|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2002 : 22:52:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
How does one measure a "capacity for spiritual knowledge"?
Using subjective methodology.
"Subjective methodology"? A standard and repeatable way of doing something that is accessible only to the person doing the something? How does this differ from "I'm just guessing this is the right way to do it"?
quote:
quote:
Where does it reside?
Where does what reside?
Spiritual knowledge.
quote:
quote:
More importantly, how does one differentiate between things that are spiritually "known" and self-delusion?
The same way you differentiate between me being a real person and me being a figment of your imagination.
I strongly dispute these two distinctions are manifestations of the same process. Please give your evidence that they are.
quote:
The problem with the self-delusion apologetic is that it is impossible to refute. I can never convince you that what I feel really is spiritual evidence and not self-delusion, because both are subjective, thus a personal experience I can share with no one.
So how do you know that anyone has the same 'spiritual experiences' you do?
quote:
Yes, they are wrong (though in fact most atheists who do not dedicate themselves to criticizing religion do no say what you guys say on this forum).
You are a pompous ass. And an ignorant one, to claim to know what most non-SFN atheists "say."
quote:
No, you guys know it as well, but to maintain the air of objectivity that is the basis for your credibility you cannot afford to admit it.
Learn this in your psychology of atheism class, did you?
quote:
quote:
One of which is called an "a priori rejection of God" which, and I don't know if you realize this, means that I, as an atheist, subscribe to a philosophy that rejects the very idea of God before I am even cognizant of the concept?!
That is not how a priori is used in this context. It means that you decided whether God exists or not based on faith before you even try to find any evidence to support that faith.
A priori is not really a contextual term but no matter. I am irrationally angry at your ass-pomposity to such a degree, all I can come up with is, "You are so full of shit my monitor is turning brown." There, I feel better. Curious, does it make you feel any more self-important to a priori decide what motivates atheists before you even try to find any evidence to support?
quote:
quote:
Why can't you describe it to me now? After I have "experienced" it, will certain words become available that weren't before to allow us to discuss our shared "experiences"?
No, but you will better understand what the words I am forced to use mean in that new context. Words like feelings.
Again, how would you know the degree of similarity of our experiences, enough that when I tell you I understand what you mean by "feelings," that I actually do understand what you mean?
quote:
I said the examples were crude.
'Not applicable' is the term you're looking for.
quote:
quote:
Great. Do we just get to make up things that count as God activities or do they have to appear in ancient goatherder mythology texts?
No, we use spiritual evidence to determine what anomolous events are due to spiritual forces and which are due to unknown physical forces.
Back to question begging? I guess we're just about done.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume
Edited by - phdreamer on 08/03/2002 22:54:51 |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2002 : 23:30:51 [Permalink]
|
The same way you differentiate between me being a real person and me being a figment of your imagination.
If you take a look at the Cryptozoology thread we find that you lack the ability.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2002 : 03:13:18 [Permalink]
|
An absence of belief (atheism, not agnosticism) says that I lack a belief. A presence of disbelief, might (maybe not) mean strong atheism which says that there are no gods, which is also a lack of belief in gods. Neither is agnosticism, which is about knowledge of god(s). One can believe or not believe in gods and be agnostic.
One can be annoyed or not annoyed, and both would still be irrelevant to any discussion of atheism.
quote:
[quote]No, agnostism is the absence of belief; atheism is the presence of disbelief.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2002 : 03:35:27 [Permalink]
|
I think it would be important to present reasonable evidence that god said this.
quote:
I demomstrated that this was not the case, so now you say that it must be unique. That is an enritely different point from what we were discussing.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2002 : 20:58:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One can believe or not believe in gods and be agnostic.
You know, I really hate to open this can of worms the rest of the way, but hey. I have never met an agnostic who believes in god. When we speak of knowledge of god we are suggesting that even if a god existed, which I personally doubt, there would be no way to prove it. To an agnostic, unknowable does not mean you can't know god personally. It means that a gods existence is unknowable.
I doubt any claim that can't be falsified. That is why I'm agnostic. Now go figure....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2002 : 01:30:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To an agnostic, unknowable does not mean you can't know god personally. It means that a gods existence is unknowable
I'm a little confused by this. Are you saying that one can know god personally, but still think god's existence is unknowable? How is that possible? I think I would have an easier time swallowing the idea if you say "unprovable" rather than "unknowable," since there will always be true, unprovable statements (just ask Goedel).
