Fade's idea of agnosticism [Archive]

Fade

19th June 2003, 09:23 PM

Well, I don't see everything, and i've been out all day :)

Anyway, atheism is, in the most pure sense, a lack of belief in a god or gods. There are further structures that are all a part of atheism as well.

On the positive side, a strong atheist takes it a step further to the active belief that there are no gods, and can be no gods. That is the most firm, dogmatic sort of atheist.

If you slide back down the scale, you pass into those who have no positive beliefs either way. Thomas Huxley, in a move to more accurately phrase a 'belief' system, as well as to appear Kindler and Gentler to his British compatriots, coined the term Agnostic. An agnostic is, again in the pure sense, a person who holds that the nature of god is uknown in it's entirety, and quite probably unknowable.

Of course, there are broader implications in the sense that one can be agnostic when it comes to a given idea, but the term is more correctly used when describing ones philisophical beliefs regarding god.

Anyway, back to Atheism, which is in the broadest sense a simple lack of belief, an agnostic would fit under that category. He or she does not believe in god(s). He or she is a weak atheist, which in is synonymous with agnostic.

Originally posted by Yahweh
One of things I like about agnosticism is how similar it is to Atheism, but unlike atheism it is not as finalistic and impartial it is... but I think there are a few too many ideals that seperate agnosticism from being a subset of atheism.

This is a misunderstanding of the term atheist.

There are no atheistic ideals other than not believing in god. None. It is a singular lack of belief. There may be philosophies which are decidedly atheist, but atheism itself is not a system, professes no ideals, and is connected to nothing. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes, just as theists.

Yahzi

20th June 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Fade
Thomas Huxley, in a move to more accurately phrase a 'belief' system, as well as to appear Kindler and Gentler to his British compatriots, coined the term Agnostic.
I agree with everything Fade said, except this part. I do believe it is fairly well established that Huxley was making fun of his peers with their welter of exotic labels, and made up an anti-label to twit them.

SFB

20th June 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Fade
Well, I don't see everything, and i've been out all day :)

Thanks for the reply, and all others' responses.

Jet Grind

20th June 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
One of things I like about agnosticism is how similar it is to Atheism, but unlike atheism it is not as finalistic and impartial it is... but I think there are a few too many ideals that seperate agnosticism from being a subset of atheism.

Atheism is not "finalistic" or "impartial", nor does it have any "ideals". It is simply a lack of belief that god(s) exist. Like I said, the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" exist in different realms. The former is about knowledge and the latter is about belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

Landis

20th June 2003, 08:15 AM

As an Atheist, I simply lack a belief in any of the 5000 or so Gods that have been professed by various sects of believers through out history. I don't deny that a God could exist, but I have yet to encounter a believable argument or proof for such a God. I used to call myself an Agnostic, but as my understanding of Atheism evolved I became strong enough to openly admit that I am an Atheist. It seems Agnosticism is a term that was created to allow people to admit to a lack of belief without suffering from the slings and arrows of the self righteous who have made it their mission in life to attack atheist.

Fade

20th June 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

I agree with everything Fade said, except this part. I do believe it is fairly well established that Huxley was making fun of his peers with their welter of exotic labels, and made up an anti-label to twit them.

Really? That makes a little more sense. I've read dozens and dozens of essays and books on Agnosticism, and the information I've been given on Huxley has been rather piece-meal. So, consider me corrected.

Yahzi

20th June 2003, 11:29 AM

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html
This particular page goes on to say:
Huxley was delighted to find that the name "agnostic" stuck; he proceeded to expand upon what he meant by it.
So he started it in fun, but then decided to get serious about it. Which explains the confusion.

LCBOY

20th June 2003, 01:42 PM

This is an interesting thread. I have a question. Some on this thread have defined atheism as a lack of belief. Would it be more accurate to define atheism as belief of lack of existence of any supernatural being. I hope I am not just playing with semantics here. I would think the former definition inplies that a person would have no understanding or knowledge of the concept of "god". The latter definiton implies that the person does have a knowledge and understanding of the concept of "god" but does not accept the existence of a "god" because of a lack of evidence.

Darwin

20th June 2003, 02:18 PM

Don´t forget Herbert Spencer´s agnosticism.
Defining agnosticism in a manner that human intellect goes only that far,there will always be this "white area" what one can´t be aware about.

Empirical agnosticism,if I remember correctly,states that it is PROBABLE that there is a deity.

LCBOY,
I think you are playing with semantics.
You are a christian,right?
It is my understanding that it is hard to be aware of the concept of god (in xian sense) because it makes very little predictions about what it might be like,while some other religions and mythologies do,as far as my understanding goes (but this can only strengthen one´s disbelief)
Maybe I´m clinging to semantics too,in a sense.

Fade

20th June 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY
This is an interesting thread. I have a question. Some on this thread have defined atheism as a lack of belief. Would it be more accurate to define atheism as belief of lack of existence of any supernatural being. I hope I am not just playing with semantics here. I would think the former definition inplies that a person would have no understanding or knowledge of the concept of "god". The latter definiton implies that the person does have a knowledge and understanding of the concept of "god" but does not accept the existence of a "god" because of a lack of evidence.

As I tried to say earlier, the term 'atheist' doesn't imply anything other than 'doesn't believe in god'

What has happened in most western countries is the same that happens when we deal with brand name products. All soda becomes Coke, all bandages become Band-Aids, all soft top trucks become Jeeps.

Atheism only means "doesn't believe in god"

It can go on to relate to a LOT of different concepts and philosophies, but those concepts and philosophies are atheistic, rather than them being "the" atheist philosophy.

I hope that makes sense.

Landis

21st June 2003, 11:35 AM

I do not believe there is a God. I do not believe there isn't a God. I just have not seen any convincing evidence. I am an Atheist not an agnostic. When someone uses the word "God" it has about as much meaning to me as the words "Santa Clause" or "Tooth Fairy". To have a meaningful conversation they would first have to define exactly what they mean by "God".

Who knows, maybe there is a Santa Claus living somewhere near the North Pole. I doubt it, but for the most part it does not affect my personal life and I'm not going to waste my precious moments of life worshipping him.

Fade

21st June 2003, 11:47 AM

Who knows, maybe there is a Santa Claus living somewhere near the North Pole. I doubt it, but for the most part it does not affect my personal life and I'm not going to waste my precious moments of life worshipping him.

That alligns with my own thoughts. God just isn't a subject that is important to me at all. Even were there to be some giant, incredibly powerful intellect out there that controls the universe (or whatever) the idea of it caring about some mammals floating on top of the pond scum on an insignificant planet in some insignificant galaxy out of the hundreds of trillions of others out there is just ridiculous.

We live in a large sterile universe, and on some level we all recognize this. To some, however, it's painful to concede that nothing really cares about us at all.

When we're little, we invent friends when we're alone. They talk to us, and they treat us with respect. We feel vindicated by their presence. When Imaginary Friend is around, the world is just a little bit brighter, and has just a little bit more gloss. I think part of the human condition is to seek this out, to embrace the beauty around us. But, when we get older, those imaginary friends fade away, and we're left with an emptiness. It's a profound feeling of being alone, and I think we all feel it. Our drive is to fill that, our drive is to push back that sense of futility and to love, and to be loved.

The greatest gift I have ever given myself was hope. I gave myself hope without fear. I gave myself love unending. That void of loneliness that grows inside us as we mature, I didn't let it get to me. I filled it up with all the positive, wonderful things that are all around me, and all the positive and wonderful things that I am. I look at myself and I see a beautiful thing. I accept who I am, and what I am, without regard to my own faults. Once I learned to love me, I learned to love others, and eventually love everything.

It's a kind of love that isn't contingent on anything. It's the kind of love that just is, because I am human, and damn it all I have a right to feel it. I won't be lead down a path which promises me riches and happiness if I just hold on a little longer. I won't be lead by the hand into the imaginary world of others. I will walk on my own two feet until I no longer have the ability to stand at all.

And I don't feel the least bit smaller because of it.

Pahansiri

21st June 2003, 02:43 PM

"Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth."

Any time anyone declares that “ALL” people of this group or that group or race or anything are “this” ot “that” they will be wrong.

It is illogical and impossible to know the thoughts of “all” people and in this case all agnostics.

