Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 91 of 526 (511918)
06-12-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Hi!
Hyroglyphx writes:
That's a contradiction in terms. That's like saying someone is an Agnostic Theist. It makes no sense.
It's kind of funny that you would say it's like being an agnostic theist, which makes no sense... because there are people who are agnostic theists. They believe in god, yet think that our ability to discern it's existence as unattainable.
The word Gnostic simply means Knowledge. So to be a Gnostic Atheist (Like Richard Dawkins) would be akin to the layman's term of a Strong Atheist. These individual's view is that the knowledge required to discern god's existence is attainable.
You are confusing Agnosticism with Deism, as many people commonly do.
Hyroglyphx writes:
No, that would simply make him an agnostic. An atheist simply declares they don't believe in God(s). An agnostic simply says that they don't possess the knowledge to either deny or declare a belief in the supernatural.
An agnostic goes even further than that in saying that the knowledge is unattainable. Perhaps you should read the definitions I provided from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary?
Hyroglyphx writes:
It can, but it could also go in the other direction too.
Precisely, hence Agnostic Deism or Theism, but for Rahvin it lead to Weak Atheism (Agnostic Atheism) as it typically does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 10:53 PM Michamus has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 526 (511935)
06-12-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
06-12-2009 2:40 PM


Re: The topic of this debate
wouldn't you agree that atheism proves itself on it's own without the need of science?
No, I agree with Rahvin on this one. Atheism seems to be the natural default position due to a lack of evidence. Verifiable proof, though, seems to be logically impossible for the sole reason that no one can disprove the non-existence of a deity.
Agnosticism seems to be the most honest position even though it has the explanatory power of a gnat.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 2:40 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 526 (511937)
06-12-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Michamus
06-12-2009 6:30 PM


Re: Hi!
It's kind of funny that you would say it's like being an agnostic theist, which makes no sense... because there are people who are agnostic theists. They believe in god, yet think that our ability to discern it's existence as unattainable.
Then how would they have come to any belief in the first place without some sort of foundation?
The word Gnostic simply means Knowledge. So to be a Gnostic Atheist (Like Richard Dawkins) would be akin to the layman's term of a Strong Atheist.
I've always objected to the terms strong or weak atheists because it seems to be a way to manipulate what their meanings really are. A strong atheist is an atheist, in my opinion. A weak atheist is simply an agnostic. I believe it was Russell or Hume who understood that it is illogical to actively prove the non-existence of something. It was therefore necessary to atheism to try and incorporate a more agnostic approach so that they would not commit a philosophically fatal flaw.
You are confusing Agnosticism with Deism, as many people commonly do.
I'm gonna have to disagree here too. I think I have a strong grasp on both philosophies.
An agnostic goes even further than that in saying that the knowledge is unattainable. Perhaps you should read the definitions I provided from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary?
That is not its only definition and therefore does not always mean that agnostics believe that knowledge is unattainable. That's obviously completely self-refuting. For having the knowledge that all knowledge is unattainable is a fatal contradiction to itself.
Precisely, hence Agnostic Deism or Theism, but for Rahvin it lead to Weak Atheism (Agnostic Atheism) as it typically does.
How better might I be able to explain what I'm saying? I know what you're saying, but perhaps I'm not articulating my objections as clearly as I could.
Let me ask you: Is it possible to a Buddhist Muslim? I say, fundamentally, no. That's because the very tenets that make each what they are, are fundamentally opposing one another. To maintain one view point counters the other, so that to refer to oneself as such is actually nonsensical.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : fixed typos

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Michamus, posted 06-12-2009 6:30 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 7:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 107 by Vacate, posted 06-15-2009 11:18 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 109 by Perdition, posted 06-15-2009 3:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 94 of 526 (512003)
06-13-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 10:53 PM


