you're so agnostic
humble.life
dh
>you don't believe i'm really here
No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
he does exist I believe he can and probably has made some
people aware of it.
humble.life
what do you think to the idea of duality and neurology?
dh
In what regard?
humble life
that your senses are fooling you
George Dance
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >you don't believe i'm really here
>
> No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> he does exist I believe he can
You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
A) God exists; or
B) God does not exist.
Unless you can do that, why should anyone else believe it?
George Dance
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >you don't believe i'm really here
> >
> > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > he does exist I believe he can
>
> You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> A) God exists; or
> B) God does not exist.
I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
of your claim.
I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
sara
An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
dogmatically accept nor reject such matters. An agnostic will not know
due to there being no proof whatsoever, or hence this is a matter of
faith?
What I'd like to understand is how or what agnosticism is represented
prior to 1885? any ideas?
sara
DarkAngel
sara wrote:
> An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
> Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
> their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
> dogmatically accept nor reject such matters.
The fact that they're willing to suspend judgement on that issue but
not on the existence of faeries, Flying Linguini Monsters or Invisible
Punk Unicorns shows that agnosticism is far from a neutral standpoint
on the God question. That they think the "God hypothesis" is even
worthy of consideration shows that they have an a priori parti pris in
favor of it.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
Brian Fletcher
"sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164059783.2...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dance wrote:
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >you don't believe i'm really here
>> > >
>> > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
>> > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
>> > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
>> > > he does exist I believe he can
>> >
>> > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
>> > A) God exists; or
>> > B) God does not exist.
>>
>> I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
>> correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
>> what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
>> possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
>> of your claim.
>>
>> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
>> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
So "one day" all agnostics will be changed by the demonstration.
Do you see the irony there?
This is what most religionists believe. One of many being "the second
coming".
How would they "know"? By miraculous demonstration?
BOfL
knucmo
DarkAngel wrote:
Some consider atheism a theocentric view in so far as atheists are
willing to consider the existence of God as a crucial aspect of our
existence.
oaxaco
knucmo wrote:
> Some consider atheism a theocentric view in so far as atheists are
> willing to consider the existence of God as a crucial aspect of our
> existence.
How does that work knucmo?
DarkAngel
The part that's crucial to my existence is not the existence of God,
but the existence of his followers.
Philosophical materialism as a tool already took care of a lot of
problems that actually were crucial to our existence. God was just one
of the collateral casualties.
raven1
George Dance wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >you don't believe i'm really here
> > >
> > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > > he does exist I believe he can
> >
> > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> > A) God exists; or
> > B) God does not exist.
>
> I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
> correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
> what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
> possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
> of your claim.
>
> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
I may speak only for myself, but agnosticism has always struck me as a
bizarre position to take: no one rational claims to be "agnostic" about
the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, so why should claims of
deities get special treatment?
raven1
Are we?
George Dance
sara wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> > > dh@. wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >you don't believe i'm really here
> > > >
> > > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> > > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> > > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > > > he does exist I believe he can
> > >
> > > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> > > A) God exists; or
> > > B) God does not exist.
> >
> > I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
> > correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
> > what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
> > possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
> > of your claim.
> >
> > I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
> > waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
> >
> > > Unless you can do that, why should anyone else believe it?
> > >
>
> Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
> their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
> dogmatically accept nor reject such matters.
Exactly. Originally Huxley coined the term to give himself a 'tail'
like the various theological and metaphysical gnostics he associated in
the London Philosophical Society (IIRC). Oriiginally he claimed a
'strong conviction' that knowledge of that sort was impossible; but he
later asked himself, "Now, how could I know that?" and realized he
couldn't say that. His position throughout was to not believe any of
his fellows' God-claims for lack of evidence, and that was indeed what
he argued as the agnostic principle:
It is wrong to believe anything without logically satisfactory
evidence.
> An agnostic will not know
> due to there being no proof whatsoever, or hence this is a matter of
> faith?
No, you see; it's exactly orthogonal to the distinction between
atheists, all of whom do not believe in the existence of a God, and the
smaller 'positive' or 'strong' subset of them who believe in the
non-existence of a God (call them 'contratheists.') In the same way,
one can distinguish between agnostics - who do not believe in the
existence of any knowledge of God - and 'contragnostics,' who
positively believe in the non-existence of that knowledge.
> What I'd like to understand is how or what agnosticism is represented
> prior to 1885? any ideas?
>
The oldest reference to the position that I know of is a line from
Protagoras (481-420 BC):
"Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or
not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the
subject, and the brevity of human life" (80B4 DK).
That is one of only two lines of Protagoras's writings that survive.
His books were burned by both temple and state, and none of his works
survive.
> sara
George Dance
> sara wrote:
> > An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
> > Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
> > their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
> > dogmatically accept nor reject such matters.
>
> The fact that they're willing to suspend judgement on that issue but
> not on the existence of faeries, Flying Linguini Monsters or Invisible
> Punk Unicorns shows that agnosticism is far from a neutral standpoint
> on the God question.
Not true: if you want to argue for the existence of faeries, Flying
Linguini Monsters or Invisible Punk Unicorns (rather than Invisible
Pink Unicorns, which is contradictory), I'm more than willing to listen
to you with an open mind. Over to you.
> That they think the "God hypothesis" is even
> worthy of consideration shows that they have an a priori parti pris in
> favor of it.
Not at all; I'd enjoy talking about Punk Unicorns just as much as Gods.
zinnic
knucmo wrote:
> DarkAngel wrote:
>> Some consider atheism a theocentric view in so far as atheists are
> willing to consider the existence of God as a crucial aspect of our
> existence.
Huh? There's me thinking as a strong atheist that I was denying (IMHO)
"the existence of God as a crucial aspect of our existence." Gee! I
guess I will have to convert to Confusionism!
Zinnic(Helloooo...! Brian)
Al Klein
wrote:
>No, you see; it's exactly orthogonal to the distinction between
>atheists, all of whom do not believe in the existence of a God
Atheists don't believe IN any god. There's a difference. A subset
don't believe in the existence of one or more gods. (I'm not familiar
with using an indefinite article in front of a proper noun. Are you a
George? Or are you a man named George?)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war
on terror."
- George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept.
6, 2006
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Immortalist
George Dance wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >you don't believe i'm really here
> > >
> > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > > he does exist I believe he can
> >
> > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> > A) God exists; or
> > B) God does not exist.
>
> I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
> correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
> what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
> possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
> of your claim.
>
> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
>
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism,
strict agnosticism)-the view that the question of the existence of
deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped
to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism,
empirical agnosticism)-the view that the existence or nonexistence of
God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable,
therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
Apatheism-the view that the whole question of God's existence or
nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.
Apathetic agnosticism-the view that the whole question of God's
existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and
therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.
Ignosticism-the view that the concept of God as a being is
meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it
cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See
scientific method.
Model agnosticism-the view that philosophical and metaphysical
questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable
assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch
of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the
question of a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's
existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is
agnosticism is disputed.
Agnostic atheism-the view that God may or may not exist, but that his
non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least
partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
The agnostic fallacy
Agnosticism is mostly considered a vague middle ground in the debate
surrounding the god question. Some people see it as the most rational
alternative, given the sheer weight of debate going on from both
theists and atheists.
Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus:
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, follow your
reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And
negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters
are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism"
Some people think he formed the word as a joke, a wordplay on the old
gnostic sects. I can't really say.
At any rate, the definition above is enlightening, but is also a bad
definition. It defines a process instead of a result. As such, it is a
good rational guideline, in terms of following the objective evidence,
but it does not tell us what agnosticism is as a position.
The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge
about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing,
just like a-theism means not-belief in god.
