| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Franco" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2004 06:54:07 AM |
| Object: |
On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
When a believer says: " I believe in (god)". I ask what the word "god"
means.
And when they tell me what they mean, I can demonstrate that "god" cannot
exist.
But I wonder what an agnostic thinks about the term "god".
Agnostics suspend their judgment on a term that they cannot difine.
They don't want to define the term "god". They don't want to say on what
exaclty they suspend their judgment.
There are a lot of religions, a lot of deities. But do agnostic refer to
every deity?
If they refer to every deity, maybe they are referring to the "god" of the
thunder too??
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Is there the "god" of the thunder, a god that can produce a thunder??
An atheist can demonstrate that there is no god, but just a natural
phenomenon.
That's very strange. Agnostics use to say that atheists and believers are
opposite believers. And agnosticism is the only good way, because they
suspend their judgment waiting for demonstration.
Other kind of agnostics say that there is impossible produce demonstrations.
But the can't say what they mean exaclty by the term "god".
A believer is a believer, he/she is like a crazy. But an agnostic is
normally a well educated person. So, why an agnostic can't define the term
"god"?
What is the matter with the term "god"?
Perhaps it represent a "father". Maybe in the agnostic's mind, the term
"god" represent something like a "father".
And that is a psychiatrical problem and not a logical problem I suppose.
Franco
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 12:09:59 PM |
|
|
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote in message
news:zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it...
When a believer says: " I believe in (god)". I ask what the word "god"
means.
And when they tell me what they mean, I can demonstrate that "god" cannot
exist.
But I wonder what an agnostic thinks about the term "god".
Agnostics suspend their judgment on a term that they cannot difine.
They don't want to define the term "god". They don't want to say on what
exaclty they suspend their judgment.
There are a lot of religions, a lot of deities. But do agnostic refer to
every deity?
If they refer to every deity, maybe they are referring to the "god" of the
thunder too??
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Is there the "god" of the thunder, a god that can produce a thunder??
An atheist can demonstrate that there is no god, but just a natural
phenomenon.
That's very strange. Agnostics use to say that atheists and believers are
opposite believers. And agnosticism is the only good way, because they
suspend their judgment waiting for demonstration.
Other kind of agnostics say that there is impossible produce
demonstrations.
But the can't say what they mean exaclty by the term "god".
A believer is a believer, he/she is like a crazy. But an agnostic is
normally a well educated person. So, why an agnostic can't define the term
"god"?
What is the matter with the term "god"?
Perhaps it represent a "father". Maybe in the agnostic's mind, the term
"god" represent something like a "father".
And that is a psychiatrical problem and not a logical problem I suppose.
Here's a link to an essay by Bertran Russel on agnosticism.
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm
Do a google on "agnostic", there's a bunch of stuff already published on the
web about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 07:15:36 PM |
|
|
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote in message
news:zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it...
When a believer says: " I believe in (god)". I ask what the word "god"
means.
And when they tell me what they mean, I can demonstrate that "god" cannot
exist.
You have very strange ideas about agnosticism.
Firstly, one cannot demonstrate that anything cannot exist. Proving a
negative never has, and never will be, possible. The burden is on the
theists to demonstrate that their flavour of god exists. Anyone claiming to
be able to provide proof that any flavour of god does not exist doesn't know
what they are talking about.
Secondly, you seem to think that agnosticism is a very narrow and simple
position... it is not. There are at least four different types of agnostic
(and very likely more)...
a) Zero-data agnostics, who allow that it is possible to know whether or not
God exists, but no one does in fact know it for the simple reason that there
is zero data regarding the matter. Although no one at present has any
relevant data, it is possible that some may come along in the future. It
does not matter whether I restrict the concept of agnosticism to merely
epistemology, or if I extend that concept into the metaphysical realm, when
I see evidence which demands a verdict, I will react by assigning the proper
values of truth or falsehood to the conclusion being argued. However, if no
such evidence exists, or if I do not yet know what is the proper conclusion
which may logically be drawn from that evidence, then the agnostic principle
demands that I refrain from adopting any conclusion as being the expression
of ultimate truth. As this concept was so clearly set forth by Huxley, it
can unequivocally be found to express the essence of agnosticism.
