Thou shalt not suffer a wiccan tailorer to live
blue girl with white hair and red eyes
to Art Bell one night and told me that the verse listed in the Bible
was a gross misinterpretation. Some guest on his show was splaining
it. I looked it up and heres what I found on the net.
Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live
What about that infamous mistranslation of Ex. 22:18 in the King James
Version of the Bible; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
As to why that's a mistranslation, here's the evidence supporting this
claim:
In the KJV, the translation of Ex. 22:18 is "Thou Shalt not suffer a
Witch to live. The NIV, (a contextual translation), has it as "Thou
shalt not suffer a sorcerer to live."
In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, it claims the
word "witch" in Hebrew as " 3784 kashaph, a prim. root; prop. to
whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic:--sorcerer, (use)
witch (-craft)."
However, in the Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, the term
"kashaph", can be broken into two parts: a root word, "kash", meaning,
"straw, herb, reed", and "hapaleh", or "casting, bringing down,
using."
Combined, these words translate into "using/casting
herbs/straws/reeds" - one who uses herbs.
So a better translation is "one who uses/has knowledge of herbs".
Hebrew is a contextual language. Words can have a positive or negative
meaning based upon context.
Kashaph is not the Hebrew term for witch. The Hebrew term for
witchcraft is "keeshoof", meaning sorcery or magic. "Mekhash" means
"to bewitch", and the term for a female who practices magic is
"mekhashah", whereas the term for a male is "mekhashef", (the "ah" and
"ef" suffix denoting gender.)
Note that none of these terms has a similar root to "kashaph".
Therefore, the question is, why did a unrelated term like "kashaph"
get mistakenly translated into "witch" ?? Easy, terms that denote
"knowledge of herbs" have tended to get translated as "witchcraft" in
theological writings for nearly 2000 years.
Now we get into the "to live" or "live" part. Strong's lists that word
in Ex. 22:18 as 02421 chayah {khaw-yaw'} 1) to live, have life, remain
alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened,
be alive, be restored to life or health
Again, let's look at the Webster's New World.
Since, "ch" does get changed into a "k" in Hebrew, we'll look up the
word "khay", or "khayah". Webster's gives the definition as: "living,
alive, living among, dwelling, being alive, being full of life."
According to the Hebrew, as backed up by a Hebrew dictionary, the
phrase cited, Ex. 22:18, uses a negative context to refer to "one who
uses herbs, dwelling/living among you" - i.e. you shall not allow
someone who uses herbs in a negative manner, (poisoner), to dwell
among you. Which is utterly unrelated to what the KJV says. If the
original texts *meant* "witch" or "witchcraft", ("mekhashah" and
"keeshoof"), then *why* did it NOT use the Hebrew terms for "witch" or
"witchcraft" ?? Instead, the terms it used, being unrelated to "witch"
or "witchcraft", were then *mistakenly* translated as "witch" and
"witchcraft".
Patrick McKinnion
Heres the link to his website
http://www.templeofbast.com/WitchToLive.html
Actually isnt Bast an egyptian Cat god? (notice uppercase C, lowercase
g)
DOG: (They feed me, they take care of me, they play with me.....they
must be gods)
CAT: (They feed me, they take care of me, they play with me.....I must
be a god)
DLM
"blue girl with white hair and red eyes" <nyarrl...@antisocial.com>
wrote in message news:d85db693.02070...@posting.google.com...
> According to the Hebrew, as backed up by a Hebrew dictionary, the
> phrase cited, Ex. 22:18, uses a negative context to refer to "one who
> uses herbs, dwelling/living among you" - i.e. you shall not allow
> someone who uses herbs in a negative manner, (poisoner), to dwell
> among you. Which is utterly unrelated to what the KJV says. If the
> original texts *meant* "witch" or "witchcraft", ("mekhashah" and
> "keeshoof"), then *why* did it NOT use the Hebrew terms for "witch" or
> "witchcraft" ?? Instead, the terms it used, being unrelated to "witch"
> or "witchcraft", were then *mistakenly* translated as "witch" and
> "witchcraft".
>
> Patrick McKinnion
>
But I argue that :
> you shall not allow someone who uses herbs in a negative manner,
(poisoner), to dwell
> among you
could be taken as witchcraft or anything else that poisons the Christian
belief.
Valien
>But I argue that :
>
>> you shall not allow someone who uses herbs in a negative manner,
>(poisoner), to dwell
>> among you
>
>could be taken as witchcraft or anything else that poisons the Christian
>belief.
Is your faith so weak that living near (or in the same community) as
someone who practices witchcraft will "poison" it? Can the mere
presence of a pagan, cause you to question your faith?
I think it is funny and sad that most flavors of religion are so
insecure that they feel the need to remove anything or anyone that
doesn't share the same belief.
All major forms of religion teach tolerance, but practice intolerance.
Lokari
wrote:
>hehe....now that i have your attention, a friend of mine was listening
>to Art Bell one night and told me that the verse listed in the Bible
>was a gross misinterpretation. Some guest on his show was splaining
>it. I looked it up and heres what I found on the net.
I know all this stuff, and the arguments about it being a
misinterpretation. It's not really relevant, though. What's relevant
is what it says today, and how that's been historically used as a
justification for atrocities.
--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
Lokari's Tailoring Guide
www.lokari.net
Lokari
>Is your faith so weak that living near (or in the same community) as
>someone who practices witchcraft will "poison" it? Can the mere
>presence of a pagan, cause you to question your faith?
I believe it bears pointing out here that your use of "your" refers to
a general community, not to DLM.
>I think it is funny and sad that most flavors of religion are so
>insecure that they feel the need to remove anything or anyone that
>doesn't share the same belief. All major forms of religion teach
>tolerance, but practice intolerance.
This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion. Of
course, being made up of humans, it isn't entirely free of the same
human failings.
sanjian
wrote in message news:d85db693.02070...@posting.google.com...
> However, in the Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, the term
> "kashaph", can be broken into two parts: a root word, "kash", meaning,
> "straw, herb, reed", and "hapaleh", or "casting, bringing down,
> using."
>
> Combined, these words translate into "using/casting
> herbs/straws/reeds" - one who uses herbs.
Kill the pot-heads, aye.
Valien
wrote:
>Valien <te...@test.com> wrote:
>
>>Is your faith so weak that living near (or in the same community) as
>>someone who practices witchcraft will "poison" it? Can the mere
>>presence of a pagan, cause you to question your faith?
>
>I believe it bears pointing out here that your use of "your" refers to
>a general community, not to DLM.
Yes, it was a general "your".
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Dark Tyger
>On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:22:22 GMT, "DLM" <DLM@NO_SPAM.COM> wrote:
>
>>But I argue that :
>>
>>> you shall not allow someone who uses herbs in a negative manner,
>>(poisoner), to dwell
>>> among you
>>
>>could be taken as witchcraft or anything else that poisons the Christian
>>belief.
>
>Is your faith so weak that living near (or in the same community) as
>someone who practices witchcraft will "poison" it? Can the mere
>presence of a pagan, cause you to question your faith?
Rather agree with that. It's like the fundies down here having to
close down every strip bar by passing so many regulations, it's not
worth it to stay open. If you don't like the damn things, DON'T GO IN!
It's more a matter, in my opinion, of them not being strong enough in
their convictions to resist the temptation.
Christians beleive we're here to have our faith tested (most of them,
anyway). Removing challenges to our faith instead of working to
resist/overcome them is like sneaking cheat-notes in on your history
test in school.
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Email me at comcast.net
=^..^=
"This is espresso, kid. It's, like, coffee-zilla"
-Dean, The Iron Giant
http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=133230
Dark Tyger
Sure. And the tobacco smokers, too. ;-p
Actually, yeah, I do really hate those who are so disrespectful as to
blow smoke of either kind in my face when I'm not partaking myself. If
I wanted to get stoned, I'd be smoking it. If I wanted lung cancer,
I'd have a malboro hanging out of my mouth...
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. ;-)
David Navarro
@news2.randori.com:
> But I argue that :
>
>> you shall not allow someone who uses herbs in a negative manner,
>> (poisoner), to dwell among you
>
> could be taken as witchcraft or anything else that poisons the Christian
> belief.
I argue that it can be translated as anything that gives an excuse to
deprive widows and women living alone of their property... See the Salem
witchcraft trials, for example.
--
Hanrahan Thornhide, 52 Human Wanderer, Fennin Ro
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/userinfo.html?char=175564
'Those who can't, shouldn't'
Richard
news:q45miu0aisi3rdco6...@4ax.com...
That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
--
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Mystic of 54 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The
Appointed>
Tainniel, Halfling Warrior of 28 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Ganwein, Wood Elf Ranger of 14 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <Decadence>
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 14 seasons, Erollisi Marr
Lokari
>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
Dark Tyger
>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion. Of
>> course, being made up of humans, it isn't entirely free of the same
>> human failings.
>>
>>
>
>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
You calling Wicca "organized"? ;-)
Dark Tyger
>"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
>
>>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
>
>You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
Er, yeah, exactly. ;-) Maybe someday I'll be able to take the time and
actually study up more on Wicca and be able to actually call myself
Wiccan rather than being my current "patchwork pagan" self. ><
Robert Bartle
dark...@nowhere.com says...
> Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> wrote:
>
> >"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
> >
> >>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
> >
> >You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
>
> Er, yeah, exactly. ;-) Maybe someday I'll be able to take the time and
> actually study up more on Wicca and be able to actually call myself
> Wiccan rather than being my current "patchwork pagan" self. ><
Hmm.. how would an "Agnostic Athiest" get along there?
____
RJB
Daniel
news:fk6miuobkiqk3mpjc...@4ax.com...
> "sanjian" <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
> >"blue girl with white hair and red eyes" <nyarrl...@antisocial.com>
> >wrote in message news:d85db693.02070...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> However, in the Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, the term
> >> "kashaph", can be broken into two parts: a root word, "kash", meaning,
> >> "straw, herb, reed", and "hapaleh", or "casting, bringing down,
> >> using."
