| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2003 08:29:20 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0307161259.1f405fb6@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<G8dRa.64832$wk6.15968@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4bd1f7c.0307160604.29f68992@posting.google.com...
Goldhammer <goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnbh9oi8.ru2.goldhammer@cr171940-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com>...
Septic identities:
"ABC" <abc@hotmail.com>
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com>
"Ben" <someone @microsoft.com>
"Bill Gates" <billg@microsaused.com>
bfskinner@my-deja.com
<and so on, ad nauseum>
This raises the issue of what WE should call this individual, given
that he has such problems knowing what to call himself. "Capon" seems
to be the current favorite, but (in keeping with the bird theme) I
have recently taken to calling him "Birdbrain" and (on occasion)
"Peckerhead" (bit of a stretch there, but birds do peck). Should we
try to reach some consensus on this, or just leave it as a
free-for-all? Maybe we could use some sort of rota system?
Whatever, just as long as you keep resorting to all the argument _ad
hominem_ you can muster, trying to create a diversion away from the issue
that is genuinely under discussion
Septic, ummm, _you_ are the issue genuinely under discussion. Stop
trying to create a diversion.
But that's what he does. Notice his brief foray into sci.logic, where
he attempted to teach logic to everyone else on the list - and in each
case where anyone challenged any of his assertions (Excluded Middle
and Modus Tollens are both 'logical fallacies,' all conditional
statements are arguments, _ad ignorantiam_ is a valid argument form as
long as one's assertion contains a 'not', etc.), he immediately began
railing about the 'sky pixie.'
Septic the capon remains the completely clueless, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.
Jeff
.
|
|
| User: "Gorne" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
31 Aug 2003 04:01:14 PM |
|
|
Is Agnosticism more logical?
I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
nobody knows if god exist or not.
Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments
would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
date it will be impossible to show that some part of the argumentation
may be found to be illogical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 08:44:47 AM |
|
|
(Gorne) wrote in message news:<91f9f335.0308311301.459a1365@posting.google.com>...
Is Agnosticism more logical?
I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
nobody knows if god exist or not.
Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
Certainly it's possible.
Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments
would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
possibility is indeed logical.
The argument one would need be one of the form:
1. If God exists, then X.
2. If God does not exist, then Y.
3. ~(X & Y)
At which point one can gather information as to whether X or Y
obtains, and infer the existence or non-existence of God from that.
How could we be sure that at a later
date it will be impossible to show that some part of the argumentation
may be found to be illogical.
One can eliminate that possibility by justifying each step wrt a valid
inference. But that does not eliminate the possibility that the
argument is unsound, as any of its premises can be wrong; which is
always a possibility.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 01:31:57 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
: Is Agnosticism more logical?
: I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
: nobody knows if god exist or not.
: Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
: just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
: Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments
: would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
: possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
: date it will be impossible to show that some part of the argumentation
: may be found to be illogical.
In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 09:28:34 AM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:biup4t$gd4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
: Is Agnosticism more logical?
: I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
: nobody knows if god exist or not.
: Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
: just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
: Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments
: would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
: possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
: date it will be impossible to show that some part of the argumentation
: may be found to be illogical.
In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.
This statement really doesn't make sense at all.
In fact, I can counter the non-sense by simply changing the words around:
[In general, if something exists, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible not to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question does exist, even if
it's true that it does exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it doesn't exist if it doesn't. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 01:15:14 PM |
|
|
In article <mII4b.121894$0v4.8801816@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
xyz@attglobal.net says...
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:biup4t$gd4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
: Is Agnosticism more logical?
: I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
: nobody knows if god exist or not.
: Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
: just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
: Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments
: would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
: possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
: date it will be impossible to show that some part of the argumentation
: may be found to be illogical.
In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.
This statement really doesn't make sense at all.
In fact, I can counter the non-sense by simply changing the words around:
[In general, if something exists, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible not to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question does exist, even if
it's true that it does exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it doesn't exist if it doesn't. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.]
Seems to me the English language is very useful in explaining things in
such a way that it makes your point. Humans are very good at
rationalization and language helps a lot. As far a proof is concerned,
however, you can prove anything depending on what premises you accept. If
you assume there are things that are not made of matter/energy that have
supernatural powers and care about human animals then when things happen
that you cannot explain by any other means your assumption can explain it.
