|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2002 : 15:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Spock
And for those still on the fence: Wouldn't an omniscient god know what kind of evidence was necessary and sufficient to convince a mere mortal like me that he exists?
In the minds of many, agnosticism addresses issues of epistemology and has nothing to do with "sitting on the fence".
As for the rest, @tomic is absolutely correct. Your question serves more to expose a naive and pervasively Judeo-Christian God-concept than it does to undermine the legitamacy of agnosticism. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 11/27/2002 15:23:01 |
 |
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 15:22:30 [Permalink]
|
You guys read too much “bluster and protest” between the lines. I do not intend my "previous inane rhetoric" to be any semblance to "spirituality". I detect that you are irritated but where else is inane rhetoric more appropriate other than this site?
I don't see how ReasonableDoubt or anyone else for that matter can reject the scale of the universe or claim control of it. If we got hit by an earth destroying asteroid or our sun unexpectedly super nova'd out (you know, we could have missed an important parameter), it would be unfortunate for us, but not design or purpose. It's just an uncontrollable firecracker we live with never-the-less.
And I don't think ReasonableDoubt or anyone else knows what we will find as we explore further. There are answers not found yet and there are questions we are too naive to even ask. Truth is just the right answer, nothing more complicated than that. The body of knowledge established by science certainly is our best approximation to date but to say it is all of knowledge; I don't know. Maybe it's just the “word” truth that bothers you. I'll see if I can substitute something else.
This is not a claim for a “God of the Gaps”, though I recognize that history has previously labeled that gap a “god” and dressed that god up in clothing to soothe our insecurities. Once I realized that our religious heritage and rituals were merely vestiges from the past and possibly genetically based, I began to relax and enjoy the show more.
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 15:29:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
I detect that you are irritated but where else is inane rhetoric more appropriate other than this site
You're asking us to tell you where to be childish? I pass ...
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 16:10:50 [Permalink]
|
I don't know where your "childish" charge comes from. You do seem to keep a chip on your shoulder. That's ususally a sign of inexperience.
You could just answer the question and leave the your chips behind. |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 16:24:33 [Permalink]
|
Chainsaw what is this bug you have with how big the universe is?
If you owned an estate instead of a half acre would that make you feel bad? You live in a really really big place (the universe) and since; as far as we know; there's nobody else around--then IT"S ALL YOURS !!
RD may be many things; but inexperienced is not one of them. He doesn't have a chip but he has a low tolerance for baloney. That's part of his charm. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 21:04:55 [Permalink]
|
Don't get me wrong, I think RD is very charming too. And I apologize if I stepped on some nerves. I think RD may have mistaken some of my humor. However, I do think some understood my point but I admit my command of the English language is somewhat compromised.
I must say “you all” (learned that in Atlanta) have a lot of baggage with your vocabularies that I am not attuned to. I'll probably step in it again but I really enjoy that part.
BTW, I am not hung up on the size of the universe. That was merely an example to support a more significant point that got lost with the baggage. I'm not sure it is worth the effort to reconstruct now.
What is baloney to some is caviar to others.
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 22:32:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I suggest the atheists think things through and attempt to understand that one is agnostic not necessarily about any specific religion but the concept of a creator.
What I don't understand about people who label themselves "agnostic" using this definition is what makes them think that there is even the slightest chance that there is some sentient invisible being who has such power and can interact with but be totally separate from reality?
It is simply inconceivable to me that anyone would think that there's a chance something like this exists.
Please help me understand why you would be agnostic regarding a creator, but not agnostic regarding countless other myths and sillyness. (<- that's really not meant to be offensive, but I don't know how else to put it honestly and plainly. The concept of a god is as silly as the concept of Santa Claus, or a square circle (to borrow from George Smith). I just don't understand how anyone could not say "of course something like that doesn't exist!")
[Bad commas! Bad!] |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 11/27/2002 22:33:45 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 23:37:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I don't understand about people who label themselves "agnostic" using this definition is what makes them think that there is even the slightest chance that there is some sentient invisible being who has such power and can interact with but be totally separate from reality?
Where did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I have no ideas on the definition of a god. Never did, probably never will unless someone finally puts up some proof.
quote:
Please help me understand why you would be agnostic regarding a creator, but not agnostic regarding countless other myths and sillyness.
Man, my assumption detector is going crazy...
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2002 : 10:07:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
And I don't think ReasonableDoubt or anyone else knows what we will find as we explore further.
At issue, however, is what one derives from this observation. A couple of suggestions: And that goes for all of you.  |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2002 : 10:51:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I suggest the atheists think things through and attempt to understand that one is agnostic not necessarily about any specific religion but the concept of a creator.
What I don't understand about people who label themselves "agnostic" using this definition is what makes them think that there is even the slightest chance that there is some sentient invisible being who has such power and can interact with but be totally separate from reality?
Nature serves as the domain of what we know, and the domain of the protocols by which we know. While we can speak of methodological naturalism, methodological supernaturalism is at best an oxymoron. When someone posits a Supernatural Deity, they make it wholly inaccessible to reason and science. For all such God-constructs, I can assert with equal legitimacy: - Your God is unknowable by all validated methods by which we ascuire knowledge.
- Belief in, or acceptance of, such a God-construct is entirely unwarranted.
My 'problem' with agnosticism here is not that it is inappropriate, but that it tends to be tautological. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2002 : 19:02:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
What I don't understand about people who label themselves "agnostic" using this definition is what makes them think that there is even the slightest chance that there is some sentient invisible being who has such power and can interact with but be totally separate from reality?
Where did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Then what do you mean by "one is agnostic not necessarily about any specific religion but the concept of a creator"?
The question is whether a "god" or "gods" exist, not what their nature is. |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2002 : 07:52:02 [Permalink]
|
There is a current research hypothesis that the level a natural occurring brain dopamine determines where you are on scale between skeptic and impressionable.
So would that mean you could transform an atheist into a jebus freak just by increasing their dopamine? Maybe could even be turned into a vaccine given to preschoolers with booster shots every five years.
What could Jerry do with an evangelistic tool like that?
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