Graham Oppy distinguishes between strong and weak agnosticism. This is
his thesis:
strong agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that
it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the
question of God's existence. (...) weak agnosticism, i.e. the view
which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable
persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
"Weak Agnosticism Defended", Graham Oppy
It is important to note, at this point, that agnosticism is not in fact
part of the atheism-theism gradient. Both atheism and theism are
concerned about belief, not knowledge. The basic atheist proposition
can be formulated as follows :
A1: I lack belief in gods.
And the theist proposition as follows : T1 : I believe in gods.
Both are inherently personal propositions. We are talking here about
what the person believes, not about reality itself. If we look at this
ontologically, we can translate it in the following way :
A2: I know that there is no god-belief in my mind.
T2: I know that there is god-belief in my mind.
The atheist and the theist are not making statements about what exists
in reality, only on what they believe. However, there are positions
which pertain to knowledge about reality. Monotheistic religions, and
strong-atheism (also called positive atheism) share this gradient. We
can define them as follows :
R: I know a god exists.
P: I know no god exists.
These statements concern what actually exists out there in reality.
Agnosticism is part of that gradient : it claims that the kind of
knowledge stated in propositions R and P is irrational. Thus,
agnosticism is actually compatible with both atheism and theism. An
agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in gods regardless of
their lack of knowledge on the question. An agnostic theist is someone
who believes in gods regardless of their lack of knowledge on the
question.
Given these facts, why is agnosticism a fallacy ? While it parades as a
"moderate" option which is most "reasonable", it is little more than an
example of the cult of compromise. It's not because a debate is raging
from both sides of an issue that both must be wrong. Or as Richard
Dawkins eloquently writes:
I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view
are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie
exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply
wrong.
"Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)
If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite
unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no
knowledge on the god question. But for this to be true, the agnostic
must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism, since he
discards them all out of hand. If any single argument is valid, then
agnosticism must crumble. Many such arguments are available in the
atheist literature, and it is disingenuous to deny them.
Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is
self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we
cannot claim it exists, or discuss it rationally.
If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know
something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and
rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must
inevitably lead to strong-atheism.
Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is
necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an
undefined object. Whatever exists in reality has attributes. If we
admit that we have no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to
define it, then it cannot exist. Thus assuming agnosticism is true
leads to a contradiction.
Agnostics have to answer the following question, if their position is
to make any sense at all:
How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no
knowledge about "god"?
To claim that "gods could exist" is possible, one must attribute some
meaning to "god" in order for this proposition to be meaningful. To say
that "gods cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that
there can be no referent to "god", because the word "god" is
meaningless.
But the agnostic has no knowledge about "god" from which he can
attribute it meaning. Therefore agnosticism contradicts itself on this
crucial issue.
A number of arguments can be proposed in favour of agnosticism. I will
now examine the most important arguments.
* Argument from the limits of human reason
Based on Huxley's equivocation between a judicious use of reason and
agnosticism, some thinkers have proposed that atheism oversteps the
boundaries of human reason. I have already pointed out that this is
unreasonable. If it is true that human reason cannot discuss theology,
then the atheist arguments must be shown to be invalid. It is not
sufficient to simply declare it without evidence.
* Post-modernist argument
A more fundamental argument can be built on the grounds of
post-modernism. According to this school of thought, all of our
positions and beliefs are determined not by truth, but by our
upbringing and social context. Children raised from Christian parents
will be naturally biased to become Christians. Children raised from
atheist parents will be naturally biased to become atheists. Only
agnosticism escapes this bias, by stepping outside of positive
positions and claiming moderation.
However, this argument not only suffers from the same flaw than the
previous argument, in that it is not sufficient to claim that atheism
is biased but it must also be proven, but it is also open to the
standard refutation of post-modernism. Being a positive position,
post-modernism itself is also subject to upbringing and social context,
and therefore must be rejected out of hand, if we follow the argument.
* Antirealist attack
An even more fundamental argument has been recently elaborated by
agnostic Bill Schultz. In his article "A Formal Justification of
Agnosticism", he proposes that agnosticism is valid because logic is
invalid in cases where we do not observe facts of reality directly.
Since we cannot observe gods directly, we cannot make any knowledge
claim about the god question.
Unfortunately, the fundamental nature of this argument means that it is
extremely vulnerable to the flaws exposed above. First of all, it is
not sufficient to claim that logic is invalid in cases where we do not
observe facts of reality directly. This claim must be proven. There is
no functional difference between facts of reality that we observe
directly and those we observe indirectly : in both cases we must use
logic in some form and to some extent.
Secondly, if logic is not applicable to cases where we do not observe
facts of reality directly, then this also applies to the truth or
falsity of agnosticism, which is not observable directly. Following
this argument, all we can do is say that agnosticism is untenable.
Finally, if the god question is special because its object is not
observed directly, then this also applies to any other absurd entity.
We do not observe Santa Claus, unicorns, giant space waffles, or angels
directly. The antirealist attack would have us suspend judgment on all
these entities also. But this is an absurd position.
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
>
> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
What are you agnostic about this time George?
MG
Joe
chazwin
I think we have done this one to death in many other threads - you
notion is utterly misconceived.
Theist, agnostic and even antitheist might be termed theocentric, but
atheist is not even a denial of god. It is not a rejection of god, it
is not a theory or faith. Atheism means having no god at all.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
A valid argument about what? be specific
Joe
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Joe wrote:
> I forgot to put a smiley at the end. <w>
Too scared I'd chuck something in your mouth I bet?
The agnostic gits really are quite strange, you'd wonder why they don't
simply ask themselves, what is it that they are agnostic about.
Sitting on the fence of evasion, with a fence pale stuck fair up their
arse holding them fast.
As dopey as the mystic's position on the god nonsense is founded, at
least the mystic's are in a far more tenable position than the silly
cowardly agnostics could ever hope to be.
That's their Kantian scourge they just cant, or more likely dont want
to shake.
MG
leo
DarkAngel ha escrito:
Wait, wait a little bit!
Fairies and all others similar myths, are meant officially to be lies
to entertain children. Religions are lies meant to dupe adults and
children alike. While fairies and similar beings are not universal
believes, the existence of a god is nearly universal.
So agnostics are paying a tribute to the widely spread lie, and simply
discard fairies and the rest of myths as not deserving the effort of
being agnostic.
Moreover, when I was young man, I was intimidated before a person of
authority and I played the role of agnostic, while in private with my
equals I played the role of atheist.
It is clear, that if we felt sure enough of our position we are
atheists. And we should have to, just to farther our positions. I am
not living in the fifties any more.
leopoldo
leo
DarkAngel ha escrito:
very good post. We are fighting not against god, but to its folloers.
In a way, we should redefine the god concept. God is an invention to
invest with authority the priestly class.
So in a way, god is the fake authority of priests. And the words of
god are merely the combination of speeches of the priestly classes.
So god is the authority of the priestly class. So there is not only a
god but hundreds of gods. As many god, are independent religions are.
On the other hand, the soul is... well, the souls are the program of
behaviour we have in our minds. Once the brain ceases to fuction
properly for a reason or the other, the soul vanishes, or it is on
verge of vanishing, like the persons with Alzheimer. My mum suffered
Alzheimer and his soul was slowly swrinking and swrinking. His
muscular reflexes and speech abilities were slowly disapearing till she
died.
So we can redefine many of the old words, and give a new definition to
them. People is unsure when you need to invent a new word for an old
concept, like god, holy books, soul, visions, etc.
I dont believe either in mystical visions. I know that some
schizophrenics tell of hearing words, and they say they have visions.
But we have no way of verifying if this is a real feeling inside his
mind, or just a simple simulation. We have not means to clear that
question yet.
