if such an entity exists otherwise all your desires and prayers are quite pointless. And to date no one can show that such entities exist.

To be doubtless in something mean's your have a greater peace of mind.

And if such faith is placed in something that doesn’t exist then while you might feel at peace you will in fact be living a lie and deluding yourself.

A greater peace of mind means you are better prepared to face a challenge in your life etc.

No doubt and the placebo effect works just as well.

We trust(don't doubt) that the Bungi cable won't snap.

No – we have significant evidence that on many past jumps the chord has not snapped. There is no guarantee that it won’t this time. This type of trust is known as inductive reasoning, i.e. statistical evidence. The point here is that you are using evidence again that is not available in religious beliefs.

So not doubting is in some cases essential to progrees.

It comes down to risk assessment based on available evidence. The trust is not blind unlike faith in gods.

.. at the end of the day you must trust in something greater than yourself and pray.

I see no reason to do that unless I know there is something greater to pray to.

If Christ didn't perform any miricle's then what interest would their be in his claim's,

Quite right. There is no independent and verifiable record that he either existed or that he ever performed any miracles – these appear to be only myths.

most saint are recorded as performing miracle's otherwise their closeness to God is in Question.

Catholicism and their delusions are quite another story.

My faith in Chirst is based on personal experience.

And such personal experiences will not be verifiable by any independent source right? In which case how can you tell the difference between your claim of such an experience and a delusion?

Yes million's of people are suffering because we bring it on ourselve's.

No not really – that is simply the current state of our social and scientific evolution.

Can you imagine animal's terminating unwanted children by abortion just because they wanted casual sex.

I was thinking more in terms of cancer and other currently incurable diseases. Animals only have sex because it gives them pleasure – it is purely instinct.

Yes you can blame God all you like but at least ask him why and if dieing is all that bad, considering the possibility of the afterlife.

I do not blame something that doesn’t exist. And the idea that dying is somehow a good thing and a gateway to a paradise has to be the greatest evil ever invented and a good reason why religion must be eliminated quickly.

Yes prayers are not alway's answered but the question should be directed to God.

Can you demonstrate and prove any instance when a prayer was answered?

Religous claims always should be based on fact.

Can you quote any single religious claim that is based on fact?

Again in your opinion the Bible is Mythology. Was the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem Mythology aswell? Jerusalem exists and so does Egypt. I don't know why you are so sure of yourself.

Even the places in fiction novels can actually exist. I was referring to the claims of supernatural events that are described in the bible – these are the essential myths that comprises mostly all religions.

The Bible as a philosophical work is in my book's worth giving a chance.

There are some interesting wisdoms in the bible but then Shakespeare introduced some wisdoms as well in his plays. Such things, it appears, have been discovered by man and there is no indication that anything supernatural has ever intervened.

If you are trully seeking immortality then you need to take all philosophical works seriously.

No I don’t think so. I see my path through cryopreservation and minduploading and perhaps in the medium term through new developments in anti-aging research. See Transhumanism if you want to know more.

Science may never give you immortality you are wasteing precious time with theory's on the Big Bang. Why care about the Big Bang when we can even prevent war's over who controls the worlds oil.

I don’t follow. I don’t see the link between big bang theory and immortality.

Likewise if your truly seeking immortality you should read everything I say regardless if it was not one of your question's. Everything I say has a reason and you should alway's look for the reason behind everything.

Sorry but I haven’t seen anything you have said as giving me any hope that you have any truths to offer and certainly nothing that approaches solutions to mortality.

I feel you are blinded by so called advancement in science and you can't see the science that already exists. Modern science if I not mistaken still dosn't know how the Egyptian's learned such incredible mummification techniques. Nature is a ready made science worth more that any plastic cup made today upsetting the prexisting science of biodegradable product's.

I am a computer scientist and I see the ultimate solution to man’s mortality in our ability to transfer fragile biological intelligence into more resilient artificial substrates. Computing power has been doubling every 12 to 18 months since the 1940’s and will achieve the equivalent power of the human brain within a few years. The exponential increase in technology in this area is going to be highly fascinating if not revolutionary.

As for nature: I don’t see anything particularly good about a long term largely undirected random process that has created numerous destructive diseases, viruses and bacteria and has resulted in our very short term life spans. Mankind must take control of these primeval processes and begin a directed evolutionary path instead of a random one.

Simple Question I would like the answer for is, why men have deflated breast? To what purpose? Sexual stimulation is that it? Isn't it more logical not to have breast since we can't produce milk? Is nature that stupid?
Maybe nature forsaw men having sex changes and or having babies, so to prepare men psychologicaly nature made sure not to do away with them.

I think you need to study some biology. A newly formed fetus has no sex until the correct amount of testosterone pushes the development one way or the other. In some cases this doesn’t work well and a third sex can be created – hermaphrodites. The fetus is simply raw material that can go either way.

Take care
Cris

 

[Cris]

JustARide,

"knowhere" - LOL - nice.

