|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2003 : 21:12:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I responded to the athiest question "are you really an athiest?". By asking the Christian I was talking to if he believed that Zeus or Apollo were gods. He of course replied "no". I said, "So there is absolutely no possiblity that Zeus is real". Again, he said, "no".
Well, the point is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of the any God.
Geeses Krist, that's what I've been trying to tell people.
If not for politics (wars and invasions or the whims of Emperors), today people be thanking Poseidon for a wonderful day at the beach.
The 'choice' to worship any given diety is not because they were all powerful, it's Man who decided. It's cultural.
|
 |
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 21:38:03 [Permalink]
|
"You also think it useful to instruct others, i.e., those who do not rise to your self-proclaimed "much higher level of conviction"'
This is a complete misinterpretation of my meaning. I meant that an athiest maintains, by definition, more conviction that god does not exist. You accuse me of meaning "higher" in terms of merit. I only mean a higher level of conviction as a "strong conviction" opposed to being ambivelant on the issue. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I'm more inclined to think that your perception of my statements are colored with emotion. I understand that your definitions differ, and on this issue we are fundamentally opposed. It could be due to fundamental differeces elsewhere, or it may be a trivial matter of semantic bounderies. Either way, we will unlikely agree on that particular issue.
"Well founded observation."
That's a hell of a thing to claim considering that you are predicating this upon nothing but a few short paragraphs in a bulleten board. If you believe that you can make such sweeping statements as I "can't grasp the fact that language is nuanced and dynamic" with such little information, then I would have to accuse you of pretention. That being said, allow me to edit two statements. I intended "atheism has lost its meaning," not "all meaning." There is a difference, and I erred.
And, "If you are uncomfortable with this then either get over it or define yourself differently." I would like to withdraw. I concede that that statement is uneccessarily inflamatory and pejorative, a lapse of objectivity. In no way, though, is it my intention to "instruct anybody." This is a tone that you have perceived, but was not intended.
"It is true that one can be both atheist and agnostic. It is also true that one can be a committed theist and agnostic. Finally, one could conceivably dismiss God(s) while believing in astology, past-life regression, etc."
I don't agree. We have different positions on the semantics in regards to issues of faith and reason. I think it would probably be moot to continue on that issue. I don't mean that as a last word, feel free to reply if you like, but butting heads on an unresolveable issue can quickly become redundent.
|
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 00:36:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Finally, one could conceivably dismiss God(s) while believing in astology, past-life regression, etc."
I'm so glad you said that because unlike Trish who thinks we can't
imagin dragons, unicorns, fairies, basilisks (whatever those are?), pixies, elves, leprachauns being around.
I do have some Leprachauns living in my garden.
So, na na na, Trish! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 03:35:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
"It is true that one can be both atheist and agnostic. It is also true that one can be a committed theist and agnostic. Finally, one could conceivably dismiss God(s) while believing in astology, past-life regression, etc."
I don't agree. We have different positions on the semantics in regards to issues of faith and reason.
I didn't intend these to be comments on semantics but statements of fact. With which of the three do you disagree? You acknowledge the compatibility of atheism and agnosticism, though you instruct many of us atheists to settle with label "agnostic". Would you now instruct the fideist, the Daoist, and many a Deist (among others) that they are not agnostics? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 08:29:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
[b]Originally by Org: <<The very phenomena we see implies the existence of some vast, over-seeing intelligence. >>
Why is a diety a likely explanation for the phenomena we see? That's an enormous jump of logic. Also, it begs the question as to the mechanisms with which that diety created things. Magic? Divine energy?
Is it possible (and I defer to the biology and astronomy gods and goddesses here who are WAY smarter than I) that the universe simply always existed, and our need to see it as being 'created' is simply an extension (or projection) of the way we humans understand the world?
Because it's all vastly too complex to have been the result of a lengthy sequence of random events.
Also: even tho I don't believe in Entropy, it is a well-accepted concept. Entropy would indicate that we would all have returned to primordial mush long, long ago. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 09:22:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Finally, one could conceivably dismiss God(s) while believing in astology, past-life regression, etc."
I'm so glad you said that because unlike Trish who thinks we can't
imagin dragons, unicorns, fairies, basilisks (whatever those are?), pixies, elves, leprachauns being around.
I do have some Leprachauns living in my garden.
So, na na na, Trish!
No Snake, I said we have imagined them. We just know they don't exist. And a basilisk is a nasty litle guy that is totally resistant to any magic - it kinda bounces off him - that smells like rotted flesh and looks a bit lit a combination of a turtle and an armadillo, but uglier. It also has the ability to mezmerize you so it can eat you while alive. Like I said, a nasty little critter. Read fantasy/scifi - you'll understand. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 09:26:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
[b]Originally by Org: <<The very phenomena we see implies the existence of some vast, over-seeing intelligence. >>
Why is a diety a likely explanation for the phenomena we see? That's an enormous jump of logic. Also, it begs the question as to the mechanisms with which that diety created things. Magic? Divine energy?
Is it possible (and I defer to the biology and astronomy gods and goddesses here who are WAY smarter than I) that the universe simply always existed, and our need to see it as being 'created' is simply an extension (or projection) of the way we humans understand the world?
Because it's all vastly too complex to have been the result of a lengthy sequence of random events.
Also: even tho I don't believe in Entropy, it is a well-accepted concept. Entropy would indicate that we would all have returned to primordial mush long, long ago.
