Notices

View Poll Results: We should all be agnostics ?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    6 50.00%
  • No.

    6 50.00%
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ?

  1. #1 Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is, or there is not, a god. Nor can anyone provide any solid evidence to support any claim that there is/is not a god, so logically shouldn't we ALL be agnostics ?


    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    264
    No.

    When I see people killing people, cats killing baby birds, the unspeakable torture cats do to mice, exploding busses and malls, all the pain, suffering, torture, crying, little kids starving to death or slowly dying in a cancer ward, rapes, drownings, etc, etc, etc, gives me a pretty clear idea of whether a God exists or not.

    No, I can't prove it... but the preponderance of evidence speaks for itself.

    Bettina


    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    I voted 'yes', for the following reason:
    Quote Originally Posted by In a previous thread, I
    But I must point out that everyone (save extreme believers) is, to some degree, agnostic: the only thing that sets them as atheist or theist is which side they lean more towards. For example, if someone says "I'm agnostic but I believe it's more rational to not believe in God," he's actually atheist.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    if humans were logical creatures, the answer would have to be yes
    but then again we all know that logic is often the last thing to enter the equation, if at all ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is, or there is not, a god. Nor can anyone provide any solid evidence to support any claim that there is/is not a god, so logically shouldn't we ALL be agnostics ?
    so you believe that there is no solid evidence to support the claim that god does/does not exist?
    :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    no, we are born without a god concept, therefore it would be impossible to be agnostic, from the basis, religion is taught so from that basis we could be agnostic, so then the question must be why would or should we all be agnostic, we shouldn't, it's just not rational.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    no, we are born without a god concept, ...
    are you sure ? we are born with the ability to recognise our parents and to accept what they tell us to be true - not a big step to combine the 2 into the ultimate uber-parent
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    no, we are born without a god concept, ...
    are you sure ? we are born with the ability to recognise our parents and to accept what they tell us to be true - not a big step to combine the 2 into the ultimate uber-parent
    do other animals, have a god concept!,
    yes we recognise what appears to be our parents, as do animals, we however learn about a uber-parent from our parents/peers. only humans do this.
    you answer your question yourself, here "to accept what they tell us to be true"
    yes I'm sure.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is, or there is not, a god. Nor can anyone provide any solid evidence to support any claim that there is/is not a god, so logically shouldn't we ALL be agnostics ?
    No. As a scientist there is no onus for me to prove a negative when no evidence to put fort to the contrary, By your logic there is also a reason to leave the door open for a belief in a real Santa Claus, pixies, a billion pound watermellon, that the sun is made out of chocolate, etc.

    No evidence of a god means no evidence needed to disprove. Your logic is the antithesis of scientific thinking. I don't need to disprove giant purple easter eggs that turn into flying dragons and no need to disprove the existence of a mythical god being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'm tempted to vote no on the basis that many people are just too dumb to be undecided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    " i used to be indecisive, but now i'm not so sure"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    lol lol

    @geezer,
    It's funny how you compare us to animals...
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    lol lol

    @geezer,
    It's funny how you compare us to animals...
    rotflmao @SPT: what else are we then, little green men, elves, orks, satyrs, centaurs.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Cat1981(England) wrote:
    Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is, or there is not, a god. Nor can anyone provide any solid evidence to support any claim that there is/is not a god, so logically shouldn't we ALL be agnostics ?


    No. As a scientist there is no onus for me to prove a negative when no evidence to put fort to the contrary, By your logic there is also a reason to leave the door open for a belief in a real Santa Claus, pixies, a billion pound watermellon, that the sun is made out of chocolate, etc.

    No evidence of a god means no evidence needed to disprove. Your logic is the antithesis of scientific thinking. I don't need to disprove giant purple easter eggs that turn into flying dragons and no need to disprove the existence of a mythical god being.
    This is a very unfortunate trait of modern scientific thought, and very likely a major reason the whole field is so badly stagnated.

    There is only "true" and "false". No "undetermined".

    Multiple theories about a topic are not simultaneously accepted as possible, so false ideas rarely get toppled during the life time of the person who made a career out of coining them. Every idea is entrenched, often on very poor evidence, by stalwart defenders who won't allow it to even be suggested that another, better, explanation might exist.

    An agnostic is someone who accepts that God is one possible explanation among many for what is observed. Until the God theory is disproved, or one of the others is found to be certain, it will remain one possible explanation among many.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is, or there is not, a god. Nor can anyone provide any solid evidence to support any claim that there is/is not a god, so logically shouldn't we ALL be agnostics ?
    I have a low opinion of agnosticism; let me explain why.