 

[Cris]

Rosa,

How did you *proove* that zero probability? Do you have measuring methods to prove that zero probability?

Induction relies on some amount of evidence. The probability of a valid inductive conclusion depends on the weight of the evidence. Gods have zero evidence to support them so we currently have a zero probability that gods exist. It is that simple.

If you can demonstrate just a single piece of credible evidence that supports the existence of a god then you can raise that zero probability up a bit.

So you don't believe in God, big deal. But why talk, talk, talk about it then?!!

It’s a religious forum. This is the place to talk about such things.

As if you are trying to reassure yourself that he really doesn't exist and that you really don't believe in him.

Or more usefully to help others realize that such things do not exist and hence make the world a better place by removing useless irrational religion from the planet.

No. You want a proof that *you* would believe,

Well of course, there would be no point otherwise.

while at the same time you have, in advance, discarded any possibility of the existence of such proof.

You can’t know that until you produce a proof. Do you have one BTW?

You are looking for God where you are sure to know that you won't find him.

I’m not looking for any gods since I don’t believe they exist. Further I don’t see that they are needed or necessary.

Yes, you may just as well say that he isn't there.

Who isn’t where? Something that doesn’t exist can’t be anywhere can it?

What you want is that old man with a beard. But since noone so far has managed to produce him -- you won't believe!

What is this hang-up you have with old men and long beards?

Won-der-ful. If you define it as imaginative, then -- lo and behold! -- then it doesn't exist anywhere else but in one's imagination! No wonder you can't see it!

Until there is a proof then the god concept is nothing more than a figment of human imagination.

My, your evading tactics are spectacular.

What because I don’t answer the way you wish – hard luck.

Of course not. It is imaginative and fictional!

Good I’m glad we agree at last.

Look!
A pink elephant!!

Stay off the drink, you might start seeing those imaginary gods next.

 

[mis-t-highs]

a brilliant reply, cris, I whole heartedly agree.

well said well said

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

If this universe is infinite, then I am assured that there is a God. If this world is finite, then I am assured there is a God. This is based upon the consideration that God is infinite. If this universe is infinite, then God is the universe. If the universe is finite, then an infinite is necessary to its existence, otherwise there would simply be nothing. Perhaps what you consider God to be may not exist, I have no qualm with this. However, perhaps your consideration of what God is, and what many people consider God is, is not actually what God is. The evidence to support a claim depends upon the claim being made. Sure there is plenty of hard facts in the universe, but what are they evidence of? It all depends on what you're looking for. If you are looking for evidence of an infinite being, then the fact that anything exists at all is evidence enough. How this being acts/interacts is a question all unto istelf.

 

[Cris]

beyond,

If we assume that the God you reference is the creator of the universe then if the universe is infinite then such a god could not have created it.

Isn't it more likely that if the universe is infinite then a god is unnecessary and more likely doesnt exist?

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Did you not read my post? If the universe is infinite, then the universe is God.

However, the fact alone that there is identity among existing things is indicatory that the universe is not infinite. It may be that it is infinite is certain respects. However, even were this true, it does not change that the nature of the universe cannot be infinite, as such. Therefore, it must have been created, even were it to be infinitely old.

Hence, the universe cannot be God, but rather, an infinite creator must exist.

 

[JustARide]

Rosa,

I think people are unhappy when they don't have faith -- and it is not about lacking faith in the religious sense.

It is the simple human strife for balance that can be fulfilled in many different ways -- and a religious belief is only one of those ways.

Faith is always a thorny word. In different contexts, it can mean a thousand different things. I may not phrase my definition as you have, but I do believe there is a certain faith involved in living. Not to harp on the Derrida similarities again (some people around here seem to be allergic to any mention of him), but he does have some interesting things to say about the subject. I believe he more often calls faith a "promise." Every time someone opens his mouth he is putting his faith in language, in meaning, in inflection and tone. He is making a promise of sorts, even if what comes he says is a lie. Also, we, as a race, must put our faith in a variety of day-to-day institutions, processes, etc (even if it's only a placeholder faith, there to allow us to survive) in order to get along.

Theists have a faith. Non-theists have a faith. I might even venture as to say we agnostics have a faith, if only one that echoes my favorite Spiritualized lyric: "I believe I'm damaged. I believe that I'm wrong..." There must always be a faith in the Other, the thing which, by its sheer otherness, makes everything what it is instead of something else. Put simply, there is always a faith in what is.

Fundamentalism can be found anywhere, not just in religion: in politics, fashion, the mentality of the middle class, science. Religious fanatism is one of the more obvious ones -- as it has scriptures to quote from. But the same have Neonazis, feminists etc. Religious fundamentalism just has the longest tradition, that's all.

And oh, what a fine tradition it is.

A scary thought: but yes, it is possible. The human mind is such that it always tries to make sense out of everything it is presented, and it can combine any two things into a cognitive scheme. So ...