OBTW my Dog is a Goddess. She has supernatural powers that we don't even
know about. She can make me obey her simply by barking. She loves me in
spite of my faults and gives me support when ever I need it. I worship her
daily. She will not send me to hell either.
------
D. Haas
"Consistency requires you be as ignorant today as you were a year ago."
Bernard Berenson
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 04:43:55 PM |
|
|
"David Haas" <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bd56624775c9f19898ba@news-server.nc.rr.com...
In article <mII4b.121894$0v4.8801816@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
xyz@attglobal.net says...
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:biup4t$gd4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
: Is Agnosticism more logical?
: I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit
that
: nobody knows if god exist or not.
: Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to
be
: just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
: Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what
arguments
: would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
: possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
: date it will be impossible to show that some part of the
argumentation
: may be found to be illogical.
In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.
This statement really doesn't make sense at all.
In fact, I can counter the non-sense by simply changing the words
around:
[In general, if something exists, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible not to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question does exist, even if
it's true that it does exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it doesn't exist if it doesn't. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.]
Seems to me the English language is very useful in explaining things in
such a way that it makes your point. Humans are very good at
rationalization and language helps a lot. As far a proof is concerned,
however, you can prove anything depending on what premises you accept. If
you assume there are things that are not made of matter/energy that have
supernatural powers and care about human animals then when things happen
that you cannot explain by any other means your assumption can explain it.
How about not assuming anything?
I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know what the
ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a problem with
that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a damned
thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid that
somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do not dare to
lower our defenses?
OBTW my Dog is a Goddess. She has supernatural powers that we don't even
know about. She can make me obey her simply by barking. She loves me in
spite of my faults and gives me support when ever I need it. I worship
her
daily. She will not send me to hell either.
------
D. Haas
"Consistency requires you be as ignorant today as you were a year ago."
Bernard Berenson
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 05:17:31 PM |
|
|
In article <v4P4b.124080$3o3.8738067@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
xyz@attglobal.net says...
"David Haas" <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bd56624775c9f19898ba@news-server.nc.rr.com...
In article <mII4b.121894$0v4.8801816@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
xyz@attglobal.net says...
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:biup4t$gd4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
: Is Agnosticism more logical?
: I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit
that
: nobody knows if god exist or not.
: Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to
be
: just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
: Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what
arguments
: would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
: possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
: date it will be impossible to show that some part of the
argumentation
: may be found to be illogical.
In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.
This statement really doesn't make sense at all.
In fact, I can counter the non-sense by simply changing the words
around:
[In general, if something exists, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible not to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question does exist, even if
it's true that it does exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it doesn't exist if it doesn't. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.]
Seems to me the English language is very useful in explaining things in
such a way that it makes your point. Humans are very good at
rationalization and language helps a lot. As far a proof is concerned,
however, you can prove anything depending on what premises you accept. If
you assume there are things that are not made of matter/energy that have
supernatural powers and care about human animals then when things happen
that you cannot explain by any other means your assumption can explain it.
How about not assuming anything?
I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know what the
ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a problem with
that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a damned
thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid that
somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do not dare to
lower our defenses?
Well, we know a lot more than any other animal or for that matter any
other human that ever lived before. As far as Gods are concerned we know
that humans have been conjuring them up for thousands of years along with
all sorts of other things that are imaginary. You may not know things for
certain but there are a lot of things that you can say are not very
probable based on what you do know.
OBTW my Dog is a Goddess. She has supernatural powers that we don't even
know about. She can make me obey her simply by barking. She loves me in
spite of my faults and gives me support when ever I need it. I worship
her
daily. She will not send me to hell either.
D. Haas
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 09:21:31 PM |
|
|
"David Haas" <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bd8f2191c78bdd9898bb@news-server.nc.rr.com...
In article <v4P4b.124080$3o3.8738067@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
xyz@attglobal.net says...
"David Haas" <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bd56624775c9f19898ba@news-server.nc.rr.com...
In article
<mII4b.121894$0v4.8801816@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
xyz@attglobal.net says...
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:biup4t$gd4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
: Is Agnosticism more logical?
: I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit
that
: nobody knows if god exist or not.
: Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist
to
be
: just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
: Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what
arguments
: would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that
this
: possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a
later
: date it will be impossible to show that some part of the
argumentation
: may be found to be illogical.
In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to
prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.
This statement really doesn't make sense at all.