    Some people think of the issue as a philosophical problem. I see it as a science problem. If you believe in a god who responds to prayer, that is, a god who alters the whole course of cause and effect at will, when He feels like it, you are shaped by a belief that is destructive to the very science on which our society and our progress depends. Science cannot go back to the Middle Ages without ending up being lost and where it was then.

    So, I see a lot of principal involved. Either a person has the backbone to stand up and be counted for the continued progess of human science, or one hedges and compromises in order to not offend their friends and family by being adament on the issue.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    lol lol

    @geezer,
    It's funny how you compare us to animals...
    rotflmao @SPT: what else are we then, little green men, elves, orks, satyrs, centaurs.
    You were clearly comparing us to lower animals.
    Oh, and btw, if little green men, etc. existed, they would be animals. :wink:
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is, or there is not, a god. Nor can anyone provide any solid evidence to support any claim that there is/is not a god, so logically shouldn't we ALL be agnostics ?
    Some people think of the issue as a philosophical problem. I see it as a science problem. If you believe in a god who responds to prayer, that is, a god who alters the whole course of cause and effect at will, when He feels like it, you are shaped by a belief that is destructive to the very science on which our society and our progress depends. Science cannot go back to the Middle Ages without ending up being lost and where it was then.
    That's a poor explanation as to why a belief in God goes against science.

    I believe that it is your belief that more goes against science. In science, there is no absolute: nothing is assumed to be absolutely true. You, my friend, go against that fundamental idea of science: you assume that it's absolutely true that no God exists.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    [quote="
    That's a poor explanation as to why a belief in God goes against science.

    I believe that it is your belief that more goes against science. In science, there is no absolute: nothing is assumed to be absolutely true. You, my friend, go against that fundamental idea of science: you assume that it's absolutely true that no God exists.[/quote]

    That is why my explanation is right on the mark. The old Religions propose absolutes, the real "Truth." There is no such thing. We live in an infinte universe while we ourselves are finite. All we do in science is increase the accuracy of what we believe. In that, we are far ahead of the old religions because they are drastically "less accurate."

    You take the giant step of saying that the rejecting unsubstantiated beliefs is dealing in abstract truths! Oh come on now! If I say I do not believe in Santa Claus, are you goint to say I am unscientific because I take an abstract position on the subject?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Shouldn't we all be agnostics ? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough

    That is why my explanation is right on the mark. The old Religions propose absolutes, the real "Truth." There is no such thing. We live in an infinte universe while we ourselves are finite. All we do in science is increase the accuracy of what we believe. In that, we are far ahead of the old religions because they are drastically "less accurate."
    [/quote]
    Well, that's the old-timers. You seem to be suggesting that religion is anti-science; however, younger believers don't follow the old tradition of 'religion is the only answer', rather, we've started the tradition of 'religion is a general answer'. To find more specific answers, we look to science.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    You take the giant step of saying that the rejecting unsubstantiated beliefs is dealing in abstract truths! Oh come on now! If I say I do not believe in Santa Claus, are you goint to say I am unscientific because I take an abstract position on the subject?
    Taking giant steps is what I do.
    Anyway,
    saying you don't believe in Santa Clause is far different from saying you don't believe in God: Santa Claus was clearly created by men, whereas no one can be sure as to whether God was created by man.
    You seem to be missing what I'm saying. The reason your belief that 'it is absolutely certain that there is no God' is unscientific is that your claim comes from lack of evidence. Rather than solid evidence that there is a God, you appeal to the lack of evidence, something that science does not do. A scientist does not say 'there is lack of evidence that there are beings more intelligent than humans out there, thus we can be absolutely certain that no such beings exist'. Think about it.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    The truth is, whether we believe it or not, we are all agnostic, as none of us knows for sure (not even the people who have experienced God).

    The theists who experienced God, however, have a more solid belief than atheists or theists who haven't experienced God in that they have more evidence, so to speak, to back up their beliefs; it is unknown whether this evidence is a delusion, unless the person has been previously diagnosed as mentally ill.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    how do you "experience" god ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    lol lol

    @geezer,
    It's funny how you compare us to animals...
    rotflmao @SPT: what else are we then, little green men, elves, orks, satyrs, centaurs.
    You were clearly comparing us to lower animals.
    we are all aniimals, it is irrelevant, as to who's are higher or lower.
    the human religious animal is a very arrogant species, to believe it's better than everything else.
    the good thing is we can cure this arrogance, by not letting it be taught.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Oh, and btw, if little green men, etc. existed, they would be animals.
    "it's life jim, but not as we know it." lol.


