RE: Agnosticism

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Agnosticism

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Agnosticism

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 11:46:36 AM

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

"such a statement would NOT imply" - Correct.
"means that the person IS making an assertion about absolute eternal truth" - Not correct.

So wait... this is not a debate?
I mean, it seems that you can just arbitrarily declare something right or wrong without any proof, or argument to back up your claims. That means we're just trowing out personal opinions instead of trying to debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

"The primary difference that I can see here" ... see above, trying to limit this discussion.

I see, so Zonie isn't even allowed to make an argument and try to provide proof for his claims. He's just supposed to trow out random personal opinions... got it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

"If there's any degree of uncertainty in an Atheist's mind, then I would say that comes closer to Agnosticism than Atheism. " Can you prove it?

Euhm, now I'm really confused. You want Zonie to prove his claims, yet you state in your above quote that he's not allowed to do so and should limit his arguments. And you've also clearly demonstrated that you yourself don't find it necessary to back up your claims or provide any proof for them.

So Zonie is supposed to proof his claims without being allowed to make an argument?
And you're allowed to claim anything without providing any argument whatsoever?

And this is supposed to be a debate?

In what sort of twisted universe do you consider a conversation where people are supposed to proof things without being allowed to construct an argument a debate?
Never mind the question whether or not God exists... I find this last one MUCH more intriguing and interesting...

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 12:09:09 PM

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Hello, Zonie.

"This is wrong" - "Ok".

Then ok. To enter in the rest of your sentences would make the discussion grow exponentially.

"such a statement would NOT imply" - Correct.
"means that the person IS making an assertion about absolute eternal truth" - Not correct.

"The primary difference that I can see here" ... see above, trying to limit this discussion.

"If there's any degree of uncertainty in an Atheist's mind, then I would say that comes closer to Agnosticism than Atheism. " Can you prove it? Firmly prove, that in English this is the case, for ANY degree of uncertainity? Unless you can, I leave that point also here. It's your opinion. We do not need to agree on that for the game.

"If this was true, then there shouldn't be any problem with adding a few qualifying word" - and some have no problem with this, while some positive Atheist do have. Whetever they have or not, is their problem. If they say "there is no God", with or without qualifiers, they are Atheist in Spain (and if not positive Atheists in English, please prove it or we can let that be, see above).

"In terms of logic, I would still regard these statements as claims requiring proof" FUnny enough, proof does not prove what you pretend it to prove. I have no absolute certainity that 2+2=4. That does not make me doubt or say something like "In all likehood, 2+2=4". Not because I do not think it - because it is not necessary.

"why I stated that, for all intents and purposes, I generally follow the rule ..."
Please play the game in the game thread. Thanks.

I am sorry - my time is over, I must let it here and stop analysing here.

If you can prove that, in English, positive Atheism means absolute certainity that the unexistence of God is an aethernal truth, then you can publish it, because it refutes Dawkins, for example (he does not speak English?). And post it here.

If not, it is your opinion, and irrelevant to the game for me.

If you still think that we have something important to handle besides the game, ok, answer here and ask me, but be short and concrete, please. Your messages are far too big for me. Sorry.

Okay, well, setting aside issues of language, I was using it in the context of the same language you were using, such as "there is no cup on the table." Now, you're comparing "There is no God" with "2+2=4," which imply that you view both statements as comparable to each other. This is where we seem to disagree.

The proof of what I'm saying is implied in the comparison that you yourself are making here. Even given that there might be some minuscule degree of "uncertainty" in everything we do, you're as much as implying that you can state "there is no god" with the exact same degree of certainty as "2+2=4" or "there is no cup on the table." The implication is pretty clear to me, at least as far as how you've stated it.

You've stated that you were using "pure logic" in the game, so I have to take your statements at face value. As far as the English language is concerned, I'm not aware of any hidden meanings behind the phrase "there is no god." I just take it for what it literally says, just like you compare it with "2+2=4" and "There is no cup on the table." There's no rewriting of the language here that I can see, so I honestly don't see where you're getting all this.

It doesn't matter to me if you'd rather not discuss the game that you tried to start, but I was initially taken in by your suggestion that agnostics could be "converted" to positive atheism. I wanted to see what possible arguments might be raised, hopefully one that I had not previously considered. I was hoping to learn something, too.

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 1:06:51 PM

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

"If there's any degree of uncertainty in an Atheist's mind, then I would say that comes closer to Agnosticism than Atheism. " Can you prove it?