So mystic people that declare they have been talking with the virgin
Mary, with Jesus the Christ, Santa Claus or whatever, are very likely
duping us. They receive so many atentions after declaring this, that
they can be even overwhelmed. But after being for months repeating
several times a day that this visions were true, they would not dare to
recant. If they dare to recant, they would be rejected violently from
the comunity. Very likely, this people with visions were low ranking
persons in the religious community. Their declared mystical visions
enhanced their status, but they would be deported from the comunity if
they dare recant.
Leopoldo
leo
George Dance ha escrito:
For a long time, physicists new the electricity by his effects. They
were unable to define electricity. We got notice of his existence by
his effects.
Well, we know god only by his effects. And the effects of god is
people talking. Specialized people (priests mostly) are talking
continously about the stories of god with some sort of prophet or
other. We have books written with the words atributed to god and his
prophets. In the written stories they talk about supernatural wonders
done by god, or for some of their disciples or prophets.
So these are the known effects of god's existence.
So we have to study all these effects to verify if these effects are
consistent when taken all together, or if they are contradictory.
The most shocking knowledge with got in relation to gods and their
scriptures, are that each religion is accusing of falsehood all others.
So the idea of falsehood is close together with the idea of the true
god's doctrine, and the true god's words, the true book, the true
prophet and so on.
Ask to a Christian about the Koram and he would tell you this is fake
religion. Ask a Muslim about the Christians and he would tell you
these people are nothing but a bunch of idolaters and unbelievers.
You can ask Hindus about these questions and they will tell you these
Xian people and Muslim people are all wrong. Jesus was the
reincarnation of god Krishna but they did not understood the message of
Krisna. They are right in worshing the statues of Jesus, because they
are in fact the statues of god Krisna. But they got almost not a single
tennet right about the doctrine of Krisna. If you want to know the
true message of Krisna I will tell you gladly but you have to pay me
some money for the work of teaching you.
Summing up, the general effects of the existence of a god, is that
there some people that earn a living by preaching or doing speeches,
and asking for money for these services.
They earn a living by doing speeches about the words of their god.
Leopoldo
George Dance
Al Klein wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2006 14:57:06 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >No, you see; it's exactly orthogonal to the distinction between
> >atheists, all of whom do not believe in the existence of a God
>
> Atheists don't believe IN any god. There's a difference.
If so, then I'll go with your wording, because that's what I meant by
'a God'; they don't believe in the existence of any god.
> A subset
> don't believe in the existence of one or more gods.
No, that's a larger set. Atheists don't believe in the existence of
the Hindu gods, eg, along with Christians and Muslims.
>(I'm not familiar
> with using an indefinite article in front of a proper noun.
And you call yourself an American. 8)
> Are you a
> George? Or are you a man named George?)
I'm not only a man named George' I'm a Canadian named George and a
Torontonian named George (and proud of it in my mild Canadian way).
George Dance
A valid argument is not required to not believe that something is the
case. A valid argument is required only to believe that something is
the case.
George Dance
> Joe wrote:
>
> > I forgot to put a smiley at the end. <w>
>
> Too scared I'd chuck something in your mouth I bet?
>
> The agnostic gits really are quite strange, you'd wonder why they don't
> simply ask themselves, what is it that they are agnostic about.
>
non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
> Sitting on the fence of evasion, with a fence pale stuck fair up their
> arse holding them fast.
>
> As dopey as the mystic's position on the god nonsense is founded, at
> least the mystic's are in a far more tenable position than the silly
> cowardly agnostics could ever hope to be.
Hmmm ... I wonder if Joe would consider these ad homs 'valid argument.'
> That's their Kantian scourge they just cant, or more likely dont want
> to shake.
>
NO, Kantians are 'contragnostics' (as I defined the term); they believe
in the impossibility (and hence the non-existence) of human knowledge
of gods.
ca...@optonline.net
wrote:
>mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>> > I forgot to put a smiley at the end. <w>
>>
>> Too scared I'd chuck something in your mouth I bet?
>>
>> The agnostic gits really are quite strange, you'd wonder why they don't
>> simply ask themselves, what is it that they are agnostic about.
>>
>The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
>non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
Neither do atheists because those are merely the irrelevant objects of
somebody else's religious beliefs.
Why single out gods from all the other equally irrelevant beliefs?
_That_ is what atheists don't understand about agnostics.
George Dance
> dh@. wrote:
> > Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > he does exist I believe he can
> You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> A) God exists; or
> B) God does not exist.
I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
of your claim. </us>
> > I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
> > waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
>
> What are you agnostic about this time George?
>
At least read before you snip; if you'd done that, you'd have known
what the subject was.
George Dance
> On 21 Nov 2006 04:49:43 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > I forgot to put a smiley at the end. <w>
> >>
> >> Too scared I'd chuck something in your mouth I bet?
> >>
> >> The agnostic gits really are quite strange, you'd wonder why they don't
> >> simply ask themselves, what is it that they are agnostic about.
> >>
> >The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
> >non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
>
> Neither do atheists because those are merely the irrelevant objects of
> somebody else's religious beliefs.
No, atheists are defined by lack of belief in the existence of one type
of thing - gods (in the theistic sense). Since agnostics don't believe
we have any knowledge of any gods, they don't believe in the existence
of any of them either; meaning that agnostics are atheists.
> Why single out gods from all the other equally irrelevant beliefs?
>
Agnostics don't; if they aren't aware of knowledge of any subject, they
don't believe there is knowledge of that subject.
> _That_ is what atheists don't understand about agnostics.
But it's the word 'atheism' that singles out gods, not 'agnosticism.'
Agnosticism can be about knowledge of any kind.
ca...@optonline.net
wrote:
>
>mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
><unsnip>
>> dh@. wrote:
>
>> > Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
>> > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
>> > he does exist I believe he can
>
>> You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
>> A) God exists; or
>> B) God does not exist.
>
>I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
>correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
>what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
>possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
>of your claim. </us>
So do atheists.
Part of the problem is that atheist/agnostic are orthogonal not
mutually exclusive.
The rest of the problem is that common usage gets determined by the
theist majority for whom the actual atheist/agnostic positions cant
even exist, so they invent positions we dont actually have as their
definitions for us, based on presumptions that dont even apply outside
their religion.
The most basic presumption that doesn't even apply, is of course
"God".
Which means different things inside and outside the religion.
A consequence of common usage's getting it wrong, is that atheists who
know perfectly well what they themselves are, see agnostics in terms
of the common usage meaning - a halfway between what atheism is and
what theism is with atheism at the zero point.
Similarly agnostics see themselves at the zero point of theism and see
atheists in common usage terms - a sort of negative theism.
Atheists are puzzled why agnostics single out one particular belief.
George Dance
> On 21 Nov 2006 05:11:50 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >> George Dance wrote:
> ><unsnip>
> >> dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> > Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> >> > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> >> > he does exist I believe he can
> >
> >> You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> >> A) God exists; or
> >> B) God does not exist.
> >
> >I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
> >correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
> >what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
> >possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
> >of your claim. </us>
>
> So do atheists.
>
believe in your god's existence, demonstrate its existence." The
agnostic says: "If you want me to believe you have knowledge of your
god, demonstrate your knowledge."
> Part of the problem is that atheist/agnostic are orthogonal not
> mutually exclusive.
>
True. Since the answers to the above two questions come to the same
thing, theists (and third parties) might confuse the questions; but
they're really two different questions
> The rest of the problem is that common usage gets determined by the
> theist majority for whom the actual atheist/agnostic positions cant
> even exist, so they invent positions we dont actually have as their
> definitions for us, based on presumptions that dont even apply outside
> their religion.