    Quote Originally Posted by SPT
    saying you don't believe in Santa Clause is far different from saying you don't believe in God: Santa Claus was clearly created by men, whereas no one can be sure as to whether God was created by man.
    your just being facetious.
    what if he choose Odin, Zeus, Mithra, etc...
    Quote Originally Posted by SPT
    You seem to be missing what I'm saying. The reason your belief that 'it is absolutely certain that there is no God' is unscientific is that your claim comes from lack of evidence.
    how so.
    yes there is a lack of evidence, for any god existing, and it's because of that, that his claim is valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by SPT
    Rather than solid evidence that there is a God, you appeal to the lack of evidence,
    What! he appeals to the lack of evidence, quite simply because, there is no solid evidence, that is as obvious as the nose on your face.
    Quote Originally Posted by SPT
    something that science does not do. A scientist does not say 'there is lack of evidence that there are beings more intelligent than humans out there, thus we can be absolutely certain that no such beings exist'. Think about it.
    science does not concider a god concept as viable, and doesn't give it a second look, however if evidence came to light that such things existed, then science would concider it viable for investigation and experimentation.



    edit added reply, to inane stupidity.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    how do you "experience" god ?
    Ask those who've experienced him. :wink: Humor aside, what I mean is people who claim to have in some way sensed God (seen, heard, smelt, etc.)

    geezer,
    The major difference between us and lower animals is very clear and not to be ignored: our very developed and complex brain and spinal cord.

    About everything else you said: I already established that I'm not going to argue with you on those topics again, as you always misquote and misunderstand me.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    may i paraphrase you for a change ?

    "The major difference between us and lower animals is very clear and not to be ignored: our very developed and complex ego."
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    edit added reply, to inane stupidity.
    Don't get.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    may i paraphrase you for a change ?

    "The major difference between us and lower animals is very clear and not to be ignored: our very developed and complex ego."
    Hmm...
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    107
    I can be Agnostic in regards to *A* god existing. ie a god who has no books discribing the gods doings, thoughts and intentions.

    However many parts of the bible are able to be proven false. Not every single word, but enough to make it so that either the bible is not fully true, or that god lies, or that reality isn't real, and distances are constantly changing at a whim. (ie the distance between New York and San Fransisco is 15000 miles some days and 12 inches on other days depending on god's mood)

    Thus while the mysterious conciousness that floats around creating universes is not able to be proven not to exist, Yahweh can be.

