What do you think is the worst philosophical viewpoint?

[BlindTom]

Sub atomic particles are not a viable analogy as their existence is synthetically verifiable.

Prior to their discovery they weren't. Who knows, in 50 years maybe science will be able to prove the existence or non-existence of a higher power.

The unwillingness to accept something as "truth" without supporting evidence is a sign of any reasonable human, regardless of theological beliefs.

I think the biggest issue you and I have right now, is I don't consider agnosticism to be a "Theological" belief. Rather, I view it as a way to approach beliefs. Most Atheists I've met don't simply not belief in god, they believe there isn't a god. It's the difference between a passive and an active belief. Hard Atheists actively believe in the non-existence of a higher power. This belief is not supported by evidence. They take the lack of counter evidence as evidence for their side.

It isn't.

An agnostic Atheist, on the other hand, says "I don't believe in a higher power, because I have not seen any evidence. Show me some evidence and I'll consider adjusting my views."

It is arrogant to assume that people who don't share your views are incapable of basic logic. It is also arrogant to assume that anyone who isn't agnostic cannot easily sympathise and accept views they don't agree with. Why should agnosticism have any effect on ethics whatsoever?

Here, lets assume there are two people: Tim and Jon. Tim believes unequivocally in A. Tim believes that A is the Truth. He believes that people who don't believe in A are wrong. He believes there is no debate to be had.

Jon, on the other hand believes in B. He's believed in B for many years. However, he takes an agnostic view towards it and acknowledges that his own views may be wrong. He is after all, only human.

Which of the two would be more predisposed to accept the other's opinion? I didn't say that non-agnostics couldn't be understanding and accepting. I merely said the way agnostics approach their beliefs make it easier.

Agnostics are not free to believe what they want, they are afraid to stand up for a belief so they sit on the fence.

Word of advice: This sounds mightily like an ad hominem attack. Not constructive to a civilized debate.

You've mistaken agnosticism for empiricism. Since you don't understand the definitions of the words you use, or even the beliefs you claim to hold, this conversation is over. I understand now that we've been misinterpreting one anothers posts.

I see your point about agnostics being more understanding than others however. That's why you, the understanding agnostic, opened this debate by accusing atheists and theists of "blind belief." Bye bye!

 

[lasting_Child]

Objectivism, easily.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Objectivism. It's like an adult who is going through the toddler MINE! phase.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I actually kinda' like some aspects of nihilism. But the philosophy behind anarchism as a political movement is pants on head retarded.

As an anarchist, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

OT: Optimism. I feel like a dick when I say it but I can't stand overly optimistic people. They settle for less when they're being ripped off in life, and they don't feel the need to change it. Half the time they don't even recognize anything is wrong, when it clearly is.

And materialism.

EDIT: It seems this thread is just full of people hating on everyone else's philosophies. Dunno if it was the greatest idea for a thread

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Why because i have had no proof on either side fully supporting true belief.So people do not make up an answer well i can see how blindly following a belief is so better

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silliy atheists with their Resonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

WHO'S DOUBTING OPTIMUS PRIME EXISTS?!

 

[lasting_Child]

I actually kinda' like some aspects of nihilism. But the philosophy behind anarchism as a political movement is pants on head retarded.

As an anarchist, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

OT: Optimism. I feel like a dick when I say it but I can't stand overly optimistic people. They settle for less when they're being ripped off in life, and they don't feel the need to change it. Half the time they don't even recognize anything is wrong, when it clearly is.

EDIT: It seems this thread is just full of people hating on everyone else's philosophies. Dunno if it was the greatest idea for a thread

Well, I'd like to throw in my opinion as a Marxist-Leninist, as anyone will tell you, it's a great theory, as most communists can attest, people don't like to work together... Even in Marxist-Leninism, where there is a government making sure everyone is treated exactly equal and no one rises above another, people don't like to work together, they want to be better than everyone else.