>
Indeed, theists tend to bias the question, by lumping atheists and
agnostics together as, say, "Those who don't know about God" (with the
tacit assumption that everyone else, including the theist himself,
*does 'know').
> The most basic presumption that doesn't even apply, is of course
> "God".
And that 'presumption', in turn, usually doesn't turn out to even be a
clear concept, but an equivocation among a lot of concepts.
ca...@optonline.net
wrote:
>ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>> On 21 Nov 2006 04:49:43 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> >> Joe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I forgot to put a smiley at the end. <w>
>> >>
>> >> Too scared I'd chuck something in your mouth I bet?
>> >>
>> >> The agnostic gits really are quite strange, you'd wonder why they don't
>> >> simply ask themselves, what is it that they are agnostic about.
>> >>
>> >The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
>> >non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
>>
>> Neither do atheists because those are merely the irrelevant objects of
>> somebody else's religious beliefs.
>
>No, atheists are defined by lack of belief in the existence of one type
>of thing - gods (in the theistic sense). Since agnostics don't believe
>we have any knowledge of any gods, they don't believe in the existence
>of any of them either; meaning that agnostics are atheists.
Nope. Atheists are people who aren;t theists. It's about theists not
their gods.
What I described is a consequence of not being theist.
Some agnostics are theist - the honest theists who admit they believe
but don't know.
Atheism and agnosticism are zero points of different axes not being
theist vs not having knowledge about something that atheists don't see
in those terms anyway.
>> Why single out gods from all the other equally irrelevant beliefs?
>>
>Agnostics don't; if they aren't aware of knowledge of any subject, they
>don't believe there is knowledge of that subject.
Everything they say shows that they single it out - you never hear
them saying thay are agnostic WRT Zeus or any of the others.
>> _That_ is what atheists don't understand about agnostics.
>
>But it's the word 'atheism' that singles out gods, not 'agnosticism.'
>Agnosticism can be about knowledge of any kind.
Nope.
Atheism is about theists, not their gods.
DarkAngel
> Not true: if you want to argue for the existence of faeries, Flying
> Linguini Monsters or Invisible Punk Unicorns (rather than Invisible
> Pink Unicorns, which is contradictory),
No more contradiction than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent
God.
> I'm more than willing to listen to you with an open mind.
Okay, how about flat earthism, creationism and Scientology?
J Forbes
leo wrote:
> Summing up, the general effects of the existence of a god, is that
> there some people that earn a living by preaching or doing speeches,
> and asking for money for these services.
> They earn a living by doing speeches about the words of their god.
> Leopoldo
another fine post :)
So, as long as one has money, one need not be agnostic, because one can
pay a priest and know about god.
But poor people can be agnostic, because they cannot pay the priest,
and thus cannot know about god.
Jim
George Dance
DarkAngel wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> > Not true: if you want to argue for the existence of faeries, Flying
> > Linguini Monsters or Invisible Punk Unicorns (rather than Invisible
> > Pink Unicorns, which is contradictory),
>
> No more contradiction than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent
> God.
Impossibility is a good reason to not believe in something. OTOH, a
God that's merely magniscient, or magnipotent, or magnibenevolent ...?
> > I'm more than willing to listen to you with an open mind.
>
> Okay, how about flat earthism, creationism and Scientology?
>
Not the first two, as there's evidence - even perceptual evidence, in
the first case. How about: strings, the Higgs boson, or other
universes?
George Dance
J Forbes wrote:
> leo wrote:
>
> > Summing up, the general effects of the existence of a god, is that
> > there some people that earn a living by preaching or doing speeches,
> > and asking for money for these services.
> > They earn a living by doing speeches about the words of their god.
> > Leopoldo
>
> another fine post :)
>
> So, as long as one has money, one need not be agnostic, because one can
> pay a priest and know about god.
Only if your priest is giving you factual information. Whom do you pay
to find that out?
J Forbes
George Dance wrote:
> J Forbes wrote:
> > leo wrote:
> >
> > > Summing up, the general effects of the existence of a god, is that
> > > there some people that earn a living by preaching or doing speeches,
> > > and asking for money for these services.
> > > They earn a living by doing speeches about the words of their god.
> > > Leopoldo
> >
> > another fine post :)
> >
> > So, as long as one has money, one need not be agnostic, because one can
> > pay a priest and know about god.
>
> Only if your priest is giving you factual information. Whom do you pay
> to find that out?
priest? factual information?
I though we were talking about "knowledge", not factual information.
Jim
George Dance
ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2006 05:22:11 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >> On 21 Nov 2006 04:49:43 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >> >> Joe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I forgot to put a smiley at the end. <w>
> >> >>
> >> >> Too scared I'd chuck something in your mouth I bet?
> >> >>
> >> >> The agnostic gits really are quite strange, you'd wonder why they don't
> >> >> simply ask themselves, what is it that they are agnostic about.
> >> >>
> >> >The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
> >> >non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
> >>
> >> Neither do atheists because those are merely the irrelevant objects of
> >> somebody else's religious beliefs.
> >
> >No, atheists are defined by lack of belief in the existence of one type
> >of thing - gods (in the theistic sense). Since agnostics don't believe
> >we have any knowledge of any gods, they don't believe in the existence
> >of any of them either; meaning that agnostics are atheists.
>
> Nope. Atheists are people who aren;t theists.
Similarly, agnostics are people who aren't gnostics.
> It's about theists not
> their gods.
For agnostics, it's about gnostics, not their topic.
> What I described is a consequence of not being theist.
>
> Some agnostics are theist - the honest theists who admit they believe
> but don't know.
>
Since theists believe there's a god, they can't consistently say that
they don't know anything about the subjects, and that they're
agnostics.
> Atheism and agnosticism are zero points of different axes not being
> theist vs not having knowledge about something
full stop.
>that atheists don't see
> in those terms anyway.
> >> Why single out gods from all the other equally irrelevant beliefs?
> >>
> >Agnostics don't; if they aren't aware of knowledge of any subject, they
> >don't believe there is knowledge of that subject.
>
> Everything they say shows that they single it out
I don't think so. For example, when Hans Blix said he was agnostic
about whether there were WMD in Iraq, I don't think he meant that WMD
were gods.
- you never hear
> them saying thay are agnostic WRT Zeus or any of the others.
Those are gods, too. But one can be agnostic about other subjects than
gods. For instance, I'm an agnostic on the Higgs boson. How about
you: do you see it as something that exists only in the physicist's
paradigm, or do you think there might really be some?
> >> _That_ is what atheists don't understand about agnostics.
> >
> >But it's the word 'atheism' that singles out gods, not 'agnosticism.'
> >Agnosticism can be about knowledge of any kind.
>
> Nope.
Yep. You're not accusing me of thinking that Higgs bosons are gods,
are you?
> Atheism is about theists, not their gods.
And agnosticism is about gnostics, not their beliefs.
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
> > J Forbes wrote:
> > > leo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Summing up, the general effects of the existence of a god, is that
> > > > there some people that earn a living by preaching or doing speeches,
> > > > and asking for money for these services.
> > > > They earn a living by doing speeches about the words of their god.
> > > > Leopoldo
> > >
> > > another fine post :)
> > >
> > > So, as long as one has money, one need not be agnostic, because one can
> > > pay a priest and know about god.
> >
> > Only if your priest is giving you factual information. Whom do you pay
> > to find that out?
>
>
> I though we were talking about "knowledge", not factual information.
>
1) One can know an assertion only if it is true.
2) An assertion is true only if it corresponds to a fact.
3) If an assertion corresponds to a fact, it is factual information.
4) One can know only factual information.