Just what I believe

Fade

21st June 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Any time anyone declares that “ALL” people of this group or that group or race or anything are “this” ot “that” they will be wrong.

It is illogical and impossible to know the thoughts of “all” people and in this case all agnostics.

Just what I believe

You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. A person who thinks "there is no god" or "I don't think there is a god" or "I don't believe in any god" is an atheist by definition. You are confusing cause.

All humans are mammals.
All humans breathe air.
All humans must eat (or die)
All those who believe in a god or gods are theists.

It's the definition of the term.

Pahansiri

21st June 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Fade

You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. A person who thinks "there is no god" or "I don't think there is a god" or "I don't believe in any god" is an atheist by definition. You are confusing cause.

All humans are mammals.
All humans breathe air.
All humans must eat (or die)
All those who believe in a god or gods are theists.

It's the definition of the term.

Again not true, you simply have no way to really know the thoughts of any being.

The statement "I don't think there is a god" or I don’t care one way or the other or my position and that of Buddhism,
1. I believe the topic is wholly 1st irrelevant
2. I do not believe it is logical but can not know either way or care.

These statements are just that many many just don’t know, or care but leave the door open. It way be true it may not no one can know.

An agnostic is a doubter, I am a doubter you may wish to believe you can know the thoughts of all people but that is silly.

You may believe the definition of an agnostic is an atheist and I would respect your belief but if you as you seem to be doing state it as fact then the burden to prove it with facts is yours.

1- List all names of all beings ever who say they are agnostic and prove that they believe there is no god or gods. This means they believe NO gods not maybe, probably or doubtfully but they for you to be right need to say NO. Please list all names and proof.

Your posting of
All humans are mammals.
All humans breathe air.
All humans must eat (or die)

Is silly and not related at all to what I said if you read what I wrote I said you can not know what people think or really believe. That leads to this last post
All those who believe in a god or gods are theists.

Prove to me all people who say they believe in a god really do.

Sindai

21st June 2003, 05:29 PM

Paha, this is incredible. Every time Fade says "Anyone who thinks there is no god is an atheist" you somehow read it as "Anyone who says they think there is no god is an Atheist."

Tell me, how do you do it? Autohypnosis?

Pahansiri

21st June 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Sindai
Paha, this is incredible. Every time Fade says "Anyone who thinks there is no god is an atheist" you somehow read it as "Anyone who says they think there is no god is an Atheist."

Tell me, how do you do it? Autohypnosis?

Greetings Sindai.

You say Every time Fade says "Anyone who thinks there is no god is an atheist" you somehow read it as "Anyone who says they think there is no god is an Atheist."
I don't know how many times Fade has said this, I have only responded to or post to Fade this one time/ on this one thread so it would be Illogical to say “ every time Fade says” that I responded in the way you have said as I am sure Fade must have said this several times at least as this thread seems to be a spin off of another thread i.e. the title Fade's idea of agnosticism.

So let us say Fade has said what they have said, just as an low estimate 6 times, I have for the first time responded to them on this day on this thread so your statement of Every time Fade says "Anyone who thinks there is no god is an atheist" you somehow read it as "Anyone who says they think there is no god is an Atheist." As you now see would be erroneous.

Fade

21st June 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Again not true, you simply have no way to really know the thoughts of any being.

Of course I don't, and I don't know why you assume I think I do.

I am saying "Anyone who thinks X is Y"

If you don't think X, you aren't Y.
If you think X, you are Y.

The definition comes after that thought, not before. I am not defining what a person thinks, rather making a definition based upon what a person thinks. If a person calls themselves a whatever, but still doesn't have any belief in god, than they are an atheist.

The statement "I don't think there is a god" or I don’t care one way or the other or my position and that of Buddhism,

Than Buddhists are atheists.

1. I believe the topic is wholly 1st irrelevant

Feel free to think that :) In this case, it's all a matter of opinion.

2. I do not believe it is logical but can not know either way or care.

If you don't know/care, and don't actually BELIEVE anything, you'd be an atheist.

Again, it isn't an assumption about what a person thinks, I am not calling anyone an atheist. However, I am giving a description, and anyone who falls within that description is an atheist.

These statements are just that many many just don’t know, or care but leave the door open. It way be true it may not no one can know.

The idea that nobody can know is foolish, in my opinion. Throwing ones hands into the air and leaving the question is anti-Science, and anti-Progress, and not worthy of any thinking, rational being.

An agnostic is a doubter, I am a doubter you may wish to believe you can know the thoughts of all people but that is silly.

You are making assumptions and pretending to know what I am thinking. That is called a Strawman.

You may believe the definition of an agnostic is an atheist and I would respect your belief but if you as you seem to be doing state it as fact then the burden to prove it with facts is yours.

It isn't a belief, it's a philisophical and linguistic truth. Your position is one that is akin to saying "You can believe that all apples are fruits, but you can't profess it as a fact."

We're dealing with classification. I am saying "All people who think X fall under term Y, because term Y literally means 'all people who think x'"

1- List all names of all beings ever who say they are agnostic and prove that they believe there is no god or gods.

Calling ones self a given thing and BEING that thing are two very, very different things.

Children often say "I am Superman!" or "I'm a magical sorcerer!" or "I am an eagle!"

If a person says they are agnostic, I am going to just trust that they are an agnostic. If they say they are an agnostic, yet believe in god, than they are lying. If they don't, than they are an atheist.

This means they believe NO gods not maybe, probably or doubtfully but they for you to be right need to say NO. Please list all names and proof.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[quote[Prove to me all people who say they believe in a god really do. [/QUOTE]

Again, this is silly. I am dealing with classification. If somebody says they are an atheist, or an agnostic, but actually believe otherwise, than they are simply lying and don't really matter or affect my position at all.

Did I say that clearly enough?

Sindai

22nd June 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You say

I don't know how many times Fade has said this, I have only responded to or post to Fade this one time/ on this one thread so it would be Illogical to say “ every time Fade says” that I responded in the way you have said as I am sure Fade must have said this several times at least as this thread seems to be a spin off of another thread i.e. the title Fade's idea of agnosticism.

So let us say Fade has said what they have said, just as an low estimate 6 times, I have for the first time responded to them on this day on this thread so your statement of As you now see would be erroneous.

Nitpick of no real relevence to my argument. I may have exaggerated, but you completely failed to meet the thrust of my point, which should still have been obvious.

So, in failing to counter my assertion, do you concede I was correct in your misinterpretation of Fade?

Pahansiri

22nd June 2003, 06:31 AM

Hello Fade

Of course I don't, and I don't know why you assume I think I do.

Not at all my friend you wrote earlier "Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics areatheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth."

Your position is the position of assuming not mine I work only off your words.

The definition comes after that thought, not before. I am not defining what a person thinks, rather making a definition based upon what a person thinks. If a person calls themselves a whatever, but still doesn't have any belief in god, than they are an atheist.

No they what ever % let us say the mean do not know if there is or is not ones like me do not care either way but find it illogical but also except there is far far more I do not know then I know. What I know for certain is there is certainly much I do not know. Within this % of people who may identify themselves as agnostic you will find all shades from feeling there may be, to not at all sure to leaning to there could be.

You choose to believe you know what everyone thinks from your blanket statement/ position as stated, but I do not believe you really believe in anyway you can know others thoughts. Your position is akin to all tall black people are great basketball players

You wrote earlier As I tried to say earlier, the term 'atheist' doesn't imply anything other than 'doesn't believe in god'

That is true as to term and that also does not prove that all people calling themselves atheist don’t believe in someway even if it is that fear driven into many children that if they don’t believe god will get them. You simply can now the thoughts of all people in any group, your position as to term as a word is what you really mean to say but your words stated said all people.

All people believe what they believe for many reasons, many causes and conditions but no one KNOWS. Theist believe there is a God or Gods but that like atheism is a belief.

So can we say in reality everyone is an atheist then because no one KNOWS there is a god or gods?

You wrote What has happened in most western countries is the same that happens when we deal with brand name products. All soda becomes Coke, all bandages become Band-Aids, all soft top trucks become Jeeps.

