Agnosticism

[Simon Ewins]

Someone asked me about a term I used to describe my agnosticism vis certain types of gods.

This is a formulation by Dr. Ted Drange, a philosopher of religion and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University, where he taught philosophy from 1966 to 2001.

It provides some interesting insight into the reasons that one may choose to be agnostic in various circumstances.

Types of Agnostics

Zero-data agnostics, who allow that it is possible to know whether or not God exists, but no one does in fact know it for the simple reason that there is zero data regarding the matter. Although no one at present has any relevant data, it is possible that some may come along in the future. It does not matter whether I restrict the concept of agnosticism to merely epistemology, or if I extend that concept into the metaphysical realm, when I see evidence which demands a verdict, I will react by assigning the proper values of truth or falsehood to the conclusion being argued. However, if no such evidence exists, or if I do not yet know what is the proper conclusion which may logically be drawn from that evidence, then the agnostic principle demands that I refrain from adopting any conclusion as being the expression of ultimate truth. As this concept was so clearly set forth by Huxley, it can unequivocally be found to express the essence of agnosticism.

Unknowability agnostics, who say that not only is there no evidence relevant to the issue of God's existence but that there could be none. They may view the issue as so abstract and removed from human experience that it is impossible that we should have any evidence regarding it, one way or the other, so the matter is essentially unknowable. (Note that people with this outlook could easily move over to the position of noncognitivism. They are making the claim that the matter of God's existence is essentially unknowable and that there could not possibly be evidence regarding it, one way or the other. If they were to conclude that the sentence "God exists" therefore does not express any proposition at all, then they would be noncognitivists. But if, instead, they allow that there is a proposition expressed but it is simply one that we cannot ever legitimately claim to be true or false, then they are to be classified as "unknowability agnostics."

Data-vs.-data agnostics, who concede that there is evidence relevant to the issue of God's existence, but who have judged it to be perfectly balanced. That is, the evidence presently available in support of God's existence is exactly matched by evidence presently available against God's existence. They could be called "knife-edge agnostics," since they view the positive evidence for God's existence as so perfectly balanced by negative evidence that it is as if they were balanced on the edge of a knife without falling to one side or the other.

Data-vs.-principle agnostics, who are another type of "knife-edge agnostics." They agree with the methodological atheists who claim that there is a certain methodological principle that places the burden of proof upon the theists. The question is raised as to how much evidence is needed for the existence of something in order for it to satisfy the burden of proof required by the given principle. Presumably there is some minimum amount such that any lesser amount would still call for us to deny the existence of the thing. Take, for example, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It may be argued that there is some slight evidence in favour of the existence of such entities but it is less than the amount needed to satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement. Thus, the rational stance to take with respect to them, at least at the present time, is that of denying their existence.

If, in the future, additional evidence is found favouring the existence of the entity, and that evidence is of sufficient quantity to satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement, then at that time the rational stance to take would be to believe that the entity exists. Suppose, now, that additional evidence is found for, say, the existence of Bigfoot. But the evidence is not quite sufficient to satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement. It is almost enough. In fact, it is as close to satisfying the requirement without actually satisfying it as it is possible to get. One might say, in a case like this, that the evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is balanced on a knife-edge. It is not enough to warrant belief, but it is also too much evidence to warrant denial of Bigfoot's existence. In such a case, it might be argued, the rational stance to take for anyone aware of the evidence is that of withholding judgment on the matter. Well, this is the situation with data-vs.-principle agnostics.

They are not claiming that there are two opposing bodies of evidence, one favouring God's existence and the other favouring God's non-existence. Rather, there is only a body of evidence that favours God's existence. However, the evidence, at least at the present time, is not sufficient to satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement imposed upon theism, though it is right at the threshold of satisfying it. It is not yet enough to warrant belief that God exists, but it is also too much to warrant denying God's existence. Hence, the rational stance for anyone to take regarding God's existence is that of agnosticism.

(Thus, both types of "knife-edge agnostic" claim that there is definite evidence in favour of God's existence, but that it is exactly balanced by something else. One type, data-vs.-data agnostics, say that the something else is definite evidence in favour of God's non-existence. The other type, data-vs.-principle agnostics, say that the something else is a principle of rational methodology which places a certain burden of proof upon the theist.)

--

No Gods, No Masters

"There is no sin except stupidity" [Oscar Wilde]

[Trance Gemini]

I would disagree with Dr. Drange's definitions.

They make absolutely no sense.

The term agnostic was coined by Huxley and it simply refers to Unknowability and nothing else.

An agnostic can be either an atheist or a theist.

An atheist lacks a belief in gods but believes that their existence is unknowable.

A theist believes in gods but believes that their existence is unknowable.

I don't know what Dr Drange's rationale was for coming up with the following but to define an agnostic according to data is a rather bizarre contradiction given what it actually means.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
BAAWA Knight Applicant
EAC Disciplinary Committee
Leather Teddy/CatONineTails Disciplinary Squad Leader
EAC Knightette
Agent 000777136669854321.  Mange Inciter. Special Services.
EAC Department of Linquistic Subversion.
Evil Anagrams Division.
------------------------------------------------------------------

[Simon Ewins]

I think that Dr. Drange takes Huxley as intended. However when one
says that they are an agnostic about something and asked why and they
reply that it is unknowable one wonder why it is unknowable. Is it
because there is equal information (data) about the question both for
an against, or because there is no information either for or against?
There can be many reasons why; and I think that Drange was simply
expanding on Huxley by offering reasons why one might be agnostic.

I honestly don't see any conflict between Huxley and what Drange
suggests, it is more supportive than in opposition. Huxley's main
motivation in coining the term agnostic was to avoid being associated
with the atheist Charles Bradlaugh, with whom he had many
disagreements politically and otherwise.

Cheers.

> > *No Gods, No Masters*
>
> > "There is no sin except stupidity" *[Oscar Wilde]*

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that Dr. Drange takes Huxley as intended. However when one
says that they are an agnostic about something and asked why and they
reply that it is unknowable one wonder why it is unknowable. Is it
because there is equal information (data) about the question both for
an against, or because there is no information either for or against?
There can be many reasons why; and I think that Drange was simply
expanding on Huxley by offering reasons why one might be agnostic.

Possibly but it's nonsensical and all it demonstrates is the confusion that exists on what an agnostic is.

Unknowable means that there is no data for or against.

How one can then extend that to his definitions I don't know.

It's just bizarre, sorry.

He's equivocating on the term unknowable and intellectualizing it to the point where the term is nonsensical.
 

I honestly don't see any conflict between Huxley and what Drange
suggests,

The conflict is in the meaning of the term. It's clear that Drange doesn't get it.
 

[LL]

LL: No matter how he phrases it, however, all agnostics are atheists.
They should get used to it and stop doing backflips traying to show
there is a difference. Agnostics don't hold a belief that a god
exists. That makes them atheists. That they don't know all the answers
means nothing. Atheists don't claim to know all the answers either.
They simply know they don't believe in any god. They can even think
(or hope) that a god exists, but unless they can honestly say they
hold a positive belief in one, they're atheists.

******************

[Harvy Brans]

> LL: No matter how he phrases it, however, all agnostics are atheists.
>

Sorry LL, that I cannot go to war with you over this definition. But
my lawyers tell me I will be back soon...
>
Harvy

> > "There is no sin except stupidity" [Oscar Wilde]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[TLC]

Dr. Ted Drange is only noting some of the intellectual excuses
agnostics may use to justify their vacuous and untenable position of
there may, or may not be a form of Sky Fairy!

"I call myself an atheist instead of an agnostic only because there
are proofs that God does not exist.": Dr. Ted Drange, a philosopher
of religion and ex-Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University

[etienne]

Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
logical imply atheism either.

[LL]

On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> logical imply atheism either.

LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
are theists.

***************

[etienne]

On 11 oct, 17:52, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > logical imply atheism either.
>
> LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> are theists.
>

Someone can believe in the existence of a God without revendicating
knowledge and actually stating its impossibility and be willing to
recognize that position. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between
atheism and theism, there is no middle ground between atheism and
theism and agnosticism isn't one nor is it defined as being one.

[Simon Ewins]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:09:03 -0400, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Ted Drange is only noting some of the intellectual excuses
> agnostics may use to justify their vacuous and untenable position of
> there may, or may not be a form of Sky Fairy!

Okay. I'll take the position of what is often called an hard agnostic.

It is impossible to know if a god exists of if it doesn't. I can not view
all that is known about the universe and determine if there is or is not a
god... and neither can you.

Care to discuss that? I always find hard agnosticism to be fun because I
get to argue with both atheists and theists.

[Treebeard]

On Oct 11, 11:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > logical imply atheism either.
>
> LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> are theists.

I'm an agnostic theist ... as you are well-aware. You are simply
using the term incorrectly.

One can also be an agnostic atheist.

[Khurram Chaudhry]

the abrahamic concept of god that is elaborated in jewish and muslim
religious text is a creator who has made all things come into existence. but
by that very logic he himself cannot exist in fear of becoming ungodly.

but science does have some room for the existence of a god. this can be
elaborated as the end state of the universe and not the beginning of it. so
that is where religion and god separate. a valid concept of god cannot come
from religion as the presentation made by religion speaks of god as an
initial creator who in a state of existence and has some form. I agree that
some eastern mystical groups call him formless and state-less but that is
not what I am discussing here. science has come up with at least some room
for the existence of an all powerful and ominpresent entity - but not at the
beginning but at the end-state of the universe.

this may be hard to grasp but it by no means a flight of fancy or a
non-scientific hypothesis. we can see ourselves as a node in the ever
increasing graph of order and complexity. As we approach the technological
singularity we are certain to witness the shift of consciousness from the
biological to the virtual. the "what-if" scenarios that that are not being
made in human brains will be achieved at much faster rate in machines.

now the human brain even now is not at all faster than computer. we are much
slower that machines. machines can compute at rates millions of times faster
than brain. but still in this age of technological advancement we still see
the brain as a more "intelligent" machine. this is due to the parallel
structure of the brain where hundreds of trillions of connections are
happening simultaneously. yes, we are slow but there is greater depth in our
perception. a computer can count a pile of apples much faster than humans.
but a human can look at that pile and feel those apples, imagine their taste
and celebrate their color. But we are still machines. we are biological
machines.

after consciousness shifts to man-made machines and computer circuits the
biological limits will be removed and from then onwards the speeds will be
exponentially faster. after this phase, we are certain to have intelligent
beings that are no longer biological and are more and more interconnected.
at faster speeds and almost perfect capacities to store and analyze
information there will be a very very large increase in intelligence that
will essentially be enhancing itself at faster and faster rates.

in the end, all the matter and energy in this universe will eventually "wake
up" as they are organized into intelligence! if we are certain to become
superluminous in our speed of information travel, then there is certainly a
chance for intelligence to become infinite and the universe end-state to be
the actual god that could peer across the space-time continuum back to the
big bang and effect it through observation alone....maybe that is the
initial cause that got all things started.

so scientifically there might as well be a "god" but not as an initial
creator with form but rather the place of storage of information when matter
and energy were not even in existence at the singularity of the big bang!

food for thought...but this is highly speculative.....but if there is
anything even remotely close to god, it must be complex....and therefore can
only be logically placed at the end-state of the universe.

.. of course I am not proposing there is a god. I am just stating that if
you want to bring up an opening for there to be a god, it cannot be what
jewish and muslim text state. it has to be the end-state. of course since
time and space come out from the singularity of the big bang, before and
after are just arbitrary terms that are more reflective of the way our
brains work rather than any universal absolute truth.

cheers!
khurram chaudhry

[Simon Ewins]

You forgot about entropy which increases as the universe expands. So
whatever is being born during expansion will be dead at the end. A
still-born "god" if you will.

If there is any positive cosmological constant at all, even a
radiation-dominated universe will have increasing entropy as the horizon
scale grows with time.

So, this might make a good screen-play but that's about it.


On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:13:31 -0400, Khurram Chaudhry <khur...@live.com>
wrote:

[Simon Ewins]

I think that you see agnosticism as a sort of mid-point between
atheism and theism.

That isn't really true. Atheism and theism are a pair, certainly. They
both assume that the term "god exists" means something. Theists
believe it, atheists don't (essentially).

Agnosticism is not a member of that group because it says, among other
things, that the term "god exists" is impossible to judge, perhaps
even that it is meaningless, certainly that nothing can be known about
it. So while atheists and theists agree that the statement says
something and agnostic can't go that far.

Agnosticism is separate position and hard agnosticism goes even
further and says, "I do not accept that the term 'god exists' can ever
be determined to be true or false and neither can you".