Re: Hi!
Hyroglyphx writes:
Then how would they have come to any belief in the first place without some sort of foundation?
Are you familiar with the difference between belief and knowledge? You can believe in something, but that doesn't mean you have any actual knowledge about it.
Hyroglyphx writes:
It was therefore necessary to atheism to try and incorporate a more agnostic approach so that they would not commit a philosophically fatal flaw.
Hence, the Agnostic Atheist.
Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm gonna have to disagree here too. I think I have a strong grasp on both philosophies.
I am not going to take that as a proper response. Saying you have knowledge on the subject, is not the same as demonstrating that knowledge on the subject. Your "Just trust me" approach is intellectually dishonest.
Hyroglyphx writes:
That is not its only definition and therefore does not always mean that agnostics believe that knowledge is unattainable. That's obviously completely self-refuting. For having the knowledge that all knowledge is unattainable is a fatal contradiction to itself.
The agnostic does not say ALL KNOWLEDGE is unattainable, nor did I claim an agnostic does so. You are the only one here talking about that gibberish. The agnostic claim is that the knowledge required TO DISCERN GOD'S EXISTENCE is unattainable. Straw-man arguments are not welcomed.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Let me ask you: Is it possible to a Buddhist Muslim? I say, fundamentally, no. That's because the very tenets that make each what they are, are fundamentally opposing one another. To maintain one view point counters the other, so that to refer to oneself as such is actually nonsensical.
It is only non-sensical to you because you are viewing agnosticism as a belief on the existence of god, rather than a belief on whether we can discern the (non)existence of god. This is why your buddhist-muslim example is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 10:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2009 8:18 AM Michamus has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 526 (512007)
06-13-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Michamus
06-13-2009 7:24 AM


Agnostic atheists?
Are you familiar with the difference between belief and knowledge? You can believe in something, but that doesn't mean you have any actual knowledge about it.
I'm referring to belief. How can you even come to believe without some sort of primer that might initially allow someone to believe?
Hence, the Agnostic Atheist.
So then all good atheists would exclusively be agnostic atheists?
I am not going to take that as a proper response. Saying you have knowledge on the subject, is not the same as demonstrating that knowledge on the subject. Your "Just trust me" approach is intellectually dishonest.
This is about my third post detailing how it is contradictory and nonsensical to be an atheist agnostic. It's just one of several invented attempts by dogmatic atheists to not seem so dogmatic, like strong and weak atheism.
The agnostic does not say ALL KNOWLEDGE is unattainable, nor did I claim an agnostic does so. You are the only one here talking about that gibberish. The agnostic claim is that the knowledge required TO DISCERN GOD'S EXISTENCE is unattainable. Straw-man arguments are not welcomed.
There are several definitions for agnosticism, and yes, one of them include ALL knowledge. Secondly, I'm an agnostic and have been for a long time. I, however, don't believe that all knowledge is unattainable. I simply believe that ultimate causation is not known and I doubt sincerely that it ever can be known. I also cannot discount the possibility of a deity. More importantly I think atheists are generally condescending prigs who are every bit as sanctimonious as fundies. There are always exceptions to the rule though.
The real problem is that not everyone does know what an agnostic is. There has always been a lot of ambiguity about agnostics. There's always those questions where people ask what the difference is between atheists and agnostics. They only do so because each is distinguished from the next.
It is only non-sensical to you because you are viewing agnosticism as a belief on the existence of god, rather than a belief on whether we can discern the (non)existence of god.
I'm referring to the fact that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of god. In fact, I've said it several times throughout the thread.
This is why your buddhist-muslim example is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant if it helps allow you to see that being an atheist agnostic is philosophically contradictory.
But whatever... No need to respond. We can simply agree to disagree.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Had to fix some typos

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 7:24 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 8:56 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 96 of 526 (512012)
06-13-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2009 8:18 AM