This is precisely my problem with the Bible. I can never be certain that it was not written by the same type of religious fanatic who blows up "infidels" merely because they do not worship the same god.

Do you know Kohlberg's stages of moral development? (I posted a really short version in SouthStar's "With a heavy heart ..." thread, on page 13) Some people are simply stuck on one stage, and they rigidly judge everything. This has little to do with religion though (although religion is a very fertile ground for such rigidity); people simply have a certain morality, and within that morality, those six stages can be discerned (almost regardless of the brand of morality).

I remember your posts on the subject, but I can't say I know much about it. I've seen a basic listing of the stages though and they seemed reasonable enough (though I haven't really given them much thought). As I recall the first stage was something like "authority and punishment." Of course, to me, the Christian religion would in fact reinforce that kind of thinking (eg Heaven/Hell). Christianity is built on black and white dichotomies without a lot of wiggle room. If I had to pick from religions, I'd say Buddhism or Taoism would represent a step forward in moral reasoning.

Certainly people do often find themselves stuck in a certain way of thinking, whether it's morally, religiously, politically, or what have you. I typed a short post on SouthStar's thread as well (though it has been dutifully ignored... heh), and I believe I said something like, "It's good, even healthy, to shake the walls of one's own fortress occasionally."

Being an idealogue makes life a hell of a lot easier, but easy isn't everything. In fact, it's usually wrong. I say it helps to challenge oneself as much as possible by returning to thoughts and ideas that have been cemented in one's mind the longest and reexamining them. Agnosticism (which I do not regard as a substitute for religion) is merely a good vehicle for achieving this.

 

[stretched]

Yo SRVP,

Quote SRVP:
"Indeed, stretched, but can you use the same approached when viewing other ancient documents like the existence of Socrates, who is found in Plato’s writings, yet the earliest copy of Plato’s writings is dated 1,200 years after Plato’s life? The existence of Socrates should also be suspect since Socrates wrote nothing if we used your approach. Fortunately historians don’t do that."

I am not concerned about Socrates in this discussion. Yes, you are correct in a way, but the sheer volume of commentary relating to Socrates compared to Jesus is enough of an indicator for historical integrity. The factor that is of great importance is obviously that Socrates did not claim to be either god or the Son of God. Neither does non-belief in Socrates condemn one to eternal hell-fire. So the evidence for a historic Jesus has an altogether different skew and requires a much more stringent standard of validity.

Quote SRVP:
"He has good reason to believe in there historicity because Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, and fifteen years to discredit Luke’s writings. After his intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time."

There are many scholars that have come to the very opposite conclusion, so I would assume that depending on your faith the requirements of "truth" would differ greatly. It is a puzzle indeed. But how does one explain the difficult questions like, for example:

Regarding a "A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE" in 107CE

"This strange silence on the Gospel Jesus which pervades almost a century of Christian correspondence cries out for explanation. It cannot be dismissed as some inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers "show no interest" in the earthly life of Jesus. Something is going on here."

(From: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm)

There seems to be so many contrived or difficult scenarios within the early commentary on "The Gospel Jesus" that the question of historicity at large becomes glaringly apparent. Taken together with the predominant silence in contemporary writings (Flavius) regarding a figure who supposedly raised the dead, (now that’s newsworthy) the conclusion is practically foregone. I myself have searched for many years to find supporting evidence of integrity for a historical man called "Jesus" but have only bumped my head against arguments from faith. Like I said, it seems if one sets out to find the "truth" from a non-secular perspective, the outcome is very different from that of an objective search for the "truth" What swayed me to certainty of non- historicity thought, was Earl Doherty`s exhaustive search for the man "Jesus" in the " The Jesus Puzzle" (find it here: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm)

Allcare.

 

[Cris]

Beyond,

Did you not read my post? If the universe is infinite, then the universe is God.

Sure I did and it doesn’t make any more sense after the repeat.

However, the fact alone that there is identity among existing things is indicatory that the universe is not infinite.

What identity?

It may be that it is infinite is certain respects.

For example?

However, even were this true, it does not change that the nature of the universe cannot be infinite, as such.

Why not? Please give a basis for your assertion.

Therefore, it must have been created, even were it to be infinitely old.

That is an impossible paradox. Something that is infinitely old means that it has no beginning, i.e. it was not created.

Hence, the universe cannot be God, but rather, an infinite creator must exist.

Baseless assertion.

 

[HARRY]

To Cris,

thank's for your comment's and to quite honest I feel honoured that you read and comment on what I have said considering how uneducated I obviously am. Thankyou for giving me a chance and I want you to know you are more to me that just someone to debate with. I would like to learn more about your work because I too have an interest in computing and I have idea's I would like to develop.

Sorry if I dumped my brain on you I'll try to be more concise.

I realise that you need concreate prove, something I can't give.
I still feel that you are wasteing your time hoping to find immortality through science and I'll expain why.
The science of today is a product of the science that already exist's. In essence you are chasing your tail. Immortality has alway's existed and a lot more that just immortality, self concious beings with the desire to learn about their Creator and things not yet revealed.

