Religion is the opium of the masses

[Geist]

Hello I am a strict agnostic but I find atheists tend to not hassle me when I say that I am indifferent to whether god exists.

Anybody read Sartre or Dostoevsky?

'If God is dead then all is permitted'

Or Nietzsche's AntiChrist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In many ways, one can be both agnostic and atheist. I do not think God exists, but at the same time I do not think it matters much whether or not God exists.

I have not read any Nietzsche, but I have read a little Sartre and Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.

 

[Geist]

Well I think its possible that if God exists it is neccessary for us to rekject him to be free.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Could you elaborate?

 

[Alaric]

I'll be happy to hassle you about it, Geist.

Yeah, I've read Crime and Punishment aswell; and Nietzsche's Antichrist, damn good book. I haven't read Sartre, but I've read about his arguments regarding the implications of being created with a purpose (that being created with a purpose doesn't automatically give meaning to your life). But it seems that it still makes a difference whether God exists or not to be able to discern how difficult it is (or whether it is possible at all) to figure things out on our own. Based on the evidence I don't see how agnosticism is viable, given that you must rationally lean towards believing either than God exists or He doesn't; but morally it makes a difference as well.

 

[Geist]

Why does God have any effect on morals?

I reject him because he has no bearing on this world.

And agnosticism is a healthy reaction to a question which has no viable answer, a yes or a no.

 

[Alaric]

Why does God have any effect on morals?

Because the consequences of our actions would be different if God existed - unless God was just a representation of human morality itself, of course. If rational morality dictates an action that God punishes with eternal torture, it changes everything.

I reject him because he has no bearing on this world.

Obviously, He could have if He existed.

And agnosticism is a healthy reaction to a question which has no viable answer, a yes or a no.

What do you think is more likely - His existence, or His non-existence?

I hope you answer with more than a few lines this time!

 

[Geist]

Because the consequences of our actions would be different if God existed - unless God was just a representation of human morality itself, of course. If rational morality dictates an action that God punishes with eternal torture, it changes everything.

We cannot know God, we cannot comprehend him so whether he exists or not is generally judged by rational people to be based on faith and faith alone. In Kierkegaard's term to give in to the absurd.

Well morals are dictated by social situations and institutions and this includes so called representitives of God. However ultimately this is all based on human endeveour therefor God's existence cannot really have any bearing on morals because God's morals as such come from the human mind, unless we get into the muddy waters of God somehow revealing these morals etc.

you think is more likely - His existence, or His non-existence?

Neither, any answer I give is an error in human terms.



Sorry about the short replies, I am busy working on my own board at the moment so I have limited myself a little.

 

[Alaric]

It's true that it's meaningless to discuss the existence of something we cannot know or comprehend, but it is also meaningless to discuss or even use a term that supposedly describes something we can't know or comprehend. You call yourself agnostic because you can't come to a conclusion about the existence of something you don't know, and that doesn't make sense. The concept of 'God' only makes sense if it can be understood, and it's on the basis of the generally accepted definition of God that I am an atheist.

If morality is based on social situations, then surely social morality would be different depending on whether they believed certain actions resulted in heaven or hell, especially if God saw fit to punish a whole society for a few people's transgressions.

 

[Geist]

I use the term agnostic in relation to the concept of God, I realise there is a concept of God and I reject it. However I get your point but since this concept exists and has always been such a large part of my upbringing it is not as easy to depart or dismiss it so easily as say the concept of Santa Claus is for a child.

 

[Alaric]

Well that's something else, then. But do you agree that if someone's idea of God is an entity that created us and which expects certain behaviour of us, that it would be perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on this entity's existence? That it wouldn't be an error in human terms to make a judgement like that?

 

[Geist]

Well thats just it, as a concept that cannot be proved or disproved it is pointless to speculate, however if somebody did have say a Kiekegaardian leap of faith into the absurd then it would be quite reasonable for them to do so.

 

[Alaric]

Santa can't be disproved either, but that doesn't mean we should all be agnostic about his existence. We look at the evidence for and against, and make up our minds as to whether he exists or not.

I don't think it can be reasonable to make a leap of faith into the absurd - the absurd is precisely unreasonable! If someone said 'it is absurd to believe in Santa, but I want to, so I will', that is not reasonable at all. I don't even think it's possible - belief is something that is either there or not, it isn't something you can will. You can only will yourself to stop looking for reasons to doubt it. I don't trust people who would rather embrace the absurd than deal with reality.

 

[Geist]

Well God requires a leap into the absurd but it is based on a psychological need usually among the 'herd' to use crude a crude Nietzschenism based on a need for comfort, love and safety, things Santa and unicorns dont offer!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great point, Geist. Beleif in God may have positive psychological benefits, but that doesn't make God real.

 

[Alaric]

Well God requires a leap into the absurd but it is based on a psychological need usually among the 'herd' to use crude a crude Nietzschenism based on a need for comfort, love and safety, things Santa and unicorns dont offer!

...Which undermines your argument further. So you are agnostic because you need to believe that God might be real?

 

[Geist]

Not at all I was referring to the herd there, I have no personal need for God that is not to sau however based on the limits of my worldly perception that he does not exist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

True Geist, but we can acheive a level of certainty on whether or not things exist. The argument you use above could also be used to make one 'agnostic' on the existence of Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Geist]

Think of Kant's idea of an objective subjectivity as such, we use it to gain a certain element of objectivity which is hindered from being certain by our senses etc.

Wel the concept of God is taken as one of these objective subjectivities in terms of it as a concept, God is considered as a chair for most in that he exists. Therefore unlike Santa I cannot simply dismiss something taken for granted by the general concensus of humanity.

 

[Alaric]

That's just the fallacy of appeal by numbers - and everyone even seems to have a different, and often self-contradictory, understanding of God. There is no comprehensive, rational, universally agreed upon definition of God to even work with. As I see it, God is either defined, in which case we can compare the likelihood of His existence with alternatives, or He is undefined, just a mishmash of disjointed emotions and concepts, in which case He is not even a candidate for belief or non-belief.