b) Unknowability agnostics, who say that not only is there no evidence
relevant to the issue of God's existence but that there could be none. They
may view the issue as so abstract and removed from human experience that it
is impossible that we should have any evidence regarding it, one way or the
other, so the matter is essentially unknowable. (Note that people with this
outlook could easily move over to the position of noncognitivism. They are
making the claim that the matter of God's existence is essentially
unknowable and that there could not possibly be evidence regarding it, one
way or the other. If they were to conclude that the sentence "God exists"
therefore does not express any proposition at all, then they would be
noncognitivists. But if, instead, they allow that there is a proposition
expressed but it is simply one that we cannot ever legitimately claim to be
true or false, then they are to be classified as "unknowability agnostics".)
c) Data-vs.-data agnostics, who concede that there is evidence relevant to
the issue of God's existence, but who have judged it to be perfectly
balanced. That is, the evidence presently available in support of God's
existence is exactly matched by evidence presently available against God's
existence. They could be called "knife-edge agnostics," since they view the
positive evidence for God's existence as so perfectly balanced by negative
evidence that it is as if they were balanced on the edge of a knife without
falling to one side or the other.
d) Data-vs.-principle agnostics, who are another type of "knife-edge
agnostics". They agree with the methodological atheists who claim that there
is a certain methodological principle that places the burden of proof upon
the theists. The question is raised as to how much evidence is needed for
the existence of something in order for it to satisfy the burden of proof
required by the given principle. Presumably there is some minimum amount
such that any lesser amount would still call for us to deny the existence of
the thing. Take, for example, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It may be
argued that there is some slight evidence in favor of the existence of such
entities but it is less than the amount needed to satisfy the
burden-of-proof requirement. Thus, the rational stance to take with respect
to them, at least at the present time, is that of denying their existence.
If, in the future, additional evidence is found favoring the existence of
the entity, and that evidence is of sufficient quantity to satisfy the
burden-of-proof requirement, then at that time the rational stance to take
would be to believe that the entity exists. Suppose, now, that additional
evidence is found for, say, the existence of Bigfoot. But the evidence is
not quite sufficient to satisfy the burden-of-proof requirement. It is
almost enough. In fact, it is as close to satisfying the requirement without
actually satisfying it as it is possible to get. One might say, in a case
like this, that the evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is balanced on a
knife-edge. It is not enough to warrant belief, but it is also too much
evidence to warrant denial of Bigfoot's existence. In such a case, it might
be argued, the rational stance to take for anyone aware of the evidence is
that of withholding judgment on the matter. Well, this is the situation with
data-vs.-principle agnostics.
They are not claiming that there are two opposing bodies of evidence, one
favoring God's existence and the other favoring God's nonexistence. Rather,
there is only a body of evidence that favors God's existence. However, the
evidence, at least at the present time, is not sufficient to satisfy the
burden-of-proof requirement imposed upon theism, though it is right at the
threshold of satisfying it. It is not yet enough to warrant belief that God
exists, but it is also too much to warrant denying God's existence. Hence,
the rational stance for anyone to take regarding God's existence is that of
agnosticism.
(Thus, both types of "knife-edge agnostic" claim that there is definite
evidence in favor of God's existence, but that it is exactly balanced by
something else. One type, data-vs.-data agnostics, say that the something
else is definite evidence in favor of God's nonexistence. The other type,
data-vs.-principle agnostics, say that the something else is a principle of
rational methodology which places a certain burden of proof upon the
theist.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 06:50:35 AM |
|
|
Sam ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
You have very strange ideas about agnosticism.
An agnostics are supposed to be a well educated people. And we expect them
to say more about the term "god" when they use it in that sentence.
A believer, is a believer! That's all!!!
But an agnostic seems to be a well educated person. So, why agnostics do not
explain what they mean exactly by the term "god" or "deity"?
That's the main problem. Agnostics are not believers, blind and uneducated
believers!!
Agnostics are well educated people and they seem to use a good logic to
sustain their sentences.
I'm very surprised to hear from an agnostic that "god" could exist.
I'm very surprised to hear from an agnostic that "nobody can demonstrate
"god" no existence".
But what they mean by the term "god" or "deity" exactly?
When believers talk about their "god" they can't say more about it. They use
to say pour things about it, very pour things. Some attributes, and that's
that!!
If believers had told us where "extist" "god" we would have understood more
about it.
If believers had told us of what "god" is made, we would have understood
more about it.
And so on.
But believers are blinded by their faith!! So i can't suppose a believer to
say me more that that!!
But an agnostic is suppesed to be a well educated person, an agnostic should
say more about the term "god" and about the substance.
So i ask to agnostics the following:
1. What is "god" made of?
2. Where "god" exists, in other words, where does it live??
3. What does "god" made?
4. What phenomenon produced "god"? In other words: what is that substance
that produced "god".
