Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SULPHUR · 04-25-2003, 07:16 AM

Not confused,just lacking emperical evidence.

John Page · 04-25-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SULPHUR
Not confused,just lacking emperical evidence.

Maybe both.

Opus36 · 04-25-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

And there was some stuff thrown in the way of rules to help keep people safe from inbreeding, undercooked pork, warfare, farming family relationships, etc. I know it is all made up, but for (mostly) good reasons.

God created Adam and Eve and now there are billions of people on the earth. Must have been a lot of inbreeding in the beginning.

SULPHUR · 04-25-2003, 07:55 AM

Just show me definite evidence either way.

tensorproduct · 04-25-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
I think an agnostic can be accused of clearly having considered the matter and believing one thing or the other (either on evidence or faith of some kind). This being the case, hypocrisy could be evident.

To be more reasonable, I think one can be in two minds abotu something - for example situations where you feel something is wrong but rationally you know its right.

I think agnostics are just confused. I should know...I used to be one.

Cheers, John

You seem to be saying that agnostics have considered the evidence and have just not made up they're minds one way or another. To me this is not what agnosticism means, (I don't know the actual definiton so bare with me here.)

What I feel is that all the big questions in world (how was the universe created, what happens when we die, why do I always have one odd sock, etc) cannot be answered satisfactorily, so if agnostic (i.e. me) was to consider all the arguments between fundamentalist christians and atheists (taking what seem to be the most prevalent beliefs on this board) the position one would assume at the end must be "I cannot decide one way or another"

John Page · 04-25-2003, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SULPHUR
Just show me definite evidence either way.

Definite? What are your criteria for "definite evidence"?

Cheers, John

SULPHUR · 04-25-2003, 10:33 AM

that is part of the problem

John Page · 04-25-2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tensorproduct
You seem to be saying that agnostics have considered the evidence and have just not made up they're minds one way or another. To me this is not what agnosticism means, (I don't know the actual definiton so bare with me here.)

Quote:

agnostic n.
person who believes that the existence of God is not provable. adj. of agnosticism.

Yes, but I'm talking about the consequences of their belief that the existence of god is not provable. This position implies that an atheist believes that the non-existence of god cannot be proven - but this is not (necessarily) the case.

An agnostic, IMO, is confused as to what god is - define god rigorously and the form of its existence can be crytallized and determined. I wouldn't disagree with a general position "I don't know what x is and cannot truly know x therefore I don't know whether x exists." However, taking such a generalized position is to

Quote:

obfuscate v.
(-ting) 1 obscure or confuse (a mind, topic, etc.). 2 stupefy, bewilder.
Derivative: obfuscation n. [[Latin fuscus dark]]

...hence my assertion that agnostics are confused!

Cheers, John

John Page · 04-25-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SULPHUR
that is part of the problem

OK, then, tell me about the god that you are confused whether it exists or not.

tribalbeeyatch · 04-25-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tensorproduct
What I feel is that all the big questions in world (how was the universe created, what happens when we die, why do I always have one odd sock, etc) cannot be answered satisfactorily, so if agnostic (i.e. me) was to consider all the arguments between fundamentalist christians and atheists (taking what seem to be the most prevalent beliefs on this board) the position one would assume at the end must be "I cannot decide one way or another"

That sounds about like my "conclusion" for these matters. That's why I'm an atheist (I lack a belief in gods...) and an agnostic (...because I have no knowledge of them). For me, your assertion that agnosticism is the only logical position (as contrasted to atheism) is absurd. There is no middle ground between atheism and theism, just as there is no middle ground between gnosticism and agnosticism. As far as I'm concerned, agnostics are for the most part just atheists who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with the label. That's fine with me; call yourself whatever you wish. Just don't stand on the other side of a distinction without a difference and tell me that I'm illogical.

04-25-2003, 07:55 AM	#64
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	john page Just show me definite evidence either way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2003, 07:16 AM	#61
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	Not confused,just lacking emperical evidence.

04-25-2003, 10:33 AM	#67
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	that is part of the problem

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.