    I assume Allah can also be, but I have not read enough of that religions literature to be able to state it as fact. But assuming much of the Genisis story remains the same, then I'd say probably.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Hi marcos,
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    We are born free not only of religion, but also all ideas. Thus, we cannot assess whether we are atheist, theist, or agnostic until we have been exposed to the God idea. The "we" in question, then, is not "we" as in all humans, but rather "we" as in all humans that have been exposed to the idea of God. That being said, no one (save a few people who claimed to have experienced God, but that's too subjective to count) has solid evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God; thus, everyone is agnostic. What determines whether we are atheist, theist, or solid agnostic, is what side we lean more towards. If we lean more towards theism, we are theist; if we lean more towards atheism, we are atheist; if we lean towards neither side, or sometimes lean to one side and at other times lean to the other side, then we are solid agnostic. Now some people may deny that they are agnostic, and say "I know for certain God does(not) exist", but the true fact is that they are agnostic whether they accept it or not. Now I consider myself theist for several reasons. I believe for certain that God exists; however, insofar as I cannot provide solid proof (empirical evidence) that God exist, only subjective proof, as well as my own logic, I have to accept the fact that I am, technically, agnostic.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    I also believe that we are born without a belief in god or a religion, but that doesn't change whether there is a god or not. Let me put it another way.... I'm a smoker and at this very moment i am smoking a cigarette. Am i holding the cigarette in my left hand or my right hand ? It doesn't matter whether you choose left or right, or whether you think i am lying and am not smoking at all, the only honest answer you can give is 'i don't know'. The same thing applys to the existence of a god and if that leaves open the possibility of santa claws or the flying spaghetti monster existing, then so be it.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Hi marcos,
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    We are born free not only of religion, but also all ideas. Thus, we cannot assess whether we are atheist, theist, or agnostic
    Hi scientstphilosophertheist.
    you are right to a small extent, but we are atheist, because we have no belief in god, so thats a given. and to get a belief, it needs to be taught/indoctrinated, so how can we be agnostic, we need the knowledge of theism before, we can ever become agnostic. so the Original question is moot.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    to you until we have been exposed to the God idea. The "we" in question, then, is not "we" as in all humans, but rather "we" as in all humans that have been exposed to the idea of God.
    you see you even agree with me here , you need to be exposed to the idea of god, before you can even contemplate a middle ground.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That being said, no one (save a few people who claimed to have experienced God, but that's too subjective to count) has solid evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God; thus, everyone is agnostic.
    not possible, where did they get the knowledge of god from there mothers umbilical cord, they must have been taught it. therefore could not be agnostic.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What determines whether we are atheist, theist, or solid agnostic, is what side we lean more towards.
    not quite right.what determines whether your theists or agnostic, is what you've been taught and then what side you lean towards theism or agnostism. atheism cant by it's very nature be part of theism or agnostism as it is a completely neutral stance it has no concept of a god or religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If we lean more towards theism, we are theist; if we lean more towards atheism, we are atheist;
    this is your mistake, you dont lean towards atheism, you are atheist, you dont get taught atheism, but everything else is taught, so on that basis alone you cant be deemed agnostic. ok
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Hi marcos,
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    We are born free not only of religion, but also all ideas. Thus, we cannot assess whether we are atheist, theist, or agnostic
    Hi scientstphilosophertheist.
    you are right to a small extent, but we are atheist, because we have no belief in god, so thats a given. and to get a belief, it needs to be taught/indoctrinated, so how can we be agnostic, we need the knowledge of theism before, we can ever become agnostic. so the Original question is moot.
    I advise you to look up the definition of the word 'atheist'.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    to you until we have been exposed to the God idea. The "we" in question, then, is not "we" as in all humans, but rather "we" as in all humans that have been exposed to the idea of God.
    you see you even agree with me here , you need to be exposed to the idea of god, before you can even contemplate a middle ground.
    Similarly, you have to be exposed to the idea of God in order to believe that God doesn't exist. If you have no exposure, you're simply ignorant, and thus it's not that you don't believe in God, it's that you're ignorant of the concept of God. Ignorance is not the same as disbelief. If I am ignorant of the concept of global warming, you cannot say I don't believe in global warming; that is just plain illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That being said, no one (save a few people who claimed to have experienced God, but that's too subjective to count) has solid evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God; thus, everyone is agnostic.
    not possible, where did they get the knowledge of god from there mothers umbilical cord, they must have been taught it. therefore could not be agnostic.
    Note that the "we" I'm talking about there is not babies, but rather those that have already been exposed to the God concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What determines whether we are atheist, theist, or solid agnostic, is what side we lean more towards.
    not quite right.what determines whether your theists or agnostic, is what you've been taught and then what side you lean towards theism or agnostism.
    You are misunderstanding what I am saying. While your belief may be theism, your stance is really agnosticism, as you have no empirical proof of the existence of God. That said, let me rephrase what I've been saying: we are all agnostic; what determines whether we are theist, atheist or agnostic is what we believe we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    atheism cant by it's very nature be part of theism or agnostism as it is a completely neutral stance it has no concept of a god or religion.
    Atheism is in no way a neutral stance. Most atheists would even laugh at this claim. The only neutral stance is agnosticism. Note that agnostics hardly place themselves in the heated debates between atheists and theists, and there is no such thing as an agnostic activist, whereas there are theist and atheist activists.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If we lean more towards theism, we are theist; if we lean more towards atheism, we are atheist;
    this is your mistake, you dont lean towards atheism,
    Ah, but you do. Are you telling me that you don't lean towards atheism? To where do you lean, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    you are atheist
    And thus you lean towards atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    you dont get taught atheism, but everything else is taught, so on that basis alone you cant be deemed agnostic. ok
    Not necessarily. There are some families who teach their children that it is irrational to be anything but atheist; similarly, there are some people who have never been 'taught' religion, per se, but rather sought it out. You are over generalizing.

