Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?

quote:

---

My question is, isn't agnosticism a more intellectually honest position than atheism?

---

It is even more honest than most theologies, which seems to have all the answers. Agnosticism is most compatable with the Hebrew version, which describes the creator as indescrible and that none can live and know the creator - is that not the same as agnoscism?

Can the mind imagine something which does not or never did exist? Can anyone imagine a new color?

quote:

---

Of course.
I can imagine an absolutely straight line, latitude and longitude, several magnitudes of "infinity", parallel lines that meet and even cross, dragons and elves, even the god you try to market.

---

Disagree. All of that already exists; lines, latitudes, etc are not something NEW that never existed. But one cannot imagine infinity, not even theoretically; we strive to, but really we cannot. Infinite is a pristine 'ONE' - irreducible and indivisible, and thus not subject to change. We cannot percieve anything not subject to change, thus we cannot fathom or even imagine infinity - it does not exist in this universe. Thus, GD IS ONE.This begs the question, is a new song new? All the notes existed and were at all times dangling in the atmosphere. Next it asks, from where did the imagined thought emerge from, if it never existed before? This is why one must always state their preamble up front and up top: if we subscribe to a finite universe, then that thought is post-universe; it always existed.Its about ex nehilo [something from nothing]. Of note, this premise was introduced in Genesis' first chapter. Here, we find the term CREATE as used only in this first chapter; thereafter it is replaced with the word FORMED [something from something else]. It is no typo!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

So background radiation ever existed 500 years ago? And the earth was flat before the telescope?

quote:

---

In my experience it's theist who claim knowledge they don't actually have.

---

"IN ITS DUE TIME' applies. There is a good arguement that all was created in an instant, then disclosed in its due time. This says that knowledge comes from a higher realm and poured down into minds when its time has come - if this process breaks down and advanced knowledge descends before its due time, our minds would disintergrate instantly.If one ponders how an idea enters our mind, we will find that this is not always the result of deep contemplation or hard mental work: it can come in an instant with no pre-thought like a flash, and sometimes we see things by accident and shout Eureka! There has never been an example when a new idea comes before ts due time: examine every discovery of humanity. Thus this cryptic verse:'THERE IS NOTHING NEW' [K. Solomon].And'I SHALL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAIN AND THE LATTER RAINS.' Early and latter refers to its fastidious accuracy.

The question remains, where did the new thought come from? If from within the boundaries of this universe, then it cannot be new - despite that the thing never existed in our own particular reality. Understand the mechanics of a thought - it just connects with forces already existing in some form, and we merely connect them in new ways. So yes, parts of a unicorn and devls always existed - we connect things like horns in new ways just as we do with a new song.There is no 'from there' for something new to come from!

I'm not marketing anything, just making alternate positions just as everyone else is. There are always only two choices: there is a universe maker or not; the universe is finite or not.In my mind, there is no merit in belief; it is fully reliant in one's inculcation. Some may change their views, but critical mass applies - 99.9% do not. This becomes especially so with blackmail: if you don't believe in my version you are doomed to hell forever - or a blessing to kill. Huanity is still in its stupid phase, and this gave credence to atheism.

quote:

---

Reply to: Message 37 by IamJoseph
08-27-2011 11:12 AM

​

But I don't think the believer in the supernatural really knows anything

---

We know 'EVERYTHING' there is to know - potentially. There is only one thing we do not know: the origins of anything. The B to Z is in our grasp; the A is elusive. We are ever chasing the A, dissatisfied with everything else given us - this is what the story of Adam and Eve metaphorically represents.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

It does not rely on any theology. In fact the only truth in a theology is not that they know something; it is only an exploitation of a scientifically sound premise that a universe must have a universe maker. Its alternate is not a scientific premise, and one also exploited by atheism same as any theology does. The proof factor does not apply: it is neutralized by both parties not possessing this. Only the sound premise rules.

Its not that simple. If you wake up to find a pink zebra in your bedroom, it will taunt you to find out why. One must conclude the pink zebra was purposefully put there for you to ask that question. You surely won't be satisfied it just happened by a freak of circumstances: what if a green zebra appeared the next morning!?

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure my conclusion would be either "Someone stole a zebra from the zoo, dyed it pink and put it in my room to mess with me." or "Someone slipped something into my drink last night....THIS IS AWESOME!"

---

Correct. And becuse those reasons cannot apply for the universe, there is no alternative to your 'someone else' applying to a universe maker. We are left to see only that none and nothing existing in the universe could have made the universe. A process of elimination applies.

Aka enymes.

quote:

---

1.Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)

---

Unless....no alternatives apply!One can get lost in translation. In the Hebrew, 'knows' is derived from union, namely to truely know is to be unionized. So from this POV, to know in our english lexicon one can know without knowing, but one cannot not know and not be unionized. We know that there is no alternatives to the someone-done-it, even without knowing who-done-it.Darwin merely observed and figured out some details how a car works, then shouted Eureka! No car maker. Actually, the reverse applies.

quote:

---

The other issue here is whether or not one is espousing an opinion versus making a statement that they claim is true. If I say "I don't know, but my opinion is that god/s do not exist" then that is an honest statement (and fits the "5" category).

---

Also an illogical conclusion. A logical conclusion can only be logical here if we see a host of other possibilities which can apply, e.g. zebras are seen making universes all over the place.Remember that Galeleo did not disprove the flat earth merely by rejecting it. He actually had to 'PROVE' a counter. He did. You did not. Creationism, when seen in its correct study, is 100% scientific and logical, with no alternatives on the table: name one and you win?

OK, the invention of the telescope did it. I know the flat earth was disputed by many others previously, but the principle applies here. Atheism cannot prove itself, so this factor is neutralized against creationism.