I also feel not reading philosophy is your biggest downfall. Without philosophy the toy's of today would never have existed.
I feel you should focus on finding ways to open up your mind to different idea's and not just science.
Science is like the tip of the iceberg, the mojority of what exists is hidden out of sight.

ps Quote" One can simply withhold belief until proof is available" this should be the basis of your argument and not cases of bad religion.
I strongly suggest you withhold the idea that you will find immortality before you find God.
God is the greatest inspiration behind the concept of immortality, Christ is in fact your greatest mentor. One again you are bitting your tail.


As a side note:
Because I observe the way I think I see how my perception on thing's can be easily effected by other powerful thought's. I would advise anyone to analyse the way they think and to take note of the why powerful thought bases steer the mind in various direction's.
This is important for all types of work, lateral thinking is based on our pre-existing thought bases. To expand lateral thinking one must dismatle the thought bases that might be steering the mind in one direction.
I'm not trying to trick your logic but be aware of the trick's you might be playing on yourself.
Proof is not enough to get us anywhere even though God in many case is willing to give us proof
You consider whole hearted faith 'irresponsible and irrational behavior'.
. Then do you despise the faith Pythagorus had in that everything is mathematics. It has been said without his faith(hunch) our modern world would not exist.
He pursured an idea from what nature already supplied him in music, math in nature. If you gave God the same benifit of the doubt regardless if he existed or not you would have more to offer because you exersized faith in something more that you can currently imagine or prove.
This is the key to every scientific endevour, and you fail to recongnize without faith nothing can progress.

Christian countries thank's to monk's and the occasionally gifted mind reading ancient work's and collecting data etc. are world leaders in techonolgy. The technology people worship today is a bi-product of one of the many Christianity can bring. Like Reading and studing about God. God is the inspiration behind much of the uses for language. The use of word's one could say was inspirered even more by the ten commandment written by God himself.

Cancer is like any other natural cause of death, part of life. Skin is product of life and death, there is a reason for everything. Just like the is a reason for lightning.

I don't expect anyone to believe in Christ just because I had an experience of floating in the cloud's. Naturaly one would say I'm on drug's.
God reveal's himself where and when he chooses. Even if I begged God to convice you He exists he most probebly wouldn't even listen.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that even though there is apparently no proof of Christ miracle's the most powerfull religion ever nown in history sprung up. It dosn't realy matter if Columbus had bad intention's, people with bad intention's would in my opinion find greater comfort in praying to a God of War and destruction. Why pray to the God of Peace.

What ever Christ didn't do he's followers did a very good job. Can so many people be so stupid about believing that a peice of wood (the cross) can give us eternal life.

Animal's (except for a few extreem cases)do not terminate their children, they have more moral's than we do. Why is it so diffucult for us to have children with so much technology around? We can't even build a society which protects unborn baby's and like it or not it has been said before mankind in gerneral is morally worse than the animal kingdom and that includes all those nasty bug's that make our life miserable.

Yes the idea of life after death could be considered an evil. But your work is also prone to evil as well. If a dictator could live for ever we are all doomed. There is a reason for death and we all should sit down and think about why it is.

I don't pray for miracle's so I can't answer that. I mainly pray for everyone including myself to be near God. You need to ask others who pray for specific miracle's. It's not uncommon and I have heard many stories but like most cases one could say it was a coinsidence that someone survives a horrific car crash.

I did mention Religion should not deal with science. It should only deals with spiritual teaching's that have been handed down through various mean's. Apart from the obvious description's of existing places. Spiritual teaching should have nothing to do with how the sun heat's up the earth.
Spiritual teachers on the other hand use nature to descibe concepts. Light is real but we use it metaphoricaly to discribe God's nature.

Yes most fiction is base on real places, I guess then we could say everything that has been written without documented evidence is just fantasy.

I find it amazing that you can compare the Bible with Shakespeare. If only you spent more time reading the theology, philosophy etc. that has spung out of the Bible you wouldn't be so quick to capare it with a such historical figures.
Regardless if you think anything spiritual is based on fantasy you are depriving yourself of everything it has it offer and focusing on what essentialy is just a pile of nuts and bolts.

In reference to the Big Bang basicaly I'm saying without peace life on earth can become extinct. I would encourage anyone to learn to balance between what is needful and what is for pleasure.

In reference to deseases we are one these so called deseases. The funny thing is if it weren't for deaseses and desasters science would probebly never have developed as much as it has.
Every thing's that exists in nature is an opportunity for us to understand more. You are bitting your tail by shunning nature.

Yes I need to study biology but why do men have deflated breasts? We are either male or female I was not reffering to the third sex.
It dosn't matter what pushes us this way or that way. Why do we have something that is useless? Is nature that stupid?
The answer could be the fetus is equipped with nipples but why can't they be deleted?.

I guess I wasn't as concise as I should have been.

Regard's,
Harry.

