|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 04/29/2002 : 13:23:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It is ignorance, and ignorance needs to be stamped out, for the betterment of everyone.
Condemning ideas and beliefs that seem archaic or irrational without tempering your attitudes with life's experiences is the worst kind of ignorance. It is the ignorance of how other people truely live.
Ignorance is not idea or belief it is the absence of knowledge. When someone is saying that ignorance needs to be stamped out, he is advocating educating the people in question. Ignorance is not a point of view and lack of education is not a type culture.
In this case the point is not even about a knowledge but about different methods to acquire it. The claims made by some religions might or might not be right, that is not the point. The point is how we get to these claims. It is not the culture of ignorant people that needs to be stamped out but the lack of education that keeps them from critically thinking about their traditions.
--
"When did ignorance become a point of view?" - Dilbert
"Tolerance is betrayal of your on opinions." - (I am not really serious about the last one)
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 13:57:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ignorance is not idea or belief it is the absence of knowledge. When someone is saying that ignorance needs to be stamped out, he is advocating educating the people in question. Ignorance is not a point of view and lack of education is not a type culture.
APPLAUSE!!!
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 19:22:49 [Permalink]
|
I agree, outstanding stuff, Lars. Well said.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 20:34:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
While in the long run there may be only one truth, I do think it would be jumping the gun to proclaim that we have arrived at that truth. It could be that we will never know for certain whether "god(s), souls, and spirits" exist. Certainly, there is reason to doubt their existence. Will science ever prove that these things simply can't exist? I doubt it.
quote:
This seems to be the boundary of where Agnostics and Atheists separate. Agnostics have always seemed to me to be more pleasant people that we Atheists are. They are more concerned of peoples feelings.
When presented with god(s), souls and spirits as facts, not metaphor or art, it somewhat angers me because I don't like being lied to. It doesn't concern me half so much that "science" has no proof of these things as the person claiming them has absolutely no proof.
Yes, I'm agnostic. But I am not agnostic because I am afraid of hurting anyone's feelings. I am agnostic because I hold evidence in the highest regard. I will not take leaps of faith. I have no faith in anything supernatural. What that means is that I will regard all claims supernatural with a healthy dose of skepticism. By the same token I will not rule out, however remote the possibility is, that a supernatural exists without some supporting evidence. I do doubt the hell out of it, however. I actively doubt it. (If you don't believe that, come with me sometime to a psychic fair.) I understand the implications here, and no, I am not allowing for the tooth fairy. I have very good evidence that I am the tooth fairy, so that takes care of at least one pesky claim....
An invisible castle in heaven is probably not falsifiable. An invisible castle in Florida probably is. I doubt that the castle in heaven exists and I will continue to ask for any evidence that supports such a claim.
Slater, Tokyo, Lars, I understand your point of view. I think that you are probably right. But I feel compelled to hold my beliefs up to the same standard of evidence that I am asking of others. (My guess is that you do too. And yet, for some reason, this takes us down slightly different paths.) Reason tells me that all religion is baloney. Evidence (and yes, lack of evidence) tells me that I must hold off on that proclamation. It aint easy being agnostic.
I choose curtain number 2.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 09:23:00 [Permalink]
|
…I am not agnostic because I am afraid of hurting anyone's feelings. I am agnostic because I hold evidence in the highest regard. I will not take leaps of faith. I have no faith in anything supernatural. What that means is that I will regard all claims supernatural with a healthy dose of skepticism. By the same token I will not rule out, however remote the possibility is, that a supernatural exists without some supporting evidence.
That end part is actually what I meant about Agnostics concern for the feelings of others. I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. The giving credence, albeit just a molecule or two, to claims simply because they are made.
Pop over to Crosswalk.com and you can watch them revel in the fact that their claims are not falsifiable. It would seem to me that the very fact that a claim could not be proved false under any circumstances is sufficient evidence in itself to put the claim beyond consideration. Because only fictitious claims can meet that criteria. As far as I've ever heard every claim that was not falsifiable was also not verifiable.
When push comes to shove it is with "verifiable" that our concerns should lie.
I understand the implications here, and no, I am not allowing for the tooth fairy. Never thought that for a second.
… I feel compelled to hold my beliefs up to the same standard of evidence that I am asking of others. (My guess is that you do too. And yet, for some reason, this takes us down slightly different paths.)
Only slightly different. Considering that in the past ten thousand years of all the claims of the "super" natural there have been no proven cases of it, I feel that it is a complete waste of my time to give it even the slightest consideration.
