Agnosticism: Truth?

[Sultan85]

Hey, First time posting here.

I've always been agnostic and in my mind it seems so clear. The fact that people are either atheist or believe in ________ confuses me. How can someone say "No, God certainly does not exist" or "God exists, and on top of that he has this rule book you have to follow." I don't know anything about God and I'll happily stand by that.

Look at it from this point of view. Top scientists around the world all agree on one thing: that we don't know much about: space, the universe, everything that is outside our little world. Yet, we "know" that God created it?

I don't want to argue about the EXISTENCE of God, since it's really pointless to get to any kind of conclusion. How does the universe work? I really don't know. Could a God be part of the answer? Sure, I don't see why not. That's where I usually disagree with atheists; I won't say "No way in hell is there a God." It's not really worth our time to speculate about something so abstract as whether or not a God, who created the whole universe, exists or not.

However, most religions (specifically monotheistic religions) take it farther than that. They're telling us "Yes, God exists and on top of that he wants to you to do this and that or you'll burn in hell." This is where my blood gets heated. Maybe it's due to the fact that I've never stepped in a church that I don't understand this kind of thinking; but it's just instinctively wrong.
So they're telling me, that the creator of human beings and on top of that, the whole universe, has a beef against me for looking at a woman with lust, and that I should repent of my sins? Seriously, the whole idea that the most intelligent and supreme being of the universe is particularly concerned with what us humans do on earth seems ridiculous. In God's eyes, we humans must seem like amibas are seen by us. Are you going to tell an amiba how to live and on top of that send him to hell if he doesn't comply? C'mon! Personally, if God does exist, I think he would be rather friendly.

I guess I've been ranting for a while; but since all my friends are either agnostic or atheist I never get the counter point to my argument.
My final question to all who read this: Why isn't agnosticism the only true way of looking at the God issue?

[alexiarose]

Really?

How does one measure the strength we use to overcome trials?
How does one measure hope?
How does one measure forgiveness or guilt?

How about implementing a scale from 1 to 10? Examples can be given to each point in the scale, but that seems unnecessary. The point is, we can easily observe, on people, different measures of those things you mentioned.

OBSERVE, not measure.
And if you claim it can me measured, then provide the scale and make sure it is inclusive of all, not subjective based on the circumstances.

"Measurement is the estimation of the magnitude of some attribute of an object". You're saying "God" is, among other things, "strength". Let's exercise some common sense, here... I don't have to provide a scale for us to agree one can be thought up. Do we agree that a magnitude of "strength" can be associated to the trials it can overcome? "Strength necessary to cope with the loss of a job", "the loss of a pet", "the loss of a wife", "a son", etc etc. I don't think I have to lay everything out to demonstrate my point. You may not agree to the way the scale is made, but that's a technicality. "Emotional strength" (which is the one we're talking about) can be estimated because it can be observed.

No, we can't judge how much strength it takes to cope with something like the loss of a job, or to overcome the death of a loved one. Each person would probably apply a very different amount of strength. You can't measure it.

No, we don't agree the magnitude of strength can be associated with trials because one person may require little strength to overcome it while others may require more.

Emotional strength can be observed. It can be reported, but that is very subjective. The amount used cannot be measured outside of these subjective self reports.

I asked for a very real-time, all inclusive scale for these measurements. One you said you could provide. Then do it.

You fail to realize that for any scale of measurement to be useful, it has to be conventionalized, and before that happens it's aways subjective. Just like perspectives on the damage of a seismic event, perspectives on necessary "emotional strength" to overcome a given situation would have to be agreed upon between observers before the scale could be used to compare situations.Obviously, I'm not about to waste my time devising a scale no one else would have interest in. The point isn't on whether or not it exists, but on whether or not it could. These alleged attributes of "God" are, in fact, measurable. And they are measured to some extent. When we think that a person we know doesn't "have what it takes" to overcome a certain situation, we're making an estimate on the "emotional strength" this person lacks. I think this constitutes a personal measurement of this attribute.

Wrong. I am fully aware of the scale of measurement being subjective which is exactly why I asked you to provide one that was valid. Can you do so?

I'll have to assume you didn't actually make an effort to understand my last post. What you ask for is a rather pointless exercise for the stated reasons. I don't really have much more to add on this.

Then you didn't read my next post. Either way, you offered the means of measurement, if I am missing something, please point it out. I am really trying to learn.

