Question for the agnostics

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

You're playing fast and loose with terms like "logic" and "premises." Trying to label his premise as right or wrong here doesn't even make sense—you're just throwing your own personal vibes against someone else's.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

Bravo. Real genius there.

...

What he actually wrote isn't coming from ego at all. It’s the exact opposite.

hollowpuma762 said:You're playing fast and loose with terms like "logic" and "premises." Trying to label his premise as right or wrong here doesn't even make sense—you're just throwing your own personal vibes against someone else's.

Bravo. Real genius there.

...

What he actually wrote isn't coming from ego at all. It’s the exact opposite.

"Premise" might be more accurate, sure—but your logic isn't necessarily flawed.
Besides, if you deny him the right to have his own take by countering it with yours, you're basically stripping him of his right to an opinion.
So what's left? He either agrees with you or shuts up... and if that's the case, what's the point of even calling for a dialogue or asking questions in the first place?

nimblehound13 said:The OP tried pretty hard to dodge any actual theorizing about God or the Bible.

@op
Look, speaking as an agnostic, my short answer is that what you're talking about doesn't actually mean anything. You're just building this massive strawman out of stories about "divine gifts" and other nonsense, then expecting me to wrap it up in some logical framework.
Personally, I have no idea if God—or whatever else—exists. I tossed the Christian version of God aside as nothing more than a tool for oppression when I was 17, after spending ten years sitting through religious education.
On a purely intellectual level, I figure if there is some higher power out there, we aren't capable of perceiving or even understanding it. Maybe we'll evolve enough to get it one day, maybe it'll reveal itself, or maybe there's just nothing at all.
Nick doesn't know, and frankly, the believers probably know the least of all. Their view of the world is so boxed in by dogma that they can't even manage critical thinking.

I’m just gonna say this again—since I've already laid it out for someone else once. Is anything actually a gift? And does anything even need to be returned to the heavens? —not that I even know what would be worth sending back up there in the first place. Honestly, I don't even see this as an issue—let alone a question worth debating.It doesn't even have to be about gifting. Forget whether it’s a gift or not. The reality is that most people already own all those things— Call them elements if you want—just don't go labeling them "gifts" if that's just how you prefer to wrap your head around it, alright? Life, feelings, all that stuff—that’s where my question comes in. If someone actually possesses it—fact—but keeps turning down the chance to own it, they’re probably just facing something they don't understand or can't wrap their heads around. And if we're talking about a "higher power"—since you brought up that specific phrase—why on earth would that force have to be some mindless, dead energy? Some people act like it’s just raw, unthinking force. Doesn't track. If life and everything else comes from that same source, the math just doesn't add up. It's illogical.

nimblehound13 said:The OP tried pretty hard to dodge any actual theorizing about God or the Bible.

@op
Look, speaking as an agnostic, my short answer is that what you're talking about doesn't actually mean anything. You're just building this massive strawman out of stories about "divine gifts" and other nonsense, then expecting me to wrap it up in some logical framework.
Personally, I have no idea if God—or whatever else—exists. I tossed the Christian version of God aside as nothing more than a tool for oppression when I was 17, after spending ten years sitting through religious education.
On a purely intellectual level, I figure if there is some higher power out there, we aren't capable of perceiving or even understanding it. Maybe we'll evolve enough to get it one day, maybe it'll reveal itself, or maybe there's just nothing at all.
Nick doesn't know, and frankly, the believers probably know the least of all. Their view of the world is so boxed in by dogma that they can't even manage critical thinking.

Fair enough—that’s the answer right there.

darkraven said:No way, man. Ietsism isn't just "Secularism," and honestly, I'm pretty baffled that you could read this and totally gloss over the parts that align perfectly with your own definition, "believing in something without being sure what it is";

"Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – "somethingism") is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent reality."

"Ietsism may roughly be described as a belief in an end-in-itself or similar concept, without further assumption as to exactly what object or objects have such a property, like intrinsic aliquidism without further specification. Other aliquidistic lifestances include the acceptance of "there is something – that is, some meaning of life, something that is an end-in-itself or something more to existence – and it is...", assuming various objects or truths, while ietsism, on the other hand simply accepts "there is something", without further specification, detailing or assumption.

That is literally exactly what you're describing. I have zero clue how you missed that.

Plus, theists can definitely be agnostic (like, "I believe in God, but I don't know for sure if He exists / I think it's impossible to know if He exists"), so the two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Agnostic ietsists basically believe there is something out there (some kind of "higher power" or "energy"), but they don't actually know if that thing truly exists or if it's even possible to prove it—they just believe.

Nowhere does it say "isn't strictly." How did you guys manage to miss the fact that actual agnostics were telling me this was their exact stance? Interesting.
And the definitions don't match—what you're citing is different from my point. If you actually bothered to translate these Wikipedia snippets you clearly skipped on purpose:

that "there must be something undefined beyond the mundane and that which can be known or can be proven",
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism )

Here’s the translation for you:

that "there must exist something undefined beyond the secular and what can be known or can be proven"

I never claimed that, I don't think that, and I'm certainly not arguing that. You're just desperate to frame it that way, but you're missing the mark. Go back and read what I actually said, and what people who identify as agnostic have told me directly.