QED
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
> > > dh@. wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >you don't believe i'm really here
> > > >
> > > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> > > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > > > he does exist I believe he can
> > >
> > > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> > > A) God exists; or
> > > B) God does not exist.
> >
> > I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
> > correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
> > what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
> > possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
> > of your claim.
> >
> > waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
>
> strict agnosticism)-the view that the question of the existence of
> deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped
> to judge the evidence.
>
Right; it's also been called 'postitive agnosticism'. Since positive,
strong, hard, and closed are all prejudicial, I've coined the neutral
term 'contragnosticism.'
Contragnosticism - The belief that knowledge of a topic is non-existent
(+Huxley's Principle).
> Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism,
> empirical agnosticism)-the view that the existence or nonexistence of
> God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable,
> therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
>
Or, also, 'negative agnosticism.' Since all agnotics, contragnostics
or not, share this 'view', I usually define it as agnosticism
simpliciter:
Agnosticism - The denial or disbelief that knowledge of a topic is
existent (+Huxley's Principle).
> Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's
> existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is
> agnosticism is disputed.
That depends on whether one believes that, to be an 'agnostic,' one
must believe Huxley's Principle (see below).
> Agnostic atheism-the view that God may or may not exist, but that his
> non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least
> partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.
By Huxley's Principle, all agnostics either (a) are atheists or (b)
have inconsistent (contradictory) beliefs. .
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>
> Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus:
>
> 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, follow your
> reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And
> negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters
> are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
> Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism"
>
That's one presentation of Huxley's Principle (which he stated many
times in slightly different ways). The Principle can be stated
rigorously as:
1) One should believe nothing without justification.
Milan
"sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164059783.2...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dance wrote:
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >you don't believe i'm really here
>> > >
>> > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
>> > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
>> > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
>> > > he does exist I believe he can
>> >
>> > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
>> > A) God exists; or
>> > B) God does not exist.
>>
>> I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
>> correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
>> what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
>> possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
>> of your claim.
>>
>> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
>> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > people aware of it.
>
> An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
> Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
> their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
> due to there being no proof whatsoever, or hence this is a matter of
> faith?
> prior to 1885? any ideas?
>
In Victorian times a number of intellectuals in Britain start realizing that
belief in Christianity was tantamount to intellectual suicide. Some abandon
it altogether, some have existential crises, some argue that the whole thing
is obviously bollocks but religion has to be maintained to protect the plebe
from moral degeneration. Academe was still largely attached to the
established religion (in many universities you had to be ordained to be a
lecturer); atheism was slowly becoming respectable, but was far from popular
and it was pretty much a bad word in many circles. It is in this
environment that Huxley coins his famous term "agnosticism", which in the
words of his contemporary Charles Bradlaugh was "a mere society form of
atheism".
regards
Milan
Milan
"raven1" <jpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164063260....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dance wrote:
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >you don't believe i'm really here
>> > >
>> > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
>> > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
>> > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
>> > > he does exist I believe he can
>> >
>> > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
>> > A) God exists; or
>> > B) God does not exist.
>>
>> I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
>> correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
>> what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
>> possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
>> of your claim.
>>
>> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
>> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
>
> bizarre position to take: no one rational claims to be "agnostic" about
> the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, so why should claims of
> deities get special treatment?
Because it is rare that people get miffed by the assertion that it is
irrational to believe in leprechauns, whereas many do by the assertion that
it is irrational to believe in gods. Atheism still has sort of a nasty ring
to it and is frown upon in many circles. Agnosticism is much more user
friendly, it indicates that who knows, maybe there are things out there
(gods, for example) that we have no idea about; it is much more palatable in
polite society. It is a diplomatic cop out.
regards
Milan
Joe
>
> No, atheists are defined by lack of belief in the existence of one type
> of thing - gods (in the theistic sense). Since agnostics don't believe
> we have any knowledge of any gods, they don't believe in the existence
> of any of them either; meaning that agnostics are atheists.
That's a rather strict definition of agnosticism.
Agnosticism has been expressed in ways that are
all over the map.
Some say knowledge is impossible.
Some say knowledge is currently unavailable.
Some say *they* simply don't know.
Some say they're theists, as they admit they
don't know, but still believe.
I'm agnostic on the definition of agnostic.
Immortalist
Antidisestablishmentagnosticismically thinking, I suppose.
J Forbes
Nice argument, but we're talking about knowledge that is not
necessarily factual information.
I know a lot of stuff that isn't true...for example, the Harry Potter
stories.
Jim
DarkAngel
George Dance wrote:
> DarkAngel wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
> > > Not true: if you want to argue for the existence of faeries, Flying
> > > Linguini Monsters or Invisible Punk Unicorns (rather than Invisible
> > > Pink Unicorns, which is contradictory),
> >
> > No more contradiction than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent
> > God.
>
> Impossibility is a good reason to not believe in something. OTOH, a
> God that's merely magniscient, or magnipotent, or magnibenevolent ...?
How about I define God as a toaster? That's called shifting the
goalposts.
> > > I'm more than willing to listen to you with an open mind.
> >
> > Okay, how about flat earthism, creationism and Scientology?
> >
> Not the first two, as there's evidence - even perceptual evidence, in
> the first case.
I notice that you gave Scientology a free pass. Interesting. How bout
homeopathy, astrology, alien abductions?
> How about: strings, the Higgs boson, or other universes?
My understanding is that none of those theories currently make
falsifiable predictions. I may be out of date.
If they do make falsifiable predictions, then we can test them out and
see whether they're true or not. If they don't, then the rational
position is not to be 'agnostic' about them. It's to reject them as
useless. Like God, which is defined by the believers as unfalsifiable
concept.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
> non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
What sort of evidence would YOU be looking for, to find the
non-existence of something like gods, you dumb contradicting twit?
> Hmmm ... I wonder if Joe would consider these ad homs 'valid argument.'
FFS George, a twit is a twit, an agonstic is a twit, that not ad homs
its fact you twit.
> NO, Kantians are 'contragnostics' (as I defined the term); they believe
> in the impossibility (and hence the non-existence) of human knowledge
> of gods.
The question stands, HOW the fuck do you find something that doesn't
exist to prove it doesn't exist? FFS George wake the fuck up
Michael Gordge
Brian Fletcher
"DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164062057.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> sara wrote:
>> An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
>> Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
>> their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
>> dogmatically accept nor reject such matters.
>
> not on the existence of faeries, Flying Linguini Monsters or Invisible
> Punk Unicorns shows that agnosticism is far from a neutral standpoint
> on the God question. That they think the "God hypothesis" is even
> worthy of consideration shows that they have an a priori parti pris in
> favor of it.
>
> ---
> No Gods. No Masters.
Why do you blend the big question with that of your other points?
If you discovered eternal life would that change your view on that
"question", and if so, why?
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"leo" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164109145....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> DarkAngel ha escrito:
>
>> knucmo wrote:
>> > DarkAngel wrote:
>> >
>> > > sara wrote:
>> > > > An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
>> > > > Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who
>> > > > withhold
>> > > > their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
>> > > > dogmatically accept nor reject such matters.
>> > >
>> > > The fact that they're willing to suspend judgement on that issue but
>> > > not on the existence of faeries, Flying Linguini Monsters or
>> > > Invisible
>> > > Punk Unicorns shows that agnosticism is far from a neutral standpoint
>> > > on the God question. That they think the "God hypothesis" is even
>> > > worthy of consideration shows that they have an a priori parti pris
>> > > in
>> > > favor of it.
>> >
>> > willing to consider the existence of God as a crucial aspect of our
>> > existence.
>>
>> The part that's crucial to my existence is not the existence of God,
>> but the existence of his followers.