Hard agnosticism is actually quite a militant and argumentative
position that involves concepts of naturalism, the supernatural, how
knowledge is achieved and other things related to the impossibility of
knowing whether or not 'god exists' is either meaningful or possible
to discuss.

A key difference between agnosticism and theism/atheism is that the
former is expressing ideas about knowledge while the latter are
concerned with beliefs.

[LL]

On Oct 11, 10:20 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 oct, 17:52, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > > logical imply atheism either.
>
> > LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> > god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> > are theists.
>
> Someone can believe in the existence of a God without revendicating
> knowledge and actually stating its impossibility and be willing to
> recognize that position. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between
> atheism and theism, there is no middle ground between atheism and
> theism and agnosticism isn't one nor is it defined as being one.

LL: I think we agree, but you'll have to tell me what revendicating
means.

[LL]

On Oct 11, 10:39 am, "Simon Ewins" <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:09:03 -0400, TLC <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Dr. Ted Drange is only noting some of the intellectual excuses
> > agnostics may use to justify their vacuous and untenable position of
> > there may, or may not be a form of Sky Fairy!
>
> Okay. I'll take the position of what is often called an hard agnostic.

LL: There is no such thing as a hard agnostic. If you don't know the
answer you simply don't know. There is nothing hard or soft about it.

>
> It is impossible to know if a god exists of if it doesn't. I can not view  
> all that is known about the universe and determine if there is or is not a  
> god... and neither can you.
>
> Care to discuss that? I always find hard agnosticism to be fun because I  
> get to argue with both atheists and theists.

LL: Again, there is no such thing, so you aren't arguing a valid
point. There is no such thing as hard agnosticism. Either you believe
or you don't. There is no middle ground. There is no continuum to
believing anything. It's yes or no.

*****************************

[LL]

On Oct 11, 11:01 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > > logical imply atheism either.
>
> > LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> > god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> > are theists.
>
> I'm an agnostic theist ... as you are well-aware.  You are simply
> using the term incorrectly.
>
> One can also be an agnostic atheist.

LL: Not true. If you're an atheist it doesn't matter if you aren't
sure of the existence of god. It simply means you don't have a
positive belief in one. Why is it so hard to understand this?

If you are an agnostic theist, you are still a theist, whether you are
sure of your theism or not. Come back when you've made up your mind.

********************

[LL]

On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that you see agnosticism as a sort of mid-point between
> atheism and theism.

LL: No, I absolutely do not and I can't think of anything I've said
that would lead you to that conclusion. There is NO mid point between
atheism and theism. You are one or the other.

>
> That isn't really true. Atheism and theism are a pair, certainly. They
> both assume that the term "god exists" means something. Theists
> believe it, atheists don't (essentially).

LL: To an atheist it only "means something" in the sense that someone
is suggesting that a god exists. Other than that it means nothing. We
argue the point because theists bring it up. If I ask you if you
believe in the tooth fairy and you answer, does that mean you think
the concept of tooth fairy "means something" beyond the words or
concept?

>
> Agnosticism is not a member of that group because it says, among other
> things, that the term "god exists" is impossible to judge, perhaps
> even that it is meaningless, certainly that nothing can be known about
> it. So while atheists and theists agree that the statement says
> something and agnostic can't go that far.

LL: All agnostics should be able to state whether they believe in god
or not. That is not measured by certainty. Either you do or you don't.
In any case, atheism, theism and agnosticism are completely different
entities. Atheism and theism are statements on belief. Agnosticism is
a statement on knowledge. They are as different as chalk and cheese.
It's as silly as saying, "I'm neither an atheist nor an theist, I'm a
race car driver."

>
> Agnosticism is separate position and hard agnosticism goes even
> further and says, "I do not accept that the term 'god exists' can ever
> be determined to be true or false and neither can you".

LL: But the fact that you think the term "god exists" can never be
determined has NOTHING to do with your belief. It doesn't matter. You
can be an atheist who thinks god does not exist or you can be an
atheist who thinks the term can never be determined. If you have no
belief in god you are an atheist. If you have some belief (even a weak
belief) you are a theist.

>
> Hard agnosticism is actually quite a militant and argumentative
> position that involves concepts of naturalism, the supernatural, how
> knowledge is achieved and other things related to the impossibility of
> knowing whether or not 'god exists' is either meaningful or possible
> to discuss.

LL: How knowledge is achieved, how much you have, how much you might
ever have has nothing to do with belief in god.

>
> A key difference between agnosticism and theism/atheism is that the
> former is expressing ideas about knowledge while the latter are
> concerned with beliefs.

LL: That's right. That's exactly why the answer to whether you
believe in god can never be answered by agnosticism. Knowledge has
nothing to do with belief.I'm hoping that means you're catching on,
but I have by doubts.

****************************

[Simon Ewins]

Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with
knowledge.

Theism and atheism deal with belief.

Hard agnosticism certainly does exist and I can defend it if you want. It
gets quite complicated because we need to deal with much more epistemology
than atheism/theism involves. Anyway, there is a lot of information
available on strong or hard agnosticism. Just remember that it addresses
something that theism and atheism do not, that is knowledge.

[Simon Ewins]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:19:51 -0400, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that you see agnosticism as a sort of mid-point between
>> atheism and theism.
>
> LL: No, I absolutely do not and I can't think of anything I've said
> that would lead you to that conclusion. There is NO mid point between
> atheism and theism. You are one or the other.

Only in terms of belief.

>> That isn't really true. Atheism and theism are a pair, certainly. They
>> both assume that the term "god exists" means something. Theists
>> believe it, atheists don't (essentially).
>
> LL: To an atheist it only "means something" in the sense that someone
> is suggesting that a god exists. Other than that it means nothing.

To lack a belief in something you need to have an understanding of what it
is that you lack a belief in. Correct?

> We
> argue the point because theists bring it up. If I ask you if you
> believe in the tooth fairy and you answer, does that mean you think
> the concept of tooth fairy "means something" beyond the words or
> concept?

Yes, beyond the words, no for beyond the concept.

>> Agnosticism is not a member of that group because it says, among other
>> things, that the term "god exists" is impossible to judge, perhaps
>> even that it is meaningless, certainly that nothing can be known about
>> it. So while atheists and theists agree that the statement says
>> something and agnostic can't go that far.
>
> LL: All agnostics should be able to state whether they believe in god
> or not. That is not measured by certainty. Either you do or you don't.

Or your position is that belief is irrelevant since the issue of gods
cannot ever be known pro or con by anyone. Belief is not the concern of
agnosticism, knowledge is.

> In any case, atheism, theism and agnosticism are completely different
> entities.

Yes. They certainly are but atheism and theism are closer in relation to
each other because of their appeals to belief or lack of belief.
Agnosticism is quite different from the former due to it not caring one
way or another about belief.

> Atheism and theism are statements on belief. Agnosticism is
> a statement on knowledge. They are as different as chalk and cheese.
> It's as silly as saying, "I'm neither an atheist nor an theist, I'm a
> race car driver."

Right. So whay are you saying that agnostics are atheists by default? I
don't understand, you seem to be saying two different things here.

>> Agnosticism is separate position and hard agnosticism goes even
>> further and says, "I do not accept that the term 'god exists' can ever
>> be determined to be true or false and neither can you".
>
> LL: But the fact that you think the term "god exists" can never be
> determined has NOTHING to do with your belief.

There is no related belief with hard agnosticism. I, if an hard agnostic,
would only be able to state a belief in that regard as, "I have no beliefs
either way." The reason for this is because I know that we can never gain
any relevant knowledge pro or con so the question is completely
unimportant to me and not worth my time to even consider belief.

> It doesn't matter. You
> can be an atheist who thinks god does not exist or you can be an
> atheist who thinks the term can never be determined. If you have no
> belief in god you are an atheist. If you have some belief (even a weak
> belief) you are a theist.

You are again comparing belief positions with a knowledge position. A hard
agnostic has no belief or lack of belief in gods because he accepts that
the question is beyond knowledge.

>> Hard agnosticism is actually quite a militant and argumentative
>> position that involves concepts of naturalism, the supernatural, how
>> knowledge is achieved and other things related to the impossibility of
>> knowing whether or not 'god exists' is either meaningful or possible
>> to discuss.
>
> LL: How knowledge is achieved, how much you have, how much you might
> ever have has nothing to do with belief in god.

Quite right. That is why an hard agnostic holds no opinion other than that
knowledge of gods existences is not possible.

>> A key difference between agnosticism and theism/atheism is that the
>> former is expressing ideas about knowledge while the latter are
>> concerned with beliefs.
>
> LL: That's right. That's exactly why the answer to whether you
> believe in god can never be answered by agnosticism. Knowledge has
> nothing to do with belief.I'm hoping that means you're catching on,
> but I have by doubts.

Excuse me? That is a surprise.

I thought that a reasonable discussion with you on this was possible. I
apologize for apparently being wrong. I won't bother you with it again.

[Khurram Chaudhry]

Hi Simon,
you are absolutely right about the linear time progression and how entropy
will be the heat death of the universe.

I by no means am proposing a vacation from the scientific realities.

I am referring to a super intelligence that may be born after the
technological singularity. and this post-singularity there may not be not be
a need to fear the progression of time in space for that superintelligence.
it could be that consciousness need to be a sense of awareness through the
progression of time. I have nothing to add to this other than the
possibility of a the birth of a god rather than the concept that a god
created the universe.

regarding entropy, let the god that evolves deal with that. I am in now way
proposing a solution for that superintelligence.
I am just stating that even if there was a god, he would have needed to have
the universe create him rather than him create the universe as the universe
and quantum laws are quite able to create itself!



Cheers!

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Ewins" <sje...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:39 PM
To: <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: did god create the universe so he could exist?

[etienne]

On 12 oct, 02:06, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:20 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 oct, 17:52, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > > > logical imply atheism either.
>
> > > LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> > > god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> > > are theists.
>
> > Someone can believe in the existence of a God without revendicating
> > knowledge and actually stating its impossibility and be willing to
> > recognize that position. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between
> > atheism and theism, there is no middle ground between atheism and
> > theism and agnosticism isn't one nor is it defined as being one.
>
> LL: I think we agree, but you'll have to tell me what revendicating
> means.
>

Indeed, there is maybe a problem with my the way I used that verb. I
used it because there is a verb that is nearly an homophone in french.

According to online english dictionaries: To reclaim; to demand the
restoration of.

From a french dictionary:
revendiquer, verbe transitif
Sens 1 Réclamer ce qui est dû. Synonyme solliciter Anglais to claim,
to demand
Sens 2 Assumer, endosser la responsabilité. Synonyme endosser Anglais
to claim, to demand

"Someone can believe in the existence of a God without claiming it's a
knowledge" is better ?

[etienne]

On 12 oct, 02:10, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:01 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 11:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > > > logical imply atheism either.
>
> > > LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> > > god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> > > are theists.
>
> > I'm an agnostic theist ... as you are well-aware.  You are simply
> > using the term incorrectly.
>
> > One can also be an agnostic atheist.
>
> LL: Not true. If you're an atheist it doesn't matter if you aren't
> sure of the existence of god. It simply means you don't have a
> positive belief in one.

Yes, and that's why someone can be an agnostic atheist.

> Why is it so hard to understand this?

You shot yourself in the feet, you write it is not true and then
explain why treebeard's statement is a truth. At least, that what I
get from your post. In order for you to support your claim that "One
can also be an agnostic atheist" is false, what you have to produce is
a reason to concider that both caracteristics are mutually exclusive.

>
> If you are an agnostic theist, you are still a theist, whether you are
> sure of your theism or not. Come back when you've made up your mind.
>

LL, you are unfair. A lot of persons who hope in the existence of a
thing like a God are agnostics.
And Treebeard can be sure of his theism and still be an agnostic.

[LL]

On Oct 11, 5:35 pm, "Simon Ewins" <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:19:51 -0400, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think that you see agnosticism as a sort of mid-point between
> >> atheism and theism.
>
> > LL: No, I absolutely do not and I can't think of anything I've said
> > that would lead you to that conclusion. There is NO mid point between
> > atheism and theism. You are one or the other.
>
> Only in terms of belief.

LL: But that's exactly the point! Atheism and theism are positions on
belief! Agnosticism isn't. That's a position on knowledge.

>
> >> That isn't really true. Atheism and theism are a pair, certainly. They
> >> both assume that the term "god exists" means something. Theists
> >> believe it, atheists don't (essentially).
>
> > LL: To an atheist it only "means something" in the sense that someone
> > is suggesting that a god exists. Other than that it means nothing.
>
> To lack a belief in something you need to have an understanding of what it  
> is that you lack a belief in. Correct?