5. How old is "god"?
6. How did "god" to produce this universe(agnostics say that: "god" produced
this universe).
In other words, agnostics before to suspend their judgment had to answer
these questions above and see if they are in according with science and
logic!!
But, I in my experience on these ng, I've met only believers that call
themselves agnostics!!
My conclusion is: agnostics are believers. Most of agnostics are priest or
believers who are pretending to be agnostics.
Thank you Sam
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodridge" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
16 Apr 2004 05:12:51 AM |
|
|
"Sam" wrote [to Franco]:
Secondly, you seem to think that agnosticism is a very narrow and simple
position... it is not. There are at least four different types of agnostic
(and very likely more)...
Absolutely true.
I'm trying since a long time, on Italian NGs, to make clear to him that
there are not only narrow positions, and schemes to be rigidly adopted.
Useless efforts!! Apparently, he likes to think about "switches" between
a party and another (3 parties: believers, atheist, agnostics).
Bye
Woodridge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
16 Apr 2004 09:27:01 AM |
|
|
Woodridge wrote:
"Sam" wrote [to Franco]:
Secondly, you seem to think that agnosticism is a very narrow and simple
position... it is not. There are at least four different types of agnostic
(and very likely more)...
Absolutely true.
No, it is a mistake, since there is only one thing which characterizes
agnosticism, as the freethinker who coined the term, Thomas Huxley
points out, and that is the outright denial and repudiation of religious
belief like Christianity for example:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
I'm trying since a long time, on Italian NGs, to make clear to him that
there are not only narrow positions, and schemes to be rigidly adopted.
Useless efforts!! Apparently, he likes to think about "switches" between
a party and another (3 parties: believers, atheist, agnostics).
Bye
Woodridge
In this case there are only two parties, theist true believers and
everybody else.
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it (theists),
the absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step
further, the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as
a matter of principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
16 Apr 2004 03:17:42 PM |
|
|
In article <V2Sfc.3525$yD1.12969@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Woodridge wrote:
"Sam" wrote [to Franco]:
Secondly, you seem to think that agnosticism is a very narrow and simple
position... it is not. There are at least four different types of agnostic
(and very likely more)...
Absolutely true.
No, it is a mistake, since there is only one thing which characterizes
agnosticism, as the freethinker who coined the term, Thomas Huxley
points out, and that is the outright denial and repudiation of religious
belief like Christianity for example:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
If one reads the above quote more carefully than Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, has done, one notes the complete absence of the word
religion, Huxley here reviles those who would impose their opinions on
others without satisfactory evidence that those opinions are correct.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is trying to impose his opinion (that
gods are impossible) on others, but offers nothing valid by way of
evidence to support that opinion.
If one takes Huxley's words at face value, then Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, is one of the bad guys.
I'm trying since a long time, on Italian NGs, to make clear to him that
there are not only narrow positions, and schemes to be rigidly adopted.
Useless efforts!! Apparently, he likes to think about "switches" between
a party and another (3 parties: believers, atheist, agnostics).
Bye
Woodridge
In this case there are only two parties, theist true believers and
everybody else.
Wrong, as usual. Unless Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, counts himself
as a true believer. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, believes, and
claims to know, that gods are impossible, even though he cannot prove it
to the satisfaction of anyone who does not believe as he does. Theists
all believe, and some claim to know, that god(s) actually exist, even
though they cannot prove it to the satisfaction of those who do not
believe as they do.
So in the matter of belief, there are three parties, those who believe
god(s) exist, those who believe that no gods exist, and those in the
middle who have neither belief. Those who believe in a god tend to lump
the others together as atheists, but those without either belief are
happier to split atheists into two groups, the "weak" athists, or
"plain" atheists with no beleif, versus the "strong" atheists or
anti-theists who believe that there is no god.
In the matter of knowledge, there are those who claim to know god(s)
exist, those who clain to know no gods exist, and those who do not claim
to know either. This last group calls itself agnostic (lack of
knowledge).
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway,
As one can see here, anti-theists, such as Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, tend to be weak on the distinction between theism and agnosticism
even though there is no evidence of it (theists),
Here Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, labels a clearly agnostic position
as being theist, a confusion of mind typical of extremists about those
who disagree with them.
the absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step
further, the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as
a matter of principle (agnostics).
Another flub by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple! It is only the
anti-theists who are so outright in their denial. Agnostics admit that
they do no know about beliefs. But they do reject some practices, like
the practice of trying to impose one's own beliefs on others by any
means but honest logical persuasion. This puts tham in opposition to
both the rabid theists and the rabid anti-theists, of whom Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, is one.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, go one step further than others to deny and repudiate, on
principle, those who claim to know what they cannot rove.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 11:01:05 AM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 4:50 AM, in article fA9fc.51885$hc5.2266271@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Sam ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
You have very strange ideas about agnosticism.