Euhm, now I'm really confused. You want Zonie to prove his claims, yet you state in your above quote that he's not allowed to do so and should limit his arguments. And you've also clearly demonstrated that you yourself don't find it necessary to back up your claims or provide any proof for them.

So Zonie is supposed to proof his claims without being allowed to make an argument?
And you're allowed to claim anything without providing any argument whatsoever?

And this is supposed to be a debate?

In what sort of twisted universe do you consider a conversation where people are supposed to proof things without being allowed to construct an argument a debate?
Never mind the question whether or not God exists... I find this last one MUCH more intriguing and interesting...

As to the last question, I think it's actually pretty common in a lot of internet discussions I've seen. There are always those who will try to box in their opponents with little rhetorical traps and other tricks of the trade. Sometimes, I might go the Philosopher route, "smothering the opposition with ponderous and lengthy cogitations."

I was interested in the debate from the viewpoint of his trying to convert agnostics to positive atheism. I wanted to see how it was done and what kind of arguments would be advanced.

My grandmother knew her Bible backwards and forwards, so whenever the Jehovah's Witnesses or any other religious proselytizers came door to door, she would invite them in and offer refreshments, where she would try to convert them to her way of seeing things. I had a few friends who did the same thing, although they all did so as believers, even though they had denominational differences.

A debate between a believer and a non-believer usually takes on a completely different dynamic than debates between believers.

But in the case of a debate between an agnostic and an atheist, then it's non-believer versus non-believer. I think that both agree on the same basic principles, only there's a difference in emphasis. Are the atheists more "orthodox," while agnostics follow a more "reformed" and moderate belief? Are atheists more decisive in their thinking, while agnostics are wishy-washy fence-sitters? Or are atheists merely more active about it, while agnostics might be more passive?

Why even bother making the declaration "there is no god" in the first place? Is it just something that someone says out of the blue without any prompting, or is it more of a response (and possibly an angry rejection) to something in our society and culture which has occupied a predominant place for centuries?

< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 11/23/2011 1:08:20 PM >

(in reply to Ishtarr)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 2:52:14 PM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Not that it is not "some greater intelligence..." . It is "God". Stawman fallacy detected, suddenly you change the subject instead of simply writing "God".
An old trick of yours, yes? Then people start to speak about if "some greater intelligence..." is God or not, definition of God, etc, etc... red fish fallacy...

God. It was "God". And no reasonable argument can be made for why there should be a God.

There are different conceptions of the nature of God...

To claim that "there is no God" and that "no reasonable argument can be made for why there should be a God" can only be understood as either a blanket dismissal of all of them, or else a bald demand that only your notion of God should be considered acceptable for argument.

The first puts you at odds with a very long list of demonstrably more intelligent and accomplished minds than your own, and the second vacates a blanket claim that "there is no God" in favor of a distinctly unimpressive and pointless assertion that your notion of God doesn't exist.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/23/2011 3:15:46 PM >

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 3:35:26 PM

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Now, if someone said "Santa Claus doesn't exist," I would see no reason to make an issue out of it, largely because I know the question has been satisfactorily examined, at least as far as where modern legends of Santa Claus originate and speculation as to whether it might have been based on an actual historical figure. Normally, I wouldn't make an issue out of it, unless someone wanted to initiate a discussion about the existence of Santa Claus.

I just keep seeing a pattern of some rather bizarre interpretations of what "god doesn't exist" means by non-atheists. Sometimes it even seems like people are really trying not to get it. I'm not accusing you of mocking anyone and like I said I'm not trying to defend SpanishMat, I haven't read much of the on-topic portion of the thread and have no interest in trying to sort out his mess. I weighed in not on account of the particulars between you and SpanishMat but because of a few statements which raised red flags on what I perceive to be that misconception.

In the modern legends of Santa Claus he has magic powers and doesn't want to be found. As such how could we ever discredit to the degree of 100% certainty every conspiracy theory whereby Santa undertakes some incredibly elaborate magical scheme which results in absolutely no measurable effect? If we can't are you still willing to accept the statement "Santa Claus doesn't exist"?

(in reply to Zonie63)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 6:03:09 PM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I just keep seeing a pattern of some rather bizarre interpretations of what "god doesn't exist" means by non-atheists. Sometimes it even seems like people are really trying not to get it.

Well if you don't mean god doesn't exist when you say "god doesn't exist," then I think you need to offer everyone a direct and concise statement of exactly what you do mean by "god doesn't exist" before you start complaining about people who don't "get it."

K.