In fact, I can counter the non-sense by simply changing the words
around:
[In general, if something exists, it isn't possible to prove
it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible not to
exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
able to prove that the thing in question does exist, even if
it's true that it does exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
prove that it doesn't exist if it doesn't. So anyone who takes a
stand
that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
could be proved and the other does not.]
Seems to me the English language is very useful in explaining things
in
such a way that it makes your point. Humans are very good at
rationalization and language helps a lot. As far a proof is
concerned,
however, you can prove anything depending on what premises you accept.
If
you assume there are things that are not made of matter/energy that
have
supernatural powers and care about human animals then when things
happen
that you cannot explain by any other means your assumption can explain
it.
How about not assuming anything?
I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know what
the
ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a problem
with
that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a damned
thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid that
somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do not
dare to
lower our defenses?
Well, we know a lot more than any other animal or for that matter any
other human that ever lived before. As far as Gods are concerned we know
that humans have been conjuring them up for thousands of years along with
all sorts of other things that are imaginary. You may not know things for
certain but there are a lot of things that you can say are not very
probable based on what you do know.
I have no objection to what you are saying here, but I would like to add
something else, and I am aware of the fact that I may be completely wrong.
Take the last sentence in the above paragraph:
"You may not know things for certain but there are a lot of things that you
can say are not very probable based on what you do know",
It looks correct in the sense that we now know that there is no old fart
sitting on a cloud somewhere, unleashing his rage on those poor infidels
that have lost their way. But the point is, we simply do not know the
answers to the most fundamental questions in the universe, and the more we
know, the more we discover how much we don't know. This appears to be too
difficult for mankind to accept.
OBTW my Dog is a Goddess. She has supernatural powers that we don't
even
know about. She can make me obey her simply by barking. She loves me
in
spite of my faults and gives me support when ever I need it. I
worship
her
daily. She will not send me to hell either.
D. Haas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 06:08:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a problem with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do not dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 09:47:56 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l5k7lvokc7lqpnlosmjaruj4vdcevcjjno@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know
what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a problem
with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a
damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do not
dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 09:53:09 PM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<wxT4b.124548$3o3.8765472@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l5k7lvokc7lqpnlosmjaruj4vdcevcjjno@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know
what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a problem
with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a
damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do not
dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
How can you refuse to accept that you don't believe in God? Do you or
don't you? If you aren't sure about whether or not God exists, why
not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Sep 2003 10:06:05 PM |
|
|
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17105b22.0309021853.60a514cf@posting.google.com...
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<wxT4b.124548$3o3.8765472@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l5k7lvokc7lqpnlosmjaruj4vdcevcjjno@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know
what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a
problem
with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a
damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid
that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do
not
dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks
now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to
be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that
any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept
that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
How can you refuse to accept that you don't believe in God? Do you or
don't you? If you aren't sure about whether or not God exists, why
not?
Are you asking me to take a decision?, I could ask you why yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Sep 2003 05:40:13 PM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<x4T5b.126290$0v4.9186542@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17105b22.0309021853.60a514cf@posting.google.com...
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<wxT4b.124548$3o3.8765472@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l5k7lvokc7lqpnlosmjaruj4vdcevcjjno@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't know
what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a
problem
with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know a
damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so afraid
that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we do
not
dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks
now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to
be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that
any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept
that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
How can you refuse to accept that you don't believe in God? Do you or
don't you? If you aren't sure about whether or not God exists, why
not?
Are you asking me to take a decision?, I could ask you why yes.
Because people make definite claims about what God is and how you
ought to behave as a result. Unless you can bring yourself to decide,
it leaves how to react to the existence or non-existence of a deity a
blank. Our God is a jealous God and wants your worship. Do you
bother or not? Your indecision won't please Him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Sep 2003 07:39:56 PM |
|
|
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17105b22.0309051440.4dfba0ae@posting.google.com...
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<x4T5b.126290$0v4.9186542@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17105b22.0309021853.60a514cf@posting.google.com...
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<wxT4b.124548$3o3.8765472@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l5k7lvokc7lqpnlosmjaruj4vdcevcjjno@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't
know
what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a
problem
with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know
a
damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so
afraid
that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we
do
not
dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few
weeks
now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I
have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems
to
be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me
that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept
that
any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to
accept
that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
How can you refuse to accept that you don't believe in God? Do you or
don't you? If you aren't sure about whether or not God exists, why
not?
Are you asking me to take a decision?, I could ask you why yes.