Again I know what you are saying but it is silly to say all or all people think this, I do not I drink club soda and not in any way think it is coke. LOL the Band-Aids thing may be the most true.. Words can be so limiting and in many cases perhaps we have made them or make them so perhaps being lazy and or the need to do things faster have more blind us from being mindful and cause great problems, like people saying what they do or did not really mean.

You wrote Than Buddhists are atheists.

Perhaps a perfect example. Buddhism can be said to be atheist or agnostic but there are many people who are Buddhist who choose to believe in a God, there are Catholic Buddhist movements many examples. There are many people who still holding on to fear become Buddhist still believing in a god but learn to see fear as illusion and leave it and the god by the side and or better see it as irrelevant as it is.

ALL Buddhist are not atheist or agnostic or believe in a god or gods.

You responded to my saying the god idea is as far as I believe irrelevant

Feel free to think that In this case, it's all a matter of opinion.

Yes just as believing there is or is not a god or gods they are all beliefs, I would say that my position that it is irrelevant is based in logical conclusion.

The reason.
If you do what is good and right not causing harm to yourself or any being for the reason.
1- fear of a god.. It is NOT moral.
2- Worship of a god or to please it…. It is not moral.
3- Looking for some reward…. It is not moral.

But to do so out of loving kindness, respect and compassion towards yourself and or that other being then it is moral. No god needed believing in a god if there is one or a billion can not make me do what is good and right that is clear only I can control my actions. This clear and can be shown as fact in that if a god could or a belief in a god could make you do what is good and right god based believing people would not NO wrong we know that is NOT the case.

If you don't know/care, and don't actually BELIEVE anything, you'd be an atheist.

Do you know anyone that does not believe anything????

I believe many things as I said in this case I don’t care and I do not believe it is logical but there is NO way I can know.

The idea that nobody can know is foolish, in my opinion. Throwing ones hands into the air and leaving the question is anti-Science, and anti-Progress, and not worthy of any thinking, rational being.

Self serving twisting of others words. If it is foolish to say I do not know if there is a god or gods the PROVE there is the burden is now yours. If you do not believe in gods ( I do not know what you believe I am sorry) then PROVE there is NOT.

You attack people who are honest saying they do not know or care being anti-Science, and anti-Progress LOL and not rational thinkers so you right now PROVE your position as to if there is for sure or not.. NO excuses or dancing, prove it.

You are making assumptions and pretending to know what I am thinking. That is called a Strawman.

Again false I post ONLY YOUR words you I have proven by statement seem to say you know what people are thinking, while I believe you do not really think that. I do NOT know what you are thinking other then what you have said. The use of throwing out I am using a Straw man seems to be a ploy to get off the topic and look logical and address at what I post.

It isn't a belief, it's a philisophical and linguistic truth. Your position is one that is akin to saying "You can believe that all apples are fruits, but you can't profess it as a fact.

Again false on both counts. Agnostic mean doubter, not sure and within that group will be millions leaning one way or the other.

Not at all true again and self serving silliness. An apple is an apple and fruit, an atheist does not believe in a god or gods my term of word definition, an agnostic is a doubter but uncertain.

Also lol just to remember I am Buddhist the apple is not even an apple there is nothing that is and of itself, self. There is no apple just a collection of non-apple elements..

We're dealing with classification. I am saying "All people who think X fall under term Y, because term Y literally means 'all people who think x'"

think? you said above you did not believe anyone could NOT KNOW is foolish. Again
1- in every one of these self limiting words groups will be many shades of thinking. All football fans do not think the 72 Dolphins are the best team ever.

Calling ones self a given thing and BEING that thing are two very, very different things.

True

Children often say "I am Superman!" or "I'm a magical sorcerer!" or "I am an eagle!"

True but not a good example these children do not really for the most part come to believe they are superman etc a i.e. believer in gods believes he is a believer in gods.

f a person says they are agnostic, I am going to just trust that they are an agnostic. If they say they are an agnostic, yet believe in god, than they are lying. If they don't, than they are an atheist.

If a person says they are agnostic and believe in gods they are by definition a theist, if they say they “know” or believe there is NOT they are by definition atheist .
If someone says they are agnostic and do not know for sure either way they are agnostic and saying do not know for sure either way.

You can believe and say what you wish but what they believe is what they believe, as what you choose to believe is what you believe.

You are simply being stubborn as to this.

Be well my friend, this horse is dead but I do look forward to your proof there is or is not a god. Real proof with facts for us foolish people. Save the dancing for the dance floor. Please no anger or dancing just facts to prove your position and this statement.

The idea that nobody can know is foolish, in my opinion. Throwing ones hands into the air and leaving the question is anti-Science, and anti-Progress, and not worthy of any thinking, rational being.

Pahansiri

22nd June 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Sindai

Nitpick of no real relevence to my argument. I may have exaggerated, but you completely failed to meet the thrust of my point, which should still have been obvious.

So, in failing to counter my assertion, do you concede I was correct in your misinterpretation of Fade?

Greetings Sindai

I will address your post and avoid pointing out the greatly over exaggerated “fib” lol.

You wrote:.

Paha, this is incredible. Every time Fade says "Anyone who thinks there is no god is an atheist" you somehow read it as "Anyone who says they think there is no god is an Atheist."

I of course did not do so and it is my hope you more clearly read my posts including my last to Fade and perhaps reread my first.

From your statement "Anyone who says they think there is no god is an Atheist." in which you intimated I said or believe etc that may I assume you believe that if someone:
1- Thinks there is no god i.e. "Anyone who thinks there is no god is an atheist"
2- They differ from someone who or not the person who says they think there is no god is an Atheist ?

Would that mean that a person who “thinks” there is no god does not “say” there is no god? Ever? While I believe there are people who think there are no god may well never say it but in both cases they think it correct?

Or do you believe people who “say they think there is no god” are just lying? I have spoken to Christian friends that say “people who don’t believe in god really do but are just afraid to admit it”.

This is of course is illogical on many levels including that fact that is someone said they did not believe in the Christian god but did would write their ticket to “hell” as they would know the base of Christianity for many is it really does not matter how you act as long as you believe in god.

No as to your statement Tell me, how do you do it? Autohypnosis?

Your statements seem to be lacking fully development.

Are you saying I place myself into a state of Self-hypnosis so as to read and respond to post? For what reason would that be logical. Truth is I have no idea or desire to do so but it is your right to ask if logical or not.
Be well

Pahansiri

22nd June 2003, 08:37 AM

Fade please how me one last comment on your statement;
The idea that nobody can know is foolish, in my opinion. Throwing ones hands into the air and leaving the question is anti-Science, and anti-Progress, and not worthy of any thinking, rational being.

That is so very wrong. To say with honest and free from emotion/fear filled one says “ I do not and can not know if there is a god or gods or if there is not god or gods with the present data”

Is in no way anti-Science, and anti-Progress it is the very core of Science and the fuel for Progress it is the locking onself into saying I KNOW there is a god and that god is MY one true god and all others wrong” or There for SURE is NO god or gods is the very thing that kills scientific thought and progress. The position of this is FACT just because I believe it and the closed mind that says it is anti-Science, and anti-Progress.

That is the thinking that is not rational just ego/fear.. Much like saying something you may have believed was true but not allowing truths or facts in to change your mind.

Science is the openness to change ideas as facts and proof arise.

In my belief the Kalama Sutta is a foundation

Kalama Sutta

Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

Yahzi

22nd June 2003, 12:00 PM

The idea that nobody can know is foolish, in my opinion. Throwing ones hands into the air and leaving the question is anti-Science, and anti-Progress, and not worthy of any thinking, rational being.
Perhaps the less controversial way to phrase this would be:

The idea that anybody can not have an opinion is foolish. Nobody knows anything for certain, but if you can't tell the difference between Saint Nick and Nick Nolte, then you are either a) ignorant, b) disingenous, or c) insane. Rationalism requires you to take the best guess and run with it, not sit in the endzone waiting for a perfect pass before you will even consent to play.

It's really the same thing Fade is saying, just in different words.

Pahansiri

22nd June 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Perhaps the less controversial way to phrase this would be:

The idea that anybody can not have an opinion is foolish. Nobody knows anything for certain, but if you can't tell the difference between Saint Nick and Nick Nolte, then you are either a) ignorant, b) disingenous, or c) insane. Rationalism requires you to take the best guess and run with it, not sit in the endzone waiting for a perfect pass before you will even consent to play.