LL: Sure. And I know exactly what we're talking about when we talk
about theism: a supernatural being. When it comes to an supernatural
being I am without belief--not agnostic--without belief. Of course I'm
not certain there is no supernatural being--but I have seen no
indication of one, so I lack belief in one.

LL: I don't see that I'm doing that. Anyone who claims to be an
agnostic is saying he has no positive belief in any god (doubts don't
matter here). If he has no definite belief in god, he's an atheist.
I'm saying you are either a theist or an atheist and if you aren't
sure whether a god exists or not it doesn't affect your belief.

LL: If it's a surprise, it's because you don't understand the
difference between a concept of belief and one of knowledge.

>
> I thought that a reasonable discussion with you on this was possible. I  
> apologize for apparently being wrong. I won't bother you with it again.

LL: Is your definition of reasonable discussion one in which I agree
with you? I'm sorry, but I don't on this issue. I don't mind
continuing the discussion, but I'm not likely to change my mind on the
definitions of atheism, theism and agnosticism. But this much is true:
We seem to be talking in circles here. You position seems wrong to me
and I expect mine seems wrong to you. We're at an impasse.

*************************

[etienne]

On 12 oct, 23:22, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 oct, 02:10, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 11:01 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 11, 11:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 11, 4:28 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Strange... I know agnostics who are not atheists and agnosticism don't
> > > > > logical imply atheism either.
>
> > > > LL: Tell us about those agnostics, then. Are you saying they believe a
> > > > god exists? If they do they are neither agnostics nor atheists--they
> > > > are theists.
>
> > > I'm an agnostic theist ... as you are well-aware.  You are simply
> > > using the term incorrectly.
>
> > > One can also be an agnostic atheist.
>
> > LL: Not true. If you're an atheist it doesn't matter if you aren't
> > sure of the existence of god. It simply means you don't have a
> > positive belief in one.
>
> Yes, and that's why someone can be an agnostic atheist.
>
> > Why is it so hard to understand this?
>
> You shot yourself in the feet

foot, foot, FOOT <headdesk> :)

[LL]

LL: Yes, it makes sense if you translate it to mean assume or
assuming. One does not need knowledge to believe nor to disbelieve.
Knowledge is a completely different issue than belief. That's why I
say that the statement "I'm agnostic" is not a valid answer as to
whether a person believes in god.

**********************************

[etienne]

Well, we agree on that then.

> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[etienne]

On 12 oct, 02:35, "Simon Ewins" <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:19:51 -0400, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think that you see agnosticism as a sort of mid-point between
> >> atheism and theism.
>
> > LL: No, I absolutely do not and I can't think of anything I've said
> > that would lead you to that conclusion. There is NO mid point between
> > atheism and theism. You are one or the other.
>
> Only in terms of belief.
>
> >> That isn't really true. Atheism and theism are a pair, certainly. They
> >> both assume that the term "god exists" means something. Theists
> >> believe it, atheists don't (essentially).
>
> > LL: To an atheist it only "means something" in the sense that someone
> > is suggesting that a god exists. Other than that it means nothing.
>
> To lack a belief in something you need to have an understanding of what it  
> is that you lack a belief in. Correct?
>

No

[Simon Ewins]

On Monday, October 12, 2009, LL inscribed in silicon forever:

>> > I'm hoping that means you're catching on,
>> > but I have by doubts.
>>
>> Excuse me? That is a surprise.

LL> LL: If it's a surprise, it's because you don't understand the
LL> difference between a concept of belief and one of knowledge.

It is your rudeness that surprised me. I have no difficulty at all
with the difference between knowledge and belief.

'nuff said.

--
No Gods, No Masters

"One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no
boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not
affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor
destroyed. It would just BE." [Dr. Stephen Hawking]

[Lawrey]

Simon,

I tend to take the view as expressed by Trance/G.

What we have to remember is that even in Huxley's day
it was not wise to be seen to be atheist. And although
he may have coined the term agnostic, (sitting-on-the-fence
or playing safe just-in-case) agnosticism goes way back to
ancient times when people really feared for there lives. One
of the more notable was of course, Protagorus (481 - 411 B.C.)
He was lucky, he just got banished from Athens for saying:
I Don't Know!

I do have some qualms however with the idea of a
theist/atheist; it is a contradition in terms, atheism is simply
non-belief in god/s. I personally define agnosticism as
expressed in my index on schools of philosophy:

If you do not know then how can you believe? That is called
having your cake and eating it.

AGNOSTICISM: The theory that the final answer to basic
questions is always "I do not know."

> --
>
> No Gods, No Masters
>

[LL]

On Oct 13, 12:47 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Simon,
>
> I tend to take the view as expressed by Trance/G.
>
> What we have to remember is that even in Huxley's day
> it was not wise to be seen to be atheist. And although
> he may have coined the term agnostic, (sitting-on-the-fence
> or playing safe just-in-case) agnosticism goes way back to
> ancient times when people really feared for there lives. One
> of the more notable was of course, Protagorus (481 - 411 B.C.)
> He was lucky, he just got banished from Athens for saying:
> I Don't Know!
>
> I do have some qualms however with the idea of a
> theist/atheist; it is a contradition in terms, atheism is simply
> non-belief in god/s. I personally define agnosticism as
> expressed in my index on schools of philosophy:
>
> If you do not know then how can you believe? That is called
> having your cake and eating it.
>
> AGNOSTICISM: The theory that the final answer to basic
> questions is always "I do not know."

LL: But that is never a valid answer to the question, "Do you believe
in god." If the person answers "I don't know," all he is saying is
that he doesn't know his own mind. It isn't a question of whether he
KNOWS whether a god exists. It's a question of whether he BELIEVES a
god exists. It's certainly possible to believe in something without
having actual knowledge. In fact, it's the only way anyone can accept
the existence of anything supernatural--through belief and belief
alone (even if people try to argue otherwise).

****************

[Doris Ragland]

How about this just sons and daughters??? many society's feared for their life.. and we could say this it is easier to believe in nothing then to stand for something and to believe that their is one God who created us..and to reject this ..and say we just evolved from worms and tadpoles and monkey's and so fourth..and that is all there is to it...everybody wants to live..so probably people said there was no God so they could live and also not to live in fear back in then ...people still die for their beliefs some say to live imoral lives it is better to die ..or it is better to fight for and worth to have a good moral life and good standards..what would the anti-christains fight for nothing? What they would'nt fight or war...Uhmmm..go back in history who was in warfare the same ones that are the anti heros ...and some of them created weapons of war...what for?...was it to protect their world...one of my points is this anti claims religions are war like..and anti is not.- that they have a history of creating the weapons..remenber they was the smart ones...so yes there has been holy wars upon holy wars...yes we have had leaders of nations to write the laws and they were not of the chruches or they hid themselves well...I have heard over the years how bad christains was and there ways of religious wars and ways ...but what about the other side that had IQ's of high degree and anti and became leaders..and in that life the they stand and have value's that they thought was worth fighting for...so in both area's this is no point to compare...To be a christain what do you have to do? there is no deed or action will get you into heaven but to only believe...and believeing in his ways ...believe..believe..in him...what is the anti reasons for not believing..it is easier not too.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 13, 2:00 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about this just sons and daughters??? many society's feared for their
> life.. and we could say this it is easier to believe in nothing then to
> stand for something and to believe that their is one God who created us..

I believe in things. I just don't believe in God.

> and
> to reject this ..and say we just evolved from worms and tadpoles and
> monkey's and so fourth..

The inaccurate details of evolution aside, we did evolve. I'm sorry if
this fact is emotionally unpleasant to you, but I do not feel that an
accurate description of the universe should be limited by the people
with the thinnest skin.

> and that is all there is to it...

I don't think that's all there is to it. We get out of life what we
put into it. The knowledge that I evolved does not change thsi.

> everybody wants to
> live..so probably people said there was no God so they could live and also
> not to live in fear back in then ...

You think so? Religion itself is nothing more than a giant appeal to
emotion. To control people by appealing manipulating their fear of the
unknown (primarily death). Rejections of theism are almost universally
on rational grounds - it doesn't make a lick of sense.

> people still die for their beliefs some
> say to live imoral lives it is better to die ..or it is better to fight for
> and worth to have a good moral life and good standards..what would the
> anti-christains fight for nothing? What they would'nt fight or
> war...Uhmmm..go back in history who was in warfare the same ones that are
> the anti heros ...and some of them created weapons of war...what for?...was
> it to protect their world...one of my points is this anti claims religions
> are war like..and anti is not.- that they have a history of creating the
> weapons..remenber they was the smart ones...so yes there has been holy wars
> upon holy wars...yes we have had leaders of nations to write the laws and
> they were not of the chruches or they hid themselves well...I have heard
> over the years how bad christains was and there ways of religious wars and
> ways ...but what about the other side that had IQ's of high degree and anti
> and became leaders..and in that life the they stand and have value's that
> they thought was worth fighting for...so in both area's this is no point to
> compare...To be a christain what do you have to do? there is no deed or
> action will get you into heaven but to only believe...and believeing in his
> ways ...believe..believe..in him...what is the anti reasons for not
> believing..it is easier not too.

The rest of this is gibberish that I can't make out. It makes me weep
for whatever educational system you attended.

> > > "There is no sin except stupidity" [Oscar Wilde]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Doris Ragland]

well at least you know how to weep and excuse mispelled words..but it does not mean you are any smarter..don't weep for me..thank you for your ego concern..

[Drafterman]

On Oct 13, 5:04 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well at least you know how to weep and excuse mispelled words..but it does
> not mean you are any smarter..don't weep for me..thank you for your ego
> concern..

I'm the last person to harp on a mere typo. I make enough myself. But
at least I make an effort to have myself be understood. This stream of
consciousness stuff isn't working.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Doris Ragland]

true

[Lawrey]

LL,

My sincere appreciation for your thought on this and
you have my complete understanding, perhaps I have
allowed black and white to prevail and not allowed
enough of the shades in between to surface.

I shall go back to my palette, mix a few more colours and
return to you shortly. How are you BTW? :)

> > > "There is no sin except stupidity" [Oscar Wilde]- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lawrey]

LL,

I am grateful for the opertunity you afford me to respond, I
hope with more clarity.
Have mulled over your reply to my original response to
the question, and I note you make the clear distinction twix
Belief and Knowledge and here we are in accord.

If I may be impertinent and disect your comment to me:

> LL: But that is never a valid answer to the question,

> "Do you believe in god.?" If the person answers

> "I don't know," all he is saying is that he doesn't know
> his own mind.

If you will excuse my ignorance, I think we are bound to
make the distinction here as to what the person is
responding to and what they are saying and why.
In saying "I do not know" They are defining what in their
own minds, their own impression of a god is, and then to
say "I do not know", surely clearly indicates they have no
mind on the matter, as you have correctly pointed out.

In responding to the question "do you believe?"
They have given thought to what a god is, and they do
not know. They do not have sufficient knowledge.

> LL. It isn't a question of whether he KNOWS whether a

> god exists. It's a question of whether he BELIEVES a
> god exists.

I must hope I am not being too dogmatic in this, but it would
appear to my peculiar way of thinking, that if you believe
something, you do so on the basis of some knowledge, be
it right, or wrong. Somewhere along the line you have
deduced a possiblilty that something exists, that is why you
hold the belief. The reverse of this is if you had not been
seduced into the possibility of the existence of something
you would not believe it. And this of course develops
into another intriguing argument which I am sure you have
noted, but we won't go into here.

So my dear friend you may disagree with me in this, but
I trust you have gleened enough to be able to understand
why I made the original posit.

You cannot Believe something without first availing
yourself of some right or wrong Knowledge, no-matter
how that knowledge was deduced. You may look at that
knowledge and conclude it is false, but you cannot then still.
believe it. You can only look at that knowledge and say to
yourself, that on the balance of probability it is true and so
believe it. But Here we are in contention because I say
If you say "I don't know". You are answering both the
question of a god, and existence. "I don't Know".Must
cover both. There is or there is not.

I respectfully submit that there IS a valid answer to the
question: "Do you believe in god?" as long as you can give
a valid argument in support of the validity of your conclusion.

I can respect "I do not Know", because it should suggest
that thought has been given to the answer.

I do not respect "I do not know" if it means I beleive on
the basis of something I have not sought to gain knowledge
of, which with agnosticism, is all too often the case.

It is what I call lazy agnosticism, or convenient, as with
Protagoras who feared that had he said otherwise he
might suffer dior consequences, and it is still in many cases
today, a question of saving face and not wishing to be seen
NOT to conform. How I have come to despise that word
CONFORM, why would anyone wish to conform to a
delusional religion which disgracefully promotes superstition.