 

[SVRP]

"Indeed, stretched, but can you use the same approached when viewing other ancient documents like the existence of Socrates, who is found in Plato’s writings, yet the earliest copy of Plato’s writings is dated 1,200 years after Plato’s life? The existence of Socrates should also be suspect since Socrates wrote nothing if we used your approach. Fortunately historians don’t do that."

I am not concerned about Socrates in this discussion. Yes, you are correct in a way, but the sheer volume of commentary relating to Socrates compared to Jesus is enough of an indicator for historical integrity. The factor that is of great importance is obviously that Socrates did not claim to be either god or the Son of God. Neither does non-belief in Socrates condemn one to eternal hell-fire. So the evidence for a historic Jesus has an altogether different skew and requires a much more stringent standard of validity.

In total agreement with that statement, stretched. And if sheer volume of commentary is enough of an indicator for historical integrity, then consider this – there are at least seven copies of Plato’s Tetralogies held in national museums with the oldest copy dated to be 900AD, which is about 1,200 years when it was authored. The books of the New Testament has 24,000 copies held in national museums with the oldest copy dated to be 130AD, which is about 30 years when it was authored. If volume is an indicator for historical integrity then the NT must be considered historical with no other classical work even coming close.

"He has good reason to believe in there historicity because Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, and fifteen years to discredit Luke’s writings. After his intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time."

There are many scholars that have come to the very opposite conclusion, so I would assume that depending on your faith the requirements of "truth" would differ greatly. It is a puzzle indeed.

Rest assured, stretched, Ramsey was a non-believer when he started his research and his objective was to show Christianity was a fake just by examining the evidence alone. The same was true with Dr. Simon Greenleaf, founder of Harvard’s School of Law. He was certain he could refute the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus as recorded. After his careful study, he wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists, stating it was “impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead.”

I would like to know what other scholars used the same approach as Sir William Ramsey did and came to the opposite conclusion. Do you have any names?

But how does one explain the difficult questions like, for example:

Regarding a "A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE" in 107CE

"This strange silence on the Gospel Jesus which pervades almost a century of Christian correspondence cries out for explanation. It cannot be dismissed as some inconsequential quirk, or by the blithe observation made by New Testament scholarship that early Christian writers "show no interest" in the earthly life of Jesus. Something is going on here."

(From: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm)

There seems to be so many contrived or difficult scenarios within the early commentary on "The Gospel Jesus" that the question of historicity at large becomes glaringly apparent. Taken together with the predominant silence in contemporary writings (Flavius) regarding a figure who supposedly raised the dead, (now that’s newsworthy) the conclusion is practically foregone. I myself have searched for many years to find supporting evidence of integrity for a historical man called "Jesus" but have only bumped my head against arguments from faith. Like I said, it seems if one sets out to find the "truth" from a non-secular perspective, the outcome is very different from that of an objective search for the "truth" What swayed me to certainty of non- historicity thought, was Earl Doherty`s exhaustive search for the man "Jesus" in the " The Jesus Puzzle" (find it here: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm)

The following review should answer the above inquiry.

The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty: a critique by Bernard D. Muller“On these matters, Doherty either ignores, overlooks, doubts or harasses the primary evidence. He is prone to use inaccurate translations and biased "mythicist" interpretations, many on dubious latter texts, in order to claim his points. He cannot find half-decent attestations about belief in antiquity of a "lower fleshy heaven" (far from that!), so crucial for his position. To substitute for the lacks, Earl relies on agenda-driven rhetoric, arguments from silence, assumptions and convoluted & largely unsubstantiated theories (with hypotheses stacked on each other!). Through such a horrific "methodology", the chances of him being right are insignificant.” (quoted from http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html )

IMHO, Earl Doherty should have a disclaimer in his writings,
“For Entertainment Purposes Only”

Now a question for you to think about, stretched. Although written 300 years after the event, the Talmud, a source of Jewish apologetics, includes the reason for the execution of Jesus. If Jesus was not an actual historical figure, why did they include him in the Talmud? Shouldn’t they have said, “This Jesus professed by this Christian sect did not exist at all.” Or maybe they should have written nothing at all to prevent the perpetuation of a mythical figure. Why mention Jesus if He wasn’t an actual person?

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

http://www.rense.com/general43/jesus.htm

 

[JustARide]

Yes I need to study biology but why do men have deflated breasts?

Again, sorry to butt in, but I had to comment on "deflated breasts." First of all, I'd never really thought of my breasts as being deflated, but I suppose they could be. (Actually I like that reasoning. It sort of implies that the female boob is the original template for the breast and men are the ones with the genetic variation. I can dig it.)

As to the question, I'd say men don't have inflated breasts because if we did we would do nothing but stare at them for hours on end.

We are either male or female

... or Janet Reno.

 

[Cris]

Harry,

Philosophical searches lead to questions concerning the meaning of life and survival, although that is a gross simplification. The religious component of philosophy offers gods and souls or the cycle-of life propositions as answers to these questions. But the pragmatic philosopher such as those like me see no reason or evidence for gods, souls, or a deeper meaning to life. These two paths lead to two approaches to life.