(in reply to GotSteel)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 9:56:00 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

Well, Zonie, if you still have hopes to win then play the game. Let us start a new game and see what happens.
Not adding anything to any statement, which is not there.

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to Zonie63)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/23/2011 10:01:24 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
There are different conceptions of the nature of God...
To claim that "there is no God" and that "no reasonable argument can be made for why there should be a God" can only be understood as either a blanket dismissal of all of them, or else a bald demand that only your notion of God should be considered acceptable for argument.
The first puts you at odds with a very long list of demonstrably more intelligent and accomplished minds than your own, and the second vacates a blanket claim that "there is no God" in favor of a distinctly unimpressive and pointless assertion that your notion of God doesn't exist.

Exactly because there are different conceptions, changing "God" by the expression you like, as you did, is a fallacy. If you were not so vain, you would recognize it and present excuses.

For any conception of God, which matches the definitions of God, which I know as standard in the English language, there are as few "reasonable arguments" which can be made for their existence, as for the existence of Santa. And yes, I would say "none at all". If you had made even an attempt to present one, I would have taken your attempt of rebuttal more seriously.

As many better minds as you and me have defended any imaginable basic position on the matter (marxist positive / negative theism, agnosticism, Atheism including many kinds of each) , being at odds with some of them is inevitable and of course not a valid argument. It surprises me that you have not seen that before you wrote that. Do you really think that your position is not at odds with some people more intelligent as you? Again, I think your vanity blinds you.

I mean... for God's sake... "some people, more intelligent as you, disagree with you"... you actually really dare to mention this as if it were an argument at all! How absolutely mad on me, obsessed about me, or completely nuts you must be to recur to that!?

What now, critisizing me for writing "for God's sake" wile being Atheist? Or some grammar error? How low do you want to slide today?

Now I let you the last word, I know you love it. I will wait until you show that you are really able to ponder my arguments with a pinch of objectivity and less vanity.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/23/2011 10:13:29 PM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 12:38:20 AM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

For any conception of God, which matches the definitions of God, which I know as standard in the English language, there are as few "reasonable arguments" which can be made for their existence, as for the existence of Santa. And yes, I would say "none at all". If you had made even an attempt to present one, I would have taken your attempt of rebuttal more seriously.

As I have already pointed out, equating a belief in God to a belief in Santa Claus (or fairies) is an unsustainable position. Pursue it at your own expense.

As for an argument toward the existence of God, one of which was already given in the aforementioned post, you are simply unwilling to consider any, having abrogated to yourself the right to declare that your notion of God is the only one acceptable and anything else a logical trick. So to debate you on the issue would amount to trying to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.

Additionally, there seems little that could be called "standard" about the various definitions of God across dictionaries and religions, and excluding the latter would be rather pointless for an anti-theist position. But here's one to chew on:

God 1. capitalized: The supreme or ultimate reality. ~Merriam Webster

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

As many better minds as you and me have defended any imaginable basic position on the matter (marxist positive / negative theism, agnosticism, Atheism including many kinds of each) , being at odds with some of them is inevitable and of course not a valid argument.

Well I can see how my statment might be regarded as an Appeal to Authority. But I intended it only as an observation, because amusingly enough among the minds with which you are at odds is Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins distinguishes between an abstract, impersonal god (such as found in pantheism, or as promoted by Spinoza or Einstein) from a personal God who is the creator of the universe, who is interested in human affairs, and who should be worshipped.

Spinoza believed God exists and is abstract and impersonal... a being of infinitely many attributes, of which thought and extension are two.

Spinoza's concept of God appears to me to be largely in agreement with panentheism:

Panentheism... is a belief system which posits that God exists, interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it... Simply put, in pantheism, God is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

How low do you want to slide today?

Well I suppose that would be a matter of perception, but I am quite sure I'll never match the depths to which you have been willing to sink.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/24/2011 1:25:31 AM >

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 4:30:15 AM

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
As I have already pointed out, equating a belief in God to a belief in Santa Claus (or fairies) is an unsustainable position.

No, mostly what you did was throw out a red herring and remain silent when it was pointed out to you.

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 4:34:47 AM

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Well if you don't mean god doesn't exist when you say "god doesn't exist," then I think you need to offer everyone a direct and concise statement of exactly what you do mean by "god doesn't exist" before you start complaining about people who don't "get it."

Oh hey speaking of people who seem to try really hard not to grasp simple points. Go back and read my last post about Santa Claus I explained what I mean.