I digress!

In short IF "I don't know" it is because I have considered
something, if I have considered something, it does or it does
not exist. My belief has considered the existence and does
not know. So if I dont know if it exists how do I believe
at the same time that it might? I can Understand "I do not
Know in ancient times because they just did not know.

TODAY we do have knowledge. "I do not know" pleads
ignorance where there is no excuse for it.

On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

[Treebeard]

Okay, so reading this tell me:

Can theists be agnostic as well?

Can atheists be agnostic as well?

If not, why not?

[LL]

On Oct 14, 4:39 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>   LL,
>
> I am grateful for the opertunity you afford me to respond, I
> hope with more clarity.
> Have mulled over your reply to my original response to
> the question, and I note you make the clear distinction twix
> Belief and Knowledge and here we are in accord.

LL: Thanks for your response. However, I still disagree. I don't think
anyone needs knowledge to believe. It's obvious to me that many people
believe what they've been told without ever looking for actual
knowledge of a god. Does anyone have such knowledge?

It seems to me that you are confusing actual knowledge of a god with
knowledge of what people generally mean when they talk about god. The
person answering the question, if he says he believes in god, still
has no actual knowledge of a god. (If he does, he's not showing us the
evidence.) He only has knowledge of what the questioner is talking
about and knows the conventional definition of a god.

So, I still maintain that to answer the question, "Do you believe in
god" cannot validly be answered by "I don't know." Either one believes
or doesn't. Believers have no evidence of god, either, yet they claim
to "know." I think that's the dividing line. An actual atheist doesn't
"know" that there is no god and doesn't claim to. He simply has no
belief in one because there is nothing to hang that belief on.

What would your answer be if you were asked if you believe in ghosts?
Yes, no or I don't know?

************************************

> > > > the...
>
> read more »

[LL]

LL: In my view, both theists and atheists can be agnostic but it
doesn't answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" Theists can
believe and have no evidence but they can still claim that they don't
actually know whether a god exists (many say they know but they "know"
because they say they "feel it inside". Atheists don't believe because
they know there is no evidence but they can also take the position
that they don't know for sure whether a god exists or not (most take
this position, by the way; very few claim they know there is no god).
This lack of knowledge (agnosticism) doesn't have any effect on
whether they are a theists or atheists. They are theists if they
believe, even with doubts about the existence of a god. They are
atheists if they don't believe even with no actual knowledge as to
whether there could be a god.

****************************************

[Treebeard]

Do I need to bring up the post, then, where you harped on me for
simply saying that you can be an agnostic theist -- and I am one --
and that someone can be an agnostic atheist? So you were agreeing
with me, then?

> Theists can
> believe and have no evidence but they can still claim that they don't
> actually know whether a god exists (many say they know but they "know"
> because they say they "feel it inside".

I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.

[LL]

On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:


I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.

LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
think all gods are unknowable.

********************

> > > > > > evidence in favour of God's existence, but...
>
> read more »

[Answer_42]

On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:


> I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> think all gods are unknowable.
>

I don't.
Inasmuch as fictional characters can be known, gods can be known.
________________________________________
It may be that ministers really think that their prayers do good and
it may be that frogs imagine that their croaking brings spring.
-- Robert Ingersoll

[Simon Ewins]

I have been quite surprised at the reactions here to my post and have
spent some time thinking about why this is so. I believe that I now
understand it.

There are two questions one may ask:

1: Does God exist?

2: Do you believe God exists?

I was assuming the first question, for which I still feel that
agnosticism is a valid position.

For the second question I agree completely that one either believes or
does not.

My problem has been that I always entertain the first question and
that was the question that I was assuming was being asked. Mea culpa,
hope that clarifies my thinking.

I would be interested in your response to Dr. Drange's thoughts if you
were to read it assuming the question being asked is #1 and not #2.

Cheers

On 10/10/09, Trance Gemini inscribed in silicon forever:
Trance> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance> I think that Dr. Drange takes Huxley as intended. However when one
Trance> says that they are an agnostic about something and asked why and they
Trance> reply that it is unknowable one wonder why it is unknowable. Is it
Trance> because there is equal information (data) about the question both for
Trance> an against, or because there is no information either for or against?
Trance> There can be many reasons why; and I think that Drange was simply
Trance> expanding on Huxley by offering reasons why one might be agnostic.

Trance> Possibly but it's nonsensical and all it demonstrates is the
Trance> confusion that exists on what an agnostic is.

Trance> Unknowable means that there is no data for or against.

Trance> How one can then extend that to his definitions I don't know.

Trance> It's just bizarre, sorry.

Trance> He's equivocating on the term unknowable and
Trance> intellectualizing it to the point where the term is nonsensical.
Trance>

Trance> I honestly don't see any conflict between Huxley and what Drange
Trance> suggests,

Trance> The conflict is in the meaning of the term. It's clear that Drange doesn't get it.
Trance>
Trance> it is more supportive than in opposition. Huxley's main
Trance> motivation in coining the term agnostic was to avoid being associated
Trance> with the atheist Charles Bradlaugh, with whom he had many
Trance> disagreements politically and otherwise.

Trance> Cheers.

Trance> On Oct 10, 9:56 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would disagree with Dr. Drange's definitions.
>>
>> They make absolutely no sense.
>>
>> The term agnostic was coined by Huxley and it simply refers to Unknowability
>> and nothing else.
>>
>> An agnostic can be either an atheist or a theist.
>>
>> An atheist lacks a belief in gods but believes that their existence is
>> unknowable.
>>
>> A theist believes in gods but believes that their existence is unknowable.
>>
>> I don't know what Dr Drange's rationale was for coming up with the following
>> but to define an agnostic according to data is a rather bizarre
>> contradiction given what it actually means.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > evidence in favour of God's existence, but that it is exactly balanced by
>> > something else. One type, data-vs.-data agnostics, say that the something
>> > else is definite evidence in favour of God's non-existence. The other type,
>> > data-vs.-principle agnostics, say that the something else is a principle of

>> > rational methodology which places a certain burden of proof upon the
>> > theist.)
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > *No Gods, No Masters*
>>
>> > "There is no sin except stupidity" *[Oscar Wilde]*
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BAAWA Knight Applicant
>> EAC Disciplinary Committee
>> Leather Teddy/CatONineTails Disciplinary Squad Leader
>> EAC Knightette
>> Agent 000777136669854321. Mange Inciter. Special Services.
>> EAC Department of Linquistic Subversion.
>> Evil Anagrams Division.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------

--
No Gods, No Masters

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
[Susan B. Anthony]

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 15, 8:46 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> I don't.
> Inasmuch as fictional characters can be known, gods can be known.

Yet, no one knows Superman whereas many "know" God/gods.

[etienne]

On 15 oct, 05:37, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> think all gods are unknowable.
>

Huh ?

> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[Treebeard]

On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.

What does "faith" have to do with belief? I believe that God exists,
and that is what is required for theism. Nothing more, nothing less.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> think all gods are unknowable.

Missed this the first time. It is not the case that all atheists
think all gods are unknowable, nor is that limited to atheists (since
I, a theist, hold that as well, at least for the Abrahamic God).

> ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Oct 15, 5:46 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> I don't.
> Inasmuch as fictional characters can be known, gods can be known.

LL: I don't think "knowing" a god is the same as knowing a fictional
character. Certainly most theists wouldn't agree. IMO, a person only
THINKS he knows either. Most people only think of fictional characters
in terms of a story and they don't think they exist otherwise. Most
people who believe in a god don't give their "knowing" that kind of
limitation.

**************

******

[LL]

On Oct 15, 6:45 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

LL: That's right. If someone came along and said he "knows" Superman,
he'd be met with universal derision.

*****************

[LL]

On Oct 15, 11:40 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 oct, 05:37, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> Huh ?

LL: I don't understand why you don't understand what I wrote. There is
an enormous difference between faith and "knowing," even though many
theists confuse the two concepts.

> > > > > > > > the situation with...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Oct 15, 11:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.

LL: Believing in and having faith are the same thing when it comes to
god. Do you not have faith in god?

******************

> > > > > > > > case, it might be argued, the rational stance to take for anyone aware of  ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Oct 15, 11:55 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> Missed this the first time.  It is not the case that all atheists
> think all gods are unknowable, nor is that limited to atheists (since
> I, a theist, hold that as well, at least for the Abrahamic God).

LL: I can hardly think of an atheist I know that doesn't say this. A
few fringe atheists claim to know that there is no god. But you, for
example, confine your doubts about god's existence to the Abrahamic
god and perhaps others. But since you think some god exists somewhere,
you are still a theist when it comes to belief. An agnostic is
completely different and the word still does not answer a question
regarding belief.

******************************

> > > > > > > > case, it might...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

On Oct 15, 9:08 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> LL: Believing in and having faith are the same thing when it comes to
> god.

No, they are not. Belief is belief, end of story.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:55 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> > Missed this the first time.  It is not the case that all atheists
> > think all gods are unknowable, nor is that limited to atheists (since
> > I, a theist, hold that as well, at least for the Abrahamic God).
>
> LL: I can hardly think of an atheist I know that doesn't say this. A
> few fringe atheists claim to know that there is no god. But you, for
> example, confine your doubts about god's existence to the Abrahamic
> god and perhaps others. But since you think some god exists somewhere,
> you are still a theist when it comes to belief.

I believe in the Abrahamic God. Again, you yourself have frequently
said that belief and knowledge, theism and agnosticism, are NOT the
same thing. So why do you continue to conflate them?

An agnostic is
> completely different and the word still does not answer a question
> regarding belief.

Since I never asserted that it did, would you kindly stop saying that
in reply to me?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Answer_42]

On Oct 15, 9:04 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> > I don't.
> > Inasmuch as fictional characters can be known, gods can be known.
>
> LL: I don't think "knowing" a god is the same as knowing a fictional
> character. Certainly most theists wouldn't agree.

Of course not, they are delusional as far as their god beliefs are
concerned.
As someone else stated in another thread, when enquiring on the
efficiency of a hospital ward for mentally ill people, do you consult
the patients or the doctors?

> IMO, a person only
> THINKS he knows either. Most people only think of fictional characters
> in terms of a story and they don't think they exist otherwise. Most
> people who believe in a god don't give their "knowing" that kind of
> limitation.

Yet, in actual fact, it is the same kind of knowing.
____________________________________________
He comes into the world God knows how, walks on the water, gets out of
his grave and goes up off the Hill of Howth. What drivel is this?
-- James Joyce

[Answer_42]

On Oct 15, 9:45 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> > I don't.
> > Inasmuch as fictional characters can be known, gods can be known.
>
> Yet, no one knows Superman whereas many "know" God/gods.

People may think they know their god, but in fact, they know their god
in the same way we know Superman. They just add a layer of delusional
thought to transform that knowledge into something else, I don't.

[Answer_42]

On Oct 15, 2:54 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You beleive based on faith, not on evidence or logic.
You, yourself, have claimed that there are no valid arguments in
favour of god; also, there is no objective evidence and there is no
logical reason why a god is necessary to explain anything.

Yet you believe, because you choose to, based on faith.

[Answer_42]

On Oct 15, 9:33 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
<snip>

> I believe in the Abrahamic God.

And if you parents had believed in Vishnu, you would believe in
Vishnu...
Yep, this is a very rational belief.

[LL]

On Oct 15, 6:31 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:08 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 11:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > LL: Believing in and having faith are the same thing when it comes to
> > god.
>
> No, they are not.  Belief is belief, end of story.
>
> Do you not have faith in god?

LL: Of course not. That's why I'm an atheist. If you think belief and
faith are not the same, please explain how they differ.

*********************************

> > > > > > > > > > burden-of-proof requirement, then at that time...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 11:55 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If
> > > > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > > > think all gods are unknowable.
>
> > > Missed this the first time.  It is not the case that all atheists
> > > think all gods are unknowable, nor is that limited to atheists (since
> > > I, a theist, hold that as well, at least for the Abrahamic God).
>
> > LL: I can hardly think of an atheist I know that doesn't say this. A
> > few fringe atheists claim to know that there is no god. But you, for
> > example, confine your doubts about god's existence to the Abrahamic
> > god and perhaps others. But since you think some god exists somewhere,
> > you are still a theist when it comes to belief.
>
> I believe in the Abrahamic God.  Again, you yourself have frequently
> said that belief and knowledge, theism and agnosticism, are NOT the
> same thing.  So why do you continue to conflate them?

LL: I don't. I have repeated tried to explain to you that they are so
completely different that saying you are an agnostic when asked
whether you believe in god is not an answer. Which is it, are you a
theist or an atheist?

