Agnostics -- let's reframe the question.

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find that to be a really blinkered view.

I am a product of this universe, adapted to perceive what is beneficial or harmful to my continuance. There are no barriers to that.

In fact, I think it might well be to our detriment to be able to perceive that which has no relevance to our well-being, considering that such perceptions may well come at some expense.

That is a belief without evidence, proof, truth or whatever. There is a reason we have methodological naturalism.

 

[Link]

The Imam of time is also the source of all good deeds and the satanic forces the source of evil. The two trees go at in the unseen realm everywhere and everyday.

 

[firedragon]

Have you read some of my previous posts on human nature? You may be dangerously close to seeing what I see...that we really are not the pinnacle of creation, not the product of an omniscient Creator -- but rather, just another evolved species with the usual blindness to some of the things that drive us, but that are essential to our very being.

Is not that purely a faith statement?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is not that purely a faith statement?

Depends. If based on methodological naturalism it is close enough to some aspects of human psychology, that it is not totally off the mark,

 

[firedragon]

Depends. If based on methodological naturalism it is close enough to some aspects of human psychology, that it is not totally off the mark,

I think its based on philosophical naturalism, not methodological. Nevertheless, it's a faith statement. Just like religions are explained in the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think its based on philosophical naturalism, not methodological. Nevertheless, it's a faith statement. Just like religions are explained in the OP.

Well, maybe.

 

[firedragon]

Well, maybe.

Dont say "maybe". Say something like "I agree with you completely" or "I disagree with you because I dont like you". What a false dichotomy that is....

Its not interesting otherwise.

Just kidding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dont say "maybe". Say something like "I agree with you completely" or "I disagree with you because I dont like you". What a false dichotomy that is....

Its not interesting otherwise.

Just kidding.

Okay, it is sometimes hard to tell if a naturalist understands the difference between methodological and philosophical.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, it is sometimes hard to tell if a naturalist understands the difference between methodological and philosophical.

I was just kidding mikkel. I understand what you say.

 

[Hanne]

This is why I've stopped calling myself an agnostic and am simply calling myself an atheist now.
I don't know anything about God or the gods, kami, spirits, etc. but I don't really see a point in believing in them. I feel like at this point in my life, trying to pretend that I entertain a serious possibility that any of these may exist at all would be just dancing around the point and hiding my genuine feelings on the matter.

I feel that my life has sense because of an existing God. Therefore I think it makes sense to honestly think about God's existence. The sense in my life: seeking out and finding God, coming closer to Him and learning more from Him.

 

[Kooky]

I feel that my life has sense because of an existing God. Therefore I think it makes sense to honestly think about God's existence. The sense in my life: seeking out and finding God, coming closer to Him and learning more from Him.

That's fair. I never had that sense of purpose even when I still believed in a god, but if it works for you and makes you see sense in the world, then I'm not going to begrudge you that.