Agnostics. - Page 4

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 12:41

Im waiting for you to spring your "trap" Sloww....

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If you're counting on scientists to "figure it all out", you're screwed.

Who is? Anyone who thinks that they can "figure it all out" by any means is delusional and arrogant. That's EXACTLY why agnostics believe the way they do. There is no way to have the answer to the existence of God, so speculating about it is pointless wasting of energy.

Right here you've said exactly why agnostics have it right, and theists/atheists are wasting their time.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:46

Why does no one doubt the existence of Plato? Merely because he was written about?
Then how do you distinguish between who to believe in, and who to not?

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 12:47

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Into the trap steps Boris and Cal.
How are the people referenced any different than...anyone else?

What trap? Where? I don't see any trap.

I answered this in my previous post. Historical record vs. No evidence whatsoever.

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why does no one doubt the existence of Plato? Merely because he was written about?
Then how do you distinguish between who to believe in, and who to not?

Plato was more than just "written about", he had a major influence on civilization.

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why does no one doubt the existence of Plato? Merely because he was written about?
Then how do you distinguish between who to believe in, and who to not?

1. Plato also wrote, and there is historical record of his existence, and we have his writings. You would be better to ask about Socrates, as there is no evidence he existed except for Plato's writings about him. He may very well be a figment of Plato's imagination.

If that is the case: who cares? Does Socrates being real or not impact my world? No. Does it chage the value of Plato's writings on him? No.

So I will answer that by saying this: I will likely never know for sure whether or not Socrates really existed. So I don't care if he did or did not.

2. If you can't see the difference in believing in people of whom their is a lot of historical record, evidence, personal writings and (as for Curie) photographs, and believing in an unseen omnipotent deity for which there is not a shred of evidence, then you need serious help.

Arrian · May 23, 2002, 12:58

SlowwHand,

Everyone has a limit to what they can reasonably accept as proof that something happened. The evidence of Plato's existence falls well within my acceptable limit. The "evidence" of God's existence rates about a .1/10 on my that-makes-sense-to-me-o-meter.

But lack of evidence doesn't prove the non-existence of God. Hence, I cannot dismiss the possibility.

Lack of evidence cannot prove/disprove something absolutely.
Evidence can, however, prove something.

See the difference?

-Arrian

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia

Plato was more than just "written about", he had a major influence on civilization.

HA! Hahahaha!

Cal, you're a riot.

You guys are getting off course anyway.
I'm not one of the "good" Christians. One that cares if you burn in Hell or not. That's on you.
This thread is about people who probably can't even decide on a shirt when they get dressed.

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
This thread is about people who probably can't even decide on a shirt when they get dressed.

Agnostics you mean.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 13:54

Right on, Cal.

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 14:20

And again, its a bigoted assumption that Agnostics are the way they are because of indecision. I've made my decision quite firmly in this regards.

Unlike religions, Agnosticism isn't penchant on having faith, nor in making arrogant assumptions that one knows the truth and everyone else is wrong. That is a mindset that has been perpetrated on the world by inflexible religious dogma. While you may not be such a person, you do appear to be a victim of such thinking in this regard.

The fact is, Agnostics are the only ones who have it right. There's no way to prove God exists. There's no way to prove he doesn't exist. Therefore we shall never know for certain if he does or does not. Ergo any speculation as to the nature of God is pointless and a waste of time. That is not fence-sitting, it is facing reality.

I think it is far harder to come to such a decision than it is to mindlessly follow the flock and bend in prayer to a God whom you've imagined in your head and have assigned attributes to that are--for a supposedly omnipotent, perfect being--meaningless.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 14:22

Hmmm. Sounds like you've come down on one side of the fence, Boris.

Wraith · May 23, 2002, 14:35

Another religion thread, and this one is offensive from an angle I wasn't expecting. *sigh*

--"What other explanation other than indecisive is there Osweld?"

Logic. I have never seen an actual logical, rational argument that could prove that there is a god. I have seen no documented evidence that there is a god. Logicially, I have found nothing yet that requires that there be a god. Therefore I cannot prove that there is a god to believe in (or that our belief is a requirement for a god).
By a similar token, negatives cannot be proved. Therefore no one can prove that there is not a god. By far the simpler explanation is that there is no god, and Ockham's Razor applies, suggesting this is the more likely case, but it cannot be proved.

This is logic, not fence-sitting or indeciseiveness.

--"Agnostics are just busy pissing their pants over what to believe."

Why do you have such a problem with agnosticism, Slowhand? An agnostic drop a skunk in your cradle when you were a baby?

--"If you really know something for sure, why would there be a need to believe in it?"

This is rather the point. I do not like the concept of belief. I want proof. I will not "believe" that there is no god, I merely accept it as the most likely possibility.

Wraith
"If there was a God in this world, it would be ME!"
-- Dark Schneider ("Bastard!")

Arrian · May 23, 2002, 14:37

Well said, Wraith. Though it's a wasted effort. It will have no effect on Slowwhand, obviously.

-Arrian

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 14:40

Obviously.

Mihai · May 23, 2002, 16:29

Agnostic (for me) = I don't know for sure (if there is a God/Supreme Being) and I don't care.

Also see my sig.

Aeson · May 23, 2002, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Mortal man can't grasp it, Fanatic. Not to worry.

Isn't that statement agnostic?

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 18:46

Doubtful.

Aeson · May 23, 2002, 18:53

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Doubtful.

Another statement that could be taken as agnostic.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 18:59

Agnostics are notoriously dense, little wonder you can't grasp.

Aeson · May 23, 2002, 19:09

So no explaination as to why your statements shouldn't be viewed as agnostic?

If you were trying for sarcasm with both statements perhaps you should refine your writing style to convey it more clearly.

Ramo · May 23, 2002, 19:12

Bah, agnostics are fence-sitters who want to sound superior.

No, I can't prove that a God does not exist with any certainty. Nor can I prove that there isn't a magical pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, or that I'm currently typing on a computer with any certainty. But it's extremely improbable that either God or the magical pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon exist or that I'm not currently typing on a computer, so I might as well say that God does not exist, there are no magical pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon, and I'm typing on a computer.

If I can't say there is no God without adding a qualifer , I can't assert anything without adding similar qualifiers. And where would the English language be then?!

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 19:15

What do you care? You want it all in Spanish anyway.

Ramo · May 23, 2002, 19:22

Only for you.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 19:23

Aeson · May 23, 2002, 19:24

Reading through the thread you made several derogatory statements about agnostics. I was just wondering if you would apply the same reasoning to your own doubts and qualified statements.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 19:35

I didn't hide the fact at all that I think agnostics are little pansies who are afraid to make a decision.
Where did I lose you, and what doubts of mine could you possibly be referencing?

Aeson · May 23, 2002, 19:41

Hypothetical doubts. Or do you know everything? The statement I quoted seemed to imply agnostic reasoning. I just was wondering if you meant it that way, and if you did, if you apply the same judgement towards yourself as towards others.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 19:44

I never claimed every decision I ever made was correct.
What I did say, was that concerning anything, not only God, that the only automatic wrong decision is no decision.
That's a correct statement, and position.

"I don't know, and I'm not going to make a decision" is kind of sad.

Aeson · May 23, 2002, 19:54

That's not what I was implying. Here it is as plainly as I can put it:

Do you have any doubts whatsoever?
Do you ever qualify your statements or use agnostic reasoning (on any subject)?

Does a yes to either of the previous questions make you "[a] little pans[y] who [is] afraid to make a decision"?