> >>
> >> Combined, these words translate into "using/casting
> >> herbs/straws/reeds" - one who uses herbs.
> >
> >Kill the pot-heads, aye.
>
> Sure. And the tobacco smokers, too. ;-p
>
profits anyway.
> Actually, yeah, I do really hate those who are so disrespectful as to
> blow smoke of either kind in my face when I'm not partaking myself. If
> I wanted to get stoned, I'd be smoking it. If I wanted lung cancer,
> I'd have a malboro hanging out of my mouth...
>
People often talk about being pressured into taking drugs. In my person
experience saying "no" makes them think "the less for you, the more for us".
Richard
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
>
> >That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized
religion.
>
> You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
>
Not really my thing. I have a number of Wiccan friends, mostly somewhat
eccentric, but great people. So, based on the people I know who are
involved in it, I would agree.
Richard
news:MPG.1794f4e6...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Does that mean that you don't know if there is a God/Creator/supreme being,
but, if you had to take a position on it you'd say no?
Richard
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion. Of
> >> course, being made up of humans, it isn't entirely free of the same
> >> human failings.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized
religion.
>
> You calling Wicca "organized"? ;-)
>
No, given the Wicans I know, that would not be one of the words that springs
to mind immediately as a description of Wicca.
Tim Smith
> You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
Disorganized, but effective, and powerful. :-).
There's an interesting book by Ivan Stang (one of the people behind the
Church of the SubGenius) called "High Weirdness by Mail", which is basically
a collection of descriptions of weird organizations that you can write to
for free or cheap literature, organized into categories, such as weird
religion, weird politics, hate groups, etc.
A coworker decided to write to many of the groups listed, including the
Wiccans. He used a post office box address, and gave no other identifying
information. So, as expected, he received literature from these various
groups at that post office box. However, he *also* received a phone call,
at home, on his unlisted number, a couple of weeks later, from the Wiccans,
asking if he'd received the literature they'd sent.
--Tim Smith
DLM
"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:agf82t$l9put$1...@ID-111521.news.dfncis.de...
> "Lokari" <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> wrote in message
> news:q45miu0aisi3rdco6...@4ax.com...
> > Valien <te...@test.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Is your faith so weak that living near (or in the same community) as
> > >someone who practices witchcraft will "poison" it? Can the mere
> > >presence of a pagan, cause you to question your faith?
> >
> > I believe it bears pointing out here that your use of "your" refers to
> > a general community, not to DLM.
> >
> > >I think it is funny and sad that most flavors of religion are so
> > >insecure that they feel the need to remove anything or anyone that
> > >doesn't share the same belief. All major forms of religion teach
> > >tolerance, but practice intolerance.
> >
> > This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion. Of
> > course, being made up of humans, it isn't entirely free of the same
> > human failings.
> >
> >
>
> That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized
religion.
>
I have a faith and belief in God and don't really follow "organized
religions" like Catholicism. My belief that Jesus Christ is my savior and to
follow his teachings is all you need to do.
--
DLM
Dark Tyger
Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
Dark Tyger
>Not really my thing. I have a number of Wiccan friends, mostly somewhat
>eccentric, but great people. So, based on the people I know who are
>involved in it, I would agree.
You saying there's something wrong with eccentric? ;-)
Richard
> Robert Bartle <roba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ibamiuopvp6e13me9...@4ax.com>,
> >dark...@nowhere.com says...
> >> Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
> >> >
> >> >>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized
religion.
> >> >
> >> >You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
> >>
> >> Er, yeah, exactly. ;-) Maybe someday I'll be able to take the time and
> >> actually study up more on Wicca and be able to actually call myself
> >> Wiccan rather than being my current "patchwork pagan" self. ><
> >
> >Hmm.. how would an "Agnostic Athiest" get along there?
>
> Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
> specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
>
Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
DLM
>
> Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
> does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
>
True, Agnostics require "proof" to believe, while their opposites would have
"faith".
Richard
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Not really my thing. I have a number of Wiccan friends, mostly somewhat
> >eccentric, but great people. So, based on the people I know who are
> >involved in it, I would agree.
>
> You saying there's something wrong with eccentric? ;-)
>
Only in your particular case DT, not in general. :b
DLM
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaimc63.73u...@tzs.net...
So what good is having all this power? We all die someday.
David Navarro
> Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
> specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
You are wrong there. "Agnostic" means that they believe that the question of
the existence of a god is not answerable. It does not imply neither belief
nor disbelief.
Dark Tyger
>> Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
>> specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
>>
>
>Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
>does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
True. However, it remains that it is not possible to be agnostic and
atheistic at the same time, since atheistic cancels out beleif in even
the possiblity of a god.
DLM
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
> >> specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
> >>
> >
> >Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
> >does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
>
> True. However, it remains that it is not possible to be agnostic and
> atheistic at the same time, since atheistic cancels out beleif in even
> the possiblity of a god.
>
>
Amen.
Rastus
> >> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
>
> >That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized
religion.
>
> You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
Okay, all jokes aside for such a serious issue *coughs*.... but isn't Wicca
naked females running around dancing in forests? Hmmn, tempting... I will
take Bhuddism though, the babes are better looking.
: O
Rastus
> > does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
> >
>
> True, Agnostics require "proof" to believe, while their opposites would
have
> "faith".
>
>
really hope the jury is fully of Agnostics and not faithful.....
Rastus
> atheistic at the same time, since atheistic cancels out beleif in even
> the possiblity of a god.
>
> --
> Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
> Email me at comcast.net
> =^..^=
Ahh, but then beliefs are mixed all the time, even contradictory ones. Look
at the amount of Pagan rituals celebrated by Christians around the world.
Easter anyone? The mexican day of the dead celebrated by Catholics...etc
etc.
It's a matter of faith....
I have faith there is no god but refuse to see any evidence one way or
another as it may endanger my faith.
*extremely evil grin*
Boddhisatva
"DLM" <DLM@NO_SPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:YkGW8.50$Ikm8.1...@news2.randori.com...
What if we have it all backwards? What if "god" and "heaven" are where we
are going regardless? What if there is NOTHING TO DO? Just live, make
choices, learn from your experiences, and grow. Anarchy? Yes, but if it
doesn't really matter anyway, and all choices eventually evolve into an
acknowledgement of results, then wisdom could intervene. If you throw
yourself from a building it isn't the judgment of God that you die, it's
just a natural result. Ever action has a reaction, and if we begin to live
our lives with intention, knowing the results of our actions, or at least
the possible results and stop trying to follow a set code of laws that
involve guilt and judgment, wouldn't we all be better off? This would drop
out the arguing and militant fighting that comes along with religions trying
to say they have it "right" and others have it "wrong."
Morality: If it benefits you and the world around you, DO IT. If it hurts
you and the world around you, DON'T.
Could be argued that who is to decide these things, but I believe that deep
down inside we all know what will hurt us and what won't. Doesn't take a
God, or a ten commandments, or even Jesus himself to show us what that is.
Just my opinion, I could very easily be wrong.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Boddhisatva Shakyamuni - Iksar Monk of 33 Seasons
http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=231237
Ayonae Ro
Caeil - High Elf Cleric of 11 Seasons
Terris-Thule
-----------------------------------------------------
DLM
"Boddhisatva" <angryco...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8MJW8.649901$%y.400...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> What if we have it all backwards? What if "god" and "heaven" are where we
> are going regardless? What if there is NOTHING TO DO? Just live, make
> choices, learn from your experiences, and grow. Anarchy? Yes, but if it
> doesn't really matter anyway, and all choices eventually evolve into an
> acknowledgement of results, then wisdom could intervene. If you throw
> yourself from a building it isn't the judgment of God that you die, it's
> just a natural result.
<snipped>
You have to have faith. Many of your questions are "What if...", and I sure
hope you think you have the right belief with no doubts.
I would not "throw myself from a building" just to see if God would save me,
that is not what he commands us to do.
Rastus
I have no fear of Hades*. It is a natural and inevitable cycle. If we didn't
die then as a species we would stagnate, no natural selection means no
future. Actually, if you remove emotion and look at it quite clinically then
the best thing that could happen to humans would be to half our lifespans.
Twice the generation turnover equals twice the power of adaption.
*Hades = death/grave. Look it up some time.
Rastus
>
> > you shall not allow someone who uses herbs in a negative manner,
> (poisoner), to dwell
> > among you
>
> could be taken as witchcraft or anything else that poisons the Christian
> belief.
>
>
I reckon it means people who offer Foster's Lager to visitors... *shudders*
Bloody terrible beer that, they deserve to be stoned.
Dark Tyger
>What if we have it all backwards? What if "god" and "heaven" are where we
>are going regardless? What if there is NOTHING TO DO? Just live, make
>choices, learn from your experiences, and grow. Anarchy? Yes, but if it
>doesn't really matter anyway, and all choices eventually evolve into an
>acknowledgement of results, then wisdom could intervene. If you throw
>yourself from a building it isn't the judgment of God that you die, it's
>just a natural result. Ever action has a reaction, and if we begin to live
>our lives with intention, knowing the results of our actions, or at least
>the possible results and stop trying to follow a set code of laws that
>involve guilt and judgment, wouldn't we all be better off? This would drop
>out the arguing and militant fighting that comes along with religions trying
>to say they have it "right" and others have it "wrong."
>
>Morality: If it benefits you and the world around you, DO IT. If it hurts
>you and the world around you, DON'T.
>
>Could be argued that who is to decide these things, but I believe that deep
>down inside we all know what will hurt us and what won't. Doesn't take a
>God, or a ten commandments, or even Jesus himself to show us what that is.
>
>Just my opinion, I could very easily be wrong.
May be a curious source to draw a serious quote from, but I think
Serendipity said it best in Dogma:
It doesn't matter what you have faith in. Just that you have faith.
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Email me at comcast.net
=^..^=
"This is espresso, kid. It's, like, coffee-zilla"
Sander Baaij
> Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
> does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
Nope.