It's really the same thing Fade is saying, just in different words.

As to the god idea for example people who say they do not know do have an opinion, they do not know many also do not care and that too is an opinion.

To decide to move to one “side” or the other is of course OK I do not feel that on this topic one must take a side and run with it or wait in the endzone as if you do the game will be over before the answer will come and if you seek to take one hard stand and “run” with it or seek to run over someone with it you will always be tackled by the defender named Prove it

It is a thing that right now anyway can not be known either way and is irrelevant .

The proof many simply do not know or care and say so and life full lives "playing the game" very well.

Just what I believe.

c4ts

22nd June 2003, 03:04 PM

But some people are convinced they have proof, when they really don't, and are simply unable to realize it. Remember Muscleman?

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd June 2003, 03:25 PM

Pahansari,

I think maybe you are misinterpreting what Fade said (Fade, please correct me if I've got this wrong).

The idea that nobody can know is foolish, in my opinion. Throwing ones hands into the air and leaving the question is anti-Science, and anti-Progress, and not worthy of any thinking, rational being.

Note that what Fade is criticizing here is not the position that you don't know, but rather the position that you can't know. And I am quite in agreement with him that this position is anti-science, and irrational. Here's why.

There are only three ways that the existence of God could be truly unknowable.

1) God does not exist. Since the existence of a general conception of God is not falsifiable, if he does not exist, then his existence is unknowable.

2) God does exist, but has no effect on anything (Deism). In this case his existence is also unknowable, but this is an abuse of the word "exist", since this is indistinguishable from non-existence.

3) God does exist, and does affect things, but in such a way that those effects cannot be scientifically studied in order to establish his existence, and learn things about him (supernaturalism). This is a direct violation of one of the basic premises of the scientific method, namely naturalism.

That said, if you are claiming that the existence of God is unknowable, then you are either

a) claiming that God does not exist, in which you are contradicting yourself by claiming to know something which you also claim is unknowable, or

b) claiming that the scientific method is invalid.

Hence the position is either incoherent, anti-science, or both.

Incidentally, I do think it is possible for somebody to be an agnostic, but not an atheist. I just think that such a position is completely irrational.

Dr. Stupid

c4ts

22nd June 2003, 03:42 PM

So if the effects of God comprise what we call the natural order of things (TLOP and such), so that nothing unaffected exists, then it would have to be knowable?

slimshady2357

22nd June 2003, 04:19 PM

Stimpson, can you tell me what scientific evidence for God you would accept?

I'm just wondering, because you say IF God does exist and interacts with the world that science can investigate it. So what evidence would you need?

Some might say the inherent random nature to QM is a sign that God is interacting (I wouldn't, but as Franko liked to point out, it sure seems supernatural). But instead science says "The universe is just fundamentally random on that scale".

I have a feeling science would always choose this path....

Perhaps you mean a substantial amount of miracles?

I'm just wondering what evidence you would see that would make you (and the scientific community) say "Ah! There is God in action, it must be, it makes the most logical sense to believe so and incorporate God into our physical description of reality"

Just curious :)

Adam

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd June 2003, 04:20 PM

c4ts,

So if the effects of God comprise what we call the natural order of things (TLOP and such), so that nothing unaffected exists, then it would have to be knowable?

That depends.

If you are saying that God is the natural order of things, then you are just attaching the name "God" to the laws of nature. That is just semantics, not theism.

If you are saying that God created the Universe and the natural laws, and that he has no other effect on anything, and that his other characteristics (the ones that distinguish him from simply being those natural laws) cannot be deduced from our observations of the Universe, then you are basically back into category 2. It is meaningless to say that those characteristics exist, ie it is meaningless to say that there is anything more to this "god" than just those natural laws.

If you are claiming that he created the Universe and the natural laws, and that his existence actually does make some sort of difference to the Universe, but in such a way as to be unknowable, then you are back in category number 3: Supernaturalism.

Dr. Stupid

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd June 2003, 04:31 PM

Slimshady,

Stimpson, can you tell me what scientific evidence for God you would accept?

I'm just wondering, because you say IF God does exist and interacts with the world that science can investigate it. So what evidence would you need?

Some might say the inherent random nature to QM is a sign that God is interacting (I wouldn't, but as Franko liked to point out, it sure seems supernatural). But instead science says "The universe is just fundamentally random on that scale".

I have a feeling science would always choose this path....

Perhaps you mean a substantial amount of miracles?

I'm just wondering what evidence you would see that would make you (and the scientific community) say "Ah! There is God in action, it must be, it makes the most logical sense to believe so and incorporate God into our physical description of reality"

Just curious

Adam

It would depend on your definition of God. In order to have scientific evidence for something, you must first have a clear, unambiguous, falsifiable theory. Produce one for your (or any) conception of God, and we can see about constructing some experiments to test it.

Of course, if your conception of God is supernaturalistic, then the point is moot. There can never be any scientific evidence for such a thing, because its very existence would indicate that scientific evidence is not valid. In other words, the best you could do is scientifically falsify the premises of science, at which point no scientific conclusions can possibly be drawn about the nature of the supernatural.

Of course, one could try to argue that the existence of the supernatural itself is unknowable, but this has the same problems as I outlined for God. To do so you must either claim that the supernatural does not exist, in which case you are claiming to know something that you claim is unknowable, or you must claim that the supernatural exists, but doesn't have any effect on anything, which is meaningless. As long as you acknowledge the possibility that the supernatural could exist, and could effect the world in such a way as to reveal that it exists, then you cannot claim that its existence is unknowable.

Dr. Stupid

Yahzi

23rd June 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

many also do not care and that too is an opinion.
It is an opinion that puts them in the atheist camp.

To not care about something so crucial is to declare yourself an athiest.

I once knew a woman who didn't know what side of the abortion debate she was on: she didn't know if she was for or against legal abortion. I never suceeded in explaining to her that if she wasn't for outlawing them, then she was pro-choice. One side said "No!" and the other side said anything except no. If you aren't saying no, then you aren't pro-life.

The same with God. If you aren't positively affirming the existance of a god, you are effectively an athiest.

Yahzi

23rd June 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by slimshady2357
I'm just wondering what evidence you would see that would make you (and the scientific community) say "Ah! There is God in action, it must be, it makes the most logical sense to believe so and incorporate God into our physical description of reality"

That's easy. If we find the King James Bible inscribed in 5,000 foot letters made of platinum on the dark side of the moon, then I'm willing to say, "Hmm... this God hypothesis and divinely inspired Bible theory seem pretty compelling now."

Or how about this: people get baptised, and then stop commiting crimes. Completely. Just like the fact that when people get shot to death they stop committing crimes serves to support the claim that shooting people to death kills them, if baptizing people made a clear and irrevocable difference, that would be enough to make me take a serious second look at the God hypothesis.

Really, anything at all that a) actually matters, and b) isn't explained by ordinary greed and stupidity.

Farking 1% better healing rates in people that have been prayed over doesn't make you believe in God, it makes you wonder why anybody would care about a god so utterly wimpy.

subgenius

23rd June 2003, 02:20 AM

This is all so jejeune, but another definition of agnostic includes the concept that proof of god is unknowable.
I once asked a really cool priest friend of mine who happens to be high up in the Vatican if an atheist could go to heaven. (Great question, huh?)
And he answered, "Yes if you live a good life."
I responded with, "So what's the point? (of believing in god)"

EdipisReks

23rd June 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
This is all so jejeune, but another definition of agnostic includes the concept that proof of god is unknowable.
I once asked a really cool priest friend of mine who happens to be high up in the Vatican if an atheist could go to heaven. (Great question, huh?)
And he answered, "Yes if you live a good life."
I responded with, "So what's the point? (of believing in god)"

what was his response?

Pahansiri

23rd June 2003, 06:09 AM

Greetings Stimpson J. Cat I hope you are well and happy.

First again allow me to say while I first and foremost believe the whole topic and idea is irrelevant, it can not shape in anyway my actions or lead to easing or ending suffering. 2nd I do find the possibly to be illogical.

Allow me to just skip down to this part of your post [Incidentally, I do think it is possible for somebody to be an agnostic, but not an atheist. I just think that such a position is completely irrational[/quote]

Allow me to make my response simple and ask one question that will prove your position to be right or wrong.