An agnostics are supposed to be a well educated people. And we expect them
to say more about the term "god" when they use it in that sentence.
A believer, is a believer! That's all!!!
But an agnostic seems to be a well educated person. So, why agnostics do not
explain what they mean exactly by the term "god" or "deity"?
Because it is not our term to explain or define, it is the theists'. (Will
you please let me know if you understand this point, fratello mio?)
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
You have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is agnostic.
Agnostics are atheist too. Anyone who who holds an irrational belief that
there might be an invisible God is theist, period. All the rest of us
(including agnostics) are atheist (without theist belief that an invisible
God might exist).
There is no "suspension of judgment." The investigation is over. The very
idea of God is dead on arrival. There cannot be any such thing as God, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God
pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible God might
exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it, and in spite of the
fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it (theists), the absence of such
irrational religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further than other atheists to deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 01:05:25 PM |
|
|
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
When a believer says to you: " god is defined as the first cause, the
creator of everything". Why do(as an agnostic) you need to suspend your
judgment??
Atheists ask to that believer some questions: tell me more about that "first
cause and so on".
Why are you agnostic? When people tell me something I can't understand and I
know that they could tell me more, I do NOT suspend my judgment, I simply
say that is a nonsensical sentence.
god as defined as the first cause could exist yes or not??
Let me know.
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 10:23:25 AM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 11:05 AM, in article F3ffc.53699$hc5.2337709@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
When a believer says to you: " god is defined as the first cause, the
creator of everything". Why do(as an agnostic) you need to suspend your
judgment??
Agnostics like me (the smart ones) don't suspend judgment, since there is
nothing to suspend judgment on; there is absolutely positively no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God, the theists'
hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God, which Russell points
out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be one
anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
Why are you agnostic? When people tell me something I can't understand and I
know that they could tell me more, I do NOT suspend my judgment, I simply
say that is a nonsensical sentence.
god as defined as the first cause could exist yes or not??
Let me know.
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 01:31:45 PM |
|
|
In article <BCA3F6FC.ECE%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit AKA Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 11:05 AM, in article F3ffc.53699$hc5.2337709@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
When a believer says to you: " god is defined as the first cause, the
creator of everything". Why do(as an agnostic) you need to suspend your
judgment??
Agnostics like me
Agnostics like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, do not exist, since he
is not one. Agnostics do not say that they know things that they cannot
prove, whereas Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, repeatedly says that he
KNOWS there are no gods, though there is no evidence of any such thing.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 06:57:12 PM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 11:05 AM, in article F3ffc.53699$hc5.2337709@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
When a believer says to you: " god is defined as the first cause, the
creator of everything". Why do(as an agnostic) you need to suspend your
judgment??
I don't. Agnosticism isn't about suspending judgment, as Huxley points out,
agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, any contrary
doctrine, like Christianity for example, that there are propositions, like
the tenets of Christianity for example, which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"Suspend judgment" is just theist propaganda. It is just another way theists
try to get away with arguing from ignorance that an invisible God might
exist, because there is no proof the hypothesis is false.
You have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is agnostic.
Agnostics are atheist too. Anyone who who holds an irrational belief that
there might be an invisible God is theist, period. All the rest of us
(including agnostics) are atheist (without theist belief that an invisible
God might exist).
There is no "suspension of judgment." The investigation is over. The very
idea of God is dead on arrival. There cannot be any such thing as God, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God
pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible God might
exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it, and in spite of the
fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it (theists), the absence of such
irrational religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further than other atheists to deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 12:54:50 AM |
|
|
In article <BCA31DE8.ECC%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 11:05 AM, in article F3ffc.53699$hc5.2337709@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
When a believer says to you: " god is defined as the first cause, the
creator of everything". Why do(as an agnostic) you need to suspend your
judgment??
I don't.
But then Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's judgement isn't worth a
tinker's dam, since he can't read without warping the words to see what
he wants to see instead of what is actually there.
Agnosticism isn't about suspending judgment, as Huxley
points out, agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, any doctrine
(like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's anti-theism, for example)
that there are propositions, which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who coined the
term 'agnostic', in "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 01:47:10 PM |
|
|
In article <BCA2AE50.C14%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 4:50 AM, in article fA9fc.51885$hc5.2266271@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Sam ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
You have very strange ideas about agnosticism.