>>
>> Philosophical materialism as a tool already took care of a lot of
>> problems that actually were crucial to our existence. God was just one
>> of the collateral casualties.
>>
>> ---
>> No Gods. No Masters.
>
> In a way, we should redefine the god concept. God is an invention to
> invest with authority the priestly class.
> So in a way, god is the fake authority of priests. And the words of
> god are merely the combination of speeches of the priestly classes.
> So god is the authority of the priestly class. So there is not only a
> god but hundreds of gods. As many god, are independent religions are.
> On the other hand, the soul is... well, the souls are the program of
> behaviour we have in our minds. Once the brain ceases to fuction
> properly for a reason or the other, the soul vanishes, or it is on
> verge of vanishing, like the persons with Alzheimer. My mum suffered
> Alzheimer and his soul was slowly swrinking and swrinking. His
> muscular reflexes and speech abilities were slowly disapearing till she
> died.
> So we can redefine many of the old words, and give a new definition to
> them. People is unsure when you need to invent a new word for an old
> concept, like god, holy books, soul, visions, etc.
> I dont believe either in mystical visions. I know that some
> schizophrenics tell of hearing words, and they say they have visions.
> But we have no way of verifying if this is a real feeling inside his
> mind, or just a simple simulation. We have not means to clear that
> question yet.
> So mystic people that declare they have been talking with the virgin
> Mary, with Jesus the Christ, Santa Claus or whatever, are very likely
> duping us. They receive so many atentions after declaring this, that
> they can be even overwhelmed. But after being for months repeating
> several times a day that this visions were true, they would not dare to
> recant. If they dare to recant, they would be rejected violently from
> the comunity. Very likely, this people with visions were low ranking
> persons in the religious community. Their declared mystical visions
> enhanced their status, but they would be deported from the comunity if
> they dare recant.
> Leopoldo
>
What has such experiences to do with God? Did any breakthrough discovery
enhance the perception of God? DNA and karma show a reasonable link......but
why God? Reaping and sowing has religious connotation, but again what has
that to do with God, any more than gravity has to.
I have had more than enough , what could be called 'mystical' experiences,
to fill a couple of books, but again, why would I connect such experiences
to God?
Mike , for one, inextricabley links both.
I'm seeing more clearly why many deny such experiences, because there
appears to be a contradiction between such experiences, and their past "God"
religiosity perception. A justifed feeling of retrogression.
BOfL
Milan
>
> George Dance wrote:
>> DarkAngel wrote:
>> > George Dance wrote:
>> > > Not true: if you want to argue for the existence of faeries, Flying
>> > > Linguini Monsters or Invisible Punk Unicorns (rather than Invisible
>> > > Pink Unicorns, which is contradictory),
>> >
>> > No more contradiction than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent
>> > God.
>>
>> Impossibility is a good reason to not believe in something. OTOH, a
>> God that's merely magniscient, or magnipotent, or magnibenevolent ...?
>
> How about I define God as a toaster? That's called shifting the
> goalposts.
It isnt. It's perfectly valid. Theology, as a philosopher once said, is
intellectual tennis without a net. Anything goes, since it is not
evidence-based. I for one think that god is a giant cheeseburger.
>> > > I'm more than willing to listen to you with an open mind.
>> >
>> > Okay, how about flat earthism, creationism and Scientology?
>> >
>> Not the first two, as there's evidence - even perceptual evidence, in
>> the first case.
>
> I notice that you gave Scientology a free pass. Interesting. How bout
> homeopathy, astrology, alien abductions?
>
>> How about: strings, the Higgs boson, or other universes?
>
> My understanding is that none of those theories currently make
> falsifiable predictions. I may be out of date.
>
> If they do make falsifiable predictions, then we can test them out and
> see whether they're true or not. If they don't, then the rational
> position is not to be 'agnostic' about them. It's to reject them as
> useless. Like God, which is defined by the believers as unfalsifiable
> concept.
>
Cool.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ntM8h.69845$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Well, to begin with, you would have more time to think about it.
regards
Milan
>
DarkAngel
Milan wrote:
>Theology, as a philosopher once said, is intellectual tennis without a net.
Or paddles, or lines, or ball...
Brian Fletcher
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4sja8eF...@mid.individual.net...
..and?
>
> regards
> Milan
>
>
>>
>
>
Milan
regards
Milan
Brian Fletcher
How about getting answers.
What have you not already thought of?
BOfL
>
> regards
> Milan
>
Milan
So many things. Who knows what we could think about during a whole eternity.
We could think about an infinite number of things. That's a lot of things.
regards
Milan
Brian Fletcher
I was asking about yours, not theirs.
Infinite numbers. Sounds circular to me (even if not to "them").
BOfL
> regards
> Milan
>
Kan
>> So many things. Who knows what we could think about during a whole
>> eternity. We could think about an infinite number of things. That's a lot
>> of things.
>
> I was asking about yours, not theirs.
>
> Infinite numbers. Sounds circular to me (even if not to "them").
>
> BOfL
>
What is this obsession you have about everyone using the word "I" and never
the word "we".?
If there is eternal life - then it is highly unlikely that Milan is the only
person that exists so the operative word would definitely be "we".
"We" is a much nicer word than "I".
"We" implies company rather than aloneness and also takes in consideration
and awareness of others.
You will find "we" "you" "I" "us" are often used for expression purposes and
not to be taken too literally.
Take the patronizing teacher to the child
"Now have we done our homework today?" note the word "we".
Another one is
"You never go out in England without an umbrella - I mean you just do not do
things like that in England"
Note the word "you". This would mean "we" and would also encompass "I".
You may say to yourself
"Oh let's have a cup of tea" this is an abbreviation for let "us" have a
cup of tea - even though there is only one of you.
Rousing speeches like
"We are all going to fight and make this a better country for everybody"
would not imply the whole world but purely the citizens of this country.
You must learn to use your discernment as to what people mean by "we" - each
utterance of the word "we" does not necessarily encompass the entire
planet - including you.
In some cases "we" is essential to make a point. The statement
"In England we drink a lot of tea" is a very different statement from "In
England I drink a lot of tea" but the word "we" here does not necessarily
mean that every single individual in England drinks tea.
What you have been taught by YOUR guru in YOUR faith is what YOU believe.
You should not necessarily inflict this on others and try to prevent freedom
of expression purely because of YOUR personal definitions which to be honest
are completely irrelevant and often ruin the momentum of a good message by
insulting the writer with rather meaningless nit picking.
Al Klein
wrote:
>
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2006 14:57:06 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >No, you see; it's exactly orthogonal to the distinction between
>> >atheists, all of whom do not believe in the existence of a God
>>
>> Atheists don't believe IN any god. There's a difference.
>
>If so, then I'll go with your wording, because that's what I meant by
>'a God'; they don't believe in the existence of any god.
That wasn't my objection - it was your use of "the existence of".
>> A subset
>> don't believe in the existence of one or more gods.
>No, that's a larger set. Atheists don't believe in the existence of
>the Hindu gods, eg, along with Christians and Muslims.
Again - atheists don't believe in gods - a subset address the
existence of gods - not all atheists do.
>> Are you a
>> George? Or are you a man named George?)
>
>I'm not only a man named George' I'm a Canadian named George and a
>Torontonian named George (and proud of it in my mild Canadian way).
TO's a nice place to be from. I've never met a Torontonian I didn't
like.
Brian Fletcher
"Kan" <k...@homeworld.com> wrote in message
news:8Eq9h.26699$hK2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:bLp9h.70733$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>> So many things. Who knows what we could think about during a whole
>>> eternity. We could think about an infinite number of things. That's a
>>> lot
>>> of things.
>>
>> I was asking about yours, not theirs.