>
>  An agnostic is
>
> > completely different and the word still does not answer a question
> > regarding belief.
>
> Since I never asserted that it did, would you kindly stop saying that
> in reply to me?

LL: OK, if I have it wrong, explain it to me. What is your definition
of belief and agnosticism. When I ask whether you believe in god, what
is your answer?

***************************

> > > > > > > > > > Monster. It may be...
>
> read more »

[Lawrey]

LL,

Hiya, Sorry for the hiatus. Lot going on here and so little
time.

As I have intimated the only difference between us is
marginal and rests on what theism terms as knowledge.
we two are I hope agreed on our interpretation.

So lets just clarify Knowledge: Facts, and information
acquired through experience and or education shown to
be true.

A theist will tell you that they come by their beliefs
through their experience and study, in education in
theological studies and have indeed gained knowledge.

What they neglect to say is that their knowledge is
the knowledge of a belief. It is as both you and I agree
is false knowledge which is as you say no knowledge
at all.

The belief of theism is built on the knowledge of a belief,
but it is still termed as knowledge even though it is false.
We two are in complete agreement that NO-ONE has
any knowledge of any god. Only false knowledge of the
belief in god/s.

WE are simply saying the same thing in a different way.

I think we have agreed on the distinction between
knowledge and belief.

Therefore you are correct in your assessment as to validity.

We are indeed both saying there either is or there is not.
There cannot be an "I don't know" that sustains a god of
which there is no knowledge and at the same time permits
a belief in such. If I have no knowledge of such how on earth
do I maintain a belief.

If you have noted what I have been trying to impart albeit
badly, it is that agnosticism is based on an inconvenience
of having to admit to an inconvenience where is not popular
to be seen to disagree with the estabished BELIEF.
Therefore "I don't know" allows a convenient way out.

In truth it is not so much "I don't know" as "I am not prepared
to be unpopular." Atheists up till now have been and in some
cases and societies still are very unpopular, although the
situation is I think is easing.

As to ghosts and goolies and things that go bump in the
night. I have a certain knowledge of them as a belief and
know that many are they that believe. I do not believe in
them as with my non-belief in gods. Ghosts do not exist.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

On Oct 15, 11:32 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been quite surprised at the reactions here to my post and have
> spent some time thinking about why this is so. I believe that I now
> understand it.

Simon - nothing should surprise you.
So, I'll throw my two cents in. We use words to covey meaning, but in
order for our meaning to be decoded and then encoded by the other
person in a similar way as we intended, the other person must not only
have the same understanding of the meaning of that word (as we do)
but use it in a similar manner as we do. Now, this does not always
happen, as you can see. This is not surprising as we all come from
different backgrounds, countries, have different education,
dictionaries
etc., so the meaning that the words convey is actually related
specifically
to each of us using the word.
(at this point you are probably wondering how we ever converse with
each other, and you would probably be right :-)
You have put a qualifier before the word "agnostic" in your
explanation.
You've done this so that others can understand where you come from.
Whereas the intent is good, it can place you in an even greater
dilemma.
This little discussion is a great example of how people can so
entrench
themselves in "their knowledge or belief is right - and the other
person is
wrong" that it can create division, rather than cohesion.
Perhaps it would be an idea if when we use some terms that others
disagree on, we actually define that word for the benefit of the
reader. If
the reader disagrees, they define their word and say why. In this way
we can have words defined from the stance of both the reader and the
speaker. However, it can get cumbersome. So, a better way may just
be for us to accept that we are all different and that nobody else is
like
us, but equally be prepared to accept how others think and see them-
selves.
Now, wouldn't that be boring :-)?
Many moons ago I did a post on the definition of God.
I really don't think we resolved much at all.
Enjoy, and thanks for the post.

>
> There are two questions one may ask:
>
> 1: Does God exist?
>
> 2: Do you believe God exists?
>
> I was assuming the first question, for which I still feel that
> agnosticism is a valid position.
>
> For the second question I agree completely that one either believes or
> does not.
>
> My problem has been that I always entertain the first question and
> that was the question that I was assuming was being asked. Mea culpa,
> hope that clarifies my thinking.
>
> I would be interested in your response to Dr. Drange's thoughts if you
> were to read it assuming the question being asked is #1 and not #2.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 10/10/09, Trance Gemini inscribed in silicon forever:

> because I notice it always ...
>
> read more »

[Doris Ragland]

Maybe rough day

[LL]

On Oct 16, 7:29 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> LL,
>
> Hiya, Sorry for the hiatus. Lot going on here and so little
> time.

LL: What do you mean by doing other things? What could be more
important than A vs C? ;-)

LL: As far as I can tell, we're pretty close in our interpretations.
Not perfect, but close.

>
> As to ghosts and goolies and things that go bump in the
> night. I have a certain knowledge of them as a belief and
> know that many are they that believe. I do not believe in
> them as with my non-belief in gods. Ghosts do not exist.

LL: How do you know that?

**************************************

> > > > > > to be...
>
> read more »

[Lawrey]

LL,

Hello! Hello! Hello!! Are you telling me after all this time
you have found some conclusive evidence to prove me
wrong? ;)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[LL]

On Oct 18, 3:37 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> LL,
>

> Hello! Hello! Hello!! Are you telling me after all this time
> you have found some conclusive evidence to prove me
> wrong? ;)

LL: Not at all. I'm just wondering how you know for sure since it's
impossible to show evidence that any entity doesn't exist somewhere,
perhaps outside of our awareness.

Saying something doesn't exist, however, is rational for things
outside of our awareness. But do you also say that no god exists? I
tend not to go that far since there is no way I can show evidence of
nonexistence. I can only say that I have never been aware of any
evidence that such a being exists.

***************************

*****************************

**********************

> > > > > > > AGNOSTICISM: The theory that the final answer...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

On Oct 16, 9:27 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2:54 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> You beleive based on faith, not on evidence or logic.

Define "faith", and then prove that that's the case.

> You, yourself, have claimed that there are no valid arguments in
> favour of god;

Which essentially means no arguments where if the premises are true,
the conclusion must follow. Or, basically, no arguments that prove
that God exists. Hardly a huge disqualifying factor, considering how
things we believe that have the same handicap.

> also, there is no objective evidence and there is no
> logical reason why a god is necessary to explain anything.

And all this would mean is that it isn't proven. If I was forced to
only believe things that were absolutely proven to be true, there
wouldn't be much to believe in. I think, therefore I am ... MAYBE.

>
> Yet you believe, because you choose to, based on faith.

Define faith and prove this statement.

[Treebeard]

On Oct 16, 9:31 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:33 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I believe in the Abrahamic God.
>
> And if you parents had believed in Vishnu, you would believe in
> Vishnu...

Yes. So what?

If you had been born in an Eastern culture, you probably wouldn't
consider democracy a good political system. So what?

> Yep, this is a very rational belief.

You don't know what that means.

[Treebeard]

On Oct 16, 3:35 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:31 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:08 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 15, 11:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > > LL: Believing in and having faith are the same thing when it comes to
> > > god.
>
> > No, they are not.  Belief is belief, end of story.
>
> > Do you not have faith in god?
>
> LL: Of course not. That's why I'm an atheist. If you think belief and
> faith are not the same, please explain how they differ.

That was just a leftover from your question to me. As to your
comment, if you think faith and belief the same, please prove your own
contention; unless you prove that, I and no one else have any reason
to consider them the same thing.

The burden of proof is on you. Start by defining "faith".

> ...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

This "What do you say when asked whether you believe in god or not?"
is your fetish, not mine. I never said that you would answer
"agnostic" when asked "Are you a theist?". I challenged your words
that seemed to imply that someone could not both be an agnostic and a
theist, or that all agnostics were atheists. If you accept that one
can be an agnostic theist, we don't have any more to say on this
point.

>
>
>
> >  An agnostic is
>
> > > completely different and the word still does not answer a question
> > > regarding belief.
>
> > Since I never asserted that it did, would you kindly stop saying that
> > in reply to me?
>
> LL: OK, if I have it wrong, explain it to me.

It's not that you have it wrong; it's that you seem to be
misunderstanding my position. My position is that agnostic is a
stance towards the knowledge or knowability of a proposition, and
theist/atheist is a stance towards belief in a proposition. That
means that I can be both agnostic and theist, and thus an agnostic
theist.

When discussing the proposition "God exists", BOTH stances are
relevant to the discussion, in different ways.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Answer_42]

On Oct 19, 6:22 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > You beleive based on faith, not on evidence or logic.
>
> Define "faith", and then prove that that's the case.
>
> > You, yourself, have claimed that there are no valid arguments in
> > favour of god;
>
> Which essentially means no arguments where if the premises are true,
> the conclusion must follow.  Or, basically, no arguments that prove
> that God exists.  Hardly a huge disqualifying factor, considering how
> things we believe that have the same handicap.

No.
We have been there before, yet you refuse to admit that your god
belief is on a totally different level.

I do believe many things without having a 100% proof, you are right
about that.

However, all of those beliefs, without exception, are based on real
world events, objective evidence, corroborating factors, repeatable
instances, etc.
Nothng like that exists for any god beliefs.
I do not have any beliefs, including religious ones, obviously, that
rests on total wishful thinking, like your god belief is.
When I do, I call them hopes, not beliefs.

I have no need to hope that god is real, so he is not included in my
hopes. I do hope that my children, who are real, will be successful.
Yet, becasue I do not have anything concrete yet, I do not believe it,
I hope. If they are successful at university, then my hope may become
a belief.
Still, all of this rests on very real and objective things/events/
people.

> > also, there is no objective evidence and there is no
> > logical reason why a god is necessary to explain anything.
>
> And all this would mean is that it isn't proven.  If I was forced to
> only believe things that were absolutely proven to be true, there
> wouldn't be much to believe in.  I think, therefore I am ... MAYBE.

Again, we are not talking about beliefs in general, like my belief
that you are pretty good at nitpicking based on observed and objective
evidcene. :-p

We are talking about your religious beliefs, which, even if you assert
otherwise, are different from mundane beliefs.
If not, prove it by giving us a list of mundane beliefs that you have
that rest on a total lack of evidence, objective observations, logical
necessity, etc.

> > Yet you believe, because you choose to, based on faith.
>
> Define faith and prove this statement.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness
of an idea.
(Adapted from Wikipedia article on fatih)

Fine Alan, you want to assert that you are a Christian who believes
based on a lack of valid arguments/evidence and who has no faith
whatsoever, go ahead, what's one more delusion?
_________________________________________.
The death of dogma is the birth of morality.
-- Immanuel Kant

[LL]

LL: Try these from your own bible. What do you suppose the meaning of
"faith" is in these passages?

Mark 10:52
And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole.
And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

M
Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

Luke 5:20
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are
forgiven thee.

Luke 7:9

When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him
about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I
have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Luke 7:50
And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke 8:25
And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid
wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he
commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

Luke 8:48
And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath
made thee whole; go in peace.

Luke 12:28
If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to
morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye
of little faith?


Luke 17:5
And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

Acts 3:16
And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom
ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this
perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Acts 6:5
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a
man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus,
and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of
Antioch:


_____________
I could go on, but surely you get the point! I use the word "faith" as
the bible writers did. If you read the bible and don't know what the
word "faith" means to them, you obviously don't understand the bible
or the bible writers at all.

*********************************************

[LL]

On Oct 19, 3:23 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 3:35 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 6:31 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 15, 9:08 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 15, 11:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > > > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > > > LL: Believing in and having faith are the same thing when it comes to
> > > > god.
>
> > > No, they are not.  Belief is belief, end of story.
>
> > > Do you not have faith in god?
>
> > LL: Of course not. That's why I'm an atheist. If you think belief and
> > faith are not the same, please explain how they differ.
>
> That was just a leftover from your question to me.  As to your
> comment, if you think faith and belief the same, please prove your own
> contention; unless you prove that, I and no one else have any reason
> to consider them the same thing.
>
> The burden of proof is on you.  Start by defining "faith".

LL: In my mind it's usually used to mean the same thing. If you have a
different definition, please present it.

**************************

> > > > > > > > > > > > proof upon the theists. The...
>
> read more »

[Answer_42]

On Oct 19, 6:22 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > I believe in the Abrahamic God.
>
> > And if you parents had believed in Vishnu, you would believe in
> > Vishnu...
>
> Yes.  So what?

Amazing that you admit this, and yet refuse to see the impact this
fact has on your assertion that your belief is rational...
The only rationality involved is that children do pick up beliefs from
their parents, yet, the belief itself maybe irrational, and in the
case of religious beliefs, it is.

> If you had been born in an Eastern culture, you probably wouldn't
> consider democracy a good political system.  So what?
>
> > Yep, this is a very rational belief.
>
> You don't know what that means.