An agnostics are supposed to be a well educated people. And we expect them
to say more about the term "god" when they use it in that sentence.
A believer, is a believer! That's all!!!
But an agnostic seems to be a well educated person. So, why agnostics do not
explain what they mean exactly by the term "god" or "deity"?
Because it is not our term to explain or define, it is the theists'. (Will
you please let me know if you understand this point, fratello mio?)
AND the anti-theists, like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, must be able
to describe it also. To claim that there is no such thing, one must be
able to describe one means by the thing.
Agnostics don't have to define 'God',
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is NOT an agnostic, since he claims
knowledge without proof, a violation of agnostic principles.
'God' is already defined by the theist true believers; 'God' is defined
as the first cause, the creator of everything.
Unfortunately, the number of different definitions of god(s) is on close
to the same order of magnitude as the number of theists.
You have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is agnostic.
Agnostics are atheist too.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, naturally would say this, and possibly
even believe it, but agnostics are much looser about beliefs that Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, claims.
It is about what one claims to KNOW rather that just believe, that
agnostics get picky, and this criterion excudes Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple.
Thomas Huxley, from "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of
the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is
what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that
is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men
ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
Anyone who who holds an irrational belief that
there might be an invisible God is theist, period.
So says one who is neither theist nor agnostic, so cannot know what, if
anything, distinguishes the one from the other.
Agnostics will not say that they know what they cannot establish,
including either to claim knowledge that there is a god nor to claim
knowledge that there are no gods. But nothing prevents them, as
agnostics, from believing either of these.
Theists believe there is a god. Atheists do not. Either of these,
provided they do not claim knowledge they cannot prove, may be agnostic.
There are theists who claim to know that there is a god and there are
atheists who claim to know there are no gods. Neither of these can be
agnostic, though they may claim to be.
To the extent that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, denies any of this,
he is wrong, but by now that must a comfortable place for him to be,
since he works so hard to stay there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 07:13:25 AM |
|
|
Woodridge ha scritto nel messaggio
<8b6c6fb4738b1f626433b86eea49d40d.98204@mygate.mailgate.org>...
"Franco" wrote:
There are a lot of kind of atheists. But what they have in common is to
think that there is NOT a supernatural phenomenon, that everything we can
understand of the cosmos is a natural phenomenon.
Wod. answered:
Actually, the first sentence is a typical atheist thought, I think; but
the latter is an agnostic expression, if I am not wrong...
An agnostic admit the possibility of "supernatural", an atheist no.
The difference between agnostics and atheists is about the possibility of
supernatural.
Agnostics use to say that there could exist somethng supernatural.
Atheist use to say that there is IMPOSSIBLE for supernatural to exists.
Because supernatural is not explained. Supernatural is only a word. A word
that uneducated people still use because they do not understand mathematics
or physics.
Supernatural is supposed to be something NOT natural.
But what is "supernatural"? What is something that is NOT natural??
Atheists say that supernatural does not exist, because is a nonsensical
thing.
Agnostics say that supernatural could exist.
But why don't you tell us what you mean by the term "supernatural"?
What I have understood of it, is that "supernatural" is something different
from natural phenomena.
In my mind, "supernatural" means NOTHING!!
If the "god" whose you think could exist is "supernatural", you MUST explain
us what you mean by the term "supernatural".
If you the "god" you think could exist is a natural phenomenon, I suggest
you to give in and leave it to scientists. Natural phenomena are
investigated by scientists.
I'm an atheist, and "supernatural" is NOTHING in my mind.
But if you want, you can explain us what you mean by the term
"supernatural".
I think that's crazy to claim that supernatural could exist, because our
universe is investigable, and science can investigate it!
But I know that on these ng, there are a lot of people pretending to be
agnostics while they're believers!!
Are you a priest?
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "+» Elfo «+" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 07:16:51 AM |
|
|
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> tecnë:
news:F%ufc.78645$rM4.3128832@news4.tin.it...
Quote:
What I have understood of it, is that "supernatural" is something
different
from natural phenomena.
In my mind, "supernatural" means NOTHING!!
Namarië
--
±_Elda_±
/\v/\ "Nan úye sére indo-ninya símen, ullume" /\v/\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 12:19:18 PM |
|
|
+» Elfo «+ ha scritto nel messaggio ...
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> tecnë:
news:F%ufc.78645$rM4.3128832@news4.tin.it...
Quote:
What I have understood of it, is that "supernatural" is something
different
from natural phenomena.
In my mind, "supernatural" means NOTHING!!