>>
>> Infinite numbers. Sounds circular to me (even if not to "them").
>>
>> BOfL
>>
>
> What is this obsession you have about everyone using the word "I" and
> never
> the word "we".?
Its easy to "hide behind" we, as in this example. If I say to you "would you
like to know the truth" and you answer, "we cannot know the truth", I would
answer "you are right (about them)".
All contextual.
> If there is eternal life - then it is highly unlikely that Milan is the
> only
> person that exists so the operative word would definitely be "we".
So you are of the opinion , we all know or nobody knows"?
> "We" is a much nicer word than "I".
Particularly if you are the queen (or Maggie thatcher)..Again, contextual.
> "We" implies company rather than aloneness and also takes in consideration
> and awareness of others.
We agree totally on that.
> You will find "we" "you" "I" "us" are often used for expression purposes
> and
> not to be taken too literally.
We are on alt philosophy, not alt elvis fan. The love of knowledge, and
search for truth is not a 'we' activity.Of course there are many seekers who
know this. Again all contextual.
> Take the patronizing teacher to the child
> "Now have we done our homework today?" note the word "we".
Ohhh yes...how cute.Did I Sound patronising? It was meant to:-)
> Another one is
> "You never go out in England without an umbrella - I mean you just do not
> do
> things like that in England"
> Note the word "you". This would mean "we" and would also encompass "I".
> You may say to yourself
> "Oh let's have a cup of tea" this is an abbreviation for let "us" have a
> cup of tea - even though there is only one of you.
> Rousing speeches like
> "We are all going to fight and make this a better country for everybody"
> would not imply the whole world but purely the citizens of this country.
You are talking to me as though I'm a five year old.
> You must learn to use your discernment as to what people mean by "we" -
> each
> utterance of the word "we" does not necessarily encompass the entire
> planet - including you.
If you read what I write, the context is always cross referenced to the
basis that belief is a "group entity",offering mutual support in ones
perceptions. Belief doesnt mutate into truth, regardless of how much time
"we" spend believing. Truth , in this context is "truth of identity of
self".
> In some cases "we" is essential to make a point. The statement
> "In England we drink a lot of tea" is a very different statement from "In
> England I drink a lot of tea" but the word "we" here does not necessarily
> mean that every single individual in England drinks tea.
You dont have much of an opinion of my intelligence.
> What you have been taught by YOUR guru in YOUR faith is what YOU believe.
No guru, no faith and no belief. Is that clear enough. Believe it or not
within your own frame of "group reference".
> You should not necessarily inflict this on others and try to prevent
> freedom
> of expression purely because of YOUR personal definitions which to be
> honest
> are completely irrelevant and often ruin the momentum of a good message by
> insulting the writer with rather meaningless nit picking.
Ohhhhh, I see its the "others" you are concerned about.
I rest my case. (and suggest you bypass my input...)Talk to people who need
to know the difference between the English and their tea ceremonies.
BOfL
George Dance
Everything you know in that case is based on facts; although, in that
case, they're facts about what JKR wrote. For example, suppose we
disagreed on how many lanes were in Privet Drive. First, we wouldn't
just call each other names, or agree to disagree, but check - showing
that we think there is a matter of fact. Second, even if we were
Londoners, we would not check by roaming London looking for Privet
Drive; rather, we would check by looking for evidence in JKR's books.
Once we found the answer there, then we would know how many lanes
Privet Drive was.
Similarly, there are facts about what other writers ("Moses" for one)
wrote about the "God" character in the Bible. The priest can know
those, since they're facts, and can tell the inquirer - both can know
about that "God". But that's not the "God" the priest's interrogator
is interested in - he's interested in what sort of being created the
world he experiences, plus the other world he'll (allegedly) experience
after he dies. And the Bible (plus the priest's knowledge of it) will
not give him any knowledge of that, just as reading Harry Potter won't
give him any knowledge about the streets of London.
> Jim
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
> > The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
> > non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
>
> What sort of evidence would YOU be looking for, to find the
> non-existence of something like gods
Anything you wish to offer for your claim of their non-existence. So
far you haven't offered any.
> , you dumb contradicting twit?
>
Hmmm.... so now you're saying it's a 'contradiction' to ask you to back
up your claims? Well, at the risk of a further 'contradiction' - let's
see your evidence for that claim.
> FFS George, a twit is a twit, an agonstic is a twit, that not ad homs
> its fact you twit.
>
So you're saying that the word 'twit' means 'agnostic'? Well, et's
see your evidence of that, too, while we're at it.
> > NO, Kantians are 'contragnostics' (as I defined the term); they believe
> > in the impossibility (and hence the non-existence) of human knowledge
> > of gods.
>
> The question stands, HOW the fuck do you find something that doesn't
> exist to prove it doesn't exist?
Use the law of non-contradiction that you claim (again, without any
apparent evidence) to know and understand. How can I know that there's
no cat sitting on my computer keyboard? By looking at and touching the
keyboard (not by trying to 'find' the cat!).
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> Hmmm.... so now you're saying it's a 'contradiction' to ask you to back
> up your claims?
What fucking claims you stupid commie cunt?
> So you're saying that the word 'twit' means 'agnostic'? Well, et's
> see your evidence of that, too, while we're at it.
You're the stupid leftist commie cunt who claims it is possible to
prove negatives, so prove you are not a stupid leftist commie cunt.
MG
George Dance
By proving (which I won't bother to do here, since you'll snip it; but
all the claims can be proved) that I'm (a) a genius (b) a libertarian
and (c) a man; and therefore (by non-contradiction) that I'm not
stupid, a leftist or a commie, or a woman.
Al Klein
wrote:
>mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>> > The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
>> > non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
>>
>> What sort of evidence would YOU be looking for, to find the
>> non-existence of something like gods
>
>Anything you wish to offer for your claim of their non-existence. So
>far you haven't offered any.
We have, you just haven't been paying attention:
The existentially POSITIVE assertion requires evidence and you haven't
produced any.
That's all there is to that.
>> > NO, Kantians are 'contragnostics' (as I defined the term); they believe
>> > in the impossibility (and hence the non-existence) of human knowledge
>> > of gods.
You don't get to define the word - Huxley defined it when he coined
it. And it doesn't mean what you're using it to mean.
>> The question stands, HOW the fuck do you find something that doesn't
>> exist to prove it doesn't exist?
>Use the law of non-contradiction that you claim (again, without any
>apparent evidence) to know and understand. How can I know that there's
>no cat sitting on my computer keyboard? By looking at and touching the
>keyboard (not by trying to 'find' the cat!).
The Christian god is claimed to be omnipresent. He's not sitting on
my keyboard, therefore that god doesn't exist.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
George Dance
> On 2 Dec 2006 04:50:22 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >> George Dance wrote:
> >> > The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
> >> > non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
> >>
> >> What sort of evidence would YOU be looking for, to find the
> >> non-existence of something like gods
> >
> >Anything you wish to offer for your claim of their non-existence. So
> >far you haven't offered any.
>
> We have, you just haven't been paying attention:
>
> The existentially POSITIVE assertion requires evidence and you haven't
> produced any.
>
existentially positive assertion that I had to prove?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> Hmmm.... so now you're saying it's a 'contradiction' to ask you to back up your claims?
What fucking claims you stupid commie cunt?
Michael Gordge
BTW
Someone sent me an email and said you wouldn't make a libertarian's
arse, but dont worry, I stuck up for you George and said that you would.
George Dance
> On 2 Dec 2006 04:50:22 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >> The question stands, HOW the fuck do you find something that doesn't
> >> exist to prove it doesn't exist?
>
> >Use the law of non-contradiction that you claim (again, without any
> >apparent evidence) to know and understand. How can I know that there's
> >no cat sitting on my computer keyboard? By looking at and touching the
> >keyboard (not by trying to 'find' the cat!).