Because people make definite claims about what God is and how you
ought to behave as a result.
I will have to tell you the obvious; people can make whatever claim they
want to make about their God. Nobody should tell anybody how he ought to
behave so long as he doesn't violate their rights. Sorry.
Unless you can bring yourself to decide,
it leaves how to react to the existence or non-existence of a deity a
blank. Our God is a jealous God and wants your worship. Do you
bother or not? Your indecision won't please Him.
....don't try to scare me. It is not going to work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
06 Sep 2003 10:15:46 PM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<w1a6b.127487$0v4.9270696@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17105b22.0309051440.4dfba0ae@posting.google.com...
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<x4T5b.126290$0v4.9186542@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17105b22.0309021853.60a514cf@posting.google.com...
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<wxT4b.124548$3o3.8765472@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l5k7lvokc7lqpnlosmjaruj4vdcevcjjno@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:47:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Mading
<madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: How about not assuming anything?
: I prefer to be totally honest with myself and say that I don't
know
what the
: ultimate truth about the universe is. Why would anybody have a
problem
with
: that? Are we so disappointed about the fact that we don't know
a
damned
: thing that we can't accept this? Or is it that we are so
afraid
that
: somebody is going to sneak up a deity under our belly that we
do
not
dare to
: lower our defenses?
You are kidding yourself if you think that this stance is
signifigantly different from atheism.
However I would imagine that he thinks there might be an "ultimate
truth about the universe". He just doesn't know what it is.
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few
weeks
now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I
have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems
to
be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me
that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept
that
any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to
accept
that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
How can you refuse to accept that you don't believe in God? Do you or
don't you? If you aren't sure about whether or not God exists, why
not?
Are you asking me to take a decision?, I could ask you why yes.
Because people make definite claims about what God is and how you
ought to behave as a result.
I will have to tell you the obvious; people can make whatever claim they
want to make about their God. Nobody should tell anybody how he ought to
behave so long as he doesn't violate their rights. Sorry.
This is not a question of ethics, it is a question of epistemology.
The claim has already been made, God exists and He wants you to do X.
You must decide how to respond. Do you act as if the claim is true or
false and why? This is not a question of inter-personal etiquette; I
am asking how you evaluate arbitrary claims about how you should
behave.
Unless you can bring yourself to decide,
it leaves how to react to the existence or non-existence of a deity a
blank. Our God is a jealous God and wants your worship. Do you
bother or not? Your indecision won't please Him.
...don't try to scare me. It is not going to work.
Are you joking? I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
bets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
06 Sep 2003 10:29:56 PM |
|
|
In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
wrote:
I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
bets.
Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
evidence that no gods can exist. The agnostic moral "prime
directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
are unsupported by good evidence. This is not quite the same as
"hedging one's bets".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Sep 2003 04:52:51 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
: In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
: wrote:
:> I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
:> pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
:> you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
:> bets.
: Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
: actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
: evidence that no gods can exist. The agnostic moral "prime
: directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
: are unsupported by good evidence.
And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that skepticism of
a claim that something exists doesn't really count as a belief.
If it did, then people could place new beliefs into your head
(that by your stated agnostic creed theere would have some burden
of proof for) by just stating absurd things in your presence.
: This is not quite the same as
: "hedging one's bets".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Sep 2003 06:08:13 PM |
|
|
In article <bjitnj$rb$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
: In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
: wrote:
:> I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
:> pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
:> you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
:> bets.
: Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
: actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
: evidence that no gods can exist. The agnostic moral "prime
: directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
: are unsupported by good evidence.
And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that skepticism of
a claim that something exists doesn't really count as a belief.
I have no quarrel with those who are skeptical, and I do not hold
that such skepticism must be belief. However there are those like he
whom I call Septic the Capon who claim "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods" which I do regard as a belief.
If it did, then people could place new beliefs into your head
(that by your stated agnostic creed there would have some burden
of proof for) by just stating absurd things in your presence.
If someone saying absurd things in my presence gets me to thinking
about things new to me, that might indeed put new ideas, and even
beliefs, in my head, but not necessarily the obvious ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
09 Sep 2003 04:34:23 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
: In article <bjitnj$rb$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:> In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
:> : In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
:> : wrote:
:>
:> :> I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
:> :> pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
:> :> you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
:> :> bets.
:>
:> : Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
:> : actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
:> : evidence that no gods can exist. The agnostic moral "prime
:> : directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
:> : are unsupported by good evidence.