I do not know if you believe in gods or not so allow me to ask you to prove what you do with unshakable, unquestionable facts.

If you believe in god, prove it exist with unshakable, unquestionable facts.

Or

If you don’t believe in god, prove it does not exist with unshakable, unquestionable facts.

To not be able to prove with unshakable, unquestionable facts your belief would make your position as to your above statement completely irrational.

Pahansiri

23rd June 2003, 06:10 AM

Greetings
Yahzi I hope you are well and happy.

You write It is an opinion that puts them in the atheist camp.

I respect your belief as to that and will not again post my opinions as I have done so above several times and in several ways so it would be redundant to rehash it.

You write[ quote]To not care about something so crucial is to declare yourself an athiest.[/quote]

So crucial how? It is clear to atheist it is not at all crucial, to agnostics for the most part it is clear it is not crucial, to deists it seems not overly critical.

To one who hold the belief in a god or gods it may be seen as crucial and I respect that but to demand it is crucial for non god believing people is simply projecting your beliefs on them.

This is like someone who believes football it the worlds greatest sport demanding that all people must also see that it is, or some baseball player is the BEST player of all time or some song the BEST ever and it is crucial to believe so.

With great respect why is it crucial either way? I have pointed out in post above why it is not as to my belief.

I often ask Christian friends if you found out today with unshakable facts that there is no god, how will your life change? Will you start to kill, steal, lie etc? Will you lose your food, home, family, sight, life??

NO.

Why is this god idea in any form so crucial?

The same with God. If you aren't positively affirming the existance of a god, you are effectively an athiest.

If you aren't positively affirming the fact that Tiny Tim is the greatest singer ever are you effectively a Tiny Tim fan?

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd June 2003, 07:18 AM

Pahansiri,

First again allow me to say while I first and foremost believe the whole topic and idea is irrelevant, it can not shape in anyway my actions or lead to easing or ending suffering. 2nd I do find the possibly to be illogical.

I would tend to agree with you. Most of the conceptions of God that I know of that are not easily demonstrated to be false, are completely irrelevant and meaningless. Hence my comment about a God which exists, but which has no effect on anything, being an oxymoron.

Allow me to just skip down to this part of your post [Incidentally, I do think it is possible for somebody to be an agnostic, but not an atheist. I just think that such a position is completely irrational.

Allow me to make my response simple and ask one question that will prove your position to be right or wrong.

I do not know if you believe in gods or not so allow me to ask you to prove what you do with unshakable, unquestionable facts.

If you believe in god, prove it exist with unshakable, unquestionable facts.

Or

If you don’t believe in god, prove it does not exist with unshakable, unquestionable facts.

To not be able to prove with unshakable, unquestionable facts your belief would make your position as to your above statement completely irrational.

First of all, "unshakable unquestionable proof" is both nonexistent, and unnecessary to logically justify a belief. What is necessary is substantial reliable evidence.

That said, there is a simple flaw in your above reasoning.

If I were to claim that I believed in God, then I would need substantial reliable evidence to justify that belief.

If I were to claim that I believe there is no God, then I would also need substantial reliable evidence to justify that belief.

However, if I simply claim that I do not believe in God, then I require no supporting evidence, because this is a lack of belief, not a belief. I am not claiming that God exists, or that he doesn't exist. I am saying that I hold no belief either way.

That is atheism in its most general form. Certainly an atheist could also believe that gods do not or cannot exist, but that is not a belief I hold.

To reiterate, if you are an agnostic, meaning that you do not know whether there is a God or not, then it is irrational for you to believe that there is a God, and irrational for you to believe that there is not. Thus it is possible to be an agnostic theist, but it is irrational to be one. Likewise, if we define "hard atheism" to be the belief that God does not exist, then an agnostic hard atheist would also be irrational.

But, of course, one does not have to be a hard atheist to reject the very conception of God as being pointless and silly, nor does one have to be a hard atheist to recognise that the belief that any supernatural conception of God does not exist, is perfectly well justified by substantial reliable evidence. This only leaves conceptions of God which are naturalistic, and in which God actually plays some role in the World, as "potential possibilities". I know of no such conceptions, though, so the entire point is rather moot.

Please also understand that when I say "know" I am talking about provisional, fallible knowledge based on reliable evidence, and not some unattainable "absolute knowledge".

Either way, to claim that the existence of God is unknowable is nonsensical, for the reasons I have outlined previously. If you define agnosticism as that, then it is equally nonsensical.

Dr. Stupid

subgenius

23rd June 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by EdipisReks

what was his response?
The sound of crickets, but he did grin a little.

Fade

23rd June 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

The sound of crickets, but he did grin a little.

Surprise surprise, eh?

And Stimpy, that about covers it.

I am going to chalk this up to the language barrier. I can't make my point any clearer without crudely drawn MSPaint pictures, and the last time I did that the thread went on for a year and a half.

Pahansiri

23rd June 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Pahansiri,

I would tend to agree with you. Most of the conceptions of God that I know of that are not easily demonstrated to be false, are completely irrelevant and meaningless. Hence my comment about a God which exists, but which has no effect on anything, being an oxymoron.

First of all, "unshakable unquestionable proof" is both nonexistent, and unnecessary to logically justify a belief. What is necessary is substantial reliable evidence.

That said, there is a simple flaw in your above reasoning.

If I were to claim that I believed in God, then I would need substantial reliable evidence to justify that belief.

If I were to claim that I believe there is no God, then I would also need substantial reliable evidence to justify that belief.

However, if I simply claim that I do not believe in God, then I require no supporting evidence, because this is a lack of belief, not a belief. I am not claiming that God exists, or that he doesn't exist. I am saying that I hold no belief either way.

That is atheism in its most general form. Certainly an atheist could also believe that gods do not or cannot exist, but that is not a belief I hold.

To reiterate, if you are an agnostic, meaning that you do not know whether there is a God or not, then it is irrational for you to believe that there is a God, and irrational for you to believe that there is not. Thus it is possible to be an agnostic theist, but it is irrational to be one. Likewise, if we define "hard atheism" to be the belief that God does not exist, then an agnostic hard atheist would also be irrational.

But, of course, one does not have to be a hard atheist to reject the very conception of God as being pointless and silly, nor does one have to be a hard atheist to recognise that the belief that any supernatural conception of God does not exist, is perfectly well justified by substantial reliable evidence. This only leaves conceptions of God which are naturalistic, and in which God actually plays some role in the World, as "potential possibilities". I know of no such conceptions, though, so the entire point is rather moot.

Please also understand that when I say "know" I am talking about provisional, fallible knowledge based on reliable evidence, and not some unattainable "absolute knowledge".

Either way, to claim that the existence of God is unknowable is nonsensical, for the reasons I have outlined previously. If you define agnosticism as that, then it is equally nonsensical.

Dr. Stupid

First allow me to say I am not sure if I said suck knowledge could ever be known I know at one point I wrote not as of yet as anyone been able to.

I see a lot of dancing but no direct answers to questions but what I do find is statements proving my point and contradicting other statements you have made.

First of all, "unshakable unquestionable proof" is both nonexistent, and unnecessary to logically justify a belief. What is necessary is substantial reliable evidence.

This can be true for many things, again this is a great example of things not being black and white. An example Fade not responding to my post to them more precisely that within a group you will find many degrees of belief. You also point this out as to you believing as some atheist and not like others.

"unshakable unquestionable proof" are very possible for many, many things. Your saying this points out that my position is right, you can as I do believe the god idea is illogical but I also believe it could be as there is much we do not know.

Yes "unshakable unquestionable proof" is both nonexistent as to the god idea, that is my point. To say NO there is no god and no chance is anti science, to say YES there is a god because my bible etc says so or the old, “every time a baby is born it is a miracle and god is proven” etc.

I find is sad really you post things like Either way, to claim that the existence of God is unknowable is nonsensical, for the reasons I have outlined previously. If you define agnosticism as that, then it is equally nonsensical.

This the attacking of ones beliefs as a Christian saying anyone who does not believe in god is stupid etc or people saying anyone who does believe in god is stupid, it is ego.

The fact is while it is harder to have unshakable unquestionable proof there is no or was no etc gods it is possible to have unshakable unquestionable proof there is. I believe you and I both will not hold our breaths.