-me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2002 : 03:25:18 [Permalink]
|
Could be all wrong on this Kil. This is one guy's opinion:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_agnosticism.htm
But from what you're saying, it's possible that one could think that a god is unknowable, but could believe that it exists. Theoretically. However, I would think that most agnostics go by the commonly accepted definition that an agnostic is just undecided.
Certainly a lot of theists think that an atheist is someone who is angry at god(s). That doesn't mean that is what an atheist is.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/05/2002 03:31:13 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2002 : 04:47:16 [Permalink]
|
That's why I lack a belief in god(s), therefore I am atheist.
I'm also pretty sure that any god I ever heard of doesn't exist. That also makes me lack belief in god(s) which makes me what some would term a strong atheist. I also think that superstition in all its forms is harmful, which makes me a jerk.
However, there are those agree with you about such things (no proof, not falsifiable, etc.), and they think they can take things on "faith." That makes them theists. Knowledge is not necessary to believe, in fact, they are almost contradictory terms.
quote:
I doubt any claim that can't be falsified. That is why I'm agnostic. Now go figure....
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/05/2002 04:48:55
Edited by - gorgo on 08/05/2002 04:50:18 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2002 : 22:26:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you saying that one can know god personally, but still think god's existence is unknowable? How is that possible? I think I would have an easier time swallowing the idea if you say "unprovable" rather than "unknowable," since there will always be true, unprovable statements (just ask Goedel).
quote:
But from what you're saying, it's possible that one could think that a god is unknowable, but could believe that it exists. Theoretically. However, I would think that most agnostics go by the commonly accepted definition that an agnostic is just undecided.
Well, I guess I was unclear. By "knowing" and "knowledge of" I really meant the same thing. An agnostic is without knowledge of the existence of god. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, it would be impossible for me, or any other agnostic to know god.
As for being undecided, I choose not to except any claim about the existence of god because, so far, there is no evidence to support the claim one way or the other. I'm not really undecided because I have nothing to base a decision on. Unless some evidence comes along, any claim about gods existence is not worth considering.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 00:14:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Some of these are people that hold super-patriotism as some kind of a religion and call people trolls and morons who don't agree with them, so I wouldn't get too excited about anyone calling you a troll.
You should have seen the slobbering support they give irrational behavior such as that of Rubysue's.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
I haven't participated in this, but I have come to Rubysue's defense against two people: you and Piper. Nice company you keep, Gorgo.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 03:12:40 [Permalink]
|
Ah, so I disagree with both Hitler and you, so you must be the same as Hitler.
quote:
I haven't participated in this, but I have come to Rubysue's defense against two people: you and Piper. Nice company you keep, Gorgo.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/06/2002 04:03:46 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 03:16:14 [Permalink]
|
Which means of course that you lack belief, which means you are an atheist as well as an agnostic by the definition of most of the atheists that I know. Not telling you what definition to use, just clarifying.
quote:
Since there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, it would be impossible for me, or any other agnostic to know god.
As for being undecided, I choose not to except any claim about the existence of god because, so far, there is no evidence to support the claim one way or the other. I'm not really undecided because I have nothing to base a decision on. Unless some evidence comes along, any claim about gods existence is not worth considering.
"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 - 08/06/2002 : 05:39:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
One can believe or not believe in gods and be agnostic.
You know, I really hate to open this can of worms the rest of the way, but hey.
Well, since you opened it... 
quote:
I have never met an agnostic who believes in god.
Then you've never met an agnostic theist. All the agnostics you know are atheists.
quote:
Which means of course that you lack belief, which means you are an atheist as well as an agnostic by the definition of most of the atheists that I know.
Yes, Gorgo states it well.
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/06/2002 05:40:56 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 08:40:01 [Permalink]
|
The only agnostic theists I've ever even heard of have been radio Fundi "ministers" of the type who boast that they were drunks, wife beaters, drug fiends and worst of all Agnostics before they found Jesus. I've never run across an actual one in real life or on the web. Although, after the last time this topic came up here, I have looked for them.
I wonder if the Loch Ness Monster is an agnostic theist.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2002 : 09:14:14 [Permalink]
|
Getting in touch with the Loch Ness Monster that is inside all of us, I'd have to say the answer to your question is 7 and someone you know has a name that begins with the letter M.
quote:
I wonder if the Loch Ness Monster is an agnostic theist.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/06/2002 09:15:32 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
