View Single Post
The reason we allow new members - <3 at
Horsey's Avatar
I'm F.

I think going agnostic over athiest might be an error for some people.

To be agnostic by definition is to be uncertain about something. But there are different levels of uncertainty.

For example we can never be certain that the sun will be there tomorrow. Overnight it might go supernova. Would those that are agnostic about god also claim to be agnostic about the sun rising tomorrow? Would they be agnostic about the possibility of a Yeti molesting a poodle outside their house at this very moment?

The universe presents an infinite amount of possibilities, and anything, ANYTHING, is possible. Only the probablities of occurence vary. It is certainly possible that the sun might go supernova tomorrow--but the probability is so low as to be declarable a 0 probability.

Similarly some probabilities are so high that they can be declared certainties. Will the earth that has been here this long, be here in the next second. Can't be certain 100%, but can be certain 99.999999999999% that it will. Lets just say we are certain it will.

If you do not use this definition for certainty, then the words certain/true/false/impossible are not applicable to anything in the universe except for perhaps mathematical abstractions. Anything in the physical universe will have some infitismal probability of deviating from our "certain" expectations.

Anyway, bottomline: to be agnostic about god is to be agnostic about everything including the easter bunny, OJ's innocence, Yeti rapage on your front lawn, Dogs playing poker in your toilet bowl etc. etc. You can't prove any of these is impossible. And the same defences for god can be used for them.

Why do I not attack the other choices? Well I feel that agnostics are using logic and so are touchable with logic.

Those that will come back to me with "proofs" like "But the Bible is proof of god" are operating on a level I can't comprehend, and so I must respectfully retreat. There is no way I can argue with someone that would take something mundane like a book and present it as sufficient proof for a complicated and complete cosmology. It would be like me accusing you of rape and then presenting the court with a few drops of my tears in a flask. Yeah exactly, completely unrelated and irrelevant.

On kind of an unrelated note. I had a conversation in a bar recently, this guy tells me he doesn't believe in evolution. I naturally don't tell him my own beliefs. I ask him to explain evolution to me.

Here's kind of what he said (I wish this was something I made up):
"Evolution says there was some sludge and it became fish and then the fish became monkeys and the monkeys gave birth to men. I wanna know why monkeys aren't giving birth to men now! And how come fish aren't crawling onto land and walking? And if horses stretched their necks longer and longer and became giraffes then we don't need to worry about giraffes dying cos we can just make more from horses."

Haha simply stunning. I wanted to point him to Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker." But that woulda labelled me a dipshit and primed me for massive beatings. So I just let it go and went to the corner to play some darts with some other jackasses.
Old 07-01-2005, 01:18 PM Horsey is offline  
Reply With Quote