    You sound similar to someone else on this forum. You should meet geezer (that is, not to say, Old Geezer), you have similar ideas, tone, and grammar (this is not meant to be insulting).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    [quote="scientstphilosophertheist"]
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Hi marcos,
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    We are born free not only of religion, but also all ideas. Thus, we cannot assess whether we are atheist, theist, or agnostic
    Hi scientstphilosophertheist.
    you are right to a small extent, but we are atheist, because we have no belief in god, so thats a given. and to get a belief, it needs to be taught/indoctrinated, so how can we be agnostic, we need the knowledge of theism before, we can ever become agnostic. so the Original question is moot.
    I advise you to look up the definition of the word 'atheist'.I know the definition, you by asking me if I do quite clearly shows you dont. so I'll help you, it means without a concept of god or gods, if you like ignorant of gods.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    to you until we have been exposed to the God idea. The "we" in question, then, is not "we" as in all humans, but rather "we" as in all humans that have been exposed to the idea of God.
    you see you even agree with me here , you need to be exposed to the idea of god, before you can even contemplate a middle ground.
    Similarly, you have to be exposed to the idea of God in order to believe that God doesn't exist.
    thats it exactly, your catching on.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you have no exposure, you're simply ignorant, and thus it's not that you don't believe in God,it's that you're ignorant of the concept of God.
    yes your getting there,
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Ignorance is not the same as disbelief.
    well of course not, you first have to be exposed to the concept to even contemplate a belief or not, it is what I've been saying. born as atheist, having no belief/ignorant of gods.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If I am ignorant of the concept of global warming, you cannot say I don't believe in global warming; that is just plain illogical.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That being said, no one (save a few people who claimed to have experienced God, but that's too subjective to count) has solid evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God; thus, everyone is agnostic.
    not possible, where did they get the knowledge of god from there mothers umbilical cord, they must have been taught it. therefore could not be agnostic.
    Note that the "we" I'm talking about there is not babies, but rather those that have already been exposed to the God concept.
    if by being exposed, you mean come aware of/educated into. then I agree, which means they acquired the knowledge later, which proves its not possible, to be agnostic without learning the concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What determines whether we are atheist, theist, or solid agnostic, is what side we lean more towards.
    not quite right.what determines whether your theists or agnostic, is what you've been taught and then what side you lean towards theism or agnostism.
    You are misunderstanding what I am saying. While your belief may be theism, your stance is really agnosticism, as you have no empirical proof of the existence of God. That said, let me rephrase what I've been saying: we are all agnostic; what determines whether we are theist, atheist or agnostic is what we believe we are.
    to be agnostic, (that not sure either way in regard to believing in god or gods) you have to to have knowledge of said god or gods, so as atheists have no belief and are ignorant, of a god concept they cannot, by that very basis be agnostic, now can they.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    atheism cant by it's very nature be part of theism or agnostism as it is a completely neutral stance it has no concept of a god or religion.
    Atheism is in no way a neutral stance.
    sorry my bad, it not strictly a typo, but it should have read natural.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Most atheists would even laugh at this claim. The only neutral stance is agnosticism. Note that agnostics hardly place themselves in the heated debates between atheists and theists, and there is no such thing as an agnostic activist, whereas there are theist and atheist activists.
    I dont know about the latter, but your certainly right about the former.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If we lean more towards theism, we are theist; if we lean more towards atheism, we are atheist;
    this is your mistake, you dont lean towards atheism,
    Ah, but you do. Are you telling me that you don't lean towards atheism? To where do you lean, then?
    you cant lean towards something you naturally are, you can only lean towards something you want to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    you are atheist
    And thus you lean towards atheism
    yes I'm an atheist, and have always been, and now not so ignorant of gods, but still without belief, but I dont lean anyway this is the natural way to be, akin with, walking, talking, etc.. I could not be any other way, without accepting an unnatural life change, which would have been far easier as a child, which is how it's done at the moment, indoctrinating/brainwashing.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    you dont get taught atheism, but everything else is taught, so on that basis alone you cant be deemed agnostic. ok
    Not necessarily. There are some families who teach their children that it is irrational to be anything but atheist;
    never came across any, most families who are athiest let there children decide for themselves. obviously they dont ignore them, but they wont teach them anything thats unsubtantiated.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    similarly, there are some people who have never been 'taught' religion, per se, but rather sought it out.