Atheist = disbelief in (a) supreme being(s)
Agnostic = the opinion that the existance or non-existance of supreme beings
cannot be proven.
You can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
The point that a god cannot be disproven or proven makes it a non-factor to
me. Even if there is a god, it wouldn't have any influence on our universe
(if it had, we would have a way to prove it's influence, hence it's
existance).
--
Rhand Kinslayer
Arch Mage
Antonius Bayle
officer of Lowland Elites
Dan Day
>
>It doesn't matter what you have faith in. Just that you have faith.
The problem with taking things on faith is that they
often end up sounding like this:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv
Quindell
wrote:
>Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> wrote:
>
>>"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
>>
>>>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
>>
>>You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
>
>Er, yeah, exactly. ;-) Maybe someday I'll be able to take the time and
>actually study up more on Wicca and be able to actually call myself
>Wiccan rather than being my current "patchwork pagan" self. ><
I am of the sort... but I prefer to call it eccletic (sp?)...
patchwork pagan does have a nice ring to it though...
Quindell Lebengeber
52 High Elf Cleric <Dark Brigade>
Yute Sinquestion
33 Dwarven Rogue
Fulcon 29 Wood Elf Druid <Legion of Quellious>
Sekani 26 Iksar Monk
Yizzan 21 Eurdite Necro
Beltain 12 Barbarian Shamman <Legion of Quellious>
Quellious
Light travels faster than sound;
so some people may appear bright,
until they open their mouths.
Dark Tyger
>Nope.
>
>Atheist = disbelief in (a) supreme being(s)
>Agnostic = the opinion that the existance or non-existance of supreme beings
>cannot be proven.
>
>You can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
No, you can't have agnostic atheists. Agnostics acknowledge that a
supreme being can exist. Atheists don't.
Richard
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
> >> specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
> >>
> >
> >Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
> >does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
>
> True. However, it remains that it is not possible to be agnostic and
> atheistic at the same time, since atheistic cancels out beleif in even
> the possiblity of a god.
>
Not disagreeing with that.
Richard
news:aggu61$lfpeg$1...@ID-43884.news.dfncis.de...
OK, that is one accepted definition. The one I provided is another accepted
definition. So, I guess, depending on which type of agnostic you are, you
can indeed potentially be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic with any
flavor of religion you choose.
Richard
news:Xns9246E069D1078...@212.159.13.1...
> Dark Tyger <dark...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:sggmiukl7m36khinq...@4ax.com:
>
> > Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
> > specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
>
> You are wrong there. "Agnostic" means that they believe that the question
of
> the existence of a god is not answerable. It does not imply neither belief
> nor disbelief.
>
I had long held the understanding that it meant that you do not believe one
way or the other as to whether or not (a) god existed, so, I looked it up.
It is defined both ways, so, depending on which accepted definition you are
using, you either can or cannot be an agnostic atheist.
Faned
> Robert Bartle <roba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ibamiuopvp6e13me9...@4ax.com>,
> >dark...@nowhere.com says...
> >> Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> This is one of the things that attracted me to my minor religion.
> >> >
> >> >>That's one of the things that attracted me to my lack of organized religion.
> >> >
> >> >You'd like Wicca. Few things are more disorganized than Wiccans :)
> >>
> >> Er, yeah, exactly. ;-) Maybe someday I'll be able to take the time and
> >> actually study up more on Wicca and be able to actually call myself
> >> Wiccan rather than being my current "patchwork pagan" self. ><
> >
> >Hmm.. how would an "Agnostic Athiest" get along there?
>
> Not possible. "Agnostic" suggest a beleif in *A* god, just none
> specific. "Atheist" beleives firmly that there is no god.
Agnostic
"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the
nonexistence of God or a god"
Richard
> "Sander Baaij" <nos...@kill.com> wrote:
>
> >Nope.
> >
> >Atheist = disbelief in (a) supreme being(s)
> >Agnostic = the opinion that the existance or non-existance of supreme
beings
> >cannot be proven.
> >
> >You can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
>
> No, you can't have agnostic atheists. Agnostics acknowledge that a
> supreme being can exist. Atheists don't.
>
I believed that too DT, right up until I decided to look it up in a
dictionary. There are two definitions of Agnostic. One is as you stated it
more or less, the other is as Sander stated it. Thus, depending on which
definition you are using, it either is or is not possible to be an Agnostic
Atheist.
Richard
news:slrnaiou7f...@wyld.qx.net...
You only copied one of the two definitions there.
"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown
and prob. unknowable"
is the other definition. Not that that changes the fact that what DT said
there is incorrect.
Using the second definition (actually first in the dictionary), it is
David Navarro
> May be a curious source to draw a serious quote from, but I think
> Serendipity said it best in Dogma:
>
> It doesn't matter what you have faith in. Just that you have faith.
Hm... Besides being very droll and all that, does that quote actually *mean*
anything? And if so, what does it mean? I'm trying to parse it and I find it
either nonsensical, or slightly disturbing...
David Navarro
news:%XJW8.419376$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Man, I disagree with this so intensely my brain is trying to crawl out of my
nose and start typing all by itself...
First, I don't believe that (natural == good). In fact, I tend to believe
the opposite, but then again, I've had it up to my ears of the "natural"
argument, being a vegetarian (ooh... but people are natural omnivores, don't
you know that?). Bah. I mean, what's the point of doing what's "natural"? We
may as well be monkeys, if we were going to be "natural".
As for the "inevitable" part... well, yes so far, but that's what medical
technology is for. I actually believe that mankind will not fulfill its
potential until death becomes optional. When that happens, people will start
taking responsibility for their actions, because they will know they *will*
have to live with them. No more leaving the mess for our grandchildren. And
stagnation? In fact, quite the opposite... Endless innovation, when people
realize they have all the time in the world to learn new things, take up new
jobs, develop potential artistic skills... Lack of time would never be an
excuse again not to fulfill your capabilities.
If you reduced human lifespan by half, all you'd get is twice the number of
generations making exactly the same mistakes all over again. The fact that
man is the longest-lived mammal is no coincidence. Death sucks the big one,
and what sucks most about it is having been born within just a few
generations of mankind finally doing away with it.
/sigh
sanjian
>
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:agfgj9$lc7so$1...@ID-111521.news.dfncis.de...
>
> >
> > Agnostic does not suggest a belief in a god, it suggests that the person
> > does not know one way or the other whether or not such a being exists.
> >
>
have
> "faith".
So, would an Agnostic Athiest be someone who requires proof to not believe?
sanjian
news:%XJW8.419376$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I always thought it was odd that Hades is used as an euphamism for Hell,
since it contained both Tartaus and the Elisain Fields.
sanjian
news:f5nmiukoaq01jfdj1...@4ax.com...
> Yn erthygl <fk6miuobkiqk3mpjc...@4ax.com>, sgrifenws
> Dark Tyger <dark...@nowhere.com>:
> >>> Combined, these words translate into "using/casting
> >>> herbs/straws/reeds" - one who uses herbs.
> >>
> >>Kill the pot-heads, aye.
> >
> >Sure. And the tobacco smokers, too. ;-p
> >
>
> ...and let's not forget doctors, the primary users of herbs.... those
> evil bastards have had it coming for a long time!
Hmm.... true, and they drop phat lewtz... Hell of a faction hit, though.
Rastus
my
> nose and start typing all by itself...
I can understand that, my views of humans are quite pessimistic, as in the
whole planet would be much better off without such a cancerous organism.
Right or wrong that view definately isn't one design to ingratiate myself
with my fellows...
> First, I don't believe that (natural == good). In fact, I tend to believe
> the opposite, but then again, I've had it up to my ears of the "natural"
> argument, being a vegetarian (ooh... but people are natural omnivores,
don't
> you know that?). Bah. I mean, what's the point of doing what's "natural"?
We
> may as well be monkeys, if we were going to be "natural".
But really, we are animals. Have you seen animals getting pissed? Exactly
like humans. Have you seen dogs barking at each other through a fence?
Humans still haven't dragged themselves out of the territorial pissing stage
either. Seen a bird collect shiney objects for it's nest to attract a mate?
The list goes on. Monkeys on the other hand are a lot less offensive than
humans if you look closer, they just rape and eat each other on occasion.
Not bad habits at all... compared to humans that is.
Being omnivorous on the other hand is a survival trait, not a mandate. It's
all well and good to be vegetarian, but it is a luxurious choice not often
afforded to humans throughout history. In my six years military stint, I was
silly enough to sign up for a survival course (very silly for a technician,
even in a operational unit). You really see where being omnivorous is an
advantage on 10 days of forced marching without food. Insects, grass,
snakes, it didn't matter. If it was edible and catchable without stopping
then it qualified (by the way, it all tasted like shit apart from some of
the grasses and you can't eat too much of that).
> As for the "inevitable" part... well, yes so far, but that's what medical
> technology is for. I actually believe that mankind will not fulfill its
> potential until death becomes optional. When that happens, people will
start
> taking responsibility for their actions, because they will know they
*will*
> have to live with them. No more leaving the mess for our grandchildren.
And
> stagnation? In fact, quite the opposite... Endless innovation, when people
> realize they have all the time in the world to learn new things, take up
new
> jobs, develop potential artistic skills... Lack of time would never be an
> excuse again not to fulfill your capabilities.
Humans are exceedingly predatory on each other. Our priveliged western
culture is funded by cheap labour and resources in other countries. The
bright future you see may eventuate... for the privilged few. Everyone else
will still be eating shit to support them.
> If you reduced human lifespan by half, all you'd get is twice the number
of
> generations making exactly the same mistakes all over again. The fact that
> man is the longest-lived mammal is no coincidence. Death sucks the big
one,
> and what sucks most about it is having been born within just a few
> generations of mankind finally doing away with it.
If you abolish death in humans, then you would need to abolish (new) life in
humans. Our gene pool would stagnate. It would only be a matter of time
before we would be evolutionarily outclassed. You have microbes with
generations measured in hours which are <already> kicking our asses. I think
you have to view "eternal" life from a point of view of our genetic
information, and not as ourselves as individuals.