:>
:> And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that skepticism of
:> a claim that something exists doesn't really count as a belief.
: I have no quarrel with those who are skeptical, and I do not hold
: that such skepticism must be belief. However there are those like he
: whom I call Septic the Capon who claim "It is a fact (can be
: demonstrated) that there are no gods" which I do regard as a belief.
It's impossible to figure out what the hell The Multinamed One
is really thinking since he uses a language entirely his own
and won't admit it or discuss definitions.
:> If it did, then people could place new beliefs into your head
:> (that by your stated agnostic creed there would have some burden
:> of proof for) by just stating absurd things in your presence.
: If someone saying absurd things in my presence gets me to thinking
: about things new to me, that might indeed put new ideas, and even
: beliefs, in my head, but not necessarily the obvious ones.
But the obvious one (the opposite of the absurd thing they are
claiming) must not count as a burden-of-proof-carrying-belief.
If it does, then people have the power to add burden of proof
to your side by just stating those absurd things where you
can hear them. The one who proposes the thing exists is the
only one with burden of proof. The one who proposes that it
does not exists has no such burden, because his position is
identical to the sane default hypothesis in all ways except
for the certainty level he claims. The only thing he's done
wrong is to state it as a certainty rather than a default
hypothesis. But that still doesn't incur any burden of proof
because the position is still the same as the default.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
09 Sep 2003 05:29:29 PM |
|
|
In article <bjlh0v$fa9$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
: In article <bjitnj$rb$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:> In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
:> : In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
:> : wrote:
:>
:> :> I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
:> :> pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
:> :> you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
:> :> bets.
:>
:> : Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
:> : actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
:> : evidence that no gods can exist. The agnostic moral "prime
:> : directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
:> : are unsupported by good evidence.
:>
:> And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that skepticism of
:> a claim that something exists doesn't really count as a belief.
: I have no quarrel with those who are skeptical, and I do not hold
: that such skepticism must be belief. However there are those like he
: whom I call Septic the Capon who claim "It is a fact (can be
: demonstrated) that there are no gods" which I do regard as a belief.
It's impossible to figure out what the hell The Multinamed One
is really thinking since he uses a language entirely his own
and won't admit it or discuss definitions.
:> If it did, then people could place new beliefs into your head
:> (that by your stated agnostic creed there would have some burden
:> of proof for) by just stating absurd things in your presence.
: If someone saying absurd things in my presence gets me to thinking
: about things new to me, that might indeed put new ideas, and even
: beliefs, in my head, but not necessarily the obvious ones.
But the obvious one (the opposite of the absurd thing they are
claiming) must not count as a burden-of-proof-carrying-belief.
If it does, then people have the power to add burden of proof
to your side by just stating those absurd things where you
can hear them. The one who proposes the thing exists is the
only one with burden of proof. The one who proposes that it
does not exists has no such burden, because his position is
identical to the sane default hypothesis in all ways except
for the certainty level he claims. The only thing he's done
wrong is to state it as a certainty rather than a default
hypothesis. But that still doesn't incur any burden of proof
because the position is still the same as the default.
That is about what Septic the Capon says, but a careful reading of
the relevant "principle of valid argument(logic)", that Septic the
Capon keeps posting but never following, says that any person trying
to pass off any statement as the truth is the one obligated to prove
it, and never those who challenge its truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
09 Sep 2003 09:01:24 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
: In article <bjlh0v$fa9$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:> In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
:> : In article <bjitnj$rb$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
:> : Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>
:> :> In talk.atheism Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> : In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
:> :> : wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :> I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
:> :> :> pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
:> :> :> you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
:> :> :> bets.
:> :>
:> :> : Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
:> :> : actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
:> :> : evidence that no gods can exist. The agnostic moral "prime
:> :> : directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
:> :> : are unsupported by good evidence.
:> :>
:> :> And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that skepticism of
:> :> a claim that something exists doesn't really count as a belief.
:>
:> : I have no quarrel with those who are skeptical, and I do not hold
:> : that such skepticism must be belief. However there are those like he
:> : whom I call Septic the Capon who claim "It is a fact (can be
:> : demonstrated) that there are no gods" which I do regard as a belief.
:>
:> It's impossible to figure out what the hell The Multinamed One
:> is really thinking since he uses a language entirely his own
:> and won't admit it or discuss definitions.