Tsk, tsk, Org. This is the 'God of the Gaps' argument. Because you don't understand or see how it works or could have happened semi-randomly (because the laws of physics explain the organization sequences rather well) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Entropy must work against the idea of an open system, where energy is applied to keep the system going. Look at the earth. If there were no outside energy input, the sun, then yes, the organization that we see here would not exist. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 12:30:50 [Permalink]
|
| That is exactly why I said that "It could be due to fundamental differeces elsewhere..." I suspected that your broader definitions of the terms may be pursuant to a deeper difference than just semantics. Honestly though I am not clear on exactly where that difference lies. Perhaps you can illuminate me on how this difference transcends semantics and broaches a parting of the ways philosophically. Frankly, I'm not sure what you believe. I acknowledge the compatability of atheism and agnosticism as more a matter of degree than anything. They have different shades of meaning in my opinion, and I don't see that a theist can be an agnostic unless you alter the meaning of one or the other. And by the way, this is not a definition from dictionary.com, but from the Oxford English Dictionary, and, as I'm sure you intended, I take offense at that aspersion. Yes, I am not familiar (well, I am now) with the variation "counterpose," and I apologize for the unwarrented "[sic]", but if you have all twenty volumes of the Oxford committed to memory than I must take my hat off to you. (okay, I should have looked it up first.) Please explain to me how your philosophy allows belief in a diety, which I take to mean a first cause and architect of the universe, to occupy the same space as "one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomenon is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a first cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing." By believing in god, one offers that one does indeed know something of a first cause. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 13:38:49 [Permalink]
|
| I was going to reply to that misinterpretation of entropy, but then I saw that you already addressed it very well Trish. By the way thanks for the tip on Descartes. I'll have to read him with that in mind. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 14:15:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
No Snake, I said we have imagined them. We just know they don't exist.
Perhaps you didn't understand. They ARE living in my garden. Therefore they exist.
quote:
And a basilisk is a nasty litle guy that is totally resistant to any magic - it kinda bounces off him - that smells like rotted flesh and looks a bit lit a combination of a turtle and an armadillo, but uglier. It also has the ability to mezmerize you so it can eat you while alive. Like I said, a nasty little critter. Read fantasy/scifi - you'll understand.
Ewwu, ouch! Sounds like something Lovecraft would come up with. No thanks, I'll stick to H. G. Wells.
But I do think I've come across something like that in a video game. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 17:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
I acknowledge the compatability of atheism and agnosticism as more a matter of degree than anything. They have different shades of meaning in my opinion, and I don't see that a theist can be an agnostic unless you alter the meaning of one or the other.
No, not the definition, but your definition.
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
And by the way, this is not a definition from dictionary.com, but from the Oxford English Dictionary, and, as I'm sure you intended, I take offense at that aspersion.
This, too, relies on the OED.
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Yes, I am not familiar (well, I am now) with the variation "counterpose," and I apologize for the unwarrented "[sic]", but if you have all twenty volumes of the Oxford committed to memory than I must take my hat off to you.
I believe that leaves one "[sic]" unretracted. No matter ...
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Please explain to me how your philosophy allows belief in a diety, ...
My philosophy asserts that there is no evidence warranting belief in the Supernatural. I believe in no dieties. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 08:34:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
I was going to reply to that misinterpretation of entropy, but then I saw that you already addressed it very well Trish. By the way thanks for the tip on Descartes. I'll have to read him with that in mind.
No problem. I just found him rather funny.
Computer Org and I have gone rounds on the entropy thing before. Here and at www.badastronomy.com over the last couple years. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 08/06/2003 08:38:46 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 08:36:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
No Snake, I said we have imagined them. We just know they don't exist.
Perhaps you didn't understand. They ARE living in my garden. Therefore they exist.
Proof Snake, proof. Let's see the photos, undoctored mind you, I'll run them through Photoshop - and I'm very good at what I do with graphics. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 09:22:48 [Permalink]
|
As vitriolic as your tone has been, you, regardless, made me laugh- okay, consider the other "[sic]" retracted as well. I was not suggesting that you, yourself, believe in a deity. You said that one can be a theist and agnostic at the same time. I concede the subtle distinction between strong and weak atheism, the latter being, in my opinion, the more tenable in terms of critical thinking, but theism, as I see it (I qualified just for you) implies the conviction that god exists. As such a belief is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, it follows that it is predicated upon faith. Conviction based on faith strikes me as being in opposition to the following:
"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."
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty."
These are the words of Huxley who (and I may be mistaken) I think coined the term "agnostic." I don't see, according to this definition how one can be both an agnostic and a theist. It seems that once someone has conceded that the existence of god is unknowable, they have crossed the line from theism to agnosticism. In fact that is the very distinction between the two. And all concise definitions aside, I am yet to meet a theist who is not convinced of the truth of their beliefs. I have met many people who say they can not be certain either way; Call me crazy (or the product of dictionary.com if you insist), but I would call them agnostic. As for atheism and agnosticism, I still see a subtle distinction between the two, but you have forced me, by definition of "weak" atheism, to concede that one can be both, so convince me that one can be both agnostic and theist.
"My philosophy asserts that there is no evidence warranting belief in the Supernatural. I believe in no dieties."
On this we are in consummate agreement.
|
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 18:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
As vitriolic as your tone has been, you, regardless, made me laugh- okay, consider the other "[sic]" retracted as well.
Thank you. I was rather fond of the reference to disjoint domains.
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
... theism, as I see it (I qualified just for you) implies the conviction that god exists. As such a belief is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, it follows that it is predicated upon faith. Conviction based on faith strikes me as being in opposition to the following: ...
That is correct. The agnosticism of the Fideist, Deist or Daoist excludes the methodological layer argued by Huxley. It nevertheless asserts that the Supernatural is unknowable. Such agnosticism is further removed from methodological naturalism than Huxley's, but it's agnosticism none the less.
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
"My philosophy asserts that there is no evidence warranting belief in the Supernatural. I believe in no dieties." On this we are in consummate agreement.
Vitrioloc? Frankly, I was doing better burdened with two "sics". |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