Enki Bilal's fictional society is one where all sorts of scales have been implemented, for whatever reason. I remember one on smell. Very subjective, isn't it? You may think so, because it hasn't been deemed necessary to exist in our society. In his society, however, smells must have become rather intense, so a guy thought up a scale (like Anders Celsius did about temperature), everybody else agreed and became accustomed to it. There's even a scale on "hate", Preljocaj's scale (honest). If you have two people that never heard of metric or imperial systems, they won't agree on a way to compare distances. "I think that's a distance of 13 cars." "Don't be silly, it's obviously 3 houses." They have to agree on a way to compare distances, in order to remove subjectivity of personal perspective from the measurement. I never said all the factors to take into account don't complicate the matter when it comes to measuring emotions. Many kinds of emotional responses to given situations would have to be considered, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Assessing all the damage done by an earthquake is also complicated, but there are scales nonetheless.

I admit most of this is over my head. However, earthquake damage is done based on objective means in terms of property damage, business damages, loss of wages, displaced populations, etc....

But the subjectivity of emotional abstracts are exactly what is relevant. The concept of God is no less abstract and the qualities in which I define Him by are no easier measurable IMO.
I will have to research Bilal more to respond to that .

[Beto]

I will have to research Bilal more to respond to that .

Do you like European comics?

[alexiarose]

I will have to research Bilal more to respond to that .

Do you like European comics?

Never heard of any. Why? I do like Garfield. He rocks!!!!!

[alexiarose]

I will have to research Bilal more to respond to that .

Do you like European comics?

Just read about it. I get it, he is a comic. I was thinking more in terms of Sir Thomas Moores Utopia. Mom made me read it 3 times until I understood it. LOL

[Beto]

I will have to research Bilal more to respond to that .

Do you like European comics?

Never heard of any. Why? I do like Garfield. He rocks!!!!!

Hmmm, not quite what I meant...

But the subjectivity of emotional abstracts are exactly what is relevant.

At this day and age, emotions are much more concrete and objective than people give them credit for.

[alexiarose]

I will have to research Bilal more to respond to that .

Do you like European comics?

Never heard of any. Why? I do like Garfield. He rocks!!!!!

Hmmm, not quite what I meant...

But the subjectivity of emotional abstracts are exactly what is relevant.

At this day and age, emotions are much more concrete and objective than people give them credit for.

I agree that measuring certain hormone levels, etc... make them more objective. But the abstract concepts I consider what make up God cannot.

[Beto]

But the subjectivity of emotional abstracts are exactly what is relevant.

At this day and age, emotions are much more concrete and objective than people give them credit for.

I agree that measuring certain hormone levels, etc... make them more objective. But the abstract concepts I consider what make up God cannot.

And that's where we have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to assume the "abstract concepts" are anything but natural mechanisms we fail to explain (if there are any left, I honestly don't know). Why? Simply because emotions were once a lot more subjective and abstract than they are now.

[alexiarose]

But the subjectivity of emotional abstracts are exactly what is relevant.

At this day and age, emotions are much more concrete and objective than people give them credit for.

I agree that measuring certain hormone levels, etc... make them more objective. But the abstract concepts I consider what make up God cannot.

And that's where we have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to assume the "abstract concepts" are anything but natural mechanisms we fail to explain (if there are any left, I honestly don't know). Why? Simply because emotions were once a lot more subjective and abstract than they are now.

I don't discount that with time and technology, some day these attributes will be more objectively measurable, just as some emotional responses are. But I don't want to be alive for it.

[Beto]

But the subjectivity of emotional abstracts are exactly what is relevant.

At this day and age, emotions are much more concrete and objective than people give them credit for.

I agree that measuring certain hormone levels, etc... make them more objective. But the abstract concepts I consider what make up God cannot.

And that's where we have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to assume the "abstract concepts" are anything but natural mechanisms we fail to explain (if there are any left, I honestly don't know). Why? Simply because emotions were once a lot more subjective and abstract than they are now.

I don't discount that with time and technology, some day these attributes will be more objectively measurable, just as some emotional responses are. But I don't want to be alive for it.

How come? At this point in my life I am an exceedingly happy individual, and I find these are very exciting times. I have little doubt in my mind that even if you are confronted with facts that challenge or even dismiss your beliefs, after a time you'll be just as happy as you were before.

And by the way, I can't believe I didn't mention something obvious before. Temperature, as perceived by people, is inherently subjective, as you know. And still, there are scales to measure it, by its observable effects. Before a scale of temperature was invented, you might have thought of it as an attribute of "God", no?

[LittlePig]

Beto

If you have two people that never heard of metric or imperial systems, they won't agree on a way to compare distances. "I think that's a distance of 13 cars." "Don't be silly, it's obviously 3 houses." They have to agree on a way to compare distances, in order to remove subjectivity of personal perspective from the measurement. I never said all the factors to take into account don't complicate the matter when it comes to measuring emotions. Many kinds of emotional responses to given situations would have to be considered, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Assessing all the damage done by an earthquake is also complicated, but there are scales nonetheless.

Tyrell: Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil? Involuntary dilation of the iris?
Deckard: We call it Voight-Kampff for short.