:>
:> :> If it did, then people could place new beliefs into your head
:> :> (that by your stated agnostic creed there would have some burden
:> :> of proof for) by just stating absurd things in your presence.
:>
:> : If someone saying absurd things in my presence gets me to thinking
:> : about things new to me, that might indeed put new ideas, and even
:> : beliefs, in my head, but not necessarily the obvious ones.
:>
:> But the obvious one (the opposite of the absurd thing they are
:> claiming) must not count as a burden-of-proof-carrying-belief.
:> If it does, then people have the power to add burden of proof
:> to your side by just stating those absurd things where you
:> can hear them. The one who proposes the thing exists is the
:> only one with burden of proof. The one who proposes that it
:> does not exists has no such burden, because his position is
:> identical to the sane default hypothesis in all ways except
:> for the certainty level he claims. The only thing he's done
:> wrong is to state it as a certainty rather than a default
:> hypothesis. But that still doesn't incur any burden of proof
:> because the position is still the same as the default.
:>
: That is about what Septic the Capon says, but a careful reading of
: the relevant "principle of valid argument(logic)", that Septic the
: Capon keeps posting but never following, says that any person trying
: to pass off any statement as the truth is the one obligated to prove
: it, and never those who challenge its truth.
I'm not going to attempt to defend The Multinamed One, nor even
to attempt anymore to figure out the semantic sense of what
he's saying. I stopped paying attention to his posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
07 Sep 2003 12:27:49 PM |
|
|
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-E2230E.21295506092003@news.newsguy.com>...
In article <17105b22.0309061915.1031add5@posting.google.com>,
kwag7693@hotmail.com wrote:
I am an atheist; I am not trying to scare you, I am
pointing out that as an agnostic you probably act, functionally, as if
you do not believe in God. What puzzles me is why you'd hedge your
bets.
Agnostics do not believe that there is any good evidence that a god
actually exists, but they also do not believe that there is any good
evidence that no gods can exist.
There is an asymmetry in your statement. You went from no good
evidence that gods *do* exist to no good evidence that gods *cannot*
exist. I don't even know how one could potentially know whether or
not a god could exist; you'd have to define "god" very carefully
before it could be even considered. I do know there is good evidence
that the gods of most of the popular religions do not exist.
The agnostic moral "prime
directive" requires agnostics to avoid promulgating beliefs which
are unsupported by good evidence. This is not quite the same as
"hedging one's bets".
"Jehovah doesn't exist" is not a belief unsupported by good evidence.
It is the denial of an arbitrary, evidenceless claim. Promulgating
belief that an arbitrary claim is meaningless is just good
epistemology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 02:25:32 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now,
: and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
: with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to be a
: "canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other people
: that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
: atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet Union,
: where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence.
The Soviet Union persecuted the religious because the soviets elevated
their politics to the level of a religion itself, which made the other
religions into competitors. They didn't persecute because they were
non-religious. They persecuted because they were a religion and didn't
want the competition. They liked the human tendency to worship
unthinkingly. They liked the human tendency to assume authority is good
without testing it first. They just wanted those feelings directed
at them instead of a church authority.
: So, I refuse
: to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that any
: human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept that
: they can tell me how to think and what to do.
Atheism isn't a claim to have the answer. It's just a rejection of one
particular type of answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 03:33:09 PM |
|
|
The Soviet Union persecuted the religious because the soviets elevated
their politics to the level of a religion itself, which made the other
religions into competitors. They didn't persecute because they were
non-religious. They persecuted because they were a religion and didn't
want the competition. They liked the human tendency to worship
unthinkingly. They liked the human tendency to assume authority is good
without testing it first. They just wanted those feelings directed
at them instead of a church authority.
And if that doesn't work, they are more than happy to establish a state church,
as has happened in North Korea with regards to the Juche faith.
Christianity has far more in common with Communism than it does with
free-market capitalism.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 04:33:59 PM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20030902163309.18208.00000196@mb-m24.aol.com...
The Soviet Union persecuted the religious because the soviets elevated
their politics to the level of a religion itself, which made the other
religions into competitors. They didn't persecute because they were
non-religious. They persecuted because they were a religion and didn't
want the competition. They liked the human tendency to worship
unthinkingly. They liked the human tendency to assume authority is good
without testing it first. They just wanted those feelings directed
at them instead of a church authority.
And if that doesn't work, they are more than happy to establish a state
church,
as has happened in North Korea with regards to the Juche faith.