>
> The Christian god is claimed to be omnipresent. He's not sitting on
> my keyboard, therefore that god doesn't exist.
That wasn't a proof of any gods, Al. It was yet another refutation of
the 'can't prove a negative' myth, in which Mr. Gordge is as much a
true believer as septic himself.
Al Klein
wrote:
>l Klein wrote:
>> On 2 Dec 2006 04:50:22 -0800, "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> >> George Dance wrote:
>> >> > The things they don't have reason to believe in the existence or
>> >> > non-existence of - in this intance, gods..
>> >>
>> >> What sort of evidence would YOU be looking for, to find the
>> >> non-existence of something like gods
>> >
>> >Anything you wish to offer for your claim of their non-existence. So
>> >far you haven't offered any.
>>
>> We have, you just haven't been paying attention:
>>
>> The existentially POSITIVE assertion requires evidence and you haven't
>> produced any.
>>
>Oh? And when the Hell did "I don't believe your God-claims" become an
>existentially positive assertion that I had to prove?
Isn't "Anything you wish to offer for your claim of their
non-existence" yours? Claims of non-existence don't require proof.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
Al Klein
wrote:
You can't disprove a "god can be anywhere in the universe" claim.
It's trivial to disprove a "god is objectively real and omnipresent"
claim.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
Robert Cohen
the term "agnostic" complements the discussion.
I use the term "agnostic" about categorizing/explaining myself, while
admitting the WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE definitions have confused me.
Not that this essay clears-up my confusion; but I suppose it helps.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1201/p18s02-hfes.html
George Dance wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:37:10 +0100, "humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >you don't believe i'm really here
> > >
> > > No, that's atheist, OR you have no belief either way. It's
> > > fucked up. Agnostic means you don't believe it can be known
> > > whether or not God exists, which is a dumb idea imo since if
> > > he does exist I believe he can
> >
> > You can demonstrate that it can be known by demonstrating that either:
> > A) God exists; or
> > B) God does not exist.
>
> I do hope that you understand what you wrote (which happens to be
> correct). Agnostics do not have to say that knowledge is impossible;
> what they do say is that they do not believe your claim that it is
> possible, until you provide logically satisfactory evidence in support
> of your claim.
>
> I'm sure I can speak for agnostics everywhere, when I say that we are
> waiting with baited breath for your demonstration.
>
>
>
>
> > Unless you can do that, why should anyone else believe it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > and probably has made some
> > > people aware of it.
Al Klein
wrote:
>This essay I found in a recent on-line CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR about
>the term "agnostic" complements the discussion.
>I use the term "agnostic" about categorizing/explaining myself, while
>admitting the WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE definitions have confused me.
>Not that this essay clears-up my confusion; but I suppose it helps.
Try what Huxley meant when he coined the word:
"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."
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
kevirwin
Say, can I come to with questions about Mikey???? Clearly you know him
well!!!!!
My condolences,
K e v
George Dance
We can discuss him, and probably will. Frankly, part of the
frustration of going one-on-one with him, I think, comes from the
feeling of intellectual loneliness - when one is discussing or debating
with someone who takes the fundamentally irrrational position that he's
not going to discuss or debate anything, it's easy to lose heart in
reason, and sorely tempting to abandon one's own commitment to it in
favour of retataliation in kind. A voice or two of sanity popping in
to comment makes things much easier.
At least we have powerful evidence in MIkey that that there's no God in
heaven - or, more precisely, no God who damns irrationality and who
interferes in human affairs. If there were,Mikey would surely have
been blasted by a lightning bolt long ago; yet here he is, still
posting away as prolifically as ever.
George Dance
True; but 'The Christian God exists' is not just an existence
proposition; it's like the proposition, "There's a god on my keyboard"
in that more than existence (of some kind) but something specific, some
properties, are being offered. Once the theist offers even one
property, that allows the agnostic to not just 'suspend judgement,' but
to critically examine the claim and find it wanting.
Huxley did a lot of that criticism, and ended up (as he noted, for
example in the quotation below) an atheist wrt the Christian god - he
concluded that it was just a story backed by no evidence, which no
agnostic could believe or accept. And that is my own view as well, as
(I suspect) the majority of agnostics.
"Nevertheless, I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the
Christian world call, and, so far as I can see, are justified in
calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of
evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomena of the
universe stands to us in the relation of a Father-loves us and cares
for us as Christianity asserts. On the contrary, the whole teaching of
experience seems to me to show that while the governance (if I may use
the term) of the universe is rigorously just and substantially kind and
beneficent, there is no more relation of affection between governor and
governed than between me and the twelve judges. I know the
administrators of the law desire to do their best for everybody, and
that they would rather not hurt me than otherwise, but I also know that
under certain circumstances they will most assuredly hang me; and that
in any case it would be absurd to suppose them guided by any particular
affection for me.
"This seems to me to be the relation which exists between the cause of
the phenomena of this universe and myself. I submit to it with implicit
obedience and perfect cheerfulness, and the more because my small
intelligence does not see how any other arrangement could possibly be
got to work as the world is constituted
"But this is what the Christian world calls atheism, and because all my
toil and pains does not enable me to see my way to any other conclusion
than this, a Christian judge would (if he knew it) refuse to take my
evidence in a court of justice against that of a Christian
ticket-of-leave man.
"So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, the immortality of
the soul, and the future state of rewards and punishments, what
possible objection a priori can I-who am compelled perforce to
believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force and in a
very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for all our
deeds-have to these doctrines. Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I
am ready to jump at them.
"But read Butler, and see to what drivel even his great mind descends
when he has to talk about the immortality of the soul! I have never
seen an argument on that subject which from a scientific point of view
is worth the paper it is written upon. All resolve themselves into this
formula:-The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is very pleasant
and very useful, therefore it is true."
[Letter to Charles Kingsley, May 5, 1863]
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/63.html#5may1863
George Dance
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> > Hmmm.... so now you're saying it's a 'contradiction' to ask you to back up your claims?
>
> What fucking claims you stupid commie cunt?
>
Communist and (c) a woman.
Since none of those are negatives, you should acknowledge your burden
of proof wrt all three.
> Michael Gordge
>
> BTW
> Someone sent me an email and said you wouldn't make a libertarian's
> arse, but dont worry, I stuck up for you George and said that you would.
I'm sure that, as soon as you started thinking about my arse, at least
part of you stuck up.
Milan
Mine what? Their what?
> Infinite numbers. Sounds circular to me (even if not to "them").
Circular? What sounds circular?
regards
Milan
> BOfL
>
>
>
>
>
>> regards
>> Milan
>>
>
>
DarkAngel
Brian Fletcher wrote:
> "DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164062057.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > sara wrote:
> >> An agnostic is a relatively new term which was invented by Prof
> >> Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold
> >> their assent to whatever is incapable of proof. They neither
> >> dogmatically accept nor reject such matters.
> >
> > The fact that they're willing to suspend judgement on that issue but
> > not on the existence of faeries, Flying Linguini Monsters or Invisible
> > Punk Unicorns shows that agnosticism is far from a neutral standpoint
> > on the God question. That they think the "God hypothesis" is even
> > worthy of consideration shows that they have an a priori parti pris in
> > favor of it.
> >
> > ---
> > No Gods. No Masters.
>
>
> Why do you blend the big question with that of your other points?
It is true that it is a bit sacrilegious of me to have reduced the very
big, important question of the existence of the Flying Linguini Monster
to that of these two other completly fanciful fictional beings.
Brian Fletcher
Please leave Homer and Bart out of this. Sensitivity required :-)
BOfL