|
Author
|
Topic: Atheist vs Agnostic
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
Message 61 of 111 (189627)
03-02-2005 10:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
03-02-2005 10:06 AM
|
|
PaulK writes: Your reply does not address the point. Rejecting evolution is quite different from rejecting belief in God sicne there is vastly more evidence for evolution. My reply precisely addresses the point. You asked what I think and I gave it to you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:06 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:28 AM | | Monk has replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 62 of 111 (189628)
03-02-2005 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
03-02-2005 9:45 AM
|
|
PaulK writes: Many atheists - even strong atheists - don't. Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying that many 'strong atheist', as loosely defined in other posts in this thread, do not close the door on the possiblity of the existence of God? Are there any so called 'strong atheists' out there who agree?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 9:45 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:30 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 63 of 111 (189629)
03-02-2005 10:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Monk
03-02-2005 10:13 AM
|
|
No, your reply did not address the point or even explain what you really thought.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Monk, posted 03-02-2005 10:13 AM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by Monk, posted 03-02-2005 10:38 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 64 of 111 (189630)
03-02-2005 10:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Monk
03-02-2005 10:26 AM
|
|
You ask if there are any strong atheists who agree with me. Well I'm a strong atheist and I agree with me. The definition of strong atheism is believing that there is no God. Belief does not require certainty nor does it have to be dogmatic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Monk, posted 03-02-2005 10:26 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5836 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: 09-29-2003
|
|
|
Message 65 of 111 (189631)
03-02-2005 10:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by Monk
03-02-2005 9:37 AM
|
|
Where have I berated agnostics and accused them of being in denial? Although you probably have it set up that all messages that get posted in this thread generate an e-mail notification for you I was actually replying to CF. As I said I while ago he laid into me (in a good natured way of course  ) for describing myself as an agnostic - I can dig up the thread if you want. Having said that I hope some of my post was relavent to your enquiry (especially when trying to define the different terms involved). The whole question of leaving room for doubt is I an aspect of the faith debate that does interest me quite a bit, and IMO is at the core many of the other issues raised at EvC- but I'm a bit busy this afternoon so I'll get back to you later, if that's OK.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Monk, posted 03-02-2005 9:37 AM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by Monk, posted 03-02-2005 10:43 AM | | Ooook! has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 66 of 111 (189632)
03-02-2005 10:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
03-02-2005 10:28 AM
|
|
It's not my intention to appear obtuse. I'm just a little slow. Why don't you reload the 'point' concisely and I'll give it a go.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:28 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 11:02 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: 11-17-2004
|
|
|
Message 67 of 111 (189633)
03-02-2005 10:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
03-01-2005 11:40 AM
|
|
If you sit on the fence you get splinters!
I am of the strong Atheism (sometimes denoted by the capitalisation of the word) flavour and do not accept the label agnostic. There is no such thing as God or gods, nor anything divine or supernatural. All of that nonsense is the result of man’s desire to explain that which he, at the time, had not the wit to know the mechanisms of. I am not agnostic as that would lead anyone to believe I have some doubt as to whether the god/s exists or not. I don’t. Doubting the existence of god is radically different to believing that he/they don’t exist at all. Can I prove the divine doesn’t exist? No, you can never prove something doesn’t exist. This is because there is nothing to point at and go Behold! The empty space that proves the lack of the divine. And the moment you try that trick someone walks up to you with God in a box saying ok, but how do you explain this? Those that claim god DOES exist put themselves in the position of claiming that some thing exists then constantly fail to offer up any kind of concrete proof of that existence. They even go as far to suggest the reason to can’t find evidence of god’s existence is because god doesn’t want you to find such evidence. My, how convenient! But this fall into the constant an ultra convenient answer frequently given as ‘proof’ and that is god did it Q:Why does it rain? A:God does it Q:Why is there suffering and all that? A: GOD, gave us free will Q:How did it all start? A;God made every thing Q:What’s the point? A:God, ineffable joke/game/love Q:Why no proof of God? A: God, has stage fright and hides it all. I categorically do not believe in the divine, but I can’t prove their lack of existence. Theists believe in the existence of the divine but can’t prove this existence Agnostics don’t know either way and sit on the fence. I’m not a fence sitter..
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 11:40 AM | | Monk has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by purpledawn, posted 03-02-2005 11:35 AM | | ohnhai has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 68 of 111 (189634)
03-02-2005 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Ooook!