The religionist does little to nothing in a practical sense and hopes that the afterlife concept is actually real and that that will provide them with answers to the meaning of life, immortality and eternal happiness. In essence they are simply waiting to die so that all will be revealed. If there were ever such a thing as the devil this would be his perfect sell. The ultimate evil – convince everyone that death is really the doorway to paradise.

The second path is to take practical action to solve the death problem or to resign oneself to inevitable non-existence, a state that I find unacceptable. But without an unproven supernatural means we are left with the proven tools of science and technology to achieve real solutions.

As we delve deeper into the brain via neuroscience and psychology we see less and less scope for a soul and certainly no evidence of one, and certainly no need for one. And if there are no souls then the afterlife concept and reincarnation concepts are just useless vacuous ideas. And where does that leave people – dead and very quickly.

While philosophy is nice to consider, it doesn’t produce any practical benefits like life. So while I love to think I also need to follow the practical path of science and technology in the hope of securing my survival because religions offer only false hope with no practical solutions.

I also feel not reading philosophy is your biggest downfall. Without philosophy the toy's of today would never have existed.
I feel you should focus on finding ways to open up your mind to different idea's and not just science.
Science is like the tip of the iceberg, the mojority of what exists is hidden out of sight.

I think you have misunderstood me. I am primarily a philosopher, just not the impractical type.

God is the greatest inspiration behind the concept of immortality, Christ is in fact your greatest mentor.

But this is just a figment of human imagination, a fantasy with no factual basis. A false dream that only leads to inevitable death. If there was ever a waste of time then religion fits the bill perfectly. But you can prove me wrong by proving that a god of any type has at some time existed or does exist or will exist. You can’t since there are no such things.

.. do you despise the faith Pythagorus had in that everything is mathematics. It has been said without his faith(hunch) our modern world would not exist.

But he used the evidence provided by mathematics to prove his points. That is not the same type of blind faith used by religionists.

This is the key to every scientific endevour, and you fail to recongnize without faith nothing can progress.

You are confusing imaginative hypotheses with blind faith. The good scientist will make an imaginative proposition and then attempt to prove it. He doesn’t start by assuming his idea is true unlike the religionist. Do you see the very important difference?

Christian countries thank's to monk's and the occasionally gifted mind reading ancient work's and collecting data etc. are world leaders in techonolgy. The technology people worship today is a bi-product of one of the many Christianity can bring.

And think how far more advanced we could have been if they hadn’t been hampered with useless religious concepts. There is no such thing as a Christian country, all leading successful countries are driven by secular governments and administrations since religious controlled authoritarian regimes proved useless – as we can now witness with Islamic controlled backward countries.

Like Reading and studing about God. God is the inspiration behind much of the uses for language. The use of word's one could say was inspirered even more by the ten commandment written by God himself.

Fortunately most scientists are atheistic otherwise nothing substantial would ever have been achieved.

Cancer is like any other natural cause of death, part of life. Skin is product of life and death, there is a reason for everything. Just like the is a reason for lightning.

A reason for everything? I hope you mean cause and effect, right?

God reveal's himself where and when he chooses.

Can you demonstrate an example where such an alleged god has revealed itself?

Don't you think it's a bit odd that even though there is apparently no proof of Christ miracle's the most powerfull religion ever nown in history sprung up.

That is a logical fallacy – Argumentum ad populum again. Just because a large number of people believe something gives no indication of whether it is true or not. But remember that Christianity might not have existed had not Constantine declared it the official religion that everyone must follow. There is nothing like the force of a brutal authoritarian government to force people to believe something whether they wanted to or not. I think it was a close call with the Sun god as the main alternative.

What ever Christ didn't do he's followers did a very good job. Can so many people be so stupid about believing that a peice of wood (the cross) can give us eternal life.

You mean like the time when virtually everyone on the planet believed the world was flat. Without evidence people will believe almost anything as long as they have an explanation of some type. So, yes large numbers of people can be quite stupid since most people are like sheep – they do what others tell them.

Animal's (except for a few extreem cases)do not terminate their children, they have more moral's than we do.

They don’t know how to remove fetuses from their wombs, but yes they do kill and abandon their young on a regular basis. They have no moral sense only instinct.

Why is it so diffucult for us to have children with so much technology around?

It is not difficult at all but the mortality rate is extremely high without help. Nature never guaranteed successful births every time. But science and technology are moving in that direction.

We can't even build a society which protects unborn baby's and like it or not it has been said before mankind in gerneral is morally worse than the animal kingdom and that includes all those nasty bug's that make our life miserable.

Apparently you have an issue with abortion since this is at least the second time you have raised this. The real issue is to construct a society where unwanted babies are not produced in the first place. Christianity has had some 2000 years to build a better world and has failed quite miserably and with the percentage of Christians in the world steadily falling. Religion and Christianity isn’t the answer. We need a new social structure that has not yet been devised that would be acceptable to the majority.

