Murdakahn

"That is not the point: it is not about what you know, it is about the very concept of knowing, and the fact that agnostics embrace an epistemology that makes knowledge impossible. An agnostic can't know, and until they get free of their nihilistic epistemology, they are no better than the theist." That is the point though, and that is the nature of Atheistic logic, they think they know, when in reality they really dont know if "it" doesnt exist. They cant admit they dont know, otherwise their logic self-destructs. I will state again, Just because you dont know something doesnt mean it isnt true. Just because you dont know something doesnt mean you stop looking for answers and invent a belief to satisfy your view of the world. You can claim to know something all you want but it doesnt mean that it is true everytime. It is an unrealistic and dellusional claim to know "god" doesnt exist when you cant prove it, just as it is dellusional to claim it does. Your current perception has limitations. We rely on our belief in the facts and data gathered by machines and humans who are not perfect. Atheists are content to stop thinking critically, and be content with dogma and concrete answers. If we were to apply this logic to other things we would never question anything that went against our preconceived notion of reality. If Agnosticism is a lack of commitment to reason, then Atheism is the end of thought. "That would be an excellent example. What is your reason for believing string theory? What is your reason for not believing cat-hair theory (that all matter is tightly-wound bits of muti-dimensional car hair)." Ive no reason to believe, or study string theory as it has no relevance to my life, I have little interest in it. TBH It is some rather dry material for me to enage. Aside from that you still cant prove that there are not forces outside our realm of perception that profoundly effect our existence. If you cant prove that, you cannot disprove the possibilty of "god" existing. No scientist has been able to come up with the origin of the universe yet. So IMO its possible for any REASONABLE theory to be relevent. Yes! I value judge things to. Does that mean I will agree with any theory no matter how wacky or outlandish? Just as much as you or any other objectivist would. "Do you believe that it is actually possible for man to have knowledge, and that failures of reasoning are a fundamental cause of many of the ills of the modern world? If you do understand these truths, then you do have a moral high ground that needs protecting. If you don't care about the consequences of epistemological and moral decay in our society and are absolutely certain that your own conduct is correct, then you will have embraced a huge contradiction (you are wrong that the mental problems of others do not affect you -- proof: you live in a country that requires you to pay taxes)." Speaking on behalf of myself: Its not that one cant know something as an agnostic, it is that we are never enitrely 100% beyond a doubt sure that our conclusion is the most correct, there are no absolute truths only varrying degrees based on falible perception. In our eyes an atheists perception is just as falible as ours. That fact is something we are comfortable with knowing and Atheists are afraid of not knowing just as much as christians. It is not nihilistic so much as being realistic and acknowledging the fact that my perception has current limitations. This does not mean I stop looking for answers. There are always exceptions to fundamental truths and laws. You are right, I do have a moral high ground to protect, just not a concept of "god". The point you made is taking what I said out of context. However, if you want to debate morality though I can do that to. You dont have to bait me, lets be upfront. "You should re-read what I said: I said that they can't be reliably treated as mindless animals, which is what makes them so dangerous. Animals at least are predictable." No need to be full of ourselves, an Objective Atheists sense of reason stems from value judgements. You can "rationalize" putting a value on data and conclusions but that is not logical and therefore defies reason. "let he without sin cast the first stone."

Reasoning something doesnt exist doesnt it make it so, just means its less likelty. Reasoning is reliant upon data, data is not always accurate. It can give you pieces of the picture but never the whole sum. an example is this: You can determine the speed of a particle but once you do this, you do not know its location, and if you determine its location you do not know its speed. "god" could potentially defy what you and I know to be reality, thus making it supernatural. Mine and your perception are not so great that we can claim to know without doubt what exists beyond that. I agree with most of your assertions and thats where I come from as an agnostic. I also happen to think there is also no reason to believe "god" doesnt exist. When value judgements are included in rationalization it then just becomes justification.

Value judegments seem to be a corner stone of Objectivist thought, it is contradicotry to their own beliefs.

-Im entering this melee of words to defend the agnostic view point, and provide some points of criticism of Atheistic and Objectivist beliefs. I am here to learn about and debate the social benefits and the practical application of Objectivism.- Like it or not Atheists dont know everything. They cant claim with absolute certainty that there are not forces that exist beyond human detection which may have a profound effect on how the universe opperates. Just as we cannot prove string theory............ yet. So if atheists dont know everything, how do they know there is no "god"? "Absence of proof does not always mean proof of absence" On the other hand if you are open to the possibility of something existing outside of the realm of your perception, it heightens your sensitivity and awareness. You may become more receptive to new ideas, evidence, concepts or whatever. Once you comepletely rule out the possibility of one thing existing, whats to say you wouldnt deny the reality of something else existing? Atheists are begining to seem very unreliable and tempermental at this point. Most Atheists I have met are so threatened by the idea of "god" or anything mystical in any form, that they have set up such elaborate mental barriers to protect themselves from "god" that it stunts their intuition and ability to relate to others. Some cant entertain anything that deals with the subject of "unknown" forces. Not even for sake of amusement, that kind of thinking is as dangerous as christians and their loathing of anything they view as "occult". IMO Atheists fear "god" as much if not more than christians. What a waste of energy. Atheism seems to do more harm than good. I wont debate the existence of "god" because it is not relevent to my identity. I have no "virtuous high ground" to protect. I dont have the type of ego to fuel that needs much of any high ground, let alone feel the need to defend any god archetypes. In my eyes, the existence or lack of existence of god has no bearing or relevance on anything I do with my life, at least not that I am aware of. Objectivists seem to hold onto reason with such a stranglehold that they have little to no tolerence for any deviation from it. Why so serious, what are you afraid of losing control of? @ David: In regards to your use of the terms "non-volitional" and "qua" if you were implying that agnostics are mindless animals, that would be rather close minded. Not to mention it would display immaturity and a lack of sophistication, especially for a mod. Dehumanizing the "enemy" is a poor way to rationalize your view point to others who think critically. "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

Thanks David for your informative replies. Linguistically and intellectually you maybe a little out of my league. However that is why I am here to debate and learn from people such as yourself. My education consists of barely completing HS so i apologize in advance for poor grammar. On a more relevant note, It seems you know a great deal about Iran, would you mind sharing your sources Id really like to learn more?

Thanks for the correction. Never the less it should be noted he was very popular and yet he was elected then overthrown in the coup. The heavily western supported fundamentalist Islamic shahs were then put into power. Sadam and Noriega were both established in similar ways as well, and these actions were largely funded by american taxpayer money.

Maybe you took what I said out of context. Maybe I meant what I wrote out of a sense of irony rather than sarcasm. I am sorry but I am not in the habit of doing what happens to please you. If you have anything more constructive to contribute Id be happy to reply.

That is the illusion though! Most civilian deaths do serve a purpose to a greater social agenda. Operations Ajax and Gladio required the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. The operations were used to overthrow the much beloved democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq, PM of Iran. Killing civilians can win you political favor. Just look at Hitler.