I have a feeling I am quoting someone here, but I don't know who: "Death is
not the handicap it is made out to be".
>
> /sigh
Welcome to the club. I /sigh so many times a day it isn't funny anymore. I
see a car dealership brimming with new cars and think "what a stupendously
criminal waste of enviromental resources". I see a person strut by in
designer labels and dripping with gold jewllery and think "Chirp Chirp.
Polly wanna cracka?". I go to board the bus and some aggressive teenage boy
tries to stare me down and push past me... "Woof Woof... Grrrr". It's like
being stuck in a bloody zoo in a cage full of ass picking gorillas.
The worst thing is I see the same traits and desires in myself. I can't
bring myself to play the "human game" because it is so <stupid>, yet I know
that is the one thing that will actually make me a happier person. I am
going against my own competetive "programming" and that is what causes the
mental illness I suffer from.
<h2>sigh</h2>
Ed Jensen
: You can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
What's the word for someone who is agnostic
-AND-
is neither an atheist or theist?
-Ed
Rastus
> >
> > It doesn't matter what you have faith in. Just that you have faith.
>
> Hm... Besides being very droll and all that, does that quote actually
*mean*
> anything? And if so, what does it mean? I'm trying to parse it and I find
it
> either nonsensical, or slightly disturbing...
>
From what I can figure out it means you should at least blindly beleive in
something that you cannot rationally explain. I can see the benefit of that
mayhaps - it would be quite a useful pyschological mechanism equivalent to a
"too hard basket" for ideas.
kaev
Faith is the root of hope, and hope makes life worth living. Worth
noting is that faith need not have any religious or supernatural
connotations, trusting in the love of another person is an act of
faith just as surely as trusting in the love of God is.
Richard
news:3D2DACF0...@nospam.yuck.net...
Except that I find a lot more concrete evidence to support my faith that my
wife loves me. So far, God has not deigned to provide any supporting
evidence.
Faned
That would be... "agnostic".
Dark Tyger
Careful, you might be getting a little too advanced for some folks.
;-)
Lokari
>I find a lot more concrete evidence to support my faith that my
>wife loves me. So far, God has not deigned to provide any
>supporting evidence.
What, you want god to dance around in that French Maid outfit?
--
Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
Lokari's Tailoring Guide
www.lokari.net
Dark Tyger
>"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>I find a lot more concrete evidence to support my faith that my
>>wife loves me. So far, God has not deigned to provide any
>>supporting evidence.
>
>What, you want god to dance around in that French Maid outfit?
No, Hitler does that just before having a pineapple shoved up his ass
by Satan. ( I'm sure at least someone knows the referrence )
Rastus
> Faith is the root of hope, and hope makes life worth living. Worth
> noting is that faith need not have any religious or supernatural
> connotations, trusting in the love of another person is an act of
> faith just as surely as trusting in the love of God is.
>
Ahh, you may happen to have entirely right there, it would explain a lot
about certain a poster's demeanour....
*cough*
Richard
news:24iriu0ekrdog40fi...@4ax.com...
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >I find a lot more concrete evidence to support my faith that my
> >wife loves me. So far, God has not deigned to provide any
> >supporting evidence.
>
> What, you want god to dance around in that French Maid outfit?
>
Well, that would serve as evidence, yes. But, personally, unless God is
going to show up in some female form, no, not really. Besides, my wife
might object to that.
kaev
If you believe that God created the universe then your very existence
is sufficient evidence (note that attempts to invoke logic here tend to
go around in circles, we <are> speaking of faith after all). As for
your faith in your wife, while history may give you comfort and
reinforce that trust, it is still an act of faith to believe that her
love for you will endure, the past provides no means of ensuring or
enforcing the future.
Lokari
>unless God is going to show up in some female form, no, not really.
No problem, she's female.
>Besides, my wife might object to that.
Then cast your wife out as a blasphemer.
Ed Jensen
:> What's the word for someone who is agnostic
:> -AND-
:> is neither an atheist or theist?
:>
:> -Ed
:
: That would be... "agnostic".
No. I'm talking about the original definition for agnostic,
which means it's unproveable (and unknowable?) whether or not
god exists.
I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
have to live with it.
-Ed
Dark Tyger
If you're a theist, you beleive a god truly exists. It you're an
atheist, you beleive there is no god. If you're an agnostic, you're
not sure. What else would there be between theist and atheist?
Richard
news:htq5ju8bk4t7iev0i...@4ax.com...
> Ed Jensen <eje...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> >Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
> >:> What's the word for someone who is agnostic
> >:> -AND-
> >:> is neither an atheist or theist?
> >:>
> >:> -Ed
> >:
> >: That would be... "agnostic".
> >
> >No. I'm talking about the original definition for agnostic,
> >which means it's unproveable (and unknowable?) whether or not
> >god exists.
> >
> >I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
> >to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
> >have to live with it.
>
> If you're a theist, you beleive a god truly exists. It you're an
> atheist, you beleive there is no god. If you're an agnostic, you're
> not sure. What else would there be between theist and atheist?
>
Being Agnostic does not mean that you are not sure that God exists
necessarily. It all depends on which definition of Agnostic you are using.
You can be quite certain that God exists, and yet, at the same time, believe
that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. You can also be quite
certain that God does not exist, and still believe that it is impossible to
prove. The inability to prove the existence or lack thereof is one
definition of Agnosticism. The other definition is what you are using.
Both are accepted definitions, although, from my experience, the one that is
currently more common is that an Agnostic does not know whether God exists
or not.
--
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Mystic of 54 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The
Appointed>
Tainniel, Halfling Warrior of 28 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Ganwein, Wood Elf Ranger of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr <Decadence>
Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 15 seasons, Erollisi Marr
Lokari
>I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
>to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
>have to live with it.
Beats where Medieval society allegedly redefined passages from the
Bible, and countless numbers of people had to die for it.
Dark Tyger
>Being Agnostic does not mean that you are not sure that God exists
>necessarily. It all depends on which definition of Agnostic you are using.
>You can be quite certain that God exists, and yet, at the same time, believe
>that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. You can also be quite
>certain that God does not exist, and still believe that it is impossible to
>prove. The inability to prove the existence or lack thereof is one
>definition of Agnosticism. The other definition is what you are using.
>Both are accepted definitions, although, from my experience, the one that is
>currently more common is that an Agnostic does not know whether God exists
>or not.
From www.dictionary.com (Their source being the American Heritage
Dictionary 4th edition):
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and
heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they
exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century
British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material
phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from
the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun
Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,”
which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric
knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with
such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering
as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called
themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that
explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man
without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the
term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870
"does not deny the existance of god..." This itself rules out
"Atheists" as being able to be agnostic as well, since atheists deny
the existance of God. The word, as Huxly coined it, means roughly "not
knowing".
Lance Berg
Ed Jensen wrote:
>
> No. I'm talking about the original definition for agnostic,
> which means it's unproveable (and unknowable?) whether or not
> god exists.
>
> I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
> to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
> have to live with it.
>
> -Ed
I"d like to believe that there is no god but I can't prove it.
I've always refered to that as agnostic atheism...
Lance
Lance Berg
Dark Tyger wrote:
>
> From www.dictionary.com (Their source being the American Heritage
> Dictionary 4th edition):
>
> Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and
> heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they
> exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century
> British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material
> phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from
> the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun
> Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,”
> which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric
> knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with
> such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering
> as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called
> themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that
> explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man
> without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the
> term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870
>
> "does not deny the existance of god..." This itself rules out
> "Atheists" as being able to be agnostic as well, since atheists deny
> the existance of God. The word, as Huxly coined it, means roughly "not
> knowing".
Grr, should have read further down, here's a better spot for my
Agnostic Atheist Post.
Lance
Unknown
<dark...@nowhere.com> ;
>"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Being Agnostic does not mean that you are not sure that God exists
>>necessarily. It all depends on which definition of Agnostic you are using.
(snip)
>
>From www.dictionary.com (Their source being the American Heritage
>Dictionary 4th edition):
Not the full text of the page though, is it?
You quoted the World History part, but not the
definitions.
It seems that your source www.dictionary.com ,
agrees with Richard, that agnostic has more than
one meaning. Perhaps the dictionary got it wrong
as well, eh?
>
>Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and
>heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they
>exist.
(snip)
>
>"does not deny the existance of god..." This itself rules out
>"Atheists" as being able to be agnostic as well, since atheists deny
>the existance of God. The word, as Huxly coined it, means roughly "not
>knowing".
ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know
whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God
but does not profess true atheism.
2
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about
something.
Taras Bulba
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Unknown
<lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> ;
>Ed Jensen <eje...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
>>to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
>>have to live with it.
>
>Beats where Medieval society allegedly redefined passages from the
>Bible, and countless numbers of people had to die for it.
Whereas pagans didn't even bother with an excuse,
for infant sacrifice, genocide, and the
destruction of anyone, and everyone, in general.
Remington Stone
}If you're a theist, you beleive a god truly exists. It you're an
}atheist, you beleive there is no god. If you're an agnostic, you're
}not sure. What else would there be between theist and atheist?
Semitheist: Belief that half a god exists.
Paratheist: Belief that there is a god in the next universe over,
whether or not there's one in this one.
Metatheist: Belief that if a god exists, it will also have to have a
god to follow.
Temporatheist: Belief that there's a god sometimes, but not always.
Agnostic:(2) Belief that a god's existence cannot be proven.
Syntheist: Belief that there is simultaneously a god and not a god.
Antitheist: Belief that if there is a god, it sucks.
Antetheist: Belief that there was once a god.
Dystheist: Belief that if there is a god, it's nuts.
Eutheist: Belief that if there is a god, it's nice.
Autotheist: Belief that if there's a god, it's me.
Prototheist: Belief that if there is a god, it's just a first draft.
[56 Beguiler] Zinphandel Chianti <Ethereal Requiem> (Gnome) Ayonae Ro
Dark Tyger
You can be agnostic and FAVOR one or the other. But, not having "total
faith" one way or the other pretty much classifies you as an agnostic.
