|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2006 : 23:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sheesh, Kil, DNFTT.
Or at least stop doing his homework for him. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 23:17:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Not that explanation sounds like quibbling over semantics...
I'm not quibbling about anything, I'm actively trying to change the meaning of the words back to what they originally meant. "Agnostic" was not intended to indicate uncertainty about the existence of God, as you clearly understand the "traditional" meaning.
Well dave, I'm just going with what the American Heritage Dictionary points out in their word history section: "An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals--“ists,” as he called them--who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870."
So I'm not sure what you are trying to take the word "back" to.
quote:
quote:
That meaning was, instead, largely the result of the Church's attempts to discredit self-professed agnostics as indecisive wimps. By continuing that use, ergo, you further the fundamentalist agenda today in the USA.
Dave, you brought up the straw man argument that agnostic meant wishy-washy uncertainty about god.
quote:
quote:
And by dismissing my whole post as "quibbling," you show beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't care about any answer given you, you're still just trolling.
That's rich. You come on my thread with a straw man argument, suggesting that a word coined over 130 years ago is too young to have a "traditional" definition, incorrectly accuse me of furthering the fundamentalist agenda today in the USA--and somehow I'm the troll?!
There was no bait here dave. I'm trying to understand kil's and liar's pov. Your straw man argument doesn't help in the least. If you don't want your posts dismissed, then stay on topic.
And I guess you have failed to see my responses to others on this thread--I clearly care about responses that deal with the topic and are honestly dealing with what I ask in my questions. I am honestly dealing with kil and liar on this issue, so maybe you should just stay out of it.
In fact, if all you can see is me being a troll and trying to bait you, then maybe you should just stay off my threads all together, dave, until you can approach them with a clear head.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 00:39:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
From Wiki:
Agnostic atheism
quote:
One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):
"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." (p.49)
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..." (p.50-51)
Now ergo, if you still don't get it, I can't help you. Oh well…
No, now I see what you are saying. It seems you are saying you have not been shown evidence for the existance of god (and are therefore, by default, a-theistic) and that you believe one cannot know about the existence of god (and are therefore agnostic).
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.'
The last part seems like speculation; and it seems to weaken your position in that it opens you up to defending a position unrelated to the existance of gods. And the agnostic position itself is a weak one. Because if there is a god, and it is like the judeo-christian god, it could prove its own existance and give humans the knowledge you claim humans will never have.
But I sense you are put off by my questions so I'm happy to leave it at that as far as you are concerned. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 03:09:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, now I see what you are saying. It seems you are saying you have not been shown evidence for the existance of god (and are therefore, by default, a-theistic) and that you believe one cannot know about the existence of god (and are therefore agnostic).
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.'
The last part seems like speculation; and it seems to weaken your position in that it opens you up to defending a position unrelated to the existance of gods. And the agnostic position itself is a weak one. Because if there is a god, and it is like the judeo-christian god, it could prove its own existance and give humans the knowledge you claim humans will never have.
The common-(mis)use of agnostic to mean essentially "unsure" causes many problems. While the words "agnostic" and "atheist" are often used in the same conversations, they don't quite have the same base fundamental units, to use a physics analogy. Kind of like "red" and "dark", both being used to describe colours, but not actually being on the same scale.
The first, "atheist", describes an individual with a personal belief that there are no gods.
The second, "agnostic" describes a person who acknowledges that certainty about the existence of god(s) is impossible.
Knowing an whether an individual is or is not an atheist does not necessarily tell you whether or not that person is an agnostic, and vice versa.
I know my definitions aren't of enyclopaedic quality, but I believe they are concise and difficult to misinterpret, but, to quote Penn Jillete, "I could be wrong".
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 06:50:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dave, you brought up the straw man argument that agnostic meant wishy-washy uncertainty about god.
How could I have done that when you wrote "...be uncertain about whether gods exist" before I posted to this thread?quote:
That's rich. You come on my thread with a straw man argument, suggesting that a word coined over 130 years ago is too young to have a "traditional" definition...
