|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 12/30/2004 : 15:21:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Questions of morality just begs more questions.
What is Moral and who defines it?
According to many christians, their god defines morality. And, apparently, those of us who don't believe in their god are not capable of being moral.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 03:08:17 [Permalink]
|
I'm an atheist because I do not believe in any god.
Not because I reject the idea of gods, not because I deny that gods might exist.
Until I get a good reason to believe in some deity I will remain an atheist. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 03:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Atheist - without belief in the existence of gods. Where's the confusion? It's pretty straight forward.
I find it mind boggling any educated person believes in gods in this day and age. People manage to see Zeus and Pele as myths but then somehow think their particular belief differs. It doesn't matter if it is Zeus or Jesus, it's just superstition and myth. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 04:30:44 [Permalink]
|
| Well I for one am eagerly awiting the holiest day of the year, Super Bowl Sunday. Followed in a couple months by the month long brotherhood festival called the NCAA tournament. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 07:32:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Well I for one am eagerly awiting the holiest day of the year, Super Bowl Sunday. Followed in a couple months by the month long brotherhood festival called the NCAA tournament.
I too, am waiting for Superbowl Sunday. If you watch the game with the sound muted, you can actually enjoy it.
I wonder if church would work the same way....
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 07:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I believe that "weak atheism" is what Thomas Huxley was referring to when coining the term 'agnostic', and that someone else (I forget who) suggested that it is the only position regarding god(s) which is logically defensible.
Fortunately, belief is not necessary, since Huxley made quite clear what he meant by the term:
quote:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
Agnosticism, 1889
Huxley was addressing, not ontology, but epistemology. Since it is quite possible to believe in a supernatural that is "not demonstrated or demonstrable" (as in deism, fideism, taoism, etc.) there is no basis for viewing Huxley's 'method' as a form of atheism.
|
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 01/04/2005 07:33:58 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 10:47:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ConsequentAtheist:
Huxley was addressing, not ontology, but epistemology. Since it is quite possible to believe in a supernatural that is "not demonstrated or demonstrable" (as in deism, fideism, taoism, etc.) there is no basis for viewing Huxley's 'method' as a form of atheism.
However, being agnostic is one way to explain why I also happen to be an athieist. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, in my view. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 13:01:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
However, being agnostic is one way to explain why I also happen to be an athieist. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, in my view.
I completely agree. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 13:45:21 [Permalink]
|
Apparently, ConsequentAtheist, I don't read Huxley's unelided writing as you do:Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
— Secular Web Library It seems to me that faith is an act beyond reason. It is a claiming of certainty about that which is "not demonstrated nor demonstrable." In other words, while it's quite possible to be an atheist without being an agnostic, it doesn't seem possible to me that a "true agnostic" could be a theist.
Not only that, but Huxley frames his coining the term in response to ontological concerns:When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. 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.
— Atheism Web Emphasis mine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 14:49:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, ConsequentAtheist, I don't read Huxley's unelided writing as you do:Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
— Secular Web Library
OK
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It seems to me that faith is an act beyond reason. It is a claiming of certainty about that which is "not demonstrated nor demonstrable."
I disagree. Faith is not an act of certitude but one of trust.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In other words, while it's quite possible to be an atheist without being an agnostic, it doesn't seem possible to me that a "true agnostic" could be a theist.
It is certainly possible to be an agnostic without being an atheist - though I would assert that it's an untenable position.
As for the rest, I don't know about "true agnostic", but I can easily envisage a person who sees the beauty and complexity of nature and deeply feels it to be puposeful and created, while acknowledging that such a position cannot be proven. Again, I offer the fideist, the deist, and the taoist as exemples of agnostic theists. People such as Martin Gardner and E. O. Wilson might also qualify.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not only that, but Huxley frames his coining the term in response to ontological concerns:When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. 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.
— Atheism Web Emphasis mine.
I do not know what you intend by stating that "Huxley frames his coining the term in response to ontological concerns." In a very real sense, all epistemology is "coined in response to ontology". Nevertheless, in my opinion Huxley was addressing what is known or knowable, not what exists or is believed to exist. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 22:54:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I disagree. Faith is not an act of certitude but one of trust.
I think you are giving the faithful (at least most of the ones we meet here, and 99% of those I meet in day-to-day) far too much credit. They either know that God exists, or haven't questioned it. And nearly all of them act upon their belief in God with certitude.quote:
It is certainly possible to be an agnostic without being an atheist - though I would assert that it's an untenable position.
As for the rest, I don't know about "true agnostic"...
What's not to know? Huxley defines "true agnostic" in the very next paragraph.quote:
...but I can easily envisage a person who sees the beauty and complexity of nature and deeply feels it to be puposeful and created, while acknowledging that such a position cannot be proven. Again, I offer the fideist, the deist, and the taoist as exemples of agnostic theists.
Deep feelings, per Huxley's definition of agnostic, are not to be considered during the intellectual exercise of the teleogy and creation (or lack thereof) of nature. The groups you mention are simply theists.quote:
People such as Martin Gardner and E. O. Wilson might also qualify.
I know nothing of either's thoughts on the existence of deities.quote:
I do not know what you intend by stating that "Huxley frames his coining the term in response to ontological concerns." In a very real sense, all epistemology is "coined in response to ontology". Nevertheless, in my opinion Huxley was addressing what is known or knowable, not what exists or is believed to exist.
Huxley clearly states that his position is contrary to his fellow's self-assurance that they'd "solved the problem of existence." The context of the word's origin (questions regarding deeply-held belief systems) is not one of knowledge, nor of what exists or is believed to exist, but instead of how (and why) we came to exist. At the core, Huxley says that "agnostic" is an answer to the question of creation itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