Yes the idea of life after death could be considered an evil. But your work is also prone to evil as well. If a dictator could live for ever we are all doomed. There is a reason for death and we all should sit down and think about why it is.

You have not thought about this very much so I’ll forgive you your ill-considered response. The reason for death is that we have not yet found a way to stop it. It is the result of an evolutionary process that did not develop in a way that supported extended lifespans for complex biological structures. However, bacteria do not die unless they do not find nourishment, and there is a frog that has an open-ended lifetime. Death is not inevitable but a puzzle for us to solve. Aging is currently being viewed by those in the arena as a disease to be cured like any other.

one could say it was a coinsidence that someone survives a horrific car crash.

These cases generally ignore the thousands of other cases where people did pray but died – these are conveniently forgotten. Those that survive are simply part of a normal statistical distribution.

Yes most fiction is base on real places, I guess then we could say everything that has been written without documented evidence is just fantasy.

No, merely the parts that did not have any factual support to begin with.

I find it amazing that you can compare the Bible with Shakespeare. If only you spent more time reading the theology, philosophy etc. that has spung out of the Bible you wouldn't be so quick to capare it with a such historical figures.

Most of what has sprung from the bible is some 20,000+ cults and sects where each has different interpretations of what the bible says and means. That isn’t wisdom but total chaos. If I study the bible more whose interpretation should I believe? But I do find the bible an excellent source of inspiration as a support for atheism. I have many copies written with different approaches but my most well-thumbed version is a leather bound RSV originally published in 1952 and given to me by a vicar’s son in 1969. That was at the beginning of my devout Christian period.

Regardless if you think anything spiritual is based on fantasy you are depriving yourself of everything it has it offer and focusing on what essentialy is just a pile of nuts and bolts.

That’s because there is no evidence that there is anything other than nuts and bolts. Show me a proof if you believe otherwise.

In reference to the Big Bang basicaly I'm saying without peace life on earth can become extinct. I would encourage anyone to learn to balance between what is needful and what is for pleasure.

And without science and technology and a method for the population to leave the planet we will all be extinct when the next major asteroid hits us. It seems the best way to achieve peace is to eliminate religion from the planet. It seems to be the main cause of current world terrorism and seems to have been behind most of the wars in the past several millennia.

In reference to deseases we are one these so called deseases. The funny thing is if it weren't for deaseses and desasters science would probebly never have developed as much as it has.

Riiiight!! You can’t really be serious with that answer I hope.

Every thing's that exists in nature is an opportunity for us to understand more. You are bitting your tail by shunning nature.

I’m not shunning nature just advocating a way to solve the problems it creates. Nature is not an intelligent or directed process, it has evolved in a chaotic fashion and reverse engineering the complexities of the brain and cellular systems is just a matter of time before we can design something better.

Yes I need to study biology but why do men have deflated breasts? We are either male or female I was not reffering to the third sex.
It dosn't matter what pushes us this way or that way. Why do we have something that is useless? Is nature that stupid?
The answer could be the fetus is equipped with nipples but why can't they be deleted?.

I don’t really care I guess, but those are issues for evolutionary study and not for this thread I think.

Take care
Cris

 

[water]

Induction relies on some amount of evidence. The probability of a valid inductive conclusion depends on the weight of the evidence. Gods have zero evidence to support them so we currently have a zero probability that gods exist. It is that simple.

If you can demonstrate just a single piece of credible evidence that supports the existence of a god then you can raise that zero probability up a bit.

My, this is like talking to a thick wall.

You have defined God as:

I have no definition of God other than it being an imaginative fictional concept created by theists that they cannot clearly define.

Such a definition successfully, in advance excludes *any* possibility of any proof for or aganist God.

How could anyone bring you any proof of something that you have in advance discarded as impossible to prove?!

“ So you don't believe in God, big deal. But why talk, talk, talk about it then?!! ”
It’s a religious forum. This is the place to talk about such things.

Evader. You are lying both to yourself and to me about your reasons for debating God.

Or more usefully to help others realize that such things do not exist and hence make the world a better place by removing useless irrational religion from the planet.

Mormons "help" people too, you know. What makes you think you're different than them?! Fact is that you have your anti-God position, and you feel it is threatened if others don't agree with you, that's why you keep talking about God.

“ while at the same time you have, in advance, discarded any possibility of the existence of such proof. ”
You can’t know that until you produce a proof. Do you have one BTW?

My, your evading is stupefying. With your definition of God, you have in advance discarded any possibility of any proof for or against God.

It's like if you had broken a vase, and now you demand me to show you that same vase whole.

You want me to prove ex post what you have ex ante declared as impossible. Yes, indeed, that's so scientific of you.

I’m not looking for any gods since I don’t believe they exist. Further I don’t see that they are needed or necessary.