...says the guy who believes in a specific god without one shred of
objective evidence, without any logical necessity and despite
admitting that not a single argument in favour of god is valid...

[LL]

LL: Yes, but you seem to be conflating the two concepts. Theism has
nothing to do with knowledge and agnosticism has nothing to do with
belief. If I ask you what your belief is, you cannot correctly answer
with "I'm agnostic." If I ask you what your knowledge of god is, you
cannot correctly answer that you believe in god.
>
>  What is your definition


LL: I'm not sure what you are asking me to define, but I'll take a
crack at it being this:

agnostic [ægˈnɒstɪk]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that
knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that
the answer cannot be known with certainty

theist

one who believes in the existence of a god or gods
of or relating to theism
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

*****************************************

> > > > > > > > > > > > evidence regarding it, one way or the other. If they were to conclude that  ...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

On Oct 19, 2:41 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:22 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > > You beleive based on faith, not on evidence or logic.
>
> > Define "faith", and then prove that that's the case.
>
> > > You, yourself, have claimed that there are no valid arguments in
> > > favour of god;
>
> > Which essentially means no arguments where if the premises are true,
> > the conclusion must follow.  Or, basically, no arguments that prove
> > that God exists.  Hardly a huge disqualifying factor, considering how
> > things we believe that have the same handicap.
>
> No.
> We have been there before, yet you refuse to admit that your god
> belief is on a totally different level.

I don't admit because you have never proved it or, in fact, done
anything more than blatantly assert it.

>
> I do believe many things without having  a 100% proof, you are right
> about that.
>
> However, all of those beliefs, without exception, are based on real
> world events, objective evidence, corroborating factors, repeatable
> instances, etc.

So, how much ancient history do you believe? After all, its evidence
is pretty much identical to that for God -- since the Bible is a
purported document reflecting ancient history, it would be utterly
ridiculous to assert otherwise -- and so if you accept some of it why
would you insist that it is not rational to accept God on the same
evidence?

No, the reason you don't believe in supernatural things or God is --
in large part -- because you hold beliefs that I do not, you believe
that there cannot exist supernatural entities being the largest one.
This is evidenced by your insistence that we prove any supernatural
thing or god exist before you'll even consider that a specific one
might exist. This shows that we'd have to overcome your initial
belief and change it before you can consider the specific instance.
This is not, in and of itself, irrational. But I don't hold that
belief. I find naturalism or physicalism to be an invalid and/or
meaningless proposition. Thus, I can treat "supernatural" beliefs
just like "natural" ones, and so can note that the evidence for them
is indeed similar to that I have for "ordinary" beliefs.

If you really examined your beliefs, you'd see that you hold some
beliefs on very similar evidence to what exists for God. You almost
certainly, for example, believe things primarily because your parents
taught it to you and you haven't had it refuted yet. But you segment
"supernatural" beliefs off into another category because of your
skepticism of the supernatural and belief in naturalism. All that it
would take for you to become rational -- and understand my position --
would be to admit that. But so far you have yet to even take the
basic first steps into epistemology to do so.

> Nothng like that exists for any god beliefs.
> I do not have any beliefs, including religious ones, obviously, that
> rests on total wishful thinking, like your god belief is.
> When I do, I call them hopes, not beliefs.

In order to claim that I believe that God exists based on wishful
thinking, you'd have to prove that I in fact hope that God exists.
There's probably more evidence showing that you hope He doesn't --
since God advocates some behaviours and would supposedly punish some
things you think shouldn't be punished -- than that I hope He does.
At any rate, I welcome you showing evidence that I hope God exists.
And, no, griping about a lack of "objective evidence" is not such
evidence, especially since I have said repeatedly that I reject the
idea that all beliefs must be grounded in objective evidence, and
pointed out that I consider the subjective/objective distinction in
evidence to be meaningless.

>
> I have no need to hope that god is real, so he is not included in my
> hopes. I do hope that my children, who are real, will be successful.
> Yet, becasue I do not have anything concrete yet, I do not believe it,
> I hope. If they are successful at university, then my hope may become
> a belief.
> Still, all of this rests on very real and objective things/events/
> people.

So, you don't look at your children's talents and have beliefs about
what career they might succeed at? I doubt it. That's a belief, my
friend.

>
> > > also, there is no objective evidence and there is no
> > > logical reason why a god is necessary to explain anything.
>
> > And all this would mean is that it isn't proven.  If I was forced to
> > only believe things that were absolutely proven to be true, there
> > wouldn't be much to believe in.  I think, therefore I am ... MAYBE.
>
> Again, we are not talking about beliefs in general, like my belief
> that you are pretty good at nitpicking based on observed and objective
> evidcene. :-p
>
> We are talking about your religious beliefs, which, even if you assert
> otherwise, are different from mundane beliefs.

Prove it.

> If not, prove it by giving us a list of mundane beliefs that you have
> that rest on a total lack of evidence, objective observations, logical
> necessity, etc.

Strawman. I only need to find a "mundane" (whatever THAT'S supposed
to mean) that is held on similar evidence. I have repeatedly referred
to one: the existence and philosophies of Socrates. The evidence is
only from ancient documents, many of which are, in fact, actually
fictional to a large extent. And I still give that one more
confidence than a belief in God. But it's close enough to make the
point.

At any rate, I argue that beliefs should all be treated the same, and
your demand for prove does not address that. So, if you want to argue
against it, you have to show that beliefs must be based on those
things you list. And you can start by defining what you mean by them
in the first place.

>
> > > Yet you believe, because you choose to, based on faith.
>
> > Define faith and prove this statement.
>
> Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness
> of an idea.
> (Adapted from Wikipedia article on fatih)

Then I'd have in any belief, wouldn't I? So that can't be what you
mean, since it wouldn't distinguish theistic beleif from any other.

>
> Fine Alan, you want to assert that you are a Christian who believes
> based on a lack of valid arguments/evidence and who has no faith
> whatsoever, go ahead, what's one more delusion?

It is quite possible that I don't have faith in the sense that many
religious people claim it. You certainly should be able to see that
my belief is, in fact, strikingly different in qualities from those of
almost every other religious person on the board, if not all of them.
Could that be because it isn't really faith at all? Or because of a
simple confidence level?

You'd have to define faith first, and I don't think the one you gave
is the one you mean.

I do want to make a post about faith, so perhaps I'll do this while
I'm idle for a bit.

[Treebeard]

On Oct 19, 2:42 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: Try these from your own bible. What do you suppose the meaning of
> "faith" is in these passages?

You used the term, you tell me how you mean it. I'm not going to
guess at it.

> > > -- James Joyce- Hide quoted text -

[Treebeard]

Again, start by defining "faith". I've given you my definition of
belief already.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Treebeard]

On Oct 19, 2:47 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:22 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe in the Abrahamic God.
>
> > > And if you parents had believed in Vishnu, you would believe in
> > > Vishnu...
>
> > Yes.  So what?
>
> Amazing that you admit this, and yet refuse to see the impact this
> fact has on your assertion that your belief is rational...
> The only rationality involved is that children do pick up beliefs from
> their parents, yet, the belief itself maybe irrational,

It may indeed be irrational, but just because it was picked up from my
parents does not mean that it is. Therefore, the initial source is
irrelevant to that determination. Do you disagree?

[Treebeard]

Again, as said above, that's your fetish, not mine. I have always
distinguish the two and never, ever, ever talked about it in that
context. If you can read and grasp that, then perhaps we can move on.

>
>
>
> >  What is your definition
>
> LL: I'm not sure what you are asking me to define, but I'll take a
> crack at it being this:

Carried over again.

[LL]

On Oct 19, 12:36 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2:42 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LL: Try these from your own bible. What do you suppose the meaning of
> > "faith" is in these passages?
>
> You used the term, you tell me how you mean it.  I'm not going to
> guess at it.

LL: I never suggested that you "guess at it." I thought you were a
christian who should know what the bible is saying, but I guess I was
wrong. Faith to me is the same as belief, which I said in my earlier
post. You're the one who disputed it.

***********************

************************************

[LL]

LL: Faith: the acceptance of a proposition that has no objective
evidence.

Belief: the the acceptance of a proposition that has no objective
evidence.

There's two for the price of one.

******************************

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the issue of God's existence, but who have judged it to be perfectly  ...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

And you're wrong about both. Belief -- epistemically -- is simply
holding that a proposition is true. The link to "objective evidence"
is your own invention.

> ...
>
> read more »

[TLC]

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence
for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be
agnostic with respect to fairies? Richard Dawkins

[Treebeard]

Thus proving that Dawkins doesn't understand what agnosticism actually
means.

From my critique of "The God Delusion", posted right here in the pages
section:

"The distinction between “mere beliefs” and knowledge established,
let’s look at the discussion on agnosticism, and the first thing to
note is that Dawkins takes knowledge to be of the absolute certain
kind. If you look at his list of seven positions one can hold, his 1
and 7 are the only ones that talk about knowledge and both insist that
the person thinks that they are absolutely certain about that
proposition. I’d submit that, definitely, 6 and 2 also fall into the
knowledge camp by what we just discussed, leaving 3, 4 and 5 as the
only ones that actually really address “mere belief”.

Note that I may be being slightly unfair to Dawkins here, because the
list basically dumps the whole idea of agnosticism and knowledge out
the window. Dawkins here is claiming that while Huxley might have
been correct in saying that the proposition “God exists” is not
knowable, but that does not mean that it’s just as likely that He does
exist as that He doesn’t. So, Dawkins replaces knowable and
unknowable with determinations of the probability of a proposition.

Now, the first question I’d ask is: if one is even a temporary
agnostic (believing that based on the faculties we have now we cannot
know whether or not God exists) by what means does one go about
assigning the probabilities of how likely it is that God does or
doesn’t exist? Dawkins does, in fact, comment that agnostics
shouldn’t claim that the likelihood of God’s existing is therefore
50-50, but that they should exempt themselves from the discussion
entirely. This is good in and of itself, because clearly you can’t
properly assign the probability of something that you claim that we
don’t have the ability to gather enough evidence to determine the
knowability of. Doing so would simply lead to subjective
probabilities; you’d simply assign it on the basis on what you thought
made more sense to you, which makes assigning a number a pointless
exercise in faking objectivity. So if the agnostics are right,
Dawkins scale doesn’t apply to them."

Since agnostics don't have to hold anything about the probabilities of
the thing existing, Dawkins' arguments about the poverty of
agnosticism fail, as does the above quote. Does the agnostic think
that it is possible to determine a probability of that thing
existing? Does the agnostic think we can find the evidence to know it
true? All else is irrelevant.

[LL]

LL: You can do that as long as you keep it to yourself. The moment you
want to explain it to someone else, you will be expected to show
evidence that it's true.

What is your definition of faith?



Tree: The link to "objective evidence"
> is your own invention.

LL: It isn't my invention. Anyone who makes a claim should know that
someone with intelligence will ask for objective evidence. If you
don't have it, you're the one who will look like a fool. And no one
with any sense will accept your beliefs because you state them.

**************

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people with this outlook could easily move over to the position of  ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

LL: Sure, but we can't be agnostic when it comes to whether we believe
in fairies.

That's the point. Agnosticism answers a question as to knowledge.
Belief (or non belief) answers a question as to whether the person
thinks the proposition is true despite lack of knowledge.)

[LL]

LL: Probability doesn't come into it. The point is knowledge.

Tree: Does the agnostic think we can find the evidence to know it
> true?

LL: That has nothing to do with the person's agnosticism. When a
person says he's agnostic he says he doesn't know. He is not making a
statement as to whether we might find evidence.

Tree: All else is irrelevant.

LL: This whole argument is irrelevant.

[Treebeard]

Precisely. That's why Dawkins -- who talks about agnostics and saying
that there is a 50-50 probability of God existing -- gets agnosticism
wrong.

>
> Tree: Does the agnostic think we can find the evidence to know it
>
> > true?
>
> LL: That has nothing to do with the person's agnosticism. When a
> person says he's agnostic he says he doesn't know. He is not making a
> statement as to whether we might find evidence.

That's not really what agnostic means. It's not merely that we don't
know, but that in some sense based on the evidence we have we CAN'T
know. This can be temporary -- we don't have it right now -- or
permanent -- the proposition is unknowable -- but it's a bit stronger
than just "I don't know".

>
>  Tree: All else is irrelevant.
>
> LL: This whole argument is irrelevant.

[shrug] I didn't start it.

[Treebeard]

We are talking about belief, not argumentation. Belief is an internal
state. Thus, this is irrelevant to the definition of belief.