So you're agnostic leaning toward atheist, but you're not both at the
same time...
Dark Tyger
>On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:21:27 GMT, Dark Tyger
><dark...@nowhere.com> ;
>
>>"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Being Agnostic does not mean that you are not sure that God exists
>>>necessarily. It all depends on which definition of Agnostic you are using.
>(snip)
>>
>>From www.dictionary.com (Their source being the American Heritage
>>Dictionary 4th edition):
>
>Not the full text of the page though, is it?
>
>You quoted the World History part, but not the
>definitions.
>
>It seems that your source www.dictionary.com ,
>agrees with Richard, that agnostic has more than
>one meaning. Perhaps the dictionary got it wrong
>as well, eh?
We were discussing the origins of the word. It also, by the way,
agrees with me.
Dark Tyger
>On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:50:24 GMT, Lokari
><lokari@_nospam_lokari.net> ;
>
>>Ed Jensen <eje...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
>>>to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
>>>have to live with it.
>>
>>Beats where Medieval society allegedly redefined passages from the
>>Bible, and countless numbers of people had to die for it.
>
>Whereas pagans didn't even bother with an excuse,
>for infant sacrifice, genocide, and the
>destruction of anyone, and everyone, in general.
Of course, neither did Christians, really...
Lokari
>Taras Bulba <> wrote:
I don't recall why, but it seems that TB is in my killfile. Again.
dstep
Actually the modern definition is the same. Agnostic means, more or
less, and has always meant as far as I know
"God may or may not exist, it doesn't matter either way."
That is what an agnostic is, someone who believes that. An athiest, by
contrast, means someone who DOES NOT believe that there is a god. I
never got theist straight, I think theist is someone who believes
there is a god but does not label him into the Judeo/Christian/islamic
box?
Even an athiest might say that it is unproveable whether or not god
exists, however as an athiest HE does not believe that god exists. If
he belives that god MIGHT exist then he instantly is no longer an
athiest but rather an agnostic. There are a lot fewer athiests then
you think and probably a lot of people who think they are athiests but
are actually agnostic.
"Does god exist?" Posed as a question to an athiest and an agnostic:
Athiest: "no, there is no god"
Agnostic: "I don't know there could possibly be a god but nothing
different happens if I believe in him or that he is a particular type
of god, even if I'm right in what I might someday come to believe or
if someone else is right in what they believe."
dstephenatcoxdotnet
(using the @ and . for email)
Remington Stone
}We were discussing the origins of the word. It also, by the way,
}agrees with me.
Maybe you were. I think everyone else was talking about what it means
today, and how that affects whether or not 'agnostic atheist' is
self-contradictory.
Richard
> Taras Bulba <> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:21:27 GMT, Dark Tyger
> ><dark...@nowhere.com> ;
> >
> >>"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Being Agnostic does not mean that you are not sure that God exists
> >>>necessarily. It all depends on which definition of Agnostic you are
using.
> >(snip)
> >>
> >>From www.dictionary.com (Their source being the American Heritage
> >>Dictionary 4th edition):
> >
> >Not the full text of the page though, is it?
> >
> >You quoted the World History part, but not the
> >definitions.
> >
> >It seems that your source www.dictionary.com ,
> >agrees with Richard, that agnostic has more than
> >one meaning. Perhaps the dictionary got it wrong
> >as well, eh?
>
> We were discussing the origins of the word. It also, by the way,
> agrees with me.
>
No, I was discussing the meaning of the word, perhaps you were discussing
the origin. What I have said all along is that depending on which
definition of the word you use, you either can or cannot be an Agnostic
Atheist. That is still true, regardless of the origins of the word.
Richard
> Lance Berg <emp...@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ed Jensen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No. I'm talking about the original definition for agnostic,
> >> which means it's unproveable (and unknowable?) whether or not
> >> god exists.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I like it that modern society has redefined agnostic
> >> to mean something it originally didn't mean, but I guess I'll
> >> have to live with it.
> >>
> >> -Ed
> >
> >I"d like to believe that there is no god but I can't prove it.
> >
> >I've always refered to that as agnostic atheism...
>
> You can be agnostic and FAVOR one or the other. But, not having "total
> faith" one way or the other pretty much classifies you as an agnostic.
>
> So you're agnostic leaning toward atheist, but you're not both at the
> same time...
>
If he just took it one step further from
"I'd like to believe that there is no god but I can't prove it."
to
I believe that there is no god, but I can't prove it.
Then he would be an Agnostic Atheist, well, unless of course you are one of
those people who refuse to accept that the word "agnostic" might have more
than one meaning.
Lance Berg
dstep wrote:
OK, how about this. There may or may not be a god. I personally
would prefer to think there is none. If there is one I'm pretty much
certain that the god of judeo/cristian/muslim belief systems is -not-
the one and if by chance I'm wrong there, well he's sure as Brell
not worthy of worship, I mean, what an Asshole of a diety! On
the other hand I can certainly not deny that it would make a difference,
that Guy is all about consequences of not giving him his props.
You say that an agnostic claims there are no consequences to
belief or disbelief. IF thats inherant in the definition then I'm
something else.
Here's another thought chain. A deity is often inferred by looking
at existance and deciding that it could not have occured by chance.
However, the existance of a diety would logically lead to the
same inferences... did the diety evolve by chance? Clearly he requires
his own creation myth, or else his existance without a prior cause
destroys the syllogism that demanded his existance in the first place.
Likewise a "creator of god" must either have arisen out of less
than that, or have its own creator. This chain either ends at some
point or is infinite, any ending destroys the arguement that created
it and an infinite result is meaningless. Calculus of Agnostism; there
is no Supreme Being, while there may be Superior Beings who
may have created us (and all of existance as we know it) we can
nevertheless rely on their lack of perfection as a given.
Put a different way, "its turtles all the way down"
Lance
Dark Tyger
>> You can be agnostic and FAVOR one or the other. But, not having "total
>> faith" one way or the other pretty much classifies you as an agnostic.
>>
>> So you're agnostic leaning toward atheist, but you're not both at the
>> same time...
>>
>
>If he just took it one step further from
>
>"I'd like to believe that there is no god but I can't prove it."
>
>to
>
>I believe that there is no god, but I can't prove it.
>
>Then he would be an Agnostic Atheist, well, unless of course you are one of
>those people who refuse to accept that the word "agnostic" might have more
>than one meaning.
No, then he would be an atheist. By your definition, EVERYONE is
agnostic since everyone's beleif one way or the other is purely on
faith.
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Email me at comcast.net
=^..^=
"Mal est lui, qui mal y trouve." (The evil was not in the thing, but in the person who 'found' evil in it)
Dark Tyger
>No, I was discussing the meaning of the word, perhaps you were discussing
>the origin. What I have said all along is that depending on which
>definition of the word you use, you either can or cannot be an Agnostic
>Atheist. That is still true, regardless of the origins of the word.
Okay, the conversation started on the meaning of the word, then moved
on to how the meaning of the word may have changed over time but the
original meaning supports that you can be an agnostic atheist. This is
where the discussion of the origins came into play, and why I brought
it up since it contradicted that.
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Email me at comcast.net
=^..^=
"Mal est lui, qui mal y trouve." (The evil was not in the thing, but in the person who 'found' evil in it)
Richard
> "Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> You can be agnostic and FAVOR one or the other. But, not having "total
> >> faith" one way or the other pretty much classifies you as an agnostic.
> >>
> >> So you're agnostic leaning toward atheist, but you're not both at the
> >> same time...
> >>
> >
> >If he just took it one step further from
> >
> >"I'd like to believe that there is no god but I can't prove it."
> >
> >to
> >
> >I believe that there is no god, but I can't prove it.
> >
> >Then he would be an Agnostic Atheist, well, unless of course you are one
of
> >those people who refuse to accept that the word "agnostic" might have
more
> >than one meaning.
>
> No, then he would be an atheist. By your definition, EVERYONE is
> agnostic since everyone's beleif one way or the other is purely on
> faith.
>
Just FYI DT, I generally use the term agnostic with the intent of the
meaning to be the same as what you intend by it, that a person basically
does not know whether or not god exists, not that he believes it is
impossible to prove. In either case, it is not my definition, it is one of
the two dictionary definitions that I have seen in more than one dictionary.
By the second, probable less accepted definition, it is still possible to
not be an Agnostic. You just have to believe that it is possible to prove
the existance or lack thereof of god. You don't have to believe that it has
been proven one way or the other, just that it is possible. Admittedly, by
this definition, I would hazard a guess that 99.99+% of people are agnostic,
thereby rendering the term fairly useless by that definition. Hence, I
generally use agnostic in the same way that you do.
Remington Stone
}No, then he would be an atheist. By your definition, EVERYONE is
}agnostic since everyone's beleif one way or the other is purely on
}faith.
Perhaps some believe that faith is proof enough. I mean, is this absolute
rigorous proof, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, here? :)
Unknown
<emp...@dejazzd.com> ;
>
>
>dstep wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:07:58 GMT, Ed Jensen <eje...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
>Here's another thought chain. A deity is often inferred by looking
>at existance and deciding that it could not have occured by chance.
>However, the existance of a diety would logically lead to the
>same inferences... did the diety evolve by chance?
Only if you assume that a god required/requires
evolution to exist.
Perhaps the god has existed/will exist forever.
This is the teaching of Christian dogma, that God
has always been. One of His names is Yahweh,
literally 'Eternal', and as such, He is not
subject to laws of time and space.
> Clearly he requires
>his own creation myth, or else his existance without a prior cause
>destroys the syllogism that demanded his existance in the first place.
Why does a god require a creation myth?
Why does a god need to have his existence
demanded?
>Likewise a "creator of god" must either have arisen out of less
>than that, or have its own creator. This chain either ends at some
>point or is infinite, any ending destroys the arguement that created
>it and an infinite result is meaningless. Calculus of Agnostism; there
>is no Supreme Being, while there may be Superior Beings who
>may have created us (and all of existance as we know it) we can
>nevertheless rely on their lack of perfection as a given.