If I were to claim that I believed in God, then I would need substantial reliable evidence to justify that belief.

Very true.

If I were to claim that I believe there is no God, then I would also need substantial reliable evidence to justify that belief.[quote]

[quote] To reiterate, if you are an agnostic, meaning that you do not know whether there is a God or not, then it is irrational for you to believe that there is a God, and irrational for you to believe that there is not.[quote]

Here I could address and exchange ideas on several points but one is only needed to support or better disprove Fade’s belief and you saying it was right.

Fade said agnostics are atheist ( again general terms) he said “all” I have pointed out that is silly to know what all people in any group think. Anyway you said Fade was right “all agnostics are atheist”.

Yet, above you point out that it would be irrational for an atheist to say there was no god, which as much as you wish to dance around and play word games is the same as saying you don’t believe in god.

Example. Can you say as you did [quote] simply claim that I do not believe in God and also say But I believe God exists?? No.. If you say you do not believe in god it means you then do not believe such thing exists.

That is atheism in its most general form. Certainly an atheist could also believe that gods do not or cannot exist, but that is not a belief I hold.

You keep open the door that it could be true and that is my point. I normally do not get involved in a topic as this one as it is irrelevant as there is a god or not, this is word games and placing people in categories and meaningless. I personally do not care what anyone wishes to call me as only I and my actions define me.

The reason I did respond ( while telling myself not to) was I talk to many Christians that say “ ALL people are sinners” I ask always please tell me the names of all people ever and their “sins”.

I will be out of town for the rest of the week and wish you and all to have a great week, here in upstate NY it will for it looks like 4 days in a row NOT rain!!!!!

:D

Yahzi

23rd June 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
unshakable, unquestionable facts.

If you are trying to win an argument, there are no such things as "unshakable, unquestionable facts." All knowledge is either probabalistic or true by definition. If you require knowledge to be absolute, you are simply defining knowledge to be impossible. This is extreme skepticism, and the proper response is Yahzi's patented Baseball Bat Test (TM).

If you are trying to be reasonable, then you don't use adjectives like "unshakable" and "unquestionable." You just say "facts."

Why is this god idea in any form so crucial?

What happend to you, Pahan? I can't recall you ever being quite so confused before...

If I tell you that there is a hungry tiger waiting outside your door, and it is going to eat you the second you open the door, you can either believe me or not, but you cannot deny that the truth of that assertion is crucial. If you tell me you don't care, what you are really saying is you don't believe me: because nobody doesn't care about being eaten alive by a tiger.

When Christians tell you that you are going to spend eternity in hell being eaten by flaming tigers, and you respond that the issue does not interest you enough to bother discussing, are we to conclude that a) you don't care about being eaten by tigers, or b) you think the possiblity is so remote as to be unworthy of attention (and isn't that exactly what we mean by disbelieve?).

If you aren't positively affirming the fact that Tiny Tim is the greatest singer ever are you effectively a Tiny Tim fan?
:confused:

The proper analogy to my argument would be: If you aren't positively affirming the fact that Tiny Tim is the greatest singer ever are you effectively not a Tiny Tim fan?

To which the answer is: no, because you can like Tiny Tim without liking him the most. But you cannot like the Christian God without liking him the most. If Tiny Tim made it public knowledge that if you didn't think he was the greatest singer ever, then you shouldn't buy his albums or listen to his music, then maybe the analogy would stick.

Pahansiri

23rd June 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
If you are trying to win an argument, there are no such things as "unshakable, unquestionable facts."

Truly I am not in winning an argument really there is no such thing and greatly not so here as you well know.

But again what I said is that if someone says what they are saying is THE TRUTH, when they make a statement of fact and not a statement of belief the burden of proof is on them.

If someone says people can NOT say they do not know if there is or is not a god or gods and declares them “lost” basically which sounds like the same thing god based groups say about “ non believers” they must provide unshakable, unquestionable facts.

If someone demanded to you that there was a God and you were wrong, demanding Yahzi was lost, confused etc, my great friend Yahzi would ask for unshakable, unquestionable facts.

If one demands fact you as I demand facts.

All knowledge is either probabalistic or true by definition. If you require knowledge to be absolute, you are simply defining knowledge to be impossible. This is extreme skepticism, and the proper response is Yahzi's patented Baseball Bat Test (TM).

LOL, you monster, I have taken bats from people before, so there.. Anyway I am in no way an extreme anything, I did do some extreme fighting but that is just a name and really not fitting as I never used a chainsaw..lol

Again my point is when someone demands one is wrong and they have the ONE and only truth they need have it. To say “ because I said so” is what thinkers like you demand from them.

Please read my above post to fade and Stimpson J. Cat as to my explaining my position as the poor horse is dead for me.

If you are trying to be reasonable, then you don't use adjectives like "unshakable" and "unquestionable." You just say "facts."

I am always reasonable or seek to be, and again please refer to what I wrote above. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

What happend to you, Pahan? I can't recall you ever being quite so confused before...

LOL am I in the Rapture Ready Board?????? Personal attacks rather then logical thinking, Yahzi that is not like you. My friend Iam not at all confused I have made my position very clear as I do always or seek to do, if you do not agree that is fine and respected but to say I am confused is a ploy of one who can not answer logically and you are not like that.

If I tell you that there is a hungry tiger waiting outside your door, and it is going to eat you the second you open the door, you can either believe me or not, but you cannot deny that the truth of that assertion is crucial. [quote]

That has nothing to do with my simple question. WHY is the question of a god or no god or a billion critical. You my friend have completely avoided the subject.

You write[quote]To not care about something so crucial is to declare yourself an athiest.

I said So crucial how? It is clear to atheist it is not at all crucial, to agnostics for the most part it is clear it is not crucial, to deists it seems not overly critical.

To one who hold the belief in a god or gods it may be seen as crucial and I respect that but to demand it is crucial for non god believing people is simply projecting your beliefs on them.

Again you may believe the god idea is critical and I respect that, I listed people in these groups that also I believe do not believe it is that critical.

I answer all questions asked of me please do the same, as to the above and this

I often ask Christian friends if you found out today with unshakable facts that there is no god, how will your life change? Will you start to kill, steal, lie etc? Will you lose your food, home, family, sight, life??

If you tell me you don't care, what you are really saying is you don't believe me: because nobody doesn't care about being eaten alive by a tiger.

illogical as to this conversation or my point. I can prove the tiger, I can take the steps to find if your statement is true and take steps, the tiger is a clear danger and almost everyone could see it. It is not a belief the hungry tiger can and may kill and eat you, it is a measurable fact.

If I don’t believe in a god, that there is no proof for I don’t believe in this hell that is associated with it so don’t care. As I also said my actions can not be moral if they are out of fear, or desire for gain or even respect for a god or anything other then the beings I seek to love and not bring any harm to.

When Christians tell you that you are going to spend eternity in hell being eaten by flaming tigers, and you respond that the issue does not interest you enough to bother discussing,

I look at the person and judge if a mature respectful conversation is possible, will they be harmed by my debating them and what they hold dear. If they wish to discuss it I will do so in a logical way using facts and if they use the Bible I will also use it to show them contradictions ( which they will then say are out of context.. lol) . If they demand that they are right I will ask for "unshakable, unquestionable facts." They will become angry, filled with emotions, call me names, say I am “confused” and leave.

Such a discussion is fruitless so it is best to do what I do almost all the time, I say “ I respect what you wish to believe and ask you give me the same respect you seek” I will go no to say if pushed “ I will live each day of my life seeking to help and not cause harm to myself or any being. If you are right and your god predicates his love on his ego rather then his children and the good they did, I have no need to be with him and will help the ones in hell”

are we to conclude that a) you don't care about being eaten by tigers, or b) you think the possiblity is so remote as to be unworthy of attention (and isn't that exactly what we mean by disbelieve?).

My above response answer this, but I will add again what you say is critical is to be respected but to project it on to others and demand they believe it is critical is silly and ego.

Be well my friend…

Yahzi

23rd June 2003, 02:18 PM

Pahanrisi
Well, if you aren't confused, I am.

I don't understand your objection to my tiger example. The actual fact of whether or not their really is a tiger is crucial. It matters in a way that cannot be dismissed or ignored. It is not your opinion that matters: it is the objective truth of whether or not there is a tiger.

