Let's sum it up
-
An atheist is a believer. An agnostic is not.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Ka?l wrote:
An atheist is a believer. An agnostic is not.
Nonsense; an 'agnostic' is a believer, also. What an 'agnostic' is logically committed to believing is that "nothing at all (about anything at all) may be known!" Now, of course, no one can actually function like that. So, as a practical matter, 'agnostics' *behave* as though they were 'atheists.'
-
ROTFL - I asked him that ages ago.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Maiden's my all time favorite band. Everytime I see the name I have to think about it, so I had to ask once.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
An agnostic is a atheist who is too pussy to admit it to society...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
Rubbish. Nobody, absolutely nobody, knows* the existence (or lack thereof) of Gods. Agnosticism is the only real position here. * Although some whackos claim to.
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
-
"I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions --but I don't always agree with them." George Bush, US President Yes, quoting famous people sure does prove a point.
Oakman wrote:
I'm the guy who slips the $5.00 under my kids pillow when he loses a tooth
So your point is that the tooth fairy exists and is in fact you? Can I have my teeth back?
Oakman wrote:
To have one answer for all questions, isn't consistent - it's just foolish
When the questions you're getting are in the form of "Here's some superstition that some guys pulled out of their asses do you want to believe it with no proof?" I'm going to stick with my one answer. Not doing so would be foolish. But then again I'm not the tooth fairy. You may have some insight that I don't.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
An atheist believes there is no God.
A newborn baby believes in nothing. Yet all babies are atheists, are they not? Or are you using some strange definition of the word atheist that I'm not familiar with? What if you found a tribe of people on some remote island and when you questioned them you found they knew nothing about religion, nobody in their society had ever invented the concept of gods. These people would correctly be described as atheists, would they not? Yet they don't believe anything about god; they have no concept of god. They lack a believe in god. Is this not the definition of atheism?
scpierre wrote:
Or are you using some strange definition of the word atheist that I'm not familiar with?
Atheist means not a theist. Since you never defined what you mean by theist how the hell should anyone know what you mean when you use the word?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
An agnostic is somebody wise enough to admit that they don't have the answer. An atheist is somebody who thinks the answer isn't religion.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
An atheist is somebody who thinks the answer isn't religion.
That's right, but it doesn't make me a believer.
-
Rubbish. Nobody, absolutely nobody, knows* the existence (or lack thereof) of Gods. Agnosticism is the only real position here. * Although some whackos claim to.
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Agnosticism is the only real position here.
I disagree. I think there is sufficient evidence (or rather, absence of evidence in favour of religion) to reject religion outright. It is quite obvious that it is a primitive human construct.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Agnosticism is the only real position here.
I disagree. I think there is sufficient evidence (or rather, absence of evidence in favour of religion) to reject religion outright. It is quite obvious that it is a primitive human construct.
73Zeppelin wrote:
to reject religion outright
Sure, fine. But Agnosticism isn't about religion. It's focus is whether there is a god or not. I find it mildly amusing that most religionists confuse a belief in a god of some sort with joining their church and most atheists think that pointing out the (myriad) flaws in one or more religions means that there is no God. Accepting all the mumbo-jumbo that Adnan or Selormy or Troy put themselves through means you belong to a sect. Believing in God can mean no more than you believe there was a First Cause somewhat more sentient than the inexplicable Big Bang.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
to reject religion outright
Sure, fine. But Agnosticism isn't about religion. It's focus is whether there is a god or not. I find it mildly amusing that most religionists confuse a belief in a god of some sort with joining their church and most atheists think that pointing out the (myriad) flaws in one or more religions means that there is no God. Accepting all the mumbo-jumbo that Adnan or Selormy or Troy put themselves through means you belong to a sect. Believing in God can mean no more than you believe there was a First Cause somewhat more sentient than the inexplicable Big Bang.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Sure, fine. But Agnosticism isn't about religion. It's focus is whether there is a god or not. I find it mildly amusing that most religionists confuse a belief in a god of some sort with joining their church and most atheists think that pointing out the (myriad) flaws in one or more religions means that there is no God. Accepting all the mumbo-jumbo that Adnan or Selormy or Troy put themselves through means you belong to a sect. Believing in God can mean no more than you believe there was a First Cause somewhat more sentient than the inexplicable Big Bang.