>
>Put a different way, "its turtles all the way down"
Perhaps God cannot be explained in human terms.
David Navarro
> This is the teaching of Christian dogma, that God
> has always been. One of His names is Yahweh,
> literally 'Eternal', and as such, He is not
> subject to laws of time and space.
Or logic.
--
Hanrahan Thornhide, Human Wanderer, 52, Fennin Ro
Unix works properly: Dog Bites Man
MacOS works properly: Man Bites Dog
Windows works properly: Alien Bites Elvis
Kodaan
<Taras Bulba> wrote in message
news:8ub9ju8plk18v6q43...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:57:32 GMT, Lance Berg
> has always been. One of His names is Yahweh,
> literally 'Eternal', and as such, He is not
> subject to laws of time and space.
*blink*?? What is your reference? To my understanding, and I *could* be
completely wrong, the word "Yahweh" came out of an attempt to pronounce a
word that was not designed to -be- pronounced... composed of the Hebrew
letters Yud Heh Vahv Heh... When those letters are seen, people say
"Adonai", instead... Yahweh doesn't -mean- anything, let alone
'Eternal'.... It's just a derivation of the name for the Judeo-Christian
deity. Now, the word Leolahm means Eternal, or Forever...
Unknown
<kod...@darkestshadow.com> ;
>
><Taras Bulba> wrote in message
>news:8ub9ju8plk18v6q43...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:57:32 GMT, Lance Berg
>> This is the teaching of Christian dogma, that God
>> has always been. One of His names is Yahweh,
>> literally 'Eternal', and as such, He is not
>> subject to laws of time and space.
>
> *blink*?? What is your reference?
My apologies, I am not usually so sloppy. I was
thinking one thing and wrote another. I meant to
write El Olam, not Yahweh.
> To my understanding, and I *could* be
>completely wrong, the word "Yahweh" came out of an attempt to pronounce a
>word that was not designed to -be- pronounced...
Some people don't like to say it, this doesn't
mean it wasn't 'designed' to be pronounced.
>composed of the Hebrew
>letters Yud Heh Vahv Heh...
Yes, the Tetragrammaton, no doubt familiar to all
those Wiccans out there.
> When those letters are seen, people say
>"Adonai", instead...
Some people, not all people... Jews in particular
> Yahweh doesn't -mean- anything, let alone
>'Eternal'....
Well, it certainly doesn't mean eternal, but some
people believe its meaning has roots in other
languages. As you would expect from any religious
discussion, there are contrasting sides to this.
>It's just a derivation of the name for the Judeo-Christian
>deity.
Derivation of what name?
>Now, the word Leolahm means Eternal, or Forever...
Yes, once again, my apologies.
Lance Berg
Taras Bulba wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:57:32 GMT, Lance Berg
> <emp...@dejazzd.com> ;
>
> >
> >
> >dstep wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:07:58 GMT, Ed Jensen <eje...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Faned <fa...@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Here's another thought chain. A deity is often inferred by looking
> >at existance and deciding that it could not have occured by chance.
> >However, the existance of a diety would logically lead to the
> >same inferences... did the diety evolve by chance?
>
> Only if you assume that a god required/requires
> evolution to exist.
You missed the pea traveling under the walnuts. I'll slow down
a little.
1) Life cannot have come about by chance, its too unlikely
2) Life must have been created
3) Creation means a Creator
Given the above, substitute Creator for Life
1a) The Creator cannot have come about by chance, its too unlikely
2a) The Creator must have been created
3a) Creation means a Creator's Creator
OR
1c) The creator came about with no creator
2c) Unimaginably complex things can nonetheless exist with no creator
Oops, now we have concluded that we don't need a creator
to create things no matter how complex they are.
We have the existance of Life as a given, Occam's Razor demands
we use the simplest solution that fits all known facts, so logic
suggests we drop the whole "Creator" story until given some other
proof of his existance.
Note that this does not disprove the existance of a Creator, merely
demolishes one suggested proof for his existance.
>
> Perhaps the god has existed/will exist forever.
>
Could be. Prove or disprove.
Perhaps Life occured randomly. Prove or disprove.
To date I have seen no proof of either hypothesis... nor have
I seen either disproved.
>
> This is the teaching of Christian dogma, that God
> has always been. One of His names is Yahweh,
> literally 'Eternal', and as such, He is not
> subject to laws of time and space.
>
Dogma = arguement from authority, one of the classic
logical fallacies.
Fictional entities are also not subject to the laws of time
and space, and the world of literature is full of examples;
isn't it much easier to assume YVHV is merely another
of that set? A Creator seems to assume facts not in
evidence, while "a story some guys came up with to
help keep the masses pacified" sure has plenty of company.
>
> > Clearly he requires
> >his own creation myth, or else his existance without a prior cause
> >destroys the syllogism that demanded his existance in the first place.
>
> Why does a god require a creation myth?
>
Quod erat demonstratum
>
> Why does a god need to have his existence
> demanded?
>
Discussion must be limited here to the syllogism in question. To
prove god's existance via the "life is too complex" arguement
means His existance is demanded... within the syllogism. Of
course GOD could easily exist without this proof, but thats not
what we are talking about. I'm merely deconstructing one
possible proof.
>
> >Likewise a "creator of god" must either have arisen out of less
> >than that, or have its own creator. This chain either ends at some
> >point or is infinite, any ending destroys the arguement that created
> >it and an infinite result is meaningless. Calculus of Agnostism; there
> >is no Supreme Being, while there may be Superior Beings who
> >may have created us (and all of existance as we know it) we can
> >nevertheless rely on their lack of perfection as a given.
> >
> >Put a different way, "its turtles all the way down"
>
> Perhaps God cannot be explained in human terms.
The way which can be spoken of is not the way. On the other
hand, the way I just mentioned can therefore not be the way.
Welcome to Taoism, have a nice day.
If God (or any given creator) cannot be explained in human terms,
then any discussion of Him is essentially meaningless, and its simpler
to proceed as though He does not exist, after all, anything which
has been said of Him is no more than white noise, and you cannot base
any actions on any of it.
God said "don't eat the apple..." did he mean it or was he just
yanking your chain? No matter what answer you give, I'm forced
to remember that you are human and can't really explain Him... so
I'll have to decide whether to eat the apple all on my own.
> Taras Bulba
Lance Berg
Happily, Brell's existance is much simpler to prove.
Why do you think alcoholic content is referred to as Proof, anyway!
Bergh Brelltender
59 cleric, Morell Thule
Unknown
<emp...@dejazzd.com> ;
>
>You missed the pea traveling under the walnuts.
Yes, it seems I did.
> I'll slow down
>a little.
>
Thank you.
>1) Life cannot have come about by chance, its too unlikely
>2) Life must have been created
>3) Creation means a Creator
>
>Given the above, substitute Creator for Life
>
>1a) The Creator cannot have come about by chance, its too unlikely
>2a) The Creator must have been created
>3a) Creation means a Creator's Creator
>
I believe the conclusion/premise of 2a (The
Creator must have been created) to be faulty.
>OR
>1c) The creator came about with no creator
>2c) Unimaginably complex things can nonetheless exist with no creator
These are not the only possibilities though, are
they?
>
>Oops, now we have concluded that we don't need a creator
>to create things no matter how complex they are.
>
I don't see how you have concluded that at all. Am
I missing the pea again?
If a creator has always existed, if there has
never been any other state, apart from a creator
being present, how does that fit in with your
either/or scenario?
Which of your premises does that eventuality fall
under?
>We have the existance of Life as a given, Occam's Razor demands
>we use the simplest solution that fits all known facts, so logic
>suggests we drop the whole "Creator" story until given some other
>proof of his existance.
As someone else said here, (at least, I think it
was here), Occam's Razor is only a rule of thumb
for quickly evaluating which hypotheses are likely
to be fruitful; it is not a strict rule, nor an
inevitable aspect of the scientific method.
>
>Note that this does not disprove the existance of a Creator, merely
>demolishes one suggested proof for his existance.
>
Demolish is a bit strong. Poked at it with a
stick, perhaps.
(snip)
>>
>> This is the teaching of Christian dogma, that God
>> has always been. One of His names is Yahweh,
>> literally 'Eternal', and as such, He is not
>> subject to laws of time and space.
>>
>
>Dogma = arguement from authority, one of the classic
>logical fallacies.
I agree.
I wasn't supporting dogma as a viable alternative
to scientific method.
>
>Fictional entities are also not subject to the laws of time
>and space, and the world of literature is full of examples;
>isn't it much easier to assume YVHV is merely another
>of that set? A Creator seems to assume facts not in
>evidence, while "a story some guys came up with to
>help keep the masses pacified" sure has plenty of company.
>
Ease of assumption is not a very good test of
veracity, but I don't disagree.
>>
>> > Clearly he requires
>> >his own creation myth, or else his existance without a prior cause
>> >destroys the syllogism that demanded his existance in the first place.
>>
>> Why does a god require a creation myth?
>>
>
>Quod erat demonstratum
>
>>
>> Why does a god need to have his existence
>> demanded?
>>
>
>Discussion must be limited here to the syllogism in question. To
>prove god's existance via the "life is too complex" arguement
>means His existance is demanded... within the syllogism.
As I pointed out above, I believe one of the
premises is faulty, and if so, the entire argument
falls.
> Of
>course GOD could easily exist without this proof, but thats not
>what we are talking about. I'm merely deconstructing one
>possible proof.
>
Yes.
>>
>> Perhaps God cannot be explained in human terms.
>
>The way which can be spoken of is not the way. On the other
>hand, the way I just mentioned can therefore not be the way.
>Welcome to Taoism, have a nice day.
>
>If God (or any given creator) cannot be explained in human terms,
>then any discussion of Him is essentially meaningless,
What do you mean by 'essentially meaningless', how
would this be different from just 'meaningless'?