Supernatural is differente, in other words natural exist and supernatural
does NOT exist. That's the difference between them.
Supernatural is something different from agnostics and believers and they
think that it exist or could exist. In my mind it means NOTHING. Something
different from natural is NOTHING.
You are an agnostic Elfo. So, would you mind to tell us what do you mean
ELFO when you use the term "supernatural"??
By the term supernatural I mean NOTHING, so something different from natural
phenomena. NOTHING is different from something that exist. Natural phenomena
exist, supernatural does not exist. That's the difference.
Now, would you mind to tell us what do you (ELFO) mean by the term
"supernatural"??
Thanks a lot for you attention Elfo.
Regards
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "+» Elfo «+" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 12:37:10 PM |
|
|
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> tecnë:
news:quzfc.58168$hc5.2514846@news3.tin.it...
Quote:
Supernatural is differente, in other words natural exist and supernatural
does NOT exist. That's the difference between them.
Quote:
Supernatural is something different from agnostics and believers and they
think that it exist or could exist. In my mind it means NOTHING. Something
different from natural is NOTHING.
You are an agnostic Elfo. So, would you mind to tell us what do you mean
ELFO when you use the term "supernatural"??
Shhhh!
In this moment I can hear someone's talking about *supernatural*!
Who is he?
Namarië
--
±_Elda_±
/\v/\ "Nan úye sére indo-ninya símen, ullume" /\v/\
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 12:40:34 PM |
|
|
On 4/13/04 4:54 AM, in article zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
You have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is agnostic.
Agnostics are atheist too. Anyone who who holds an irrational belief that
there might be an invisible God is theist, period. All the rest of us
(including agnostics) are atheist (without theist belief that an invisible
God might exist).
There is no "suspension of judgment." The investigation is over. The very
idea of God is dead on arrival. There cannot be any such thing as God, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God
pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible God might
exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it, and in spite of the
fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it (theists), the absence of such
irrational religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further than other atheists to deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 04:42:47 PM |
|
|
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
On 4/13/04 4:54 AM, in article zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
CUT
Is that "first cause" conscious of itself or unconscious of itself?
Regards
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 11:39:16 PM |
|
|
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote in message
news:r9Zec.50534$hc5.2202964@news3.tin.it...
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
On 4/13/04 4:54 AM, in article zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator
of
everything.
CUT
Is that "first cause" conscious of itself or unconscious of itself?
How could a hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining be conscious,
fratello mio?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 06:51:25 AM |
|
|
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Is that "first cause" conscious of itself or unconscious of itself?
How could a hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining be conscious,
fratello mio?
What is the difference between a deity and a natural phenomenon?
Bye bye
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 10:54:34 AM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 4:51 AM, in article 1B9fc.51891$hc5.2266255@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Is that "first cause" conscious of itself or unconscious of itself?
How could a hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining be conscious,
fratello mio?
What is the difference between a deity and a natural phenomenon?
We know it is true (because anyone can demonstrate it) that there are
natural phenomena. Are there any deities in reality one can demonstrate?
'Deity' is just another word for theists' hypothetical (speculative, 'might
be') imagining with no basis in fact, isn't it, fratello mio?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franco" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 01:05:03 PM |
|
|
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
cut
What is the difference between a deity and a natural phenomenon?
We know it is true (because anyone can demonstrate it) that there are
natural phenomena. Are there any deities in reality one can demonstrate?
'Deity' is just another word for theists' hypothetical (speculative, 'might
be') imagining with no basis in fact, isn't it, fratello mio?
Everything is a natural phenomenon. But agnostics talk about "god" as if it
is not a natural phenomenon, so one cannot investigate about it.
That's a classical argument that agnostics use about "god".
Then I ask: what is the difference between a natural phenomenon and "god"?
Bye bye
Franco
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 06:50:15 PM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 11:05 AM, in article j3ffc.53696$hc5.2337498@news3.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
cut
What is the difference between a deity and a natural phenomenon?
We know it is true (because anyone can demonstrate it) that there are
natural phenomena. Are there any deities in reality one can demonstrate?
'Deity' is just another word for theists' hypothetical (speculative, 'might
be') imagining with no basis in fact, isn't it, fratello mio?
Everything is a natural phenomenon. But agnostics talk about "god" as if it
is not a natural phenomenon, so one cannot investigate about it.
But we have investigated it, haven't we, and found that it is just a
hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining of the theists with no
basis in fact, right, fratello mio?
That's a classical argument that agnostics use about "god".