Re: Agnostic atheists?
Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm referring to belief. How can you even come to believe without some sort of primer that might initially allow someone to believe?
You know what I said, and you know what it means. You are making this vague statement so it doesn't appear as though you have lost any ground. In case you truly don't understand what I meant, I will give you an example:
Betty tells Jessica that she read a book that says there is a god that loves her, and wants her to go to heaven, all she has to do is believe.
Jessica now has three choices:
A) Believe Betty
B) Not Believe Betty
C) Look into attaining knowledge as to whether Betty is correct
Most theists simply believe Betty, or read the book Betty mentioned, and believe the book. The issue here is that no ACTUAL knowledge on the veracity of Betty's (or the Book's) claim is acquired. It is a belief without knowledge. Now insert fundamental facts that are known to contradict the book, and you have a blind belief.
So then all good atheists would exclusively be agnostic atheists?
I don't use subjective terms like "good" or "bad" in logical discussion, as their definitions are purely arbitrary.
An Agnostic Atheist is someone who (Agnostic) Does not believe we have the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge (Atheist) and does not believe god exists.
A Gnostic Atheist is someone who (Gnostic) Believes we have the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge (Atheist) and does not believe god exists.
This is about my third post detailing how it is contradictory and nonsensical to be an atheist agnostic. It's just one of several invented attempts by dogmatic atheists to not seem so dogmatic, like strong and weak atheism.
Just because you repeat yourself, doesn't mean you were right the first time.
You can think that these terms were "Invented by Dogmatic Atheists", but that doesn't change the fact that the words [Gnostic] and a[Gnostic] have existed for millenia, and their definitions have remained the same. Have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels?
There are several definitions for agnosticism, and yes, one of them include ALL knowledge.
So I guess when I tell you I am going to the bank of the river, you would decide to respond with "Oh really? You are going to the financial institution of the river?"
There is this cool thing called context. I am discussing the belief in god, and whether god(s) existence can be determined by attaining knowledge. I then provide the definitions from a notable dictionary supporting my usage of the terms. I even provide proper syntax for usage of the terms, that do not conflict with the definition provided by the independent source.
That conflicts with your a priori notion of what agnosticism is, so you have to bring non sequitor definitions to try and defend that notion. If I recall correctly, you still haven't provided a definition from ANY notable dictionary supporting what you think the term means.
I'm an agnostic and have been for a long time.
Okay, so you don't think we can attain knowledge of gods existence?
quote:
I simply believe that ultimate causation is not known and I doubt sincerely that it ever can be known.
That's what I thought. So what is your belief as to whether god exists or not?
The real problem is that not everyone does know what an agnostic is.
You're right, that is the real problem, and that is exactly what we are discussing. When you say you are an agnostic, all you are really saying is "I don't believe we can attain knowledge to discern the existence of god". You aren't saying whether you believe in a god or what god you do believe in if you happen to believe in god.
I'm referring to the fact that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of god. In fact, I've said it several times throughout the thread.
Wow, I really hope you aren't this dense. Did you seriously think I was saying that it is (im)possible to (dis)prove the existence of god? You should read everything I wrote a couple more times before you respond again.
It's not irrelevant if it helps allow you to see that being an atheist agnostic is philosophically contradictory.
It is irrelevant because it has no real representation of what I am saying. Saying an Agnostic Atheist is like a Buddhist-Muslim is ridiculous. It's like saying that when someone says "red Ferrari" what they are really saying is "Porsche Ferrari". It's non sequitor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2009 8:18 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2009 10:07 AM Michamus has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 526 (512018)
06-13-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Michamus
06-13-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Agnostic atheists?
You know what I said, and you know what it means. You are making this vague statement so it doesn't appear as though you have lost any ground.
What you stated makes no sense. I'm trying to understand how two contradictory positions can be held at the same time. And my gaining/losing ground is completely subjective, so....
Most theists simply believe Betty, or read the book Betty mentioned, and believe the book. The issue here is that no ACTUAL knowledge on the veracity of Betty's (or the Book's) claim is acquired. It is a belief without knowledge. Now insert fundamental facts that are known to contradict the book, and you have a blind belief.
Yeah, sure... But that's theists. What does that have to do with agnostic atheists?
An Agnostic Atheist is someone who (Agnostic) Does not believe we have the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge (Atheist) and does not believe god exists.
All right, well, then help me distinguish something. You keep asserting that you can be an agnostic and an atheist, but you also allege that someone can be an agnostic theist. If the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge cannot be achieved, then how would one become theistic in any sense?
You can think that these terms were "Invented by Dogmatic Atheists", but that doesn't change the fact that the words [Gnostic] and a[Gnostic] have existed for millenia, and their definitions have remained the same. Have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels?
Yes, I know who and what the Gnostics were, which is why I am completely perplexed, even more so than about atheist agnostics, but now you say that there are gnostic atheists?!?!? What do Gnostics have to do with the conversation, aside from the word gnostic (know) and agnostic (not knowing)?
your a priori notion of what agnosticism is, so you have to bring non sequitor definitions to try and defend that notion. If I recall correctly, you still haven't provided a definition from ANY notable dictionary supporting what you think the term means.
I never defined it any differently than you have. You provided an impromptu definition, none of which I disagreed with. At most I corrected you on a lack of one definition for agnosticism.
Here ya go:
Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
-SOURCE
What I am disagreeing with is, specifically, atheist agnostics in conjunction with one another. I'm not disagreeing with your definitions for each separately. Understand now? I hope so because I'm not going over it again.
Okay, so you don't think we can attain knowledge of gods existence?
I don't know either way... Spoken in true agnostic fashion.
Did you seriously think I was saying that it is (im)possible to (dis)prove the existence of god? You should read everything I wrote a couple more times before you respond again.
I don't even know what the hell we're discussing anymore. It's gone off a few tangents, but don't care enough to argue about it anymore.
Saying an Agnostic Atheist is like a Buddhist-Muslim is ridiculous. It's like saying that when someone says "red Ferrari" what they are really saying is "Porsche Ferrari". It's non sequitor.
Atheists are distinguished from agnostics, would you agree? Agnostics take a neutral position when it comes to the supernatural, would you agree? Well, atheists and theists don't. How can you have someone denying the existence of God and also not denying or defending a belief in God simultaneously? Think it through before you condescend to me.
You think you can just mash words together and supply meaning to them. That is not always the case, as it is the case here. In the event you respond to me, I will not be replying to you because I honestly don't care enough about the subject to be arguing with someone I just met.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add source