03-02-2005 10:36 AM
|
|
My apologies. You are correct in that I have auto e-mail reply and jumped the gun in your reply to crashfrog. I very much enjoyed your input and look forward to future conversations.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Ooook!, posted 03-02-2005 10:36 AM | | Ooook! has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 69 of 111 (189636)
03-02-2005 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Monk
03-02-2005 10:38 AM
|
|
You asked why it was right for your hypothetical atheist to rule out the existence of God while also saying that it was wrong for (some) religious people to rule out evolution. Of course evolution is so well supported that only the most fanatical creationists will rule it our all together ("evolution within kinds" is OK even with a lot of YECs). But you couldn't say that the existence of God is equally well supported and your hypothetical atheist could have good reasons for ruling out what he (or she) thinks of as "God". So your argument - as well as relying on some hypothetical atheist - nobody here has stood up and admitted that they fit the bill - is comparing apples and oranges.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Monk, posted 03-02-2005 10:38 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 70 of 111 (189637)
03-02-2005 11:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by ohnhai
03-02-2005 10:41 AM
|
|
Re: If you sit on the fence you get splinters!
Today they use the new vinyl fencing. No splinters!
quote:
There is no such thing as God or gods, nor anything divine or supernatural. All of that nonsense is the result of man’s desire to explain that which he, at the time, had not the wit to know the mechanisms of.
IMO, in the beginning when mankind created gods; the sun, moon, planets, and stars were their gods. These were objects they couldn't explain, control or touch. Anything happening on this planet that they couldn't explain was attibuted to these various gods. As mankind started to understsand this planet and what was beyond, they had to move God outside of our realm of knowledge. IOW, I think some of the ancients did have something to point at and say, that's God. Even belief/religion has evolved over time. You've heard of post-menepausal? I'm post-Christian.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by ohnhai, posted 03-02-2005 10:41 AM | | ohnhai has not replied |
|
custard
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 71 of 111 (189638)
03-02-2005 11:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Loudmouth
03-01-2005 4:13 PM
|
|
loudmouth writes: Poor analogy. Both bigfoot and Nessie are hypothetical physical beings who can be tested for through physical means. All I need to do to discount Nessie is drain Loch Ness, or mow down all of the forests in NA to find Bigfoot. Fairies are in between the physical and supernatural. They are supposed to be ongoing physical manifestations, so they should be amenable to testing. But then again, the absence of fairies can be explained away through supernatural mechanisms, so fairies aren't exactly like Bigfoot or Nessie. God, or any deity or hosts of deities, are completely supernatural. They act on the physical world through supernatural mechanisms (I know, I know, if it affects the physical it is a physical mechanism, but just humor me for the moment). Due to the supernatural mechanism, their effect on the world would be indistinguishable from an unknown, or undiscovered natural mechanism. I am agnostic simply because I have not seen evidence, but would not be able to distinguish the evidence from unknown or undiscovered natural mechanisms. I can't know if I am truly experiencing a religious event. Atheists take this lack of knowledge and transfer it to a lack of a deity/deities. I, as an agnostic, prefer to leave it at "I don't know".
quote:
My question for agnostics is: Since you're presumably pretty negative about the existence of fairies, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and other fairy tales, why do you make an exception for God?
Poor analogy. Both bigfoot and Nessie are hypothetical physical beings who can be tested for through physical means. All I need to do to discount Nessie is drain Loch Ness, or mow down all of the forests in NA to find Bigfoot. Fairies are in between the physical and supernatural. They are supposed to be ongoing physical manifestations, so they should be amenable to testing. But then again, the absence of fairies can be explained away through supernatural mechanisms, so fairies aren't exactly like Bigfoot or Nessie. God, or any deity or hosts of deities, are completely supernatural. They act on the physical world through supernatural mechanisms (I know, I know, if it affects the physical it is a physical mechanism, but just humor me for the moment). Due to the supernatural mechanism, their effect on the world would be indistinguishable from an unknown, or undiscovered natural mechanism. I am agnostic simply because I have not seen evidence, but would not be able to distinguish the evidence from unknown or undiscovered natural mechanisms. I can't know if I am truly experiencing a religious event. Atheists take this lack of knowledge and transfer it to a lack of a deity/deities. I, as an agnostic, prefer to leave it at "I don't know". Wow, that was a very cogent, well written reply. Very nice.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 4:13 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
|
|
Message 72 of 111 (189639)
03-02-2005 11:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
03-02-2005 9:03 AM
|
|
Re: Pink Elephants have a small following