Now to ignore questions of such importance is to effectively dismiss the possiblity that the answer to the question matters. The only way you can not have an opinion on the tiger is if you think it doesn't matter: if you think the outcome is the same whether there is a tiger or there isn't. But how could that possibly be?

If the Christian God, with his rules and his eternal punishments, is objectively realy, then it [i]matters[/]. Only a lunatic could not care. Only an insane person would act the same if God was or wasn't there, in exactly the same way that only an insane person would assert that the existance of the tiger doesn't matter. One might choose to reject God even given his undeniable existance: but one would not dismiss the question of accepting or rejecting a tangible, obvious god as unimportant.

The only questions that you can dismiss as unimportant are the ones in which the answer doesn't matter. And if the answer to the question, "Does god exist," doesn't matter to you, then you are either a) a lunatic who cares nothing for common sense or personal safety, or b) an athiest.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd June 2003, 02:19 PM

Pahansiri,

I see a lot of dancing but no direct answers to questions but what I do find is statements proving my point and contradicting other statements you have made.

Where have I contradicted myself?

First of all, "unshakable unquestionable proof" is both nonexistent, and unnecessary to logically justify a belief. What is necessary is substantial reliable evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This can be true for many things, again this is a great example of things not being black and white. An example Fade not responding to my post to them more precisely that within a group you will find many degrees of belief. You also point this out as to you believing as some atheist and not like others.

I don't see your point here. I have seen Fade make two claims here. One, that a person who honestly doesn't know whether God exists or not (agnosticism) cannot believe God exists (atheism), and two, that it is nonsensical to claim that the existence of God is unknowable. I have stated that I disagree with the first one, with the clarification that such a belief, while possible, is not rational, and that I agree with the second one. It seems to me that Fade has addressed your posts, so I don't really see what you are getting at here.

"unshakable unquestionable proof" are very possible for many, many things.

Only for abstract formal logical statements. Not for any claims about the nature of reality.

Your saying this points out that my position is right, you can as I do believe the god idea is illogical but I also believe it could be as there is much we do not know.

That is exactly my position. It is called agnostic atheism. Welcome to the club. :p

Yes "unshakable unquestionable proof" is both nonexistent as to the god idea, that is my point. To say NO there is no god and no chance is anti science, to say YES there is a god because my bible etc says so or the old, “every time a baby is born it is a miracle and god is proven” etc.

Yes, I agree. But that is not necessary for atheism. All that it takes to be an atheist is to lack belief in God, as you do. It does not require you to hold the belief that no sort of God could possibly exist.

I find is sad really you post things like

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either way, to claim that the existence of God is unknowable is nonsensical, for the reasons I have outlined previously. If you define agnosticism as that, then it is equally nonsensical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This the attacking of ones beliefs as a Christian saying anyone who does not believe in god is stupid etc or people saying anyone who does believe in god is stupid, it is ego.

I never said anything about people who make such claims being stupid. I said that such a position is irrational. Surely you must agree that it is quite possible for very intelligent people to believe irrational things?

Furthermore, I have explained in detail exactly why such a position is irrational. Do you have any actual counter-argument, or is it your intention to dismiss my argument solely on the grounds that it seems mean to you?

The fact is while it is harder to have unshakable unquestionable proof there is no or was no etc gods it is possible to have unshakable unquestionable proof there is. I believe you and I both will not hold our breaths.

Once again, there is no such thing as unquestionable proof outside of abstract logic. But I will agree that it is, in principle, possible that if God exists, reliable evidence could be produced to demonstrate that he does. That is exactly why it is not rational to claim that his existence is unknowable! To do so is to deny that possibility!

To reiterate, if you are an agnostic, meaning that you do not know whether there is a God or not, then it is irrational for you to believe that there is a God, and irrational for you to believe that there is not.[quote]

Here I could address and exchange ideas on several points but one is only needed to support or better disprove Fade’s belief and you saying it was right.

Fade said agnostics are atheist ( again general terms) he said “all” I have pointed out that is silly to know what all people in any group think. Anyway you said Fade was right “all agnostics are atheist”.

No, I did not. I specifically said that I disagree with Fade on this point, because Fade's explanation of why he claims this only demonstrates that to simultaneously be an agnostic and a theist is irrational. But, of course, it is entirely possible for people to hold irrational beliefs.

Yet, above you point out that it would be irrational for an atheist to say there was no god, which as much as you wish to dance around and play word games is the same as saying you don’t believe in god.

No, it is completely different. Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe there is not a God?

Example. Can you say as you did [quote] simply claim that I do not believe in God and also say But I believe God exists?? No.. If you say you do not believe in god it means you then do not believe such thing exists.

Exactly. It means I do not hold that belief. It does not necessarily mean that I hold the opposite belief.

Do you believe that my little brother's middle name is William? Do you believe that his middle name is not William? Unless you are quite irrational, you hold neither belief, because you simply don't know either way.

That is atheism in its most general form. Certainly an atheist could also believe that gods do not or cannot exist, but that is not a belief I hold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep open the door that it could be true and that is my point. I normally do not get involved in a topic as this one as it is irrelevant as there is a god or not, this is word games and placing people in categories and meaningless. I personally do not care what anyone wishes to call me as only I and my actions define me.

The reason I did respond ( while telling myself not to) was I talk to many Christians that say “ ALL people are sinners” I ask always please tell me the names of all people ever and their “sins”.

I will be out of town for the rest of the week and wish you and all to have a great week, here in upstate NY it will for it looks like 4 days in a row NOT rain!!!!!

Once again, I think you seriously misunderstood Fade's point. He was not trying to claim that all people who call themselves agnostics are also atheists, but rather that those people who call themselves agnostics, but believe in God, are not really agnostics. There is a big difference. He is not making any claim about what anybody believes, but simply pointing out that he does not think that people who believe in God can really honestly claim to not know whether there is a God or not. As I said before, I disagree with him on this point. I only got involved in this to point out that I agree with his other point, namely that claiming that the existence of God is unknowable is nonsensical and anti-science.

Dr. Stupid

Pahansiri

23rd June 2003, 02:29 PM

Hello Stimpson J. Cat,

Again forgive me I really and rushing to get ready and so will only respond to this part.

Once again, I think you seriously misunderstood Fade's point. He was not trying to claim that all people who call themselves agnostics are also atheists, but rather that those people who call themselves agnostics, but believe in God, are not really agnostics.

I would agree with that statement other then that is what meant, or perhaps that may be what he means but he said this.

"Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth."

That is not in anyway what you said he meant to say so besides the fast he spelled philosophical wrong he also did not say what he means and then the fault would lie with his statement and not in anyone reading it.

There is a big difference. He is not making any claim about what anybody believes, but simply pointing out that he does not think that people who believe in God can really honestly claim to not know whether there is a God or not.

Again I agree with your statement but not that , that is what he said or means.

Have a great week.

Pahansiri

23rd June 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Pahanrisi
Well, if you aren't confused, I am.

I don't understand your objection to my tiger example. The actual fact of whether or not their really is a tiger is crucial. It matters in a way that cannot be dismissed or ignored. It is not your opinion that matters: it is the objective truth of whether or not there is a tiger.

Now to ignore questions of such importance is to effectively dismiss the possiblity that the answer to the question matters. The only way you can not have an opinion on the tiger is if you think it doesn't matter: if you think the outcome is the same whether there is a tiger or there isn't. But how could that possibly be?

If the Christian God, with his rules and his eternal punishments, is objectively realy, then it [i]matters[/]. Only a lunatic could not care. Only an insane person would act the same if God was or wasn't there, in exactly the same way that only an insane person would assert that the existance of the tiger doesn't matter. One might choose to reject God even given his undeniable existance: but one would not dismiss the question of accepting or rejecting a tangible, obvious god as unimportant.

The only questions that you can dismiss as unimportant are the ones in which the answer doesn't matter. And if the answer to the question, "Does god exist," doesn't matter to you, then you are either a) a lunatic who cares nothing for common sense or personal safety, or b) an athiest.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Well, if you aren't confused, I am.

That is cool….

The dance goes on, still not one answer to questions.. sad.