Fratello mio, you have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is
agnostic. I am agnostic, like Thomas Huxley, who coined the term,
'agnostic'. Let me explain what it means.
Agnostics are atheist too. Anyone who who holds an irrational belief that
there might be an invisible God is theist, period. All the rest of us
(including agnostics) are atheist (without theist belief that an invisible
God might exist).
There is no "suspension of judgment." The investigation is over. The very
idea of God is dead on arrival. There cannot be any such thing as God, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God
pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible God might
exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it, and in spite of the
fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it (theists), the absence of such
irrational religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further than other atheists to deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 12:44:16 AM |
|
|
In article <BCA31C46.ECA%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Everything is a natural phenomenon. But agnostics talk about "god" as if it
is not a natural phenomenon, so one cannot investigate about it.
But we have investigated it, haven't we,
Another claim without evidence. Just what investigations has Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, personally carried out?
and found that it is just a
hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining of the theists with no
basis in fact, right, fratello mio?
Wrong again. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, did not find anything, he
made up his mind in vacuo, and has been there ever since.
That's a classical argument that agnostics use about "god".
Fratello mio, you have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is
agnostic. I am agnostic, like Thomas Huxley, who coined the term,
'agnostic'.
And here Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, begins again one of his
favorite fairy tales. Thomas Huxley finds the Septic dogma that gods are
known to be impossible reprehensible as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
is claiming to know things for which he can present no logically
satisfactory evidence. And he pretends that he is backed by science,
which is no more true than that the Creationists are backed by science.
Let me explain what it means.
Agnostics are atheist too.
Not necessarily. A person who belives on some god or gods but
acknowledges that he does not know this (cannot prove his beliefs to be
true) is a welcome agnostic, whereas a person who claims to know that
there are no despite being able to produce any logically satisfactory
evidence to back this claim violates that agnostic prime directive and c
annot be an agnostic.
About 20 or 30 of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's standard boilerplate
lies deleted here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 01:23:34 PM |
|
|
In article <BCA2ACC9.C12%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
What is the difference between a deity and a natural phenomenon?
We know it is true (because anyone can demonstrate it) that there are
natural phenomena.
Just what is a "natural phenomenon", and how does one demonstrate one?
This seems a bit circular: one can demostrate something because it is a
natural phenomenon, and it is a natural phenomenon because one can
demostrate it.
This would also seem to mean that such things as emotions are not
natural phenomena, since there is no sure way to distinguish between
someone else's real emotion and predended (acted) emotion.
Are there any deities in reality one can demonstrate?
Until we have a good deal better handle on what demonstration of such
non-physical things as emotions involves, the question is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
14 Apr 2004 07:02:38 PM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 11:23 AM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-08C76D.12233314042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BCA2ACC9.C12%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Are there any deities in reality one can demonstrate?
Until we have a good deal better handle on what demonstration of such
non-physical things as emotions involves, the question is irrelevant.
Emotions are non-physical? Can you demonstrate evidence of anything that
could be called emotion coming anything other than a physical entity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
15 Apr 2004 01:06:49 AM |
|
|
In article <BCA31F2E.ECE%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 11:23 AM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-08C76D.12233314042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BCA2ACC9.C12%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Are there any deities in reality one can demonstrate?
Until we have a good deal better handle on what demonstration of such
non-physical things as emotions involves, the question is irrelevant.
Emotions are non-physical? Can you demonstrate evidence of anything that
could be called emotion coming anything other than a physical entity?
Non-responsive. Emotions are subjective, not objective.
How much does an emotion weigh? Is fear heavier than anger? What color
is hate?
Does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's inability to answer such
questions mean that emotions are impossible?
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, wants to limit everything to what
science has already investigated, but is unaware that science cannot
answer all questions, Science is not everything. Those who think it is,
have created a god for themselves. Is Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
among them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 09:03:08 PM |
|
|
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote in message news:<r9Zec.50534$hc5.2202964@news3.tin.it>...
Dixit ha scritto nel messaggio ...
On 4/13/04 4:54 AM, in article zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
CUT
Is that "first cause" conscious of itself or unconscious of itself?
Regards
Franco
Yeah...I wouldn't even call "the underlying and elusive reason why
universe is here" as 'god'. I would just call it unknown. But if some
idiot comes along and says something like 'I don't know if any gods
exist or not', then that's called truly clueless because they can't
even define what they mean by 'god'. So it's like saying ... 'I'm just
clueless'. So if an agnostic said that ... then I'd believe that.