>
> What is your definition of faith?
>
> Tree: The link to "objective evidence"
>
> > is your own invention.
>
> LL: It isn't my invention.

As for it being part of the definition of belief, yes, in fact, it is
your own invention.

> Anyone who makes a claim should know that
> someone with intelligence will ask for objective evidence.

Unless it's a subjective claim, of course, for which no such evidence
can or should be presented.

What is "objective evidence", to you?

[etienne]

On 16 oct, 03:07, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:40 am, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 15 oct, 05:37, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>

> > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist. If

> > > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > > think all gods are unknowable.
>

> > Huh ?
>
> LL: I don't understand why you don't understand what I wrote. There is
> an enormous difference between faith and "knowing," even though many
> theists confuse the two concepts.
>

I'm an atheist and I don't know a concept of gods/God that is not
falsiable and already falsified so I had a problem with the "all" in
the last sentence of your post.

> > > > > > > > > as being the expression of ultimate truth. As this concept was so clearly  
> > > > > > > > > set forth by Huxley, it can unequivocally be found to express the essence  
> > > > > > > > > of agnosticism.
>
> > > > > > > > > Unknowability agnostics, who say that not only is there no evidence  
> > > > > > > > > relevant to the issue of God's existence but that there could be none.  
> > > > > > > > > They may view the issue as so abstract and removed from human experience  
> > > > > > > > > that it is impossible that we should have any evidence regarding it, one  
> > > > > > > > > way or the other, so the matter is essentially unknowable. (Note that  
> > > > > > > > > people with this outlook could easily move over to the position of  

> > > > > > > > > noncognitivism. They are making the claim that the matter of God's  
> > > > > > > > > existence is essentially unknowable and that there could not possibly be  
> > > > > > > > > evidence regarding it, one way or the other. If they were to conclude that  
> > > > > > > > > the sentence "God exists" therefore does not express any proposition at  

> > > > > > > > > all, then they would be noncognitivists. But if, instead, they allow that  
> > > > > > > > > there is a proposition expressed but it is simply one that we cannot ever  
> > > > > > > > > legitimately claim to be true or false, then they are to be classified as  
> > > > > > > > > "unknowability agnostics."
>
> > > > > > > > > Data-vs.-data agnostics, who concede that there is evidence relevant to  
> > > > > > > > > the issue of God's existence, but who have judged it to be perfectly  

> > > > > > > > > balanced. That is, the evidence presently available in support of God's  
> > > > > > > > > existence is exactly matched by evidence presently available against God's  
> > > > > > > > > existence. They could be called "knife-edge agnostics," since they view  
> > > > > > > > > the positive evidence for God's existence as so perfectly balanced by  

> > > > > > > > > negative evidence that it is as if they were balanced on the edge of a  
> > > > > > > > > knife without falling to one side or the other.
>
> > > > > > > > > Data-vs.-principle agnostics, who are another type of "knife-edge  
> > > > > > > > > agnostics." They agree with the methodological atheists who claim that  
> > > > > > > > > there is a certain methodological principle that places the burden of  

> > > > > > > > > proof upon the theists. The question is raised as to how much evidence is  
> > > > > > > > > needed for the existence of something in order for it to satisfy the  
> > > > > > > > > burden of proof required by the given principle. Presumably there is some  
> > > > > > > > > minimum amount such that any lesser amount would still call for us to deny  
> > > > > > > > > the existence of the thing. Take, for example, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness  
> > > > > > > > > Monster. It may be argued that there is some slight evidence in favour of  

> > > > > > > > > the existence of such entities but it is less than the amount needed to  
> > > > > > > > > satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement. Thus, the rational stance to take  
> > > > > > > > > with respect to them, at least at the present time, is that of denying  
> > > > > > > > > their existence.
>
> > > > > > > > > If, in the future, additional evidence is found favouring the existence of  
> > > > > > > > > the entity, and that evidence is of sufficient quantity to satisfy the  
> > > > > > > > > burden-of-proof requirement, then at that time the rational stance to take  
> > > > > > > > > would be to believe that the entity exists. Suppose, now, that additional  
> > > > > > > > > evidence is found for, say, the existence of Bigfoot. But the evidence is  
> > > > > > > > > not quite sufficient to satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement. It is  
> > > > > > > > > almost enough. In fact, it is as close to satisfying the requirement  
> > > > > > > > > without actually satisfying it as it is possible to get. One might say,
>
> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[etienne]

On 16 oct, 21:35, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:31 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:08 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 15, 11:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>
> > > > On Oct 14, 11:37 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 14, 3:23 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>

> > > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > > LL: Believing in and having faith are the same thing when it comes to
> > > god.
>
> > No, they are not.  Belief is belief, end of story.
>
> > Do you not have faith in god?
>
> LL: Of course not. That's why I'm an atheist. If you think belief and
> faith are not the same, please explain how they differ.
>

A belief can be the result of faith. Faith is more likely proposed as
a way to "hold" the belief than the belief in itself, or sometimes it
isn't. The various meaning of the words "faith" and "belief" make it
such a mess too, sometimes it can be accepted as a synonym sometimes
it's not the case.

> *********************************
>
>
>
> > > ******************

>
> > > >  If
>
> > > > > you have no faith that a god exists, you are an atheist. Atheists also
> > > > > think all gods are unknowable.
>

> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[Answer_42]

On Oct 19, 3:04 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > I believe the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
>
> > > > > > LL: If you have faith that a god exists anyway, you are a theist.
>
> > > > > What does "faith" have to do with belief?  I believe that God exists,
> > > > > and that is what is required for theism.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> > > > You beleive based on faith, not on evidence or logic.
>
> > > Define "faith", and then prove that that's the case.
>
> > > > You, yourself, have claimed that there are no valid arguments in
> > > > favour of god;
>
> > > Which essentially means no arguments where if the premises are true,
> > > the conclusion must follow.  Or, basically, no arguments that prove
> > > that God exists.  Hardly a huge disqualifying factor, considering how
> > > things we believe that have the same handicap.
>
> > No.
> > We have been there before, yet you refuse to admit that your god
> > belief is on a totally different level.
>
> I don't admit because you have never proved it or, in fact, done
> anything more than blatantly assert it.

Why don't you list some of your belief that are equivalent to your god
belief?

> > I do believe many things without having  a 100% proof, you are right
> > about that.
>
> > However, all of those beliefs, without exception, are based on real
> > world events, objective evidence, corroborating factors, repeatable
> > instances, etc.
>
> So, how much ancient history do you believe?  After all, its evidence
> is pretty much identical to that for God -- since the Bible is a
> purported

Yes, "purported", indeed.

> document reflecting ancient history, it would be utterly
> ridiculous to assert otherwise -- and so if you accept some of it why
> would you insist that it is not rational to accept God on the same
> evidence?

Because there is no logical reason to accept the insane claims in the
bible as real when they are in fact, according to your logic, the same
as any other mythical claims that are accepted as being human
fabrications.

> No, the reason you don't believe in supernatural things or God is --
> in large part -- because you hold beliefs that I do not, you believe
> that there cannot exist supernatural entities being the largest one.

You have it backwards.

I started off with the belief.
I looked for confirmation of that belief and found none. Moreover,
there are many sound arguments, that you find lacking - go figure,
that support the fact that all claims about the supernatural are
actually human inventions.

So I dropped the belief.

You started with the belief, as I did, but instead of trying to
confirm it, you examined various claims against that belief, and
decided that the belief would have to be utterly disproved (in other
words, you set the bar way up there), so, no surprise, your beleif won
out...

Who is more biased here?

> This is evidenced by your insistence that we prove any supernatural
> thing or god exist before you'll even consider that a specific one
> might exist.  This shows that we'd have to overcome your initial
> belief

No initial belief.
Just an acceptance of the fact that there exist absolutely no
objective evidence or loigical necessity to support the existence of
anything remotely supernatural.

Don't confuse my rejection of anything supernatural based on a total
lack of objective evidence and logical necessity with your wishful-
thinking that there might possibly exist a supernatural realm, which
is a useful proposition within your web of belief since it supports
the god belief.

> and change it before you can consider the specific instance.
> This is not, in and of itself, irrational.  But I don't hold that
> belief.  I find naturalism or physicalism to be an invalid and/or
> meaningless proposition.  Thus, I can treat "supernatural" beliefs
> just like "natural" ones, and so can note that the evidence for them
> is indeed similar to that I have for "ordinary" beliefs.

And what evidence would that be?

>
> If you really examined your beliefs, you'd see that you hold some
> beliefs on very similar evidence to what exists for God.  

Such as?

> You almost
> certainly, for example, believe things primarily because your parents
> taught it to you and you haven't had it refuted yet.  

Such as?
Don't try to justify your irrational stance (God might be true because
my parents taught me so.) by trying to claim that I hold similarly
irrational beliefs.

> But you segment
> "supernatural" beliefs off into another category because of your
> skepticism of the supernatural and belief in naturalism.  

Nope.

It is a scepticism I reserve for all propositions that are based on a
total lack of objective evidence and logical necessity.
As I stated above, I did use to believe in all kinds of supernatural
propositions.
It is not a predisposition against the supernatural as such as you try
to imply here.

> All that it
> would take for you to become rational -- and understand my position --
> would be to admit that.  But so far you have yet to even take the
> basic first steps into epistemology to do so.

I don't see myself starting to accept that a belief based on a total
lack of objective evidence and logical necessity is a rational belief
any time soon.

> > Nothng like that exists for any god beliefs.
> > I do not have any beliefs, including religious ones, obviously, that
> > rests on total wishful thinking, like your god belief is.
> > When I do, I call them hopes, not beliefs.
>
> In order to claim that I believe that God exists based on wishful
> thinking, you'd have to prove that I in fact hope that God exists.
> There's probably more evidence showing that you hope He doesn't --
> since God advocates some behaviours and would supposedly punish some
> things you think shouldn't be punished -- than that I hope He does.
> At any rate, I welcome you showing evidence that I hope God exists.
> And, no, griping about a lack of "objective evidence" is not such
> evidence, especially since I have said repeatedly that I reject the
> idea that all beliefs must be grounded in objective evidence, and
> pointed out that I consider the subjective/objective distinction in
> evidence to be meaningless.

You obviously missed the gist of what I was trying to say.

I just pionted out that in your world view, some of what constitute a
belief for you would be characterized as a hope in mine.
I know you do not consider your beliefs to be hopes.

Let me ask you, do you believe in Satan/the Devil?

> > I have no need to hope that god is real, so he is not included in my
> > hopes. I do hope that my children, who are real, will be successful.
> > Yet, becasue I do not have anything concrete yet, I do not believe it,
> > I hope. If they are successful at university, then my hope may become
> > a belief.
> > Still, all of this rests on very real and objective things/events/
> > people.
>
> So, you don't look at your children's talents and have beliefs about
> what career they might succeed at?  

Nope, they are too young.

> I doubt it.  

Whatever.

> That's a belief, my
> friend.

Even if it wwere, so what?
As I stated, at least this belief would rest on objective and logical
propositions.

> > > > also, there is no objective evidence and there is no
> > > > logical reason why a god is necessary to explain anything.
>
> > > And all this would mean is that it isn't proven.  If I was forced to
> > > only believe things that were absolutely proven to be true, there
> > > wouldn't be much to believe in.  I think, therefore I am ... MAYBE.
>
> > Again, we are not talking about beliefs in general, like my belief
> > that you are pretty good at nitpicking based on observed and objective
> > evidcene. :-p
>
> > We are talking about your religious beliefs, which, even if you assert
> > otherwise, are different from mundane beliefs.
>
> Prove it.
>
> > If not, prove it by giving us a list of mundane beliefs that you have
> > that rest on a total lack of evidence, objective observations, logical
> > necessity, etc.
>
> Strawman.  I only need to find a "mundane" (whatever THAT'S supposed
> to mean) that is held on similar evidence.  I have repeatedly referred
> to one: the existence and philosophies of Socrates.  The evidence is
> only from ancient documents, many of which are, in fact, actually
> fictional to a large extent.  And I still give that one more
> confidence than a belief in God.  But it's close enough to make the
> point.

Hmm, did Socrates make any supernatural claims?
Anything miraculous attributed to him?
A man might have existed who discussed philosophical matters with
other men... Wow, that is a difficult proposition to accept as true
based on a few documents.

> At any rate, I argue that beliefs should all be treated the same,

So do I.
When there exist no objective evidence and logical necessity
supporting a claim, then that claim does not merit to be believed in,
whatever that claim is. Yet, you hold a belief by giving that belief a
special status, which you refuse to acknowledge. You keep comparing it
to mundane beliefs (beliefs based on objective evidence and/or logical
necessity) yes it shares nothing with those beliefs, and you believe!
You even reject conflicting evidence as "lacking" in favour of your
belief. For instance, you claim that because we have what seems to be
historical accounts of a supernatural being, just like we have
historical accounts of other historical people, then this in itself is
a valid argument in favour of the belief. Yet, you ignore that these
supernatural accounts are very similar in nature to many other ancient
supernatural accounts that have been labelled as mythical.