Christianity has far more in common with Communism than it does with
free-market capitalism.
Free-market capitalism has never existed, and is not a desirable in the
strict meaning of the word. One doesn't need to be 'slightly liberal' to
realize that, but I suppose this is another subject.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when
wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL (Correction) |
02 Sep 2003 04:35:19 PM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20030902163309.18208.00000196@mb-m24.aol.com...
The Soviet Union persecuted the religious because the soviets elevated
their politics to the level of a religion itself, which made the other
religions into competitors. They didn't persecute because they were
non-religious. They persecuted because they were a religion and didn't
want the competition. They liked the human tendency to worship
unthinkingly. They liked the human tendency to assume authority is good
without testing it first. They just wanted those feelings directed
at them instead of a church authority.
And if that doesn't work, they are more than happy to establish a state
church,
as has happened in North Korea with regards to the Juche faith.
Christianity has far more in common with Communism than it does with
free-market capitalism.
Free-market capitalism has never existed, and it is not even desirable in
the
strict meaning of the word. One doesn't need to be 'slightly liberal' to
realize that, but I suppose this is another subject.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when
wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 09:52:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to be a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its own
inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive that
religion is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 10:22:26 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks
now,
and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to be
a
"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other people
that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
Union,
where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
refuse
to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that
any
human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept
that
they can tell me how to think and what to do.
Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its own
inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive that
religion is.
Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question. To say that
"the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past", is
not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive that religion
is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at some other time.
Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the canons used by
imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered 'religion' in a
philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the brand of
Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the Soviet Union,
where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was considered a
severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think you need me to
substantiate that which is widely documented.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 02:29:56 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
: news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
:> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:>
:>
:> >You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks
: now,
:> >and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I have
:> >with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to be
: a
:> >"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other people
:> >that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
:> >atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
: Union,
:> >where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
: refuse
:> >to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that
: any
:> >human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept
: that
:> >they can tell me how to think and what to do.
:> >
:>
:> Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its own
:> inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive that
:> religion is.
: Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question. To say that
: "the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past", is
: not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive that religion
: is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
: I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at some other time.
: Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the canons used by
: imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered 'religion' in a
: philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the brand of
: Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the Soviet Union,
: where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was considered a
: severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think you need me to
: substantiate that which is widely documented.
That term "God-like state" is important here. While they were
atheists, they weren't the type that is nonreligious, like
most here are. They were the type that wanted to BE a religion,
kind of like scientologists, which don't have a god, but do have
a lot of other silly superstitions. The Soviet religion had it's
own silly superstitions and prophecies of the coming days of the
glorious revolution. It was run just like a religion, and persecuted
the other religions NOT because they were atheists, but because
they were in competition for believers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 08:51:12 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bj2r3k$o42$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
: news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
:> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:>
:>
:> >You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks
: now,
:> >and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I
have
:> >with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to
be
: a
:> >"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
people
:> >that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
:> >atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
: Union,
:> >where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
: refuse
:> >to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that
: any
:> >human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept
: that
:> >they can tell me how to think and what to do.
:> >
:>
:> Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its own
:> inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive that
:> religion is.
: Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question. To say
that
: "the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in the
past", is
: not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive that
religion
: is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
: I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at some other
time.
: Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the canons used
by
: imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered 'religion' in a
: philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the brand of
: Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the Soviet
Union,
: where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was considered a
: severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think you need me
to
: substantiate that which is widely documented.
That term "God-like state" is important here. While they were
atheists, they weren't the type that is nonreligious, like
most here are. They were the type that wanted to BE a religion,
kind of like scientologists, which don't have a god, but do have
a lot of other silly superstitions. The Soviet religion had it's
own silly superstitions and prophecies of the coming days of the
glorious revolution. It was run just like a religion, and persecuted
the other religions NOT because they were atheists, but because
they were in competition for believers.
Not quite. I think that "the truth", whatever it may be, is the one thing
that we all have to accept (by definition). Some people are going to
accept certain things as truth, and others are going to accept other things.
People then build their power structure around their respective truths, so
it becomes a matter of survival, and anybody that tries to question the so
called "truth" threatens the power structure. The problem is that if
somebody has no truth to believe in, he will soon find one for himself (or
pick and choose one, whatever the case may be) One possible so called
"truth" is that there isn't one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
< | | | | | | | | |