Like you, if proof of it did show up I would alter my beliefs. Until then I consider the fact that something which does not conform to the laws of nature cannot be verified to be proof enough that claims of it are false.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 11:49:36 [Permalink]
|
I am even more non-commital than the agnostic; I prefer the label "non-theist" because I can't decide whether or not I want to be an atheist or agnostic. Reading the responses to this post has helped clarify some of the issues at stake, although I still can't say that I've made a decision.
To be perfectly honest, I will admit that on the days when I'm feeling more agnostic, it is often to fulfill a psychological need to not totally alienate myself from most of the rest of society. I am aware that this is most un-skeptical, but I have to be honest with myself.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 11:53:01 [Permalink]
|
I like non-theist, too, but the term atheist has simply come to mean (to some at least), "without belief." Agnosticism has come to mean "without knowledge." Some could be both agnostic and atheist, or agnostic and theist. Agnostic theism would simply mean that one believes there is a god, but that one cannot know god.
quote:
I am even more non-commital than the agnostic; I prefer the label "non-theist" because I can't decide whether or not I want to be an atheist or agnostic. Reading the responses to this post has helped clarify some of the issues at stake, although I still can't say that I've made a decision.
To be perfectly honest, I will admit that on the days when I'm feeling more agnostic, it is often to fulfill a psychological need to not totally alienate myself from most of the rest of society. I am aware that this is most un-skeptical, but I have to be honest with myself.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 13:14:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Agnostic theism would simply mean that one believes there is a god, but that one cannot know god.
You've lost me on this one.
Since what the Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of whether or not a god exists, and Belief is the belief that you have the knowledge that a god exists then wouldn't the two be mutually exclusive simply by definition?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 04/30/2002 13:14:57 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 13:40:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
wouldn't the two be mutually exclusive simply by definition
This is the mistake made by "Christian Agnostics"
They just don't realize that there can be no such thing.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 14:10:19 [Permalink]
|
I could see someone perhaps being a Deist Agnostic but to be a Christian means accepting too many things "on faith"
Christians accept that Jesus is their Lord and Savior. That is Agnostic? I don't think so!
So possibly there could be a Deist Agnostic but never, ever a Christian Agnostic.
I would like to add that the author of those Agnostic articles made a lot of assumptions about why a person would or would not be Agnostic. All in all it was not very useful information. I saw it as a rather opinionated, Reader's Digest condensed treatment.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 18:22:00 [Permalink]
|
Well, understand at least there are some that disagree with your definitions.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair once said that yes, she allowed for the remote possibility of the existence of some kind of god, but not of any god she'd ever heard of, and that sounds like a pretty safe bet to me. It's a safe bet to say there is no Jehovah, just like it's a safe bet to say there are no dolphins named "Mac" living on the moon.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 19:15:12 [Permalink]
|
Being a big fan of George Smith and his "Atheism: The Case Against God", I recognize this discussion from his book. According to him:
quote:
The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.
quote:
The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable...According to the religious agnostic, we can state that god is, but - due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural - we cannot state what god is.
and:
quote:
...the agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgement one step further...not only is the nature of any supernatual being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well. ...Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.
and one of my favorite quotes:
quote:
While the agnostic of the Huxley variety may refuse to state whether theism is true or false--thus "suspending" his judgement--he does not believe in the existence of a god. (If he did believe, he would be a theist.) Since this agnostic does not accept the existence of a god as true, he is without theistic belief; he is atheistic--and Huxley's agnosticism emerges as a form of atheism.
and finally, most importantly:
quote:
Agnosticism is a legitimate philosophical position (although, in my opinion, it is mistaken), but it is not a third alternative or a halfway house between theism and atheism. Instead, it is a variation of either theism or atheism. The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god--and, in so doing, he commits himself to theism or he commits himself to atheism. But he does not commit himself. Agnosticism is not the escape clause that it is commonly thought to be.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 04/30/2002 19:23:30 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 19:20:02 [Permalink]
|
So then that agrees that one could be a Deist/Theist but not something so specific as a Christian that does "know that God sent his only son to save Man from his sins."
What sort of Theism does Smith have in mind?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 19:34:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So then that agrees that one could be a Deist/Theist but not something so specific as a Christian that does "know that God sent his only son to save Man from his sins."
I would certainly think so, and I personally agree with what you are saying.
quote:
What sort of Theism does Smith have in mind?
At this point, I beleive Smith is referring to a general belief in any sort of "god", not specifically the Christian God or any other specific religion.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