> and its simpler
>to proceed as though He does not exist, after all,
It might be simpler to proceed as if He does not
exist, but what exactly is the benefit of
simplicity in this case?
>has been said of Him is no more than white noise, and you cannot base
>any actions on any of it.
You can base your actions on it, and millions
(billions?) do.
(Warning; bad analogy approaching)
If you tried to explain gravity to a stone-age
tribe, they would have to invent a whole new
vocabulary to explain the sudden onslaught of
concepts they would be forced to face. This
doesn't mean that they should ignore it, neither
does it mean they cannot base any of their actions
on it.
It does mean, however, that they do not have the
terms to explain it.
>
>God said "don't eat the apple..." did he mean it or was he just
>yanking your chain?
(That would be 'our chain', wouldn't it?)
Why should this be an either/or proposition?
> No matter what answer you give, I'm forced
>to remember that you are human and can't really explain Him... so
>I'll have to decide whether to eat the apple all on my own.
>
I'd rather have had a bite from the fruit of the
other tree in the Garden
I haven't heard this line of thought before. Did
you formulate this?
If you didn't, do you know of a website where it
is discussed in more detail?
Lance Berg
Taras Bulba wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> >1) Life cannot have come about by chance, its too unlikely
> >2) Life must have been created
> >3) Creation means a Creator
> >
> >Given the above, substitute Creator for Life
> >
> >1a) The Creator cannot have come about by chance, its too unlikely
> >2a) The Creator must have been created
> >3a) Creation means a Creator's Creator
> >
>
> I believe the conclusion/premise of 2a (The
> Creator must have been created) to be faulty.
>
This is my point.
If 2a is faulty, then 2 is faulty, because arguement 1 implies 2
is identical to arguement 1a implies 2a
Thus you get either conclusion 3a) or you get arguement 1c implies 2c
>
> >OR
> >1c) The creator came about with no creator
> >2c) Unimaginably complex things can nonetheless exist with no creator
>
> These are not the only possibilities though, are
> they?
>
Propose another. I suggest that complex things (life, a creator) cannot
arise (or have existed forever) on their own, or they can arise on their
own. Seems like a clean either/or to me, although I'm sure the thrust of
any counterarguement would have to come here, as you've already grasped.
>
> >
> >Oops, now we have concluded that we don't need a creator
> >to create things no matter how complex they are.
> >
>
> I don't see how you have concluded that at all. Am
> I missing the pea again?
>
I think you know the pea is there but the walnut shells have
moved fast enough that you aren't sure which one its under.
I also think my answers above should clarify that for you, but
I'll try and restate. I don't see how the arguement that life
is to complex to arise naturally can fail to be applicable to
any putative creator of that life, which surely must be at least
on a comperable order of complexity.
If you tell me the diety "just is" then to swallow that I have
to stretch my belief system sufficiently to allow things that
complex to "just be" in which case there's plenty of room
in my credulity to allow life, the universe, and everythign
to "just be" without the help of that "creator."
Note that this does not require evolution or current
scientific theories of any sort to be correct about the
origins of life or big bang hypothesies of any sort. For
all I know life arose out of nothingness yesterday, with
my current thought structures intact. Or it has always
existed, and we here on earth are really seedlings from
another world brought here by "ancient astronauts" and
similar things have happened forever (not merely for a
long long time, forever.)
>
> If a creator has always existed, if there has
> never been any other state, apart from a creator
> being present, how does that fit in with your
> either/or scenario?
>
> Which of your premises does that eventuality fall
> under?
>
See above. Having existed forever is not an out for
the creator, since nothing really stops the universe from
existing forever, in fact this is a hotly debated topic
among astrophysists, current trends are in the direction of
a "big bang" and so forth but nothing is set in stone...
At any rate, if big bang hypothesies are correct, before
the bang there was a nothingness (including no time) which
existed forever (or not since there was no time) and which
may or may not have been preceded by other big bangs
and collapses (if preceded makes sense at all giving the
lack of a time dimension)
I argue here that your "eternal creator" is no simpler than
an "eternal existance" and that if there has been an
eternal existance then it could not have been created.
It seems to me that any arguement which requires existance
to have been created but allows a creator to have always
existed is going to be hard to construct without bringing in
outside facts.
Again, my arguement applies only to the syllogism stated
as 1 implies 2 implies 3
>
> >We have the existance of Life as a given, Occam's Razor demands
> >we use the simplest solution that fits all known facts, so logic
> >suggests we drop the whole "Creator" story until given some other
> >proof of his existance.
>
> As someone else said here, (at least, I think it
> was here), Occam's Razor is only a rule of thumb
> for quickly evaluating which hypotheses are likely
> to be fruitful; it is not a strict rule, nor an
> inevitable aspect of the scientific method.
>
The reason for this is the "fits all KNOWN facts" part. No
theory can be proven without knowing all facts, and its
always possible that some new, hitherto unknown fact
is going to pop up which eliminates our Least Hypothesis.
On the other hand, any approach which suggests that
we chose more complex theories when simpler ones
are available that fit -all- facts turns in to nothing more
than guesswork with no way of coming up with any
working hypothesis at all.
>
> >Note that this does not disprove the existance of a Creator, merely
> >demolishes one suggested proof for his existance.
> >
>
> Demolish is a bit strong. Poked at it with a
> stick, perhaps.
>
I think demolish is correct. If Life requires a creator due
solely to its complexity, surely a creator capable of
creating life must fall under the same arguement. Thus
the complexity of Life is not in and of itself proof of the
existance of a creator. Either things like Life and a Creator
can exist on their own, or they cannot.
While its possible that although Life could have existed
on its own while a creator happens to be eternal, this
state of affairs would exist without this proof applying
to it.
>
> >Discussion must be limited here to the syllogism in question. To
> >prove god's existance via the "life is too complex" arguement
> >means His existance is demanded... within the syllogism.
>
> As I pointed out above, I believe one of the
> premises is faulty, and if so, the entire argument
> falls.
>
This is certainly the best angle of attack I can think of. Hopefully
I've defended my work above.
>
> >If God (or any given creator) cannot be explained in human terms,
> >then any discussion of Him is essentially meaningless,
>
> What do you mean by 'essentially meaningless', how
> would this be different from just 'meaningless'?
>
In its essence. At the heart. A stronger form than simply saying
"meaningless," if you prefer you can simply drop the adjective
and go with pure "meaningless" here.
>
> > and its simpler
> >to proceed as though He does not exist, after all,
>
> It might be simpler to proceed as if He does not
> exist, but what exactly is the benefit of
> simplicity in this case?
>
You get to ignore all the contradictory noise that various priests
and theologists are putting out telling you that you should be
acting in one way or another or often both or neither depending
on which flavor of theologist you are hearing at any given time.
After all, you've already stated that whatever they say does
not really apply to this creator. If they tell you God wants you
to skip lunch on wednesdays, you can't use this as a basis
for deciding whether to skip lunch or not, since what they
tell you is meaningless.
>
> >has been said of Him is no more than white noise, and you cannot base
> >any actions on any of it.
>
> You can base your actions on it, and millions
> (billions?) do.
>
Oops. You cannot logically base any actions on any of what
has been said of him.
Just because people -do- base their actions on things of this
nature does not mean they are doing so logically.
Further, this arguement only applies if you insist on maintaining
that God cannot be explained in human terms. If you want to
concede that God -can- be explained in human terms after
all, then you can go back to acting on the explainations you
have been given without worrying about this line of arguement.
>
> (Warning; bad analogy approaching)
> If you tried to explain gravity to a stone-age
> tribe, they would have to invent a whole new
> vocabulary to explain the sudden onslaught of
> concepts they would be forced to face. This
> doesn't mean that they should ignore it, neither
> does it mean they cannot base any of their actions
> on it.
>
> It does mean, however, that they do not have the
> terms to explain it.
>
Either they have the terms or they don't. Any terms
they don't have are not helpful. If they -do- have
terms then they can use them. If you introduce new
terms, then those terms stop being ones they don't have.
If you can discuss God in human terms, then it can't
be impossible to discuss God in human terms. If you
need to invent new terms to do so, then those terms
stop being ones you don't have. At any given point,
human terms are either meaningful or they are not.
Your statement seemed to imply that the invention of
new terminology was not the crux of the issue, rather
that the discussion itself was not comprehendable
by humans by their very nature. While I'm happy
to concede that this either is or isn't true (whichever
you like) I feel confident in saying that there are
consequences to either statement... if its true then
we can safely ignore all human discussion regarding
the nature of God, while if its not true then you
can't attack arguements about the nature of God
on the basis that God is incomprehensible.
>
> >
> >God said "don't eat the apple..." did he mean it or was he just
> >yanking your chain?
>
> (That would be 'our chain', wouldn't it?)
>
Hey, its not -my- God we are talking about here~! Our Chain,
Adam's chain, your chain, my chain... I don't think it really matters
too much who's leg the Holy Dude was tugging on with this
little bit of Supreme Gotcha
>
> Why should this be an either/or proposition?
>
"Yanking your chain" means he did not mean what he said, while
"did he mean it" means he did mean what he said. Is there
a third possibility?
>
> > No matter what answer you give, I'm forced
> >to remember that you are human and can't really explain Him... so
> >I'll have to decide whether to eat the apple all on my own.
> >
>
> I'd rather have had a bite from the fruit of the
> other tree in the Garden
>
God said not to eat that one too. Unless I'm mistaken. Which
is the thrust of my arguement here. If you can't describe
God in human terms, then its impossible to put any credence
in my claim that he said not to.
>
> I haven't heard this line of thought before. Did
> you formulate this?
>
Yep, and just now, on the fly. Debate is fun, isn't it?
>
> If you didn't, do you know of a website where it
> is discussed in more detail?
>
> Taras Bulba
Its quite possible (in fact I'd say probable) that this arguement
has already been made, the fact that I thought of it on my
own does not in any way mean that I'm the first to do so.
Not being a hardcore theologist, I'm highly uninformed on
such topics, wouldn't even have a guess as to where to
find out.
