|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2004 : 10:33:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hashem created the world, replete with fossil record, some 57 centuries ago. What do your tests prove?
Thank you for the clarification. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 12:51:56 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky ... you really need to pay more attention to yourself.
- 08/17/2004 : 08:11:18 - you indicate that nothing is impossible
- 08/24/2004 : 16:23:04 - you indicate that you had worded your position poorly
- 08/25/2004 : 11:09:32 - you indicate that absurdities can be ruled out, then
- 08/25/2004 : 11:09:32 - you indicate that all things are possible
Your last offering was particularly insightful in that you rule out possibility and embrace it in successive sentences.
The only question now is which foot will choose to you pull out of your mouth and which will you leave in.
Let me help: Is it your position that (a) all things are possible, or (b) some things can be ruled out?
|
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 08/25/2004 12:53:18 |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 14:26:30 [Permalink]
|
| For me the agnostic position needn't deal with any of the afore mentioned conflicts. This issue can be looked at in a very simplistic manner. An agnostic holds the question of the existence of God (or gods) as completely open. God's existence (or non existence) can neither be proven or disproved on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics are actually more NonTheists rather than ATheists. A person can be a Nontheist by very simply lacking a belief in the existence of God without actively denying the existence of God. This may seem a subtle difference but in fact it makes all the difference. |
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:02:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by N C More
For me the agnostic position needn't deal with any of the afore mentioned conflicts. This issue can be looked at in a very simplistic manner. An agnostic holds the question of the existence of God (or gods) as completely open.
Actually, I think the opposite is true. Agnostics hold the question of God's existence as being completely shut, as they decree the question unanswerable. The supernatural is strictly off-limits to human inquiry.
quote:
from www.skepdic.com
Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural.
So I see this discussion as split into two lines of thinking: those who feel that the human mind is capable of adressing this issue, and those who don't. It has nothing to do with "current evidence," but on the very nature of knowledge itself. An agnostic would say that it's impossible to know. That in itself is a position which needs to be acknowledged.
quote:
God's existence (or non existence) can neither be proven or disproved on the basis of current evidence.
See above. The agnostic holds that no evidence can ever be sufficient, pro or con. It's an area of knowledge utterly beyond our [human] capacities.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/25/2004 15:40:45 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:49:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me help: Is it your position that (a) all things are possible, or (b) some things can be ruled out?
I'm going to have to pick C here.
Now it all depends on what you mean by "ruled out". I rule out god, as well as fairies and other supernatural creatures. However, I know that I can't make the claim that it is impossible for these to exist.
I also think that there very well may be a universal truth, at least on some things. However, I would not dare to claim that we know that universal truth and that we would ever know it.
Now I may have done a bit of flip-flopping before, but that is only because as I think I have stated before, my position on this is not a solid one, that is, I have not really decided whether it is or not. I started talking to you while my opinion was still being formed, and this has led me to solidify that as what I have stated in my last two paragraphs, at least for now.
As for abusurdities, yes, they exist. You can't put any more value into them than the fact that they exist. But at that same time, you can not deny that they exist as possibilites. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 16:01:47 [Permalink]
|
This site will make clearer what I'm (probably inadequately) trying to say.
This snip is a useful explanation:
quote:
Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that "agnosticism" actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that "atheism" is limited to "strong atheism" - the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation, Gordon Stein wrote in his essay "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism":
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither affirming nor denying a belief in God." Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley's definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.
This sums up my position exactly. |
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 16:37:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Let me help: Is it your position that (a) all things are possible, or (b) some things can be ruled out?
I'm going to have to pick C here. ... Now I may have done a bit of flip-flopping before, but that is only because as I think I have stated before, my position on this is not a solid one, that is, I have not really decided whether it is or not.
We're done. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 18:24:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
May I ask why we are done?
Very well, Ricky. You seem to assert that nothing is impossible or, what amounts to the same thing, everything is possible. Please tell me if this is a misrepresentation of your current stance. Otherwise, please respond to my observation at the bottom of page three. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 00:49:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Religion is an historical phenomenon. It exists in rituals, stories, written texts, and so forth. I see no reason to elaborate on what gods are or what religion is. We have lots of other cultural aspects of society which provide comparisons and patterns that give us some structure for understanding culture and society. And, religion is consistent with other aspects of culture and society.
This is all true, even insightful, but it serves in no way as evidence against the supernatural.
If by supernatural, you mean things outside of the Universe, things before the BB, or things of a similar nature, then I do agree that science is unable to investigate such things. I don't think 'god(s)' fits that description for reasons I have already stated. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 01:01:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
.... While most religions have gods, it is not necessarily true that possibly existing gods have religions on Earth which worship them. And it is certainly untrue that god-concepts occur only within the religions of which you are aware.quote:
So I see no reason to add the existence of a force in the Universe, especially a sentient force, when there is no reason or evidence to initiate such an existence.
And there is no reason to do so, outside of the discussion of the possible existence or non-existence of possible gods, and this thread is just such a discussion. .....
I don't think our positions are far apart, just a small distance mainly in how we define and conceive of what a god is. I ask you then, if one were to take all religions and religious beliefs out of the collection of evidence, where would your god concept come from?
We have quantum ideas and cosmology ideas from observations of physical evidence. Some of the ideas are stretching the possible meaning of the evidence to the max, but the ideas are still grounded in some thread of evidence. From what thread of evidence does your god concept come? |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 03:08:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Religion is an historical phenomenon. It exists in rituals, stories, written texts, and so forth. I see no reason to elaborate on what gods are or what religion is. We have lots of other cultural aspects of society which provide comparisons and patterns that give us some structure for understanding culture and society. And, religion is consistent with other aspects of culture and society.
This is all true, even insightful, but it serves in no way as evidence against the supernatural.
If by supernatural, you mean things outside of the Universe, things before the BB, or things of a similar nature, then I do agree that science is unable to investigate such things. I don't think 'god(s)' fits that description for reasons I have already stated.
You tilt at windmills of your own creation. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 09:23:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
ConsequentAtheist, I think I have a very quick way to wrap this up.
I didn't ask that you "wrap this up" but that you respond to my comments on the bottom of page three. You are, of course, under no obligation to do so - I was willing to end the conversation a few posts ago, and I'm equally willing to end it here. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