Now take that government away, and see how long it takes for someone to decide, "working together is bullshit, I wanna be in power", who is going to stop them?

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I actually kinda' like some aspects of nihilism. But the philosophy behind anarchism as a political movement is pants on head retarded.

As an anarchist, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

OT: Optimism. I feel like a dick when I say it but I can't stand overly optimistic people. They settle for less when they're being ripped off in life, and they don't feel the need to change it. Half the time they don't even recognize anything is wrong, when it clearly is.

EDIT: It seems this thread is just full of people hating on everyone else's philosophies. Dunno if it was the greatest idea for a thread

Well, I'd like to throw in my opinion as a Marxist-Leninist, as anyone will tell you, it's a great theory, as most communists can attest, people don't like to work together... Even in Marxist-Leninism, where there is a government making sure everyone is treated exactly equal and no one rises above another, people don't like to work together, they want to be better than everyone else.

Now take that government away, and see how long it takes for someone to decide, "working together is bullshit, I wanna be in power", who is going to stop them?

My idea of anarchism is not intended as a practical solution to society's problems. It's just a philosophy; an idea, and a set of values. It will never work if you implement it into today's developed, capitalist society. The only way for it to work is if everyone agreed 100% to cooperate. And the only way to do that is to start from scratch, with all the people in the world who agree in this philosophy. But the standpoints, ideas, and values are still valid in today's society and should be taken into account.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Also agnosticism in practically all its forms.

Why because i have had no proof on either side fully supporting true belief.So people do not make up an answer well i can see how blindly following a belief is so better

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silly atheists with their Reasonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

I know you're basically trolling at this point, but I think you're missing the point of agnosticism. A person can be an Atheist and still be an agnostic. Likewise, they can be Christian, Buddhist, etc.

What defines an agnostic is the unwillingness to declare something is "Truth" without supporting evidence. They can have strong beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God, but they're willing to acknowledge there is no conclusive proof one way or another. This doesn't change their views, but it does enable them to more easily sympathize and accept views they don't agree with.

A good example I like to use is sub-atomic particles. Prior to their discovery, a person could reasonably say "Sub-atomic particles do not exist, since there is no evidence." These people would have been completely justified by the science of the time, but they still would have been wrong.

Agnostics just keep that in mind. They're still free to believe whatever they want. They're just more reserved when it comes to dealing out "Truths" and "Facts."

FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

THEISM: Belief in a "God"
ATHEISM: (a-theism, or non-theism) Do not believe in a god
AGNOSTICISM: Has not made up their mind

That fucking simple

 

[Captain Pancake]

Any and all metaphysics. Who gives a fuck if god exists? All that matters is we do.

 

[GLo Jones]

Which ones think that there's no point? That one.

But why should we assume there is a point to anything? Unless you're religious, there really is no logical reason to.

OT: I don't think there's any inherently bad viewpoint, but I'd say that inconsistency and contradiction are the quickest ways to invalidating them.

 

[lasting_Child]

Any and all metaphysics. Who gives a fuck if god exists? All that matters is we do.

So do you think we shouldn't questions why things are?

 

[Captain Pancake]

Any and all metaphysics. Who gives a fuck if god exists? All that matters is we do.

So do you think we shouldn't questions why things are?

I think there are more pertinent things to question.

 

[lasting_Child]

Any and all metaphysics. Who gives a fuck if god exists? All that matters is we do.

So do you think we shouldn't questions why things are?

I think there are more pertinent things to question.

Oh? Such as?

 

[Sneaky-Pie]

The one where you believe everyone else is wrong and you're right.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Any and all metaphysics. Who gives a fuck if god exists? All that matters is we do.

So do you think we shouldn't questions why things are?

I think there are more pertinent things to question.

Oh? Such as?

Tangible things relating to our own lives, such as politics and general morality.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No disrespect OP, but such a question won't draw much discussion, because no philosophy can be so unproductive as (as you mention) nihilism, where the fundemental tenet is that life has neither purpose nor intrinsic value.