> and
> your demand for prove does not address that.  So, if you want to argue
> against it, you have to show that beliefs must be based on those
> things you list.  And you can start by defining what you mean by them
> in the first place.

As a minimum, objective evidence, lacking that, logical necessity
would be nice.

> > > > Yet you believe, because you choose to, based on faith.
>
> > > Define faith and prove this statement.
>
> > Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness
> > of an idea.
> > (Adapted from Wikipedia article on fatih)
>
> Then I'd have in any belief, wouldn't I?  So that can't be what you
> mean, since it wouldn't distinguish theistic beleif from any other.

I forgot to add that that it was based on nothing objective or
logical.

"
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness

of an idea despite not having any supporting evidence of logical
arguments in favour of that idea.

"

>
> > Fine Alan, you want to assert that you are a Christian who believes
> > based on a lack of valid arguments/evidence and who has no faith
> > whatsoever, go ahead, what's one more delusion?
>
> It is quite possible that I don't have faith in the sense that many
> religious people claim it.  You certainly should be able to see that
> my belief is, in fact, strikingly different in qualities from those of
> almost every other religious person on the board, if not all of them.
> Could that be because it isn't really faith at all?  Or because of a
> simple confidence level?
>
> You'd have to define faith first, and I don't think the one you gave
> is the one you mean.
>
> I do want to make a post about faith, so perhaps I'll do this while
> I'm idle for a bit.

________________________________________________
It just absolutely boggles the mind. I wouldn't want my doctor
thinking that intelligent design was an equally plausible hypothesis
to evolution any more than I would want my airplane pilot believing in
the flat Earth.
-- Dr. James Langer

[Answer_42]

On Oct 19, 3:38 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > I believe in the Abrahamic God.
>
> > > > And if you parents had believed in Vishnu, you would believe in
> > > > Vishnu...
>
> > > Yes.  So what?
>
> > Amazing that you admit this, and yet refuse to see the impact this
> > fact has on your assertion that your belief is rational...
> > The only rationality involved is that children do pick up beliefs from
> > their parents, yet, the belief itself maybe irrational,
>
> It may indeed be irrational, but just because it was picked up from my
> parents does not mean that it is.  

Of course.

> Therefore, the initial source is
> irrelevant to that determination.  

Not quite, it is one of the factors that we have to consider in order
to evaluate the rationality of the proposition being studied.

> Do you disagree?

And where did your parents pick up that particular belief?

[Lawrey]

LL,

Well slap my wrists, for once again I have allowed by
voluntary work to intervene and I have had an alarming
week-end with the Gestapo here over a stabbing and
a seperate shop/lifting event, and collecting information
to support unnecessary and unwarranted, gratuitous
police violence takes time and keeps me busy.

But I am here now.

My friend, I know that you are not alone it criticising
my dogmatic insistence that nothing needs me to
prove it. What is not and has never been shown to
exist throughout recorded history, clearly does not
exist in real terms. I do not need nor will I attempt
to prove nothing. Please, all I ask is for something,
some small thing and I will accommodate you in
doing my very best to prove it, because if there is
something it should be able to be proven, otherwise
how can we lable it something.

God/s and ghosts are not, nor ever have been proven.

Beliefs in them both, abound from pagan times, but
belief in something does not make it something, if
it turns out to be nothing. God/s and ghosts are
nothing I see no advantage or benefit in arguing for
nothing and what wise man would attempt to prove
nothing. Only fools fooled by fools attempt to prove
nothing as something. ;) If you get my drift.



On Oct 18, 9:15 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 3:37 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > LL,
>
> > Hello! Hello! Hello!! Are you telling me after all this time
> > you have found some conclusive evidence to prove me
> > wrong? ;)
>
> LL: Not at all. I'm just wondering how you know for sure since it's
> impossible to show evidence that any entity doesn't exist somewhere,
> perhaps outside of our awareness.
>
> Saying something doesn't exist, however, is rational for things
> outside of our awareness. But do you also say that no god exists? I
> tend not to go that far since there is no way I can show evidence of
> nonexistence. I can only say that I have never been aware of any
> evidence that such a being exists.
>
> ***************************
>
> *****************************
>
> **********************
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 7:39 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 7:29 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > LL,
>
> > > > Hiya, Sorry for the hiatus. Lot going on here and so little
> > > > time.
>
> > > LL: What do you mean by doing other things? What could be more
> > > important than A vs C? ;-)
>
> > > > As I have intimated the only difference between us is
> > > > marginal and rests on what theism terms as knowledge.
> > > > we two are I hope agreed on our interpretation.
>
> > > > So lets just clarify Knowledge: Facts, and information
> > > > acquired through experience and or education shown to
> > > > be true.
>
> > > > A theist will tell you that they come by their beliefs
> > > > through their experience and study, in education in
> > > > theological studies and have indeed gained knowledge.
>
> > > > What they neglect to say is that their knowledge is
> > > > the knowledge of a belief. It is as both you and I agree
> > > > is false knowledge which is as you say no knowledge
> > > > at all.
>
> > > > The belief of theism is built on the knowledge of a belief,
> > > > but it is still termed as knowledge even though it is false.
> > > > We two are in complete agreement that NO-ONE has
> > > > any knowledge of any god. Only false knowledge of the
> > > > belief in god/s.
>
> > > > WE are simply saying the same thing in a different way.
>
> > > > I think we have agreed on the distinction between
> > > > knowledge and belief.
>
> > > > Therefore you are correct in your assessment as to validity.
>
> > > > We are indeed both saying there either is or there is not.
> > > > There cannot be an "I don't know" that sustains a god of
> > > > which there is no knowledge and at the same time permits
> > > > a belief in such. If I have no knowledge of such how on earth
> > > > do I maintain a belief.
>
> > > > If you have noted what I have been trying to impart albeit
> > > > badly, it is that agnosticism is based on an inconvenience
> > > > of having to admit to an inconvenience where is not popular
> > > > to be seen to disagree with the estabished BELIEF.
> > > > Therefore "I don't know" allows a convenient way out.
>
> > > > In truth it is not so much "I don't know" as "I am not prepared
> > > > to be unpopular." Atheists up till now have been and in some
> > > > cases and societies still are very unpopular, although the
> > > > situation is I think is easing.
>
> > > LL: As far as I can tell, we're pretty close in our interpretations.
> > > Not perfect, but close.
>
> > > > As to ghosts and goolies and things that go bump in the
> > > > night. I have a certain knowledge of them as a belief and
> > > > know that many are they that believe. I do not believe in
> > > > them as with my non-belief in gods. Ghosts do not exist.
>
> > > LL: How do you know that?
>
> > > **************************************
>
> > > > On Oct 14, 11:09 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 14, 4:39 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >   LL,
>
> > > > > > I am grateful for the opertunity you afford me to respond, I
> > > > > > hope with more clarity.
> > > > > > Have mulled over your reply to my original response to
> > > > > > the question, and I note you make the clear distinction twix
> > > > > > Belief and Knowledge and here we are in accord.
>
> > > > > LL: Thanks for your response. However, I still disagree. I don't think
> > > > > anyone needs knowledge to believe. It's obvious to me that many people
> > > > > believe what they've been told without ever looking for actual
> > > > > knowledge of a god. Does anyone have such knowledge?
>
> > > > > It seems to me that you are confusing actual knowledge of a god with
> > > > > knowledge of what people generally mean when they talk about god. The
> > > > > person answering the question, if he says he believes in god, still
> > > > > has no actual knowledge of a god. (If he does, he's not showing us the
> > > > > evidence.) He only has knowledge of what the questioner is talking
> > > > > about and knows the conventional definition of a god.
>
> > > > > So, I still maintain that to answer the question, "Do you believe in
> > > > > god" cannot validly be answered by "I don't know." Either one believes
> > > > > or doesn't. Believers have no evidence of god, either, yet they claim
> > > > > to "know." I think that's the dividing line. An actual atheist doesn't
> > > > > "know" that there is no god and doesn't claim to. He simply has no
> > > > > belief in one because there is nothing to hang that belief on.
>
> > > > > What would your answer be if you were asked if you believe in ghosts?
> > > > > Yes, no or I don't know?
>
> > > > > ************************************
>
> > > > > > If I may be impertinent and disect your comment to me:

>
> > > > > > > LL: But that is never a valid answer to the question,

> > > > > > > "Do you believe in god.?"  If the person answers

> > > > > > > "I don't know," all he is saying is that he doesn't know
> > > > > > > his own mind.
>

> > > > > > If you will excuse my ignorance, I think we are bound to
> > > > > > make the distinction here as to what the person is
> > > > > > responding to and what they are saying and why.
> > > > > > In saying "I do not know" They are defining what in their
> > > > > > own minds, their own impression of a god is, and then to
> > > > > > say "I do not know", surely clearly indicates they have no
> > > > > > mind on the matter, as you have correctly pointed out.
>
> > > > > > In responding to the question "do you believe?"
> > > > > > They have given thought to what a god is, and they do
> > > > > > not know. They do not have sufficient knowledge.
>
> > > > > > > LL. It isn't a question of whether he KNOWS whether a

> > > > > > > god exists. It's a question of whether he BELIEVES a
> > > > > > > god exists.
>

> > > > > > I must hope I am not being too dogmatic in this, but it would
> > > > > > appear to my peculiar way of thinking, that if you believe
> > > > > > something, you do so on the basis of some knowledge, be
> > > > > > it right, or wrong. Somewhere along the line you have
> > > > > > deduced a possiblilty that something exists, that is why you
> > > > > > hold the belief. The reverse of this is if you had not been
> > > > > > seduced into the possibility of the existence of something
> > > > > > you would not believe it. And this of course develops
> > > > > > into another intriguing argument which I am sure you have
> > > > > > noted, but we won't go into here.
>
> > > > > > So my dear friend you may disagree with me in this, but
> > > > > > I trust you have gleened enough to be able to understand
> > > > > > why I made the original posit.
>
> > > > > > You cannot Believe something without first availing
> > > > > > yourself of some right or wrong Knowledge, no-matter
> > > > > > how that knowledge was deduced. You may look at that
> > > > > > knowledge and conclude it is false, but you cannot then still.
> > > > > > believe it. You can only look at that knowledge and say to
> > > > > > yourself, that on the balance of probability it is true and so
> > > > > > believe it. But Here we are in contention because I say
> > > > > > If you say "I don't know". You are answering both the
> > > > > > question of a god, and existence. "I don't Know".Must
> > > > > > cover both. There is or there is not.
>
> > > > > > I respectfully submit that there IS a valid answer to the
> > > > > > question: "Do you believe in god?" as long as you can give
> > > > > > a valid argument in support of the validity of your conclusion.
>
> > > > > > I can respect "I do not Know", because it should suggest
> > > > > > that thought has been given to the answer.
>
> > > > > > I do not respect "I do not know" if it means I beleive on
> > > > > > the basis of something I have not sought to gain knowledge
> > > > > > of, which with agnosticism, is all too often the case.
>
> > > > > > It is what I call lazy agnosticism, or convenient, as with
> > > > > > Protagoras who feared that had he said otherwise he
> > > > > > might suffer dior consequences, and it is still in many cases
> > > > > > today, a question of saving face and not wishing to be seen
> > > > > > NOT to conform. How I have come to despise that word
> > > > > > CONFORM, why would anyone wish to conform to a
> > > > > > delusional religion which disgracefully promotes superstition.
>
> > > > > > I digress!
>
> > > > > > In short IF "I don't know" it is because I have considered
> > > > > > something, if I have considered something, it does or it does
> > > > > > not exist. My belief has considered the existence and does
> > > > > > not know. So if I dont know if it exists how do I believe
> > > > > > at the same time that it might? I can Understand "I do not
> > > > > > Know in ancient times because they just did not know.
>
> > > > > > TODAY we do have knowledge. "I do not know" pleads
> > > > > > ignorance where there is no excuse for it.

>
> > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:47 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Simon,
>
> > > > > > > > I tend to take the view as expressed by Trance/G.
>
> > > > > > > > What we have to remember is that even in Huxley's
>

[Lawrey]

Treebeard,

Faith as far as religion is concerned is expressed in these
terms: Faith takes over where knowledge and reason ends
or fails. It is in other words an excuse to say I believe without
reason or evidence of any fact to support the reason to believe.