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 8:56 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 10:30 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 98 of 526 (512020)
06-13-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2009 10:07 AM


Re: Agnostic atheists?
Yeah, sure... But that's theists. What does that have to do with agnostic atheists?
ROFL! LMAO! Are you serious? Really now?
Perhaps I was responding to this statement YOU made?
quote:
Message 93
Then how would they have come to any belief in the first place without some sort of foundation?
without missing a beat...
If the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge cannot be achieved, then how would one become theistic in any sense?
Read the Betty - Jessica example.
What do Gnostics have to do with the conversation, aside from the word gnostic (know) and agnostic (not knowing)?
Gnostics believed they could come to know god, and their gospels gave testament to this. Perhaps you should look all these things up?
At most I corrected you on a lack of one definition for agnosticism.
FACEPALM
Did you even read my 'bank of the river' example? Why the heck would your reference to ALL knowledge be relevant in a discussion that was OBVIOUSLY made exclusive to the god question?
I don't know either way...
So then you are an Agnostic Deist. Problem solved.
Atheists are distinguished from agnostics, would you agree?
Atheist is no more distinguished from agnostic than red is distinguished from a car.
Agnostics take a neutral position when it comes to the supernatural, would you agree?
No. Agnostics take the stance that gods existence cannot be KNOWN, not whether it can be BELIEVED.
How can you have someone denying the existence of God and also not denying or defending a belief in God simultaneously?
FACEPALM
You think you can just mash words together and supply meaning to them. That is not always the case, as it is the case here.
Someone is projecting a tad bit here...
In the event you respond to me, I will not be replying to you because I honestly don't care enough about the subject to be arguing with someone I just met.
Nor do you obviously care enough about the subject to actually learn about it.
TTFN

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2009 10:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2009 10:04 PM Michamus has replied
 Message 104 by Vacate, posted 06-15-2009 8:20 AM Michamus has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 99 of 526 (512037)
06-13-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 5:40 PM