Then it's another pedantic issue surrounding the concept of 'god'. If you want to start assigning a broad category of "first causes" to the word 'god' it becomes difficult to determine context. In that sense, 'god' is now loosely and multiply defined as the Christian god, Alloah, some other divine being as in the Masonic sense or now some arbitrary assignment to the "power" that initiated the universe. Across all meanings, however, it represents a certain abstractness that is indicative of a lack of understanding. Rather than labelling it the work of some 'god', I admit there is no current understanding of why anything is here and refuse to invoke mystical beings in order to put some kind of naive closure on the question. Obviously our current level of knowledge is insufficient to answer the question - that may not always be the case. In that sense, given their history and predilection for censorship, religion may seek to prevent the ultimate answer to the question of 'why'. For that reason (among others) I am strongly opposed to organized religion.
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
I'm not in the mood for a back and forth on this.
Yes. The SB is not a place for wussies. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Nor the place for people who leave work and forget about their day to day bullshit. Sorry, no computer at home so after the 5 o'clock whistle blows I'm gone...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
So the agnostic is the smarter for sitting on the fence
It's not fence-sitting. It's a simple recognition that you have insufficient evidence to prove either conjecture. Atheists are no different than believers, for they also choose a conjecture to embrace as proven fact without evidence. Of the three, only agnostics are unpersuaded by the propaganda from believers in either conjecture.
So in other words, you think you're smarter / wiser / an elite echelon in society unpersuaded by propaganda? Get over yourselves, I'm not trying to impose any of my beliefs on anyone. So let me state this for the 3rd time, my opinion is whatever makes you the happiest is the theology / lack of theology / indifference to theology is the right for you...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Rubbish. Nobody, absolutely nobody, knows* the existence (or lack thereof) of Gods. Agnosticism is the only real position here. * Although some whackos claim to.
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Agnosticism is the only real position here
There is no real or fake or wrong position. It's undebatable. Believe what makes you happiest and don't try to defend your position, because as an agnostic you know there is no evidence for one or the other and debating is futile.
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
A fence has two sides used for separation of two things. One side would be yes, the other would be no. Therefore, if you will neither say yes nor no, you are on the metaphorical fence.
There is no fence. "Do you believe in god?" Yes - Theist No - Atheist There is no middle ground. "I don't know" is the same as "no" -- you don't believe. Whether or not you believe that it's ever possible to know the truth has nothing to do with what you believe. You can be an agnotist theist or an agnostic atheist.
scpierre wrote:
You can be an agnotist theist or an agnostic atheist.
Interesting point. Of all the arguments and opinions being thrown around, that's one of the better ones that have come out because of my apparently not so funny quote.
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Agnosticism is the only real position here.
I disagree. I think there is sufficient evidence (or rather, absence of evidence in favour of religion) to reject religion outright. It is quite obvious that it is a primitive human construct.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think there is sufficient evidence (or rather, absence of evidence in favour of religion) to reject religion outright.
Just a parallel thought... but since you work in finance, you know about the black swan theory, right? :) Until 1697, centuries' worth of evidence from Eurasia and the Americas led people to conclude there were no black swans. Indeed, any reasonable European (and equally, an Asians or an American) then would have said that there was absence of evidence in favour of the existence of black swans. Clickety[^]
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Agnosticism is the only real position here
There is no real or fake or wrong position. It's undebatable. Believe what makes you happiest and don't try to defend your position, because as an agnostic you know there is no evidence for one or the other and debating is futile.
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Believe what makes you happiest and don't try to defend your position, because as an agnostic you know there is no evidence for one or the other and debating is futile.
"I don't know and neither do you" - Militant Agnostic. :laugh: ;P
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Believe what makes you happiest and don't try to defend your position, because as an agnostic you know there is no evidence for one or the other and debating is futile.
"I don't know and neither do you" - Militant Agnostic. :laugh: ;P
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
"I don't know and neither do you"
Very correct, and I'm not saying I have any of the answers, only what feels right to me. I'm not trying to be Kyle or Sea# or whatever they are calling themselves these days.
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Oakman wrote:
Sure, fine. But Agnosticism isn't about religion. It's focus is whether there is a god or not. I find it mildly amusing that most religionists confuse a belief in a god of some sort with joining their church and most atheists think that pointing out the (myriad) flaws in one or more religions means that there is no God. Accepting all the mumbo-jumbo that Adnan or Selormy or Troy put themselves through means you belong to a sect. Believing in God can mean no more than you believe there was a First Cause somewhat more sentient than the inexplicable Big Bang.