Your reading comprehension has failed you: the "uncertain" definition is what you called the "traditional" meaning, and it's been around for less time than the original meaning. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 07:08:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I'm going to dismiss your post as it does nothing to forward my understanding of anyone's pov on the topic.
Unless you can add to the discussion in a meaningful way, please stay off my threads. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 07:29:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
From Wiki:
Agnostic atheism
quote:
One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):
"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." (p.49)
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..." (p.50-51)
Now ergo, if you still don't get it, I can't help you. Oh well…
No, now I see what you are saying. It seems you are saying you have not been shown evidence for the existance of god (and are therefore, by default, a-theistic) and that you believe one cannot know about the existence of god (and are therefore agnostic).
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.'
The last part seems like speculation; and it seems to weaken your position in that it opens you up to defending a position unrelated to the existance of gods. And the agnostic position itself is a weak one. Because if there is a god, and it is like the judeo-christian god, it could prove its own existance and give humans the knowledge you claim humans will never have.
But I sense you are put off by my questions so I'm happy to leave it at that as far as you are concerned.
I always viewed the difference between agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists as follows:
both do not believe god exists. However, the gnostic atheist holds that the question is meaningfull in the first place and can be answered with a resounding no. The agnostic atheist holds that the question cannot be answered and thus is inherently meaningless.
This means that adding the word is not redundant. It further clarifies the precise stand one has on the question of the existence of God. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 09:06:11 [Permalink]
|
Tom:Right. I acknowledged it wasn't redundant. But I'm not sure you first paragraph is correct. From what I've read, it seems gnostic atheist would hold that the question of the existence of god is answerable--but not necessarily known to the gnosit atheist now.
The a/gnostic distinction appears to be on the perceived nature of the god question (not answerable vs. answerable) and not on the answer itself.
The discussion of agnostic atheists and agnostic theists--as well as gnostic atheists and gnostic theists--in the literature on the topic supports my understanding. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 09:30:24 [Permalink]
|
For what it's worth, I'm not an agnostic for the simple reason that I think god's existence is something which could be known if god actually did exist and wanted to be known. It would be a simple acheivement for an all-powerful deity to make his mere existence known to his creation.
The fact that it/he/she/they has not made themselves known indicates to me that there either is no god(s), or if there is, they don't want any attention anyway. In either case, then, the conclusion is the same: belief is not warrented.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 09:43:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.
Unnecessary to an atheist who does not consider what is or isn't falsifiable perhaps. I come by my atheism by way of my agnosticism. The goal isn't to be an atheist. That is an acknowledged result. To disregard my agnosticism as unnecessary would be to ignore the way I approach all supernatural claims.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 09:46:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
For what it's worth, I'm not an agnostic for the simple reason that I think god's existence is something which could be known if god actually did exist and wanted to be known. It would be a simple acheivement for an all-powerful deity to make his mere existence known to his creation.
The fact that it/he/she/they has not made themselves known indicates to me that there either is no god(s), or if there is, they don't want any attention anyway. In either case, then, the conclusion is the same: belief is not warrented.
I used to think that too. But the more I read about a/gnosticism the more I think it deals with the supernatural in general and the less I think it refers to any particular god. So, it is possible to imagine supernatural beings that are not powerful enough to make their existence known. These wouldn't be the sort that had the power to create the universe, I suspect, but it seem like they fit on the list with the other supernatural phenomena that can't be disproved but I don't believe exist.
But your point that if an all-powerful god existed, then that god could make itself known is a good one.
On the other hand, the fact that you and I agree on something could be interpreted by many as a sign that such a god exists afterall... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 10:04:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
I guess rather than being redunant, it just seems unnecessary to add in the agnostic part. I don't see what it adds to your pov on the existance of god(s). You seem to be saying 'I don't believe the god hypothesis has been proven and so I remain as I was when I was born (i.e., a non-believer in god)--and I don't think it is possible to prove god exists.
Unnecessary to an atheist who does not consider what is or isn't falsifiable perhaps. I come by my atheism by way of my agnosticism. The goal isn't to be an atheist. That is an acknowledged result. To disregard my agnosticism as unnecessary would be to ignore the way I approach all supernatural claims.