I don't understand your objection to my tiger example. The actual fact of whether or not their really is a tiger is crucial. It matters in a way that cannot be dismissed or ignored. It is not your opinion that matters: it is the objective truth of whether or not there is a tiger.

You are reading with a NEED to be right and not reading with a logical mind.

I am not going to rehash or restate what I did already. The tiger would be real, it could be seen it is not just a belief but a solid provable item. Facts can be gained to support the tiger is real and it does kill and eat.

Can you do the same for god?

The tiger is crucial to beings as it is proven true with actual facts god, is a belief and one with countless stories as to what will happen if you do or do not believe in it. I know what a tiger bite will do.

Now to ignore questions of such importance is to effectively dismiss the possiblity that the answer to the question matters.

Matters to you and that is to be respected not to others, hello lol how many times must I say this, do not project what you believe is important on to others.

My mother thinks it is critical to wear a coat in the winter when ever you go out doors I almost never do unless I know I will be out real long, I do not get cold easy. To her it is critical not me.

The only way you can not have an opinion on the tiger is if you think it doesn't matter: if you think the outcome is the same whether there is a tiger or there isn't. But how could that possibly be?

LOL, PLEASE read PLEASE I am bagging you. I have an opinion about tigers, I also have one about gods as do all people, mine is I don’t believe it is relevant, 2- I don’t believe it is logical 3- I believe there is a chance so do not close my eyes or mind.

If the Christian God, with his rules and his eternal punishments, is objectively realy, then it [i]matters[/].

If, if’s and buts were cakes and nuts then everyday would be Christmas. I had a wrestling coach that use to say that.
What do you mean if, what if some other god rules is true what if there are 100 foot invisible giants that eat you after you die because you believe in god?

Do you believe everything just in case?

Only a lunatic could not care. Only an insane person would act the same if God was or wasn't there, in exactly the same way that only an insane person would assert that the existance of the tiger doesn't matter.

This is old my friend. Prove to me the Christian God and the story is true and I will believe it as I will believe and true fact once I know it is fact. The tiger is fact, please move on and read what is written my great friend not what you want it to say.

One might choose to reject God even given his undeniable existance: but one would not dismiss the question of accepting or rejecting a tangible, obvious god as unimportant.

So you are telling me you believe in every god and every story just because it is truth to someone and just incase? A person may worship a cow and I respect that they do but I see it as just a cow until I see with proof it is more then a cow. So if it is or is not is not relevant to me, not at all.

And if the answer to the question, "Does god exist," doesn't matter to you, then you are either a) a lunatic who cares nothing for common sense or personal safety, or b) an athiest.[quote]

As I said you may call me as you will it does not matter to me, I would say I am more atheist then anything but do not live with a closed mind, I thought you did not either.

[quote] If the Christian God, with his rules and his eternal punishments, is objectively realy, then it [i]matters[/]. Only a lunatic could not care. Only an insane person would act the same if God was or wasn't there,

Well now my friend remember I am Buddhist not Christian and do not believe in the Christian god so my personal safety as to the Christian god is not an issue for me, as it would not be for an agnostic for if they believed in the Christian god end his rules they would then be Christian, right???? If a Muslum believed in the Christian god they would be Christian would they Not? If a Hindu believe in the Christian god and his rules they would be Christian would they not??

Be well my friend

Yahzi

23rd June 2003, 07:49 PM

Pahansiri
Prove to me the Christian God and the story is true and I will believe it as I will believe and true fact once I know it is fact.
Eh... you seem to have confused me with someone who believes in god. I realize I did not specify the issue, but that was only because I thought my reputation proceeded me.

For the record: I don't believe in any gods, and I am convinced that the classical Christian God of the Bible is logically impossible.

My point is this: if (and I mean if) the Christian god were real, then all rational people would care. They fact that they don't care shows they don't believe god is real.

Well now my friend remember I am Buddhist not Christian and do not believe in the Christian god so my personal safety as to the Christian god is not an issue for me, as it would not be for an agnostic for if they believed in the Christian god end his rules they would then be Christian, right?
Exactly my point. Behaving as if the Christian god does not matter is equivalent to asserting agnosticism.

***

Is this the real Pahanrisi? Has he been drinking? Would anyone ever have believed it possible that someone could confuse Yahzi with a Christian? :eek:

Fade

23rd June 2003, 10:48 PM

That is not in anyway what you said he meant to say so besides the fast he spelled philosophical wrong he also did not say what he means and then the fault would lie with his statement and not in anyone reading it.

Out of the thousands of words I type each day, I would expect I am allowed to misspell one or two of them. I don't know why you felt to bring it up, as it would be rather rude of me to point out your own linguistic flaws, which are numerous.

Also, you misspelled "fact." ;)

Anyway, I am going to state this in the clearest way I can, because you haven't addressed what it is I am saying:

Assume for a moment that we're dealing with 3 people who do not speak, and do not think, except for a single thought. This thought can be "God exists" or "God does not exist" or "I don't know if god exists or not"

These people have not called themselves anything, and in fact do not have any thoughts at all, except for one of the three I mentioned.

The first thinks "god exists."

I classify this one as a theist.

The second thinks "God does not exist"

I classify this one as an atheist.

The third thinks "I don't know if god exists or not"

I classify this one as an agnostic, and also as an atheist. In "not knowing" there is no affirmation. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this person does not actually believe in any god. As the classification of atheist is to "not believe in any god or gods."

The problem with all of your arguing with me is that you have been looking at me from the wrong angle. I am not telling a person what they do or do not believe, I am taking an abstract concept and putting a label to it. It's the same as me saying "All yellow lemons are yellow." It is without regard to individual lemons.

Stimpy:

You bring up an interesting point of contention. You do, in fact, agree with me, but I flub over the contention because it's almost irrelevant.

If a person says "I am an agnostic that believes in god, at the same time" that person is either lying, or ignorant, or mentally ill. You simply put this under the label "possible, but irrational" and while I think that way of looking at it has it's merits, I prefer to stick to my stricter classifications. A person that is a true agnostic, (in other words not simply SAYING they are an agnostic) is also an atheist by definition.

To hold the simultaneous beliefs of "agnostic" and "theist" would defy one or the other definitions, and render the other a lie.

To reiterate, I am speaking of classification of abstractions. Pahansiri, you have utterly missed this point.

Russ

23rd June 2003, 11:08 PM

Fade
Your example is one-sided. You state that an agnostic does not affirm the existence of God and is therefore atheistic. However, an agnostic also does not affirm the non-existence of God. An atheist does. Personally, I don't know how anyone using critical thinking can be anything but agnostic. The answer to the question of God's existence will never be explained intellectually. Faith, a concept with no relation to critical thinking, is the only way to "find" God.

Stimpson J. Cat

24th June 2003, 01:12 AM

Fade,

You bring up an interesting point of contention. You do, in fact, agree with me, but I flub over the contention because it's almost irrelevant.

If a person says "I am an agnostic that believes in god, at the same time" that person is either lying, or ignorant, or mentally ill. You simply put this under the label "possible, but irrational" and while I think that way of looking at it has it's merits, I prefer to stick to my stricter classifications. A person that is a true agnostic, (in other words not simply SAYING they are an agnostic) is also an atheist by definition.

To hold the simultaneous beliefs of "agnostic" and "theist" would defy one or the other definitions, and render the other a lie.

I guess we are essentially in agreement here, except that I don't think a person has to be mentally ill or ignorant to hold an irrational belief. Then again, I guess it depends on how you define "mentally ill", as well. Either way, some people certainly do hold such irrational positions. Indeed, it is a well known psychological fact that many people simultaneously hold completely contradictory positions. I don't know if such double-think can reasonably called "mental illness". Likewise, I suppose you could argue that they are being dishonest with themselves, but I don't know that you could truly say they are "lying".

At this point we are really just arguing semantics, though.

Russ,

Your example is one-sided. You state that an agnostic does not affirm the existence of God and is therefore atheistic. However, an agnostic also does not affirm the non-existence of God. An atheist does.

Not necessarily. Fade and I have both already pointed out that "atheist" just means "not a theist". If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist, by definition. If you do not hold the belief that Gods exist, then you are an atheist. People who hold the belief that Gods do not, or can not exist, are a subset of atheism.

Dr. Stupid