So you'd rather build castles in the air rather than have a firm understanding of chaos theory producing aspects of order in probability clumps?

Without Nihiliism, we wouldn't have the Brain in the Jar theory, Plato's Cave etc. Nihilism is as worthwhile to Philosophy as Hell is to Heaven.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Have agnostics decided whether cthulhu exists yet? What about JC Denton or Optimus Prime? Concluding that there is no evidence to support the existence of these entities is obviously, as you have put it, blind belief. Those silliy atheists with their Resonable Doubt and falsifiable beliefs.

Have agnostics decided whether food keeps them alive yet? What about water? or air? They've yet to die for lack of them so I suppose they're just blindly eating, drinking and breathing in the meantime. Those silly theists, how dare they choose to keep a viable objective truth in mind?

Agnostics decide that Cthulu exists in a fictional form, and as he has no pressure on their everyday existence, his state of being is negligible. JC Denton and Optimus Prime occupy a similar state apart from those that attribute moments of emotion with them, at which point they become an inspiring force. Those silly atheists with their decision making based on Occam's Razor, while Friar William of Ockham himself was a theist.
Agnosticism doesn't deny Science or Faith based on Reasonable Doubt because they understand that there is no such thing as Reasonable Doubt to a creature that fools itself every few seconds. Those silly theists attributing their own personal viewpoint to that of the creator.

 

[Project_Omega]

Any and all metaphysics. Who gives a fuck if god exists? All that matters is we do.

So do you think we shouldn't questions why things are?

I think there are more pertinent things to question.

Oh? Such as?

Tangible things relating to our own lives, such as politics and general morality.

I agree with you on the Morality, but Politics (imso) may be a tangible subject, but we should rather try to find our own purpose in life, rather than care about petty Taxes and who is ruling the state. Politians are a load of bollocks anyway, because they just want to gain the attention and popularity of people, 'satisfy' us rather than actually give us a sense of direction and do something meaningful. Their objective is to stay in power and receive money and honours for their 'work'. If you have read Plato, you would know.

And the worst philosophical idea?

Two words, Koran and the Bible (Yes, I said it)

The reason for this is because of these say they that it is THE word of God and most people tend to believe that and follow its ideas. I disagree with this, simply because they both were written by a human being. Humans make errors, argue and lie. Not only that, the bible itself was translated so many times, some of it might have got lost/destroyed in the translation. Koran has been interpretted so many times, and look at all these 'Extremists' and what they are doing, all in the name of God, in the name of a book. Crusades were fought, and they still are, in the name of an old book.

I am a positive Agnostic, which means I believe that there is likely to be a 'higher force' out there, but I don't know what it looks like or what it is like. I am probably never to know either.

I think people should just make their own minds on the subject of what they believe in, rather than base their way of thinking on an outdated book.

Edit : Cthulu? I don't think he exists, since he was a fictional character, made by a human (Lovecraft). Optimus prime was also a fictional character. What is this? Why are we using fictional characters that exist for our entertainment rather than talk of more serious personas like Plato, Kant and Hobbes?

 

[SckizoBoy]

So you'd rather build castles in the air rather than have a firm understanding of chaos theory producing aspects of order in probability clumps?

Without Nihiliism, we wouldn't have the Brain in the Jar theory, Plato's Cave etc. Nihilism is as worthwhile to Philosophy as Hell is to Heaven.

See disclaimer...

Anyway, perhaps criticising nihilism (in agreement with OP) wasn't the best idea (notably describing it as 'unproductive' was presumptive), but I'm not ignoring/saying we should disregard it, merely deconstruct it. I'm sorry if I come across as stupid, but I'm sort of confused as to how your question applies to what you quoted.

What you've 'posited' as it were, is to do with epistemological/metaphysical nihilism, while I (rather idiotically) only considered existential... largely because when 'nihilism' is mentioned, I instantly think of Kierkegaard and 'levelling'.