That's because agnostic basically means 'clueless'.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 07:52:24 PM |
|
|
In article <BCA17422.78E%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/13/04 4:54 AM, in article zxQec.65346$rM4.2672131@news4.tin.it,
"Franco" <englishenglish@tin.it> wrote:
Why agnostics are scared to define the term "god"?
Agnostics don't have to define 'God', 'God' is already defined by the
theist true believers; 'God' is defined as the first cause, the creator of
everything.
So the anti-theists like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, get to define
God?
You have the wrong idea about what characterizes one who is agnostic.
Agnostics are atheist too.
Not necessarily.
Anyone who who holds an irrational belief that
there might be an invisible God is theist, period.
That is a lie, period. There are NO theists who only believe that there
MIGHT be a god, only agnostics have so modest a belief. And the
possibility of a god does not necesssarily conflict with the simple
atheist's lack of belief that of any instanciation of that possibility.
All the rest of us
(including agnostics) are atheist
Except for most agnostics and many athieists, that is.
(without theist belief that an invisible
God might exist).
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is referring to that belief which no
true theist accepts but lots of non-theists have, which Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, libels as theist.
There is no "suspension of judgment." The investigation is over. The very
idea of God is dead on arrival.
Only in Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's tiny mind. The judgement of
agnostics is that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is over, He makes
assertions of truth for which he produces no evidence and claims that
the issues have been settled. Only in Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's
tiny mind.
There cannot be any such thing as,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
telling the truth due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, telling the truth pointed out by
Bertrand Russell.
This is all about that anti-agnostic anti-religious belief that an invisible God cannot
exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it, and in spite of the
fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it (anti-theists), the absence of such
irrational religious belief (most atheists and all agnostics), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such anti-religious belief as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
Agnostics go one step further than others to deny and repudiate, on
principle, anti-religious belief in the impossiibility of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who
coined the term 'agnostic', in "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lusion" |
|
| Title: Re: On what agnostics suspend their judgment? |
13 Apr 2004 10:34:09 PM |
|
|
[it.cultura.ateismo snipped because whatever that is, I don't speak it].
Franco wrote:
When a believer says: " I believe in (god)". I ask what the word "god"
means.
And when they tell me what they mean, I can demonstrate that "god" cannot
exist.
Methinks you're using too strict standards here. I've arrived at the
conclusion that the act of defining is a lot harder than it looks.
I for one believe in a god--many gods, at that. In fact, I find it next to
IMPOSSIBLE to imagine that people don't believe in gods, when museums are
constantly finding them and putting them on display. For goodness sake,
atheists... just visit your local museums and put this case to rest once
and for all!
Okay, so maybe those things don't count... but you'd honestly have a hard
time proving that they don't exist (when I can bring you to a museum and
show you one). There were indeed people who defined those things as gods
too.
But I have a stronger point to make with this as well. If an idol in itself
doesn't quite "count" as a god in terms of atheism/theism (i.e., if you'd
argue something like, "no, they believed the idol had magical powers and
stuff--the idol itself is just a rock", with the intent to argue that the
magical powers should be included in the definition), then you have in your
mind an idea of what doesn't count as a god. If you still believe that
theists exist and that you (who presumably have at least seen pictures of
idols on display) are not one, then obviously there must be some things
that DO count as gods.
Therefore, there must exist some sort of criteria for determining whether a
thing counts as a god or not, and this criteria must be something that you
have. So why bother asking the theist for a definition? Give us your best
shot and define "god" yourself, meeting the very (ahem!) simple criteria
of:
* Everything that "counts" as a god must fit your definition (i.e., all
people who proclaim belief in such things, you would have no problems
calling a theist)
* Everything that doesn't "count" as a god must be excluded from your
definition (i.e., if people proclaim beliefs in these things, you would
have no problems calling them an atheist given that they don't believe in
any other "gods" included in your definition).
* The term "atheist" still means what you think it should mean (e.g., you
are an atheist... and presumably you believe idols are in museums,
therefore idols in themselves must be excluded from your definition).
Good luck! And once you define god for me, PLEASE tell me what the
definition is. Also, while you're at it, work on precise definitions of
"sentient" and "moral" for me... that'll help me in other debates (not
related to USENET).
If you at least recognize that the problem at hand isn't straightforward,
then you probably have a good answer for how your agnostics can exist.
I'll give you a better criteria here... if you have to think _carefully_,
at all, and make at least a second draft of your definition, then you
should lend credence to the idea that the term "god" might not be so easy
to define (the exercise), but could still possibly mean something
(demonstrated by the ability to rule out certain things as belonging but
not others).
BTW, I don't consider myself agnostic.
--
Lusion
aa 272
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