    yes that is sad, to make an abnormal life change, means the life must really suck, I have deep pity for such people, I hope they do and can get benefit from it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You are over generalizing.
    You sound similar to someone else on this forum. You should meet geezer (that is, not to say, Old Geezer), you have similar ideas, tone, and grammar (this is not meant to be insulting).
    you grammars not to hot either, do you find you get misunderstood a lot. well I'd look at your punctuation. cheers I'll read some of his posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Hi marcos,
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    I'm new, but this struck me as funny,
    ?how can we all be agnostic when, we are all born free of religion, or a belief in a god. it's rather a moot question.
    We are born free not only of religion, but also all ideas. Thus, we cannot assess whether we are atheist, theist, or agnostic
    Hi scientstphilosophertheist.
    you are right to a small extent, but we are atheist, because we have no belief in god, so thats a given. and to get a belief, it needs to be taught/indoctrinated, so how can we be agnostic, we need the knowledge of theism before, we can ever become agnostic. so the Original question is moot.
    I advise you to look up the definition of the word 'atheist'.
    I know the definition, you by asking me if I do quite clearly shows you dont. so I'll help you, it means without a concept of god or gods, if you like ignorant of gods.
    You are completely wrong. Again, I urge you to look up the definition of atheist; Note: it's a+theist.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    to you until we have been exposed to the God idea. The "we" in question, then, is not "we" as in all humans, but rather "we" as in all humans that have been exposed to the idea of God.
    you see you even agree with me here , you need to be exposed to the idea of god, before you can even contemplate a middle ground.
    Similarly, you have to be exposed to the idea of God in order to believe that God doesn't exist.
    thats it exactly, your catching on.
    Well I don't see how you believe that babies can believe God doesn't exist if they don't know that God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you have no exposure, you're simply ignorant, and thus it's not that you don't believe in God,it's that you're ignorant of the concept of God.
    yes your getting there,
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Ignorance is not the same as disbelief.
    well of course not, you first have to be exposed to the concept to even contemplate a belief or not, it is what I've been saying.
    This statement completely contradicts this statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    born as atheist, having no belief/ignorant of gods.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If I am ignorant of the concept of global warming, you cannot say I don't believe in global warming; that is just plain illogical.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That being said, no one (save a few people who claimed to have experienced God, but that's too subjective to count) has solid evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God; thus, everyone is agnostic.
    not possible, where did they get the knowledge of god from there mothers umbilical cord, they must have been taught it. therefore could not be agnostic.
    Note that the "we" I'm talking about there is not babies, but rather those that have already been exposed to the God concept.
    if by being exposed, you mean come aware of/educated into. then I agree, which means they acquired the knowledge later, which proves its not possible, to be agnostic without learning the concept.
    Nor is it possible to be atheist. First and foremost, you cannot be atheist without being exposed to the idea of theism; secondly, you cannot be atheist without being agnostic, as there is no way to know for certain that God does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What determines whether we are atheist, theist, or solid agnostic, is what side we lean more towards.
    not quite right.what determines whether your theists or agnostic, is what you've been taught and then what side you lean towards theism or agnostism.
    You are misunderstanding what I am saying. While your belief may be theism, your stance is really agnosticism, as you have no empirical proof of the existence of God. That said, let me rephrase what I've been saying: we are all agnostic; what determines whether we are theist, atheist or agnostic is what we believe we are.
    to be agnostic, (that not sure either way in regard to believing in god or gods) you have to to have knowledge of said god or gods, so as atheists have no belief and are ignorant, of a god concept they cannot, by that very basis be agnostic, now can they.
    This statement is directly as a result of your ignorance of the correct definition of the word 'atheist'.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    atheism cant by it's very nature be part of theism or agnostism as it is a completely neutral stance it has no concept of a god or religion.
    Atheism is in no way a neutral stance.
    sorry my bad, it not strictly a typo, but it should have read natural.
    Ok...honest mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Most atheists would even laugh at this claim. The only neutral stance is agnosticism. Note that agnostics hardly place themselves in the heated debates between atheists and theists, and there is no such thing as an agnostic activist, whereas there are theist and atheist activists.
    I dont know about the latter, but your certainly right about the former.
    Well, I guess in some instances agnostics aren't very neutral, but for the most part they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If we lean more towards theism, we are theist; if we lean more towards atheism, we are atheist;
    this is your mistake, you dont lean towards atheism,
    Ah, but you do. Are you telling me that you don't lean towards atheism? To where do you lean, then?
    you cant lean towards something you naturally are, you can only lean towards something you want to be.
    I wonder where that rule came from...