Schraf writes: All you seem to be saying is that more people claim to have experienced God than claim to have experienced Pink Elephants. Surely personal testimonies/recollections count for something. I know that here as in another thread eyewitness testimony has been downplayed but if you were in a hit and run and you had 100 people who all described the car that hit you, would that not count for something? Surely more than one guy who swore that a pink elephant bashed your car in and vanished in thin air!! Likewise I not only have my testimony but the testimony of thousands who will swear to a lifechanging experience and will describe God in much the same way. Not because they have been taught or indoctorinated but because they share the passion of the encounter. It is a personal thing. Furthermore, if 500 people testified that a pink elephant bashed your car in and then vanished in thin air, would not your impassive scientific mind give the evidence more consideration? Why is it human nature to always explain away things that make us uncomfortable? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-02-2005 09:59 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by nator, posted 03-02-2005 9:03 AM | | nator has replied |
|
custard
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 73 of 111 (189645)
03-02-2005 12:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
03-01-2005 11:40 AM
|
|
My question is: Why don't all atheist consider themselves agnostic? Because some atheists just don't care. Some of us can go entire months without the thought "I wonder if god really does exist" entering our mind. I know I do. By your definitions I am both atheist AND agnostic in that I think the concept 'god' is simply unknowable; AND I actively deny the existence of this hypothetical unknown in the form of the anthropormorphisms claimed by every religion I have encountered. I think the comparison of god to fairies, elves, and intestinal lemurs is apt; and I think that god, as defined by the bible, Koran, Torah, etc, IS falsifiable in that the god of Abraham did not do the things ascribed to him by the bible - e.g. stop the sun in the sky, flood the earth, etc. Perhaps a better word, for me, would be something like 'untheist,' because I am not religious, and don't look at religion or worship in anything more than in political, social, and historical context. That's why I don't understand a question like 'Why don't all atheist consider themselves agnostic?' Because my initial response is 'why would anyone care if they do or not?'
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 11:40 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1414 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 74 of 111 (189678)
03-02-2005 3:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by Phat
03-02-2005 11:57 AM
|
|
Testify
Phatboy, quote:
Why is it human nature to always explain away things that make us uncomfortable?
That's exactly what atheists want to know. It's ironic that you would criticize non-believers as seeking comfort in unrealistic beliefs. I'd say the burden is on the believer to demonstrate that his mythology is based on something more substantial than the wish to see intent in the chaos of nature. Isn't it conceivable that it's human nature to explain the bizarre, baffling workings of our universe as the activity of a Being who loves us all? After all, a belief that there is moral significance in the way things happen on Earth essentially has to include the out-clause about God working in mysterious ways. This allows the believer to acknowledge cruel and pointless events and yet cling to the position that everything happens by the grace of God. As a result, it's impossible to falsify the assertion that everything happens through God's will, because the only disconfirming evidence would be an event that hasn't happened. The believer explains away the anomalies of reality by making reference to a Being whose strategies are inscrutable to us mere mortals. It's much less comforting to believe that we're at the mercy of a universe which has no morality or grand intent. In that case, everything is reduced to probability, the innocent suffer, and the wicked prosper for no other reason than the roll of the dice. I submit that this is what makes the suffering of the innocent tragic in the first place: the lack of any grand purpose or reward for their pain. regards, Esteban Hambre
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by Phat, posted 03-02-2005 11:57 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 75 of 111 (189689)
03-02-2005 6:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by Phat
03-02-2005 11:57 AM
|
|
Re: Pink Elephants have a small following
quote:
Surely personal testimonies/recollections count for something.
They count for very little WRT persuasive evidence.
quote:
I know that here as in another thread eyewitness testimony has been downplayed but if you were in a hit and run and you had 100 people who all described the car that hit you, would that not count for something?
The thing is, when that kind of situation is tested under controlled experimental conditions, you don't ever get 100 identical descriptions. You get a lot of variation, actually.
quote:
Surely more than one guy who swore that a pink elephant bashed your car in and vanished in thin air!!
Likewise I not only have my testimony but the testimony of thousands who will swear to a lifechanging experience and will describe God in much the same way. Not because they have been taught or indoctorinated but because they share the passion of the encounter. It is a personal thing.
Of course they have been taught and/or indoctrinated. Otherwise, there would be no regionality at all to religions. If all of the hundreds of world religions were pretty equally distributed around the world, and people in the middle of the Amazon jungle reported waking up one day and declaring themselves followers of the Shinto religion, for example, it would be one thing. It's clear that people generally follow the faith of their culture and of their parents.
quote:
Furthermore, if 500 people testified that a pink elephant bashed your car in and then vanished in thin air, would not your impassive scientific mind give the evidence more consideration?
I would definitely consider it, but I would look for physical evidence.
quote:
Why is it human nature to always explain away things that make us uncomfortable?
I would think it would be the coolest thing in the world if there were pink elephants around, or God/gods for that matter. No discomfort at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by Phat, posted 03-02-2005 11:57 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by Phat, posted 03-02-2005 7:44 PM | | nator has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2