But that sounds like you disregard supernatural claims because of your pre-existing belief that the supernatural is unknowable.
The way I now see the question of "Is the supernatural knowable?" is that it is unrelated to my lack of belief in any gods. I look at it as I was born not believing in a god. And while I was raised in a catholic household, I never "got" what everyone was talking about. That there is no god, to me, is the null hypothesis. The existence of god is the alternative hypothesis and requires proof to unseat the null hypothesis. Regardless of whether it is possible to provide testable evidence of god, I have looked it for but have seen none.
You can imagine the distress I caused in the catholic grade school I attended when, while in 3rd grade, I asked in religion class "if children are a gift from god, why do people get so upset when a woman who isn't married gets one?" Some here might think I was just trolling... But as always, I was just trying to understand things that seemed to be meaningful to others that made no sense to me. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 11:01:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dave, I'm going to dismiss your post as it does nothing to forward my understanding of anyone's pov on the topic.
I tried that, with examples of agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, and you dismissed it as quibbling about definitions (and then, ironically, you tossed out an Argumentum ad Webster's). But the simple fact is that 'gnostic' refers to knowledge, while theism is about belief. There is no contradiction, nor any redundancy, when stating that one has a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge. Hypothetically speaking, people can:- believe and know ("God spoke to me"),
- believe and not know ("Pascal's Wager is a good bet"),
- not believe and not know ("we can't test God, and I see no evidence he exists"), and
- not believe and know ("I have a logical proof for the non-existence of God").
Obviously, neither quality is truly binary, so the above are just general categories and not sharply delineated, but the point is that unlike the way many people "understand" the term, agnosticism isn't the fence-sitting halfway point between theism and atheism, but instead exists as a variable independent of faith.quote:
Unless you can add to the discussion in a meaningful way, please stay off my threads.
Interesting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 11:29:28 [Permalink]
|
Heres my problem with the whole question,
I am fairly certain that it is possible to create a universe simulation of mind-boggling proportions, which means that it is possible for a being we humans would consider to be inferior in intelligence/moral character to control said simulation. Is this being a God?
As I consider this to be one of the more plausable (How did it all begin) answers, how do we worship a being possibly as normal as we are?
Would this being be considered omnipotent just because the Universe Sims Game has a neat interface and a pause button? Do we worship the programmer or the player? What if the conductor is just some Chinese kid hired to sit in front of a computer for 10$ an hour or worse ...a Vogon.
I cant say Im an atheist because I do not know exactly what a God is or isnt. I can however say that I am agnostic in regards to Gods, the Matrix or any other idea without some legitimate evidence, but even then the Agents could be providing me false leads!
Edit:FYI- The Phillip K Dick short story, The Trouble with Bubbles really twisted my noodle around the simulated universe idea, I highly reccomend it and all his shorts.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 11/20/2006 11:40:33 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 12:12:45 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
But that sounds like you disregard supernatural claims because of your pre-existing belief that the supernatural is unknowable.
"supernatural" is a meaningless word. It is, literally, just gibberish when you apply it to anything outside of the human imagination.
quote:
That there is no god, to me, is the null hypothesis. The existence of god is the alternative hypothesis and requires proof to unseat the null hypothesis.
Yes. And agnosticism, properly understood, should lead to that logical conclusion.
Huxley was essentially saying, with his coining of the phrase, that you must have some evidence when evaluating a positive claim, otherwise you are just making shit up. He was saying to people who claim "god exists", that you can't know that... because there is no evidence. He was also saying to those who dismissed the claim, with certainty, that they were equally full of shit... because there is no evidence to evaluate. Huxley also admits that he didn't believe in any god and that the church would likely label him an atheist.
If you understand logic then you will realize that agnosticism is not a middle position between theism and atheism, nor is it a weak "undecided" claim. It is actually a very strong position with very firm claims. Basically it means: Show me the evidence.
As a consequence of my agnosticism, and the utter lack of evidence for the claim "god exists", I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a god.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