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    you dont get taught atheism, but everything else is taught, so on that basis alone you cant be deemed agnostic. ok
    Not necessarily. There are some families who teach their children that it is irrational to be anything but atheist;
    never came across any, most families who are athiest let there children decide for themselves. obviously they dont ignore them, but they wont teach them anything thats unsubtantiated.
    Well I guess you just aren't as experienced (purposefully condescending).

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    similarly, there are some people who have never been 'taught' religion, per se, but rather sought it out.
    yes that is sad, to make an abnormal life change, means the life must really suck, I have deep pity for such people, I hope they do and can get benefit from it.
    Yes...I hope they're happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You are over generalizing.
    You sound similar to someone else on this forum. You should meet geezer (that is, not to say, Old Geezer), you have similar ideas, tone, and grammar (this is not meant to be insulting).
    you grammars not to hot either
    Irony

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    do you find you get misunderstood a lot.
    Actually, I do, but for different reasons than you might think.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    well I'd look at your punctuation.
    ??

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    cheers I'll read some of his posts.
    Yes. You'll find that you're very similar.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You are completely wrong. Again, I urge you to look up the definition of atheist; Note: it's a+theist.
    I dont think so, you seem to need to get yourself educated in the meaning of the word, I hope this will clarify it for you, it's from the greek atheos, meaning godless, without the concept of a deity, without god or gods.
    atheism is the absence of belief in deities.
    so you see atheism is ignorant. but later can gain knowledge of gods, and wish to remain without gods as belief in such things is unreasonable.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Well I don't see how you believe that babies can believe God doesn't exist if they don't know that God exists.
    what! wtf, I never said babies had a belief or disbelief, where did you get that from my reply, I said they are ignorant of the concept of god so are born atheist.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    This statement completely contradicts this statement:
    how come, I see no contradiction, one states that you need to be exposed to a concept to have a belief in said concept, the other, means you have no concept, therefore cannot form an opinion either way, you ignorant of the concept of god.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Nor is it possible to be atheist. First and foremost, you cannot be atheist without being exposed to the idea of theism; secondly, you cannot be atheist without being agnostic, as there is no way to know for certain that God does not exist.
    look at the meaning of atheist, and get back to me when you understand it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    This statement is directly as a result of your ignorance of the correct definition of the word 'atheist'.
    I think you'll find thats your ignorance, of the meaning of the word.
    I said above get back to me when you understand it.
    all this is going to be is me an atheist tell you what I am, and you telling me I wrong, you know your a thiest, I know I'm an atheist, I think I know better what an atheist is, as you would or should know better what a theist is.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I wonder where that rule came from...
    think about it and it will come to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    marcos: I think your flogging a dead house, with this man.
    he has had several people tell him what an atheist is, but he just wont accept it, he seem to think he knows better. good luck in trying however. you might be the one to succeed.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You are completely wrong. Again, I urge you to look up the definition of atheist; Note: it's a+theist.
    I dont think so, you seem to need to get yourself educated in the meaning of the word, I hope this will clarify it for you, it's from the greek atheos, meaning godless, without the concept of a deity, without god or gods.
    And atheos is from theos. Look at these definitions: http://www.answers.com/atheist&r=67
    an atheist is one who denies the existence of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Well I don't see how you believe that babies can believe God doesn't exist if they don't know that God exists.
    what! wtf, I never said babies had a belief or disbelief, where did you get that from my reply, I said they are ignorant of the concept of god so are born atheist.
    Ignorant of the concept of God is not atheism. Atheism is denying that God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Nor is it possible to be atheist. First and foremost, you cannot be atheist without being exposed to the idea of theism; secondly, you cannot be atheist without being agnostic, as there is no way to know for certain that God does not exist.
    look at the meaning of atheist, and get back to me when you understand it.
    What? You mean denying that God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    I know I'm an atheist, I think I know better what an atheist is, as you would or should know better what a theist is.
    This testifies to your bad logic (and they say theists are irrational). Your being atheist does not make you know the definition of atheist. In fact, some atheists on this site agree with my definition, while others agree with yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I wonder where that rule came from...
    think about it and it will come to you.
    You clearly don't get sarcasm.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    marcos: I think your flogging a dead house, with this man.
    he has had several people tell him what an atheist is, but he just wont accept it, he seem to think he knows better. good luck in trying however. you might be the one to succeed.
    Tell me...who are these 'several people', other than you and susan.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •