On Feb 3, 10:31 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

RaaN wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:54 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

RaaN wrote:

I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
some belief either for or against something, especially since most
people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
against belief itself. As such that would make one an anti-theist as
much as an anti-atheist (or even an anti-gnostic or anti-agnostic).
What people generally mean by agnostic today is closer to skeptic than
to anti-gnostic as the term agnostic was originally used. A belief
that God is unknowable.
That being said, there are some theories such as the multiple universe
idea that are not scientifically falsifiable even in theory, and as
such may be considered therefore unknowable. A rational scientist
does not therefore disbelieve such a theory but remains simply
ambivalent and thus in a way agnostic with regard to such ideas
outside of the realm of scientific scrutiny. If the will to remain
rational is cowardly it can just as easily said that to commit to
belief, while possibly courageous, is also irrational and moreover
foolish. Naturally there are times when no rationality will obtain
and action must be taken. A gamble is a gamble and for all that is
worth it is not the primary direction to go but only the last resort.
To take an unwarranted position may have the virtue of being
courageous but is more likely a compensatory reaction to the craven
fear of uncertainty. The skeptic abides in such a state without fear
suspending belief and disbelief, treading the water of uncertainty
with the rationality of relative scrutiny and evidence. All others
either sink to the bottom or clutch desperately for some purchase
flailing about and faltering and too often pulling others down with
them. To be a skeptic one must know how to swim.

There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. There are no gray
areas, no middle grounds, no cracks in the ether in which to hide.
Choosing 'skepticism' is choosing disbelief whether the skeptic admits
it or not.

Maybe you should suspend judgment until you weigh all the facts. Oh...
but that would mean you didn't believe or disbelieve wouldn't it...
and once seeing all the facts what need would there be to believe
anything because then you'd just know? Mind you, a deeper skeptic
would simply hold those conclusions as presently applicable and
functionally valid but subject to possible amendment given new facts.
And no it is not a middle ground but a thoroughgoing effort to avoid
believing anything at all. The epitome of which would be
enlightenment such as that of the Buddha. But don't believe me. Try
it sometime.

After a concept is known there are only two choices: belief and disbelief.

I doubt it.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:31:08 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

RaaN wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:54 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

RaaN wrote:

I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
some belief either for or against something, especially since most
people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
against belief itself. As such that would make one an anti-theist as
much as an anti-atheist (or even an anti-gnostic or anti-agnostic).
What people generally mean by agnostic today is closer to skeptic than
to anti-gnostic as the term agnostic was originally used. A belief
that God is unknowable.
That being said, there are some theories such as the multiple universe
idea that are not scientifically falsifiable even in theory, and as
such may be considered therefore unknowable. A rational scientist
does not therefore disbelieve such a theory but remains simply
ambivalent and thus in a way agnostic with regard to such ideas
outside of the realm of scientific scrutiny. If the will to remain
rational is cowardly it can just as easily said that to commit to
belief, while possibly courageous, is also irrational and moreover
foolish. Naturally there are times when no rationality will obtain
and action must be taken. A gamble is a gamble and for all that is
worth it is not the primary direction to go but only the last resort.
To take an unwarranted position may have the virtue of being
courageous but is more likely a compensatory reaction to the craven
fear of uncertainty. The skeptic abides in such a state without fear
suspending belief and disbelief, treading the water of uncertainty
with the rationality of relative scrutiny and evidence. All others
either sink to the bottom or clutch desperately for some purchase
flailing about and faltering and too often pulling others down with
them. To be a skeptic one must know how to swim.

There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. There are no gray
areas, no middle grounds, no cracks in the ether in which to hide.
Choosing 'skepticism' is choosing disbelief whether the skeptic admits
it or not.

Maybe you should suspend judgment until you weigh all the facts. Oh...
but that would mean you didn't believe or disbelieve wouldn't it...
and once seeing all the facts what need would there be to believe
anything because then you'd just know? Mind you, a deeper skeptic
would simply hold those conclusions as presently applicable and
functionally valid but subject to possible amendment given new facts.
And no it is not a middle ground but a thoroughgoing effort to avoid
believing anything at all. The epitome of which would be
enlightenment such as that of the Buddha. But don't believe me. Try
it sometime.

After a concept is known there are only two choices: belief and disbelief.