Then it's another pedantic issue surrounding the concept of 'god'. If you want to start assigning a broad category of "first causes" to the word 'god' it becomes difficult to determine context. In that sense, 'god' is now loosely and multiply defined as the Christian god, Alloah, some other divine being as in the Masonic sense or now some arbitrary assignment to the "power" that initiated the universe. Across all meanings, however, it represents a certain abstractness that is indicative of a lack of understanding. Rather than labelling it the work of some 'god', I admit there is no current understanding of why anything is here and refuse to invoke mystical beings in order to put some kind of naive closure on the question. Obviously our current level of knowledge is insufficient to answer the question - that may not always be the case. In that sense, given their history and predilection for censorship, religion may seek to prevent the ultimate answer to the question of 'why'. For that reason (among others) I am strongly opposed to organized religion.
73Zeppelin wrote:
In that sense, 'god' is now loosely and multiply defined as the Christian god, Alloah, some other divine being as in the Masonic sense or now some arbitrary assignment to the "power" that initiated the universe.
Yep. It's the Deists vs. the Theists.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Rather than labelling it the work of some 'god', I admit there is no current understanding of why anything is here and refuse to invoke mystical beings in order to put some kind of naive closure on the question.
Which makes you agnostic and that's fine, but Spinoza, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and I take issue with the use of the word, "naive." ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
In that sense, given their history and predilection for censorship, religion may seek to prevent the ultimate answer to the question of 'why'.
Absolutely. Religion, regardless of why each is founded or how noble-sounding its goals, ends up being an employment agency for its Priests. Anything which threatens the livlihood of the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury or Imam Mugwump will be stamped out with all the force the religion can muster. (Similarly, I have noticed that our government seems to prosecute tax evasion with far more vigor than they do murder.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think there is sufficient evidence (or rather, absence of evidence in favour of religion) to reject religion outright.
Just a parallel thought... but since you work in finance, you know about the black swan theory, right? :) Until 1697, centuries' worth of evidence from Eurasia and the Americas led people to conclude there were no black swans. Indeed, any reasonable European (and equally, an Asians or an American) then would have said that there was absence of evidence in favour of the existence of black swans. Clickety[^]
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Just a parallel thought... but since you work in finance, you know about the black swan theory, right?
I know well the theory of black swan events. I also know Nassim Taleb - we shared the same doctoral supervisor.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Until 1697, centuries' worth of evidence from Eurasia and the Americas led people to conclude there were no black swans. Indeed, any reasonable European (and equally, an Asians or an American) then would have said that there was absence of evidence in favour of the existence of black swans.
I understand where you are trying to go with this Vikram, but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact on European (and other) society during the Middle Ages. Now, if that impact (which remains today in the courts of law and political policy) were based on something that is completely false...well, the implications are quite severe.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
In that sense, 'god' is now loosely and multiply defined as the Christian god, Alloah, some other divine being as in the Masonic sense or now some arbitrary assignment to the "power" that initiated the universe.
Yep. It's the Deists vs. the Theists.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Rather than labelling it the work of some 'god', I admit there is no current understanding of why anything is here and refuse to invoke mystical beings in order to put some kind of naive closure on the question.
Which makes you agnostic and that's fine, but Spinoza, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and I take issue with the use of the word, "naive." ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
In that sense, given their history and predilection for censorship, religion may seek to prevent the ultimate answer to the question of 'why'.
Absolutely. Religion, regardless of why each is founded or how noble-sounding its goals, ends up being an employment agency for its Priests. Anything which threatens the livlihood of the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury or Imam Mugwump will be stamped out with all the force the religion can muster. (Similarly, I have noticed that our government seems to prosecute tax evasion with far more vigor than they do murder.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Which makes you agnostic and that's fine, but Spinoza, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and I take issue with the use of the word, "naive."
I'm not sure I'd classify myself as agnostic - I reject the concept of god completely. You are correct to have seized upon the one problem I have - that I cannot prove it. But as I mentioned, I don't feel that it is my responsibility to either prove or disprove god. In that sense, I am not agnostic.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Just a parallel thought... but since you work in finance, you know about the black swan theory, right?
I know well the theory of black swan events. I also know Nassim Taleb - we shared the same doctoral supervisor.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Until 1697, centuries' worth of evidence from Eurasia and the Americas led people to conclude there were no black swans. Indeed, any reasonable European (and equally, an Asians or an American) then would have said that there was absence of evidence in favour of the existence of black swans.
I understand where you are trying to go with this Vikram, but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact on European (and other) society during the Middle Ages. Now, if that impact (which remains today in the courts of law and political policy) were based on something that is completely false...well, the implications are quite severe.
73Zeppelin wrote:
but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact
Sorry, Zep, you're going down the wrong path. You said the lack of evidence led you to "reject religion outright" and I merely provided a parallel, that of 14th century Europeans rejecting "the existence of black swans". We're not discussing the effects of discoveries of black swans or superbeings. I agree Christianity has been a major force in shaping the world - but that is not the point of discussion.