PHILOSOPHY FORUM - AUGUST 8th 2020, Saturday, 2.30pm

[atheist7agnostic]

AGNOSTICS GROUP - Online.

Zoom online meeting: Saturday 8th August 2020 , 2.30pm to 4.30pm.

"Are Atheists Gutless Agnostics?"

David Miller will introduce the topic lead the discussion.

ZOOM Link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83025176167?pwd=Ly92bGlnZThQNjRtS1EremJLMkxvZz09

Meeting ID: 830 2517 6167  -  Passcode: 482949

~ For those who wish to discuss the pros and cons of Agnosticism ~

All viewpoints welcome.  Enquiries: militant7agnostic@ yahoo.com.au

Agnostics Group's Facebook - Please comment, and join in the ongoing discussions.

Agnostics Group's past and future topics.

'Agnostics are gutless Atheists' is the usual abusive comment hurled at the Agnostics by the Atheists. But, in my opinion, the reverse is the case.

[Atheist Society]

Theism and Atheism are about 'belief'.
Agnosticism is about 'knowledge' (and the lack of it).
There are Atheists who haven't the guts to admit that they 'don't know'.
There are Atheists who haven't the guts to admit that they are 'believers'.
Then there are those Atheists who pull the stunt of claiming that the Agnostic position is 'really' the Atheist position.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/f142b0ac-a90d-40d9-a1cb-7dde645bebc2o%40googlegroups.com.

[Graeme Lindenmayer]

Here is my contribution to the topic. It is a version of a talk I gave to the Athiest Society in 1999.

Regards to all

Graeme Lindenmayer

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/CAGqKG5Q%2BTJ0LEreZ8VXCdYdAPVCXFAyviU6OGRZCgghgDX0bag%40mail.gmail.com.

[donlhumphries]

Agnostic was invented by  T H Huxley as a polite version of atheism.

Sent from Samsung tablet.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/313090295.162712.1596631010455%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Wed, August 5, 2020 10:36 pm, 'Graeme Lindenmayer' via The Philosophy

Forum wrote:
> Here is my contribution to the topic. It is a version of a talk I gave to
> the Athiest Society in 1999.

Thank you for this Graeme. There are several comments that I have about
the talk

"supernatural refers to something that is distinct from and might exist
separately from the material world, but that might be capable of
interacting with the material world,"

Under such a definition, qualia and language are supernatural!

There *are* things in the world that are non-physical without being
supernatural.

"gods are individual entities that are supernatural,"

Not all religions have personal gods.

& etc.

--
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
Mngmnt) (Chifley), MSc (InfoSys) (Salford)
mobile: 0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

[Lev Lafayette]

On Thu, August 6, 2020 9:50 am, donlhumphries wrote:
> Agnostic was invented by  T H Huxley as a polite version of atheism.
>

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It
simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he
has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently,
agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but
also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of
heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because
heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy
does not.[11]

— Thomas Henry Huxley
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to
the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported
propositions.[12]

— Thomas Henry Huxley
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which
lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the
principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your
reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other
consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend
that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or
demonstrable.[13][14][15]

— Thomas Henry Huxley

[Graeme Lindenmayer]

Thanks Lev

Until qualia can be rigorously demonstrated to have a physical explanation, I cannot rule them out as being supernatural.  That does not mean that I think they must be supernatural.

I am agnostic on that issue.

If some entity is neither physical nor supernatural, what is it?

Regards

Graeme

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette <lev.la...@isocracy.org>
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 10:07 pm
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - AUGUST 8th 2020, Saturday, 2.30pm

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-philosophy-forum+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/42ff0f1039973f6952559ab301645e84.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Fri, August 7, 2020 1:20 am, 'Graeme Lindenmayer' via The Philosophy

Forum wrote:
> Until qualia can be rigorously demonstrated to have a physical
> explanation, I cannot rule them out as being supernatural.  That does not

> mean that I think they must be supernatural.I am agnostic on that issue.

> If some entity is neither physical nor supernatural, what is it?

Well, we're using intersubjective meanings right here.

You're limiting your notion of what exists in the world as being physical.
This is an error, perhaps you should be thinking in terms of
empirico-rational.

There are subjective experiences and intersubjective meanings which cannot
be reduced to just their physical components.

[donlhumphries]

Words are human artefacts, and part of our natural word.

Sent from Samsung tablet.

-------- Original message --------

From: 'Graeme Lindenmayer' via The Philosophy Forum <the-philos...@googlegroups.com>

Date: 7/08/2020 1:20 am (GMT+10:00)

To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - AUGUST 8th 2020, Saturday, 2.30pm

Thanks Lev

Until qualia can be rigorously demonstrated to have a physical explanation, I cannot rule them out as being supernatural.  That does not mean that I think they must be supernatural.

I am agnostic on that issue.

If some entity is neither physical nor supernatural, what is it?

Regards

Graeme

-----Original Message-----
From: Lev Lafayette <lev.la...@isocracy.org>
To: the-philos...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 10:07 pm
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY FORUM - AUGUST 8th 2020, Saturday, 2.30pm

On Wed, August 5, 2020 10:36 pm, 'Graeme Lindenmayer' via The Philosophy

Forum wrote:
> Here is my contribution to the topic. It is a version of a talk I gave to
> the Athiest Society in 1999.

Thank you for this Graeme. There are several comments that I have about
the talk

"supernatural refers to something that is distinct from and might exist
separately from the material world, but that might be capable of
interacting with the material world,"

Under such a definition, qualia and language are supernatural!

There *are* things in the world that are non-physical without being
supernatural.

"gods are individual entities that are supernatural,"

Not all religions have personal gods.

& etc.

--
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
Mngmnt) (Chifley), MSc (InfoSys) (Salford)
mobile:  0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-philosophy-forum+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/42ff0f1039973f6952559ab301645e84.squirrel%40webmail.isocracy.org.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Philosophy Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-philosophy-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/700837307.622038.1596727227267%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Atheist Society]

The Agnostics Group's Zoom discussion (Saturday 8th August 2020) left me with the impression that some of the Atheists have a desperate need to believe that high-probability is actually near-certainty. They seemed to be "certainty-seekers".
This raised doubt in my mind about their willingness to accept the possibility of future scientific discoveries.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-philosophy-forum/d8am0icfjkyxhdjrefd9dui9.1596850627342%40email.android.com.

[Lev Lafayette]

On Sat, August 8, 2020 11:37 am, donlhumphries wrote:
> Words are human artefacts, and part of our natural word.

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, and you seem to be conflating
and confusing "the natural" with "the physical".

The meaning of words are not physical. They're intersubjective.