One doesn't really have to invest in concepts.
We don't actually live by our wits.

a dangerous tool as likely to cut ourselves
as to do any useful work.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:31:08 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

RaaN wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:54 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

RaaN wrote:

I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
some belief either for or against something, especially since most
people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
against belief itself. As such that would make one an anti-theist as
much as an anti-atheist (or even an anti-gnostic or anti-agnostic).
What people generally mean by agnostic today is closer to skeptic than
to anti-gnostic as the term agnostic was originally used. A belief
that God is unknowable.
That being said, there are some theories such as the multiple universe
idea that are not scientifically falsifiable even in theory, and as
such may be considered therefore unknowable. A rational scientist
does not therefore disbelieve such a theory but remains simply
ambivalent and thus in a way agnostic with regard to such ideas
outside of the realm of scientific scrutiny. If the will to remain
rational is cowardly it can just as easily said that to commit to
belief, while possibly courageous, is also irrational and moreover
foolish. Naturally there are times when no rationality will obtain
and action must be taken. A gamble is a gamble and for all that is
worth it is not the primary direction to go but only the last resort.
To take an unwarranted position may have the virtue of being
courageous but is more likely a compensatory reaction to the craven
fear of uncertainty. The skeptic abides in such a state without fear
suspending belief and disbelief, treading the water of uncertainty
with the rationality of relative scrutiny and evidence. All others
either sink to the bottom or clutch desperately for some purchase
flailing about and faltering and too often pulling others down with
them. To be a skeptic one must know how to swim.

There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. There are no gray
areas, no middle grounds, no cracks in the ether in which to hide.
Choosing 'skepticism' is choosing disbelief whether the skeptic admits
it or not.

Maybe you should suspend judgment until you weigh all the facts. Oh...
but that would mean you didn't believe or disbelieve wouldn't it...
and once seeing all the facts what need would there be to believe
anything because then you'd just know? Mind you, a deeper skeptic
would simply hold those conclusions as presently applicable and
functionally valid but subject to possible amendment given new facts.
And no it is not a middle ground but a thoroughgoing effort to avoid
believing anything at all. The epitome of which would be
enlightenment such as that of the Buddha. But don't believe me. Try
it sometime.

After a concept is known there are only two choices: belief and disbelief.

One doesn't really have to invest in concepts.
We don't actually live by our wits. They are
a dangerous tool as likely to cut ourselves
as to do any useful work.

On Feb 3, 10:34 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

Keynes wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:54:07 -0800, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:

There are only two choices: belief and disbelief. There are no gray
areas, no middle grounds, no cracks in the ether in which to hide.
Choosing 'skepticism' is choosing disbelief whether the skeptic admits
it or not.

Beliefs are not choices to begin with.
We believe or not in spite of ourselves.

A child is promised heaven if he could only believe,
and hell if he cannot. At first the child will believe.
But as time passes belief can't be maintained in the
experiences of life. Then he may try to believe or
hope to believe or pretend that he believes. But
one's actual beliefs are not subject to his will or
any hopeful choices.

Belief appears to be an involuntary function of rationality.
Data goes into the mind, the mind processes it like sausage,
and belief comes out the other end, whether we like it or not.
Very often we sincerely do not like it.

Rationality is childishly binary. A thing is or it is not.
'Yes or no' are rationalism. 'Maybe' is just not acceptable.
Some philosophers have battled the dogmatic simplicity
of reason. The paradoxes of zeno where reason collapses
of it's own predeluvian ponderousness have still not been
refuted. Others have pointed out the difficulties as well.

A great ship carries goods over the sea. As time goes by,
ropes, sails, planks, and sundry wear out and are replaced.
Eventually, there are no original parts left. The ship still
sails and trades as before and under the same name. Is it
the same ship or another different one? (This is analogous
to the human body, and even the mind.)

A heap (pile) is a heap, or it is not a heap.
A heap is made of parts, say sand or grain. One part is
not a heap, nor is two parts. It takes many parts. But
who can say just how many? At what point do parts
of insufficiency become wholly sufficient for a heap?
Where do 'is or is not' make a legitimate entry?
(Or at what point does a tadpole become a frog?)

The certainties of yes or no are of very limited use
and only in their own context, not beyond it. There
are limited truths everywhere, but they are trivial as
the rules of chess or etiquette. Nothing to base a
life or a holy crusade on. Bad investments.

IMO there are no real certainties worth worrying about.
Rather than sinking or swimming, why not walk on
the water? There is nothing so secure as no reliance
on any sort of security.

Choice is made whether we realize it or not. It is impossible not to
chose... human cognizance demands it.

And I doubt it!

On Feb 3, 6:33 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:49:55 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A





<Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:40 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:33 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A

<Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jan 31, 8:35 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.

Well, actually, agnosticsm is a belief about knowledge.

In fact, agnosticism is a belief about _someone else's claim to a
belief about_ knowledge.  [underlines added]

A cursory search of dictionaries would indicate that the underlined
material is inaccurate.

"Argument by dictionary" does not interest me.

If you don't like dictionaries, how do you (or anyone else) know what
you're talking about?