Re: The topic of this debate
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I see where you're comign from (you don't need science to arrive at atheism), but "proof" is too strong a word around here. Proof is for mathematics.
Fair enough. Perhaps the word "prove" does give the implication that I meant "proof".
Let me say it like this, atheism proves itself as a default philosophical position on it's own merit without the need for science...better?
And, as you said, "we continue to look and find nothing, the probability of the existence of a deity gets closer and closer to zero (just as with evolution, where as we get more and more evidence supporting its accuracy, the likelihood that we've modeled reality with perfect accuracy approaches 1) but never actually reaches it."
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 5:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 526 (512053)
06-13-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Michamus
06-13-2009 10:30 AM


Re: Agnostic atheists?
ROFL! LMAO! Are you serious? Really now?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 10:30 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Michamus, posted 06-14-2009 8:57 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 101 of 526 (512112)
06-14-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2009 10:04 PM


So much for not replying
So much for this statement you made:
Hyroglyphx writes:
Message 97
In the event you respond to me, I will not be replying to you...
Then again, the fact that the best you could do was post a silly image in response to my well founded, and supported argument does more to hurt your credibility than anything else.
Heh, at least we know you can make fun of yourself though .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2009 10:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-14-2009 9:40 AM Michamus has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 526 (512117)
06-14-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Michamus
06-14-2009 8:57 AM


Re: So much for not replying
Then again, the fact that the best you could do was post a silly image in response to my well founded, and supported argument does more to hurt your credibility than anything else.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Michamus, posted 06-14-2009 8:57 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Michamus, posted 06-14-2009 11:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 103 of 526 (512123)
06-14-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
06-14-2009 9:40 AM


Re: So much for not replying
Goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-14-2009 9:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 104 of 526 (512196)
06-15-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Michamus
06-13-2009 10:30 AM


red agnostics
Atheist is no more distinguished from agnostic than red is distinguished from a car.
You could get a few agnostics typing replies on their black and hitting reply on their cordless telling you thats not what they think. You may be technically correct but you shouldn't forget common usage of the word is obviously different than you describe; but who am I but a loudmouthed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Michamus, posted 06-13-2009 10:30 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Michamus, posted 06-15-2009 9:16 AM Vacate has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 105 of 526 (512213)
06-15-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Vacate
06-15-2009 8:20 AM


Re: red agnostics
Hi Vacate!
Vacate writes:
You could get a few agnostics typing replies on their black and hitting reply on their cordless telling you thats not what they think. You may be technically correct but you shouldn't forget common usage of the word is obviously different than you describe
I understand that the common usage of the term agnostic is more along the lines of "Deist" or even "Nothing can really be determined". The issue though is that when having intellectual discussion/debate, the proper definitions must be used.
An excellent case in point is a creationist and scientist debating evolution (as if there is really any debate on the subject). The creationist will constantly try and use the common usage of the term "Theory". Does this mean the scientist has to suddenly disregard the proper use of the term "Theory" in the scientific realm? Of course not.
Rather, the scientist will provide an "on the spot correction" as to what the proper definition of the term "theory" is.
This is no different than what has just occurred between myself and Hyroglyphx. Hyroglyphx was utilizing a "common usage" of the term "agnostic" as if it were a position of belief in reference to the existence (or non existence) of god(s). In reality the term agnostic has nothing to do with whether god exists or not, but moreover, whether we are capable of acquiring the required information to determine his/her/it's existence. That's all it is, a philosophical position on the human capability of acquiring information.
This definition of the term [a]gnostic has been in use for millenia. It is only recently that it has become changed to include ALL KNOWLEDGE, or even synonymously with Deism.
Vacate writes:
; but who am I but a loudmouthed
You don't seem like a loudmouth to me
PS Could you please explain in further detail what you meant with your first statement please?
You could get a few agnostics typing replies on their black and hitting reply on their cordless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Vacate, posted 06-15-2009 8:20 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Vacate, posted 06-15-2009 10:05 AM Michamus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024