This is your point exactly: you don't think that they are needed or necessary.
And the only true argument for that is that you have a distaste for God.
Yet you are such a liar, that you cover up your disgust, rationalize and intellectualize it into "lack of empirical evidence".

You simply don't have the guts to say: I have a distaste for the idea of God. I therefore do not follow it, and I wish others would do the same.

Until there is a proof then the god concept is nothing more than a figment of human imagination.

But you have in advance excluded any possibility of God's existence, as you have in advance called it a "figment of human imagination".
Figments of human imagination, per definition, cannot be proven as phenomena existing in a manner that can be proven with exact objective scientific methods.

“ My, your evading tactics are spectacular. ”
What because I don’t answer the way you wish – hard luck.

I'll repeat: You are lying to yourself and to me about your reasons for debating God.

“ Of course not. It is imaginative and fictional! ”
Good I’m glad we agree at last.

Are you so bloody dense or are you trying to be witty in an extremely charmless way?

Stay off the drink, you might start seeing those imaginary gods next.

Ahh diddums.

 

[water]

Faith is always a thorny word. In different contexts, it can mean a thousand different things. I may not phrase my definition as you have, but I do believe there is a certain faith involved in living.

Of course there is a certain faith involved in living!

Not to harp on the Derrida similarities again (some people around here seem to be allergic to any mention of him),

Well yes, to some of us, Derrida is the personification of a dullness that could make the paint peel off the walls. Sorry.

but he does have some interesting things to say about the subject.

Of course he does. But if he only wouldn't be so damn verbose!

I believe he more often calls faith a "promise." Every time someone opens his mouth he is putting his faith in language, in meaning, in inflection and tone. He is making a promise of sorts, even if what comes he says is a lie. Also, we, as a race, must put our faith in a variety of day-to-day institutions, processes, etc (even if it's only a placeholder faith, there to allow us to survive) in order to get along.

Yes, of course. And there really is no rational, logical explanation for faith. There is no rational reason for you to hope that the thunder wouldn't hit your home -- yet you hope that the thunder wouldn't hit your home. Does this mean that you are being irrational? Yes, some would say so. Yet if you wouldn't be at least a bit worried, you could end up omitting doing certain things that could prevent damage.

Faith is an irrational phenomenon; and in our Western world, swearing to rationality, there should be no room for irrationality. This way, we end up denying things that we actually do, or make them unrecognizable -- only to give the overall image of being "rational".

Theists have a faith. Non-theists have a faith. I might even venture as to say we agnostics have a faith, if only one that echoes my favorite Spiritualized lyric: "I believe I'm damaged. I believe that I'm wrong..." There must always be a faith in the Other, the thing which, by its sheer otherness, makes everything what it is instead of something else. Put simply, there is always a faith in what is.

Exactly. And how irrational! You cannot really "prove" that something *is*.

This is precisely my problem with the Bible. I can never be certain that it was not written by the same type of religious fanatic who blows up "infidels" merely because they do not worship the same god.

Does your understanding of a text depend on knowing the author?

I remember your posts on the subject, but I can't say I know much about it. I've seen a basic listing of the stages though and they seemed reasonable enough (though I haven't really given them much thought). As I recall the first stage was something like "authority and punishment." Of course, to me, the Christian religion would in fact reinforce that kind of thinking (eg Heaven/Hell). Christianity is built on black and white dichotomies without a lot of wiggle room. If I had to pick from religions, I'd say Buddhism or Taoism would represent a step forward in moral reasoning.

Not necessarily. A simple Chinese farmer, by religious denomination a Buddhist, may be stuck on stage 3 or 4 his whole life.
But on the whole, I agree with you -- ever heard of Buddhist fundamentalists? I haven't.

Certainly people do often find themselves stuck in a certain way of thinking, whether it's morally, religiously, politically, or what have you. I typed a short post on SouthStar's thread as well (though it has been dutifully ignored... heh), and I believe I said something like, "It's good, even healthy, to shake the walls of one's own fortress occasionally."

But this desire to shake the walls of one's own fortress occasionally must comes from within to be effective. One won't shake the walls of one's own fortress occasionally just by reading your post, and thinking that it might be a good idea.
Those who feel that they ought to shake the walls of their fortresses are already doing it.

Being an idealogue makes life a hell of a lot easier, but easy isn't everything. In fact, it's usually wrong. I say it helps to challenge oneself as much as possible by returning to thoughts and ideas that have been cemented in one's mind the longest and reexamining them. Agnosticism (which I do not regard as a substitute for religion) is merely a good vehicle for achieving this.

The problem I have with agnosticism is that it is inconsistent: If one is to be a consequent agnostic, one shouldn't even be sure that things can be. A consequent agnostic cannot really have faith in what is. To a consequent agnostic, everything should be a haze.

But the fact is, that we are alive, we strive to survive -- and in this strive we act on our values and preferences, whether we are consciously aware of them or not. We have those values and preferences, they exist -- so we cannot agnostically say, "I cannot know whether they are or not."
A new term is needed instead of agnosticism.