Edit, since you're so obsessed with Ietsism:
"ietsism could be defined as agnosticism not with respect to the existence of a supernatural entity but rather to its nature. However, it's better not to put too much effort in defining ietsism since lack of interest in any definition is kind of exactly what ietsism is all about."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ietsism

That's all. Peace.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

Not in the sense of being shocked. I mean that through life, you can actually articulate other things you possess—emotions, purpose, work, etc., etc. You missed the point, but whatever.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

If it wasn't such a miracle and if you didn't value it, you wouldn't have any problem taking it away.
Comparing a fundamental law of nature to life—which exists on a completely different level of abstraction—is an interesting move.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

I'm totally with you on Gravity—except for the part where Gravity actually "knows" anything.

Not sure what prompted that massive grin on your face, but hey—thanks for the reply.

What kind of phrasing is that—"there must be something undefined"? 😍
Why would it even have to exist? I mean, why assign all these traits and characteristics of a living being—like having a personality—to some vague concept and then call it God?
Based on anything we know about human nature and history, it’s much more logical to assume that "God" was made in man's image, rather than the other way around.

Take those "books of revelation" mentioned here, for example.
If there really is an Almighty, all-knowing being, couldn't they have managed to "reveal" themselves in a better, smarter, or more beautiful way?
I just can't wrap my head around the idea that God is as limited and dim-witted as believers make Him out to be through their holy books and endless commentaries.
It's pretty obvious that since these revelations are filled with violence and nonsense, they serve as nothing more than fuel for the human ego to commit evil.
If they had just included a disclaimer like, "this is a message for you primitive folks today, but I'll provide something better in a thousand years"—though honestly, those claiming to have received Update 2.0 aren't any better—but no, instead they claim these texts are for all eternity. Toss in the "only way," the "one God," the "one Church"... yeah, sounds like a great foundation for peace and love on Earth.
What kind of Almighty is this, if He can't even help His followers govern one tiny little patch of Earth?
Without a Roman Emperor, you wouldn't have grabbed nearly as much territory, and it looks like other faiths might just swallow you up anyway.

So, the proof of the existence and personality of an Almighty, invisible being rests entirely on the word of whoever claims it exists.
At least agnostics are honest when they say they "don't know"—meaning they can't claim anything with absolute certainty.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

I already touched on this "gifts" thing with someone else earlier, so I won't repeat myself.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

Well, if atoms and particles are what make us up, then at the end of the day, it's the exact same question.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

That’s a fair answer if you're an agnostic. But you have to ask: why should something be considered "comforting" or "satisfying" in the first place? Why does it have to carry that emotional weight? You could flip the script and argue that anything *isn't* better just because it's comforting. And as for this being a "subjective need"—nobody can actually know or prove that, so nobody can claim it as fact. When it comes to the afterlife, people shouldn't interpret things just to guess what someone else thinks. That definitely isn't a scientific approach.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

By that logic, you could label everything in the cosmos a "human idea." You wouldn't have to call anything a fact, and even for proven things, you could argue they're just human ideas shaped by our own concept of purpose.

Donna White50 said:Your logic is a bit flawed right out of the gate. You're assuming life and its characteristics are "gifts," but why would they be gifts? And why would a human be any more significant than the stardust we actually came from? We tend to blow the significance of life way out of proportion, but life is really just a cycle of evolution, starting from the creation of the first atom and moving forward from there... We overinflate ourselves because our ego makes us feel important, driving us to fight evolutionarily just to keep the cycle going.
Asking why we walk the earth or why we live isn't any more profound than asking about the existence of an atom or a subatomic particle—it's all tied to the laws governing our universe. The idea of God or a higher power is really just a reflection of our subjective need to make the world and our lives feel meaningful, comforting, and satisfying.
Is the universe itself meaningful, including us walking the earth? Probably, but "meaning" is just a human concept. Other beings don't lose sleep over finding meaning. Maybe meaning is just an illusion, much like our perception of time passing...

Maybe they aren't even at a level of consciousness where they *can* get tired of it?
Anyone can choose to care—if they want to, obviously. I'm not saying everyone’s going to find some grand answer, but honestly, wanting to understand things seems like a more logical way to live than just ignoring it all. At the end of the day, though, everyone's gotta pick their own path.

Gregory Carter67 said:Not in the sense of being shocked. I mean that through life, you can actually articulate other things you possess—emotions, purpose, work, etc., etc. You missed the point, but whatever.

If it wasn't such a miracle and if you didn't value it, you wouldn't have any problem taking it away.
Comparing a fundamental law of nature to life—which exists on a completely different level of abstraction—is an interesting move.

I'm totally with you on Gravity—except for the part where Gravity actually "knows" anything.

Not sure what prompted that massive grin on your face, but hey—thanks for the reply.

I wouldn't throw my fork into the trash right after eating with it, even if I considered it a miracle.