Actually I have to note that there are two arguements going
on here, one the putative disproof of the "complexity"
case, and one the discourse regarding the "God cannot
be discussed in human terms" statement.
Lance
Richard
news:j14Z8.5290$ZA3....@news1.central.cox.net...
Why would that be unpronouncable. It's just a question of figuring out what
the correct vowel sounds are. I recall it being pronounced Yehovah, but
upon looking at the word, that doesn't seem like it would quite work, given
my recollection of Hebrew, which is quite rusty now. As for it meaning
Eternal, never heard that one before.
Ed Jensen
: If you're a theist, you beleive a god truly exists. It you're an
: atheist, you beleive there is no god. If you're an agnostic, you're
: not sure. What else would there be between theist and atheist?
I prefer to use the original definition for agnostic, which does
not indicate belief or lack of belief in a god or gods.
-Ed
David Navarro
@dejazzd.com:
>
> Its quite possible (in fact I'd say probable) that this arguement
> has already been made, the fact that I thought of it on my
> own does not in any way mean that I'm the first to do so.
> Not being a hardcore theologist, I'm highly uninformed on
> such topics, wouldn't even have a guess as to where to
> find out.
>
> Actually I have to note that there are two arguements going
> on here, one the putative disproof of the "complexity"
> case, and one the discourse regarding the "God cannot
> be discussed in human terms" statement.
Holy shit, man... I'm very happy I'm in agreement with you in this matter,
I'd hate to have to lock logical horns with you.
/bow
Unknown
<emp...@dejazzd.com> ;
>
>I think you know the pea is there but the walnut shells have
>moved fast enough that you aren't sure which one its under.
>
>I also think my answers above should clarify that for you, but
>I'll try and restate. I don't see how the arguement that life
>is to complex to arise naturally can fail to be applicable to
>any putative creator of that life,
Why does 'God is too complex to arise naturally',
follow logically from the 'life is too complex to
arise naturally' argument?
Can you show why this should be so, or why you
believe it to be so?
>which surely must be at least
>on a comperable order of complexity.
>
Must it?
And, even if it is, what bearing does it have on
the argument?
>If you tell me the diety "just is" then to swallow that I have
>to stretch my belief system sufficiently to allow things that
>complex to "just be" in which case there's plenty of room
>in my credulity to allow life, the universe, and everythign
>to "just be" without the help of that "creator."
Isn't there a difference between coming to a
conclusion about life, which is tangible,
observable, and seemingly subject to a variety of
natural laws, and something that is none of these.
>>
>> If a creator has always existed, if there has
>> never been any other state, apart from a creator
>> being present, how does that fit in with your
>> either/or scenario?
>>
>> Which of your premises does that eventuality fall
>> under?
>>
(snip)
>
>I argue here that your "eternal creator" is no simpler than
>an "eternal existance" and that if there has been an
>eternal existance then it could not have been created.
>It seems to me that any arguement which requires existance
>to have been created but allows a creator to have always
>existed is going to be hard to construct without bringing in
>outside facts.
What outside facts?
>
>Again, my arguement applies only to the syllogism stated
>as 1 implies 2 implies 3
>
>>
>> >We have the existance of Life as a given, Occam's Razor demands
>> >we use the simplest solution that fits all known facts, so logic
>> >suggests we drop the whole "Creator" story until given some other
>> >proof of his existance.
>>
>> As someone else said here, (at least, I think it
>> was here), Occam's Razor is only a rule of thumb
>> for quickly evaluating which hypotheses are likely
>> to be fruitful; it is not a strict rule, nor an
>> inevitable aspect of the scientific method.
>>
>
>The reason for this is the "fits all KNOWN facts" part. No
>theory can be proven without knowing all facts, and its
>always possible that some new, hitherto unknown fact
>is going to pop up which eliminates our Least Hypothesis.
>On the other hand, any approach which suggests that
>we chose more complex theories when simpler ones
>are available that fit -all- facts turns in to nothing more
>than guesswork with no way of coming up with any
>working hypothesis at all.
I don't disagree with any of this.
I was disagreeing with your statement that;
"...Occam's Razor demands...". It doesn't demand
anything, it is merely a reminder of where the
best results usually are.
>
>
>>
>> >Note that this does not disprove the existance of a Creator, merely
>> >demolishes one suggested proof for his existance.
>> >
>>
>> Demolish is a bit strong. Poked at it with a
>> stick, perhaps.
>>
>
>I think demolish is correct. If Life requires a creator due
>solely to its complexity, surely a creator capable of
>creating life must fall under the same arguement.
I don't think that simply changing the word 'life'
to 'creator' in your syllogism is valid.
In what ways are life and a purported creator,
similar enough for the terms to be used
interchangeably in your syllogisms?
To summarise;
I see how the first premise stands up;
The creator cannot have have come about by chance,
it is too unlikely.
I do not see how logic dictates the conclusion
that;
The creator must have been created.
(snip)
>
(snip)
>>
>> > and its simpler
>> >to proceed as though He does not exist, after all,
>>
>> It might be simpler to proceed as if He does not
>> exist, but what exactly is the benefit of
>> simplicity in this case?
>>
>
>You get to ignore all the contradictory noise that various priests
>and theologists are putting out telling you that you should be
>acting in one way or another or often both or neither depending
>on which flavor of theologist you are hearing at any given time.
>After all, you've already stated that whatever they say does
>not really apply to this creator.
I don't think that I did say that.
> If they tell you God wants you
>to skip lunch on wednesdays, you can't use this as a basis
>for deciding whether to skip lunch or not, since what they
>tell you is meaningless.
>
>
>
>>
>> >has been said of Him is no more than white noise, and you cannot base
>> >any actions on any of it.
>>
>> You can base your actions on it, and millions
>> (billions?) do.
>>
>
>Oops. You cannot logically base any actions on any of what
>has been said of him.
>
>Just because people -do- base their actions on things of this
>nature does not mean they are doing so logically.
>
>Further, this arguement only applies if you insist on maintaining
>that God cannot be explained in human terms.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here.
If I were to put forward the proposition that 'God
cannot be explained in human terms', this does not
mean that people should give up trying to do so,
or that they will do so.
Being unable to 'explain' God, does not preclude
being able to discuss God, especially when you
consider you have a whole book written (or
dictated, at least), by Him.
> If you want to
>concede that God -can- be explained in human terms after
>all, then you can go back to acting on the explainations you
>have been given without worrying about this line of arguement.
>
>>
>> (Warning; bad analogy approaching)
>> If you tried to explain gravity to a stone-age
>> tribe, they would have to invent a whole new
>> vocabulary to explain the sudden onslaught of
>> concepts they would be forced to face. This
>> doesn't mean that they should ignore it, neither
>> does it mean they cannot base any of their actions
>> on it.
>>
>> It does mean, however, that they do not have the
>> terms to explain it.
>>
>
>Either they have the terms or they don't. Any terms
>they don't have are not helpful. If they -do- have
>terms then they can use them. If you introduce new
>terms, then those terms stop being ones they don't have.
>
>If you can discuss God in human terms, then it can't
>be impossible to discuss God in human terms.
You can discuss anything in human terms. You may
not be able to explain it, in the same way,
though.
> If you
>need to invent new terms to do so, then those terms
>stop being ones you don't have. At any given point,
>human terms are either meaningful or they are not.
>
>Your statement seemed to imply that the invention of
>new terminology was not the crux of the issue, rather
>that the discussion itself was not comprehendable
>by humans by their very nature. While I'm happy
>to concede that this either is or isn't true (whichever
>you like) I feel confident in saying that there are
>consequences to either statement... if its true then
>we can safely ignore all human discussion regarding
>the nature of God, while if its not true then you
>can't attack arguements about the nature of God
>on the basis that God is incomprehensible.
>
As above. Discussion is not explanation.
>>
>> >
>> >God said "don't eat the apple..." did he mean it or was he just
>> >yanking your chain?
>>
>> (That would be 'our chain', wouldn't it?)
>>
>
>Hey, its not -my- God we are talking about here~! Our Chain,
>Adam's chain, your chain, my chain... I don't think it really matters
>too much who's leg the Holy Dude was tugging on with this
>little bit of Supreme Gotcha
>
Hey, He's not mine either... I just thought you
were trying to palm him off on me.
>>
>> Why should this be an either/or proposition?
>>
>
>"Yanking your chain" means he did not mean what he said, while
>"did he mean it" means he did mean what he said. Is there
>a third possibility?
>
There are always shades of grey, perhaps he meant
part of it, perhaps he was working in mysterious
ways, his wonders to perform. Who can tell?
>>
>> > No matter what answer you give, I'm forced
>> >to remember that you are human and can't really explain Him... so
>> >I'll have to decide whether to eat the apple all on my own.
>> >
>>
>> I'd rather have had a bite from the fruit of the
>> other tree in the Garden
>>
>
>God said not to eat that one too. Unless I'm mistaken. Which
>is the thrust of my arguement here. If you can't describe
>God in human terms, then its impossible to put any credence
>in my claim that he said not to.
This doesn't follow.
Just because He can't be described, does not mean
that you should pay no heed to what He says. In
fact, you would do well to listen to Him if He
were to say something like.... "There's a big rain
coming... you better start building an ark"
(snip)
>
>Its quite possible (in fact I'd say probable) that this arguement
>has already been made, the fact that I thought of it on my
>own does not in any way mean that I'm the first to do so.
>Not being a hardcore theologist, I'm highly uninformed on
>such topics, wouldn't even have a guess as to where to
>find out.
>
I'm always looking for arguments to confound
Creationists, dogma, and the suchlike. I like the
general thrust of this one, using a Creationist
argument to attack another of their tenets, a sort
of Trojan Horse approach. I'm just not sure if its
quite there at the moment
>Actually I have to note that there are two arguements going
>on here, one the putative disproof of the "complexity"
>case,
Yes.
>and one the discourse regarding the "God cannot
>be discussed in human terms" statement.
>
Explained, not discussed