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 6:10:48 AM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
If I say that there is no Santa no one thinks that I'm claiming that I can prove to the degree of absolute certainty that there isn't a being who's completely undetectable on account of his magic who switches out the gifts given to children by there parents with perfect knock-offs made by elves.

BTW, when I say that I have a nose, I am not claiming that I can prove to the degree of absolute certainty that there isn't a being... etc...

And when I say that 2+2 =4, I am not claiming that I can prove to the degree of absolute certainty that ...

Actually I do not claim that I can prove to the degree of absolute certainty nothing at all.

I remember this expression from US criminal / trial films... "beyond reasonable doubt" is how I translate it back to English.

I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that 2+2 are 4.
I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that Santa does not exist.
I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that I have a nose.
I think, beyond reasonable doubt, that God does not exist.

I use the same knowledge system, the same instance of epistemology, to derive all these four asserts, and I have no serious and rational way to calculate any "degree of probability" which renders one "more probable" as the other, because I cannot measure all the possibilities involved, nor their probability.

So I think that 2+2=4, according to reason, used by me (I can make mistakes) on the data I get (which can be misleading), until somebody proves me otherwise. And if somebody does, I will believe otherwise, according to reason, used by me... etc...

And I think that God does not exist, according to reason, used by me (I can make mistakes) on the data I get (which can be misleading), until somebody proves me otherwise.

In other words: I am as sure that there is no God, as I am that 2+2 are 4.

No more, nor less. Exactly as sure as that.

All the "rational arguments" I know, which pretend to suggest that God exist, as IMHO bogus, wrong, ill-based, ill-constructed, invalid and/or untrue. I have found no valid one, not even the "Fine Tuning Argument" in its most "rational" form.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/24/2011 6:13:46 AM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to GotSteel)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 7:26:29 AM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

And I think that God does not exist, according to reason, used by me (I can make mistakes) on the data I get (which can be misleading), until somebody proves me otherwise.

In other words: I am as sure that there is no God, as I am that 2+2 are 4.

No more, nor less. Exactly as sure as that.

All the "rational arguments" I know, which pretend to suggest that God exist, as IMHO bogus, wrong, ill-based, ill-constructed, invalid and/or untrue. I have found no valid one, not even the "Fine Tuning Argument" in its most "rational" form.

Based upon this little segment, if a rational and valid argument were to be presented to you, you would not accept it.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 8:56:43 AM

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Based upon this little segment, if a rational and valid argument were to be presented to you, you would not accept it.

It might be true that he wouldn't accept a rational and valid argument, he does seem to have a habit of banning people rather than hearing them out. That said I don't see anything in what you've quoted that would lead you to that conclusion. Would you explain your reasoning?

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 10:15:38 AM

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

No, mostly what you did was throw out a red herring and remain silent when it was pointed out to you.

A red herring is a diversionary tactic employed to lead discussion away from a point onto another topic. I addressed the God versus Santa Claus issue directly. An example of a red herring, just to pick one at random, would be raising an unsupported claim that something you don't like is a "red herring" in order to divert debate away from the topic into a discussion of logical fallacies.

And then there's your definition of Santa Claus:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

a being who's completely undetectable on account of his magic who switches out the gifts given to children by there parents with perfect knock-offs made by elves.

That's not, however, what people have in mind when they're talking about Santa Claus. Arguments that attempt to succeed by changing the meanings of words embody an equivocation fallacy and do not constitute honest debate.

Probably the best non-trivial definition of Santa Claus would be the one presented by Francis Pharcellus Church in his 1897 essay, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." It has been reprinted countless times, and I know of no other that enjoys a wider consensus.

So how about you work with that, instead of asking us to accede to something you pulled out of your ass as the standard. Then, perhaps, we might find ourselves a little less at odds.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/24/2011 11:11:20 AM >

(in reply to GotSteel)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 11:33:18 AM

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
A red herring is a diversionary tactic employed to lead discussion away from a point onto another topic.

Precisely

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I addressed the God versus Santa Claus issue directly.

Whether or not there is evidence for God was not the issue. We were discussing the meaning of the statement "there is no God".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
An example of a red herring, just to pick one at random, would be raising an unsupported claim that something you don't like is a "red herring" in order to divert debate away from the topic into a discussion of logical fallacies.

Don't get crotchety with me because you have poor reading comprehension, I explained it to you here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Whether or not children would say my claim is incorrect because they have the letters and presents as evidence of Santa Claus is a separate issue.

< Message edited by GotSteel -- 11/24/2011 11:35:00 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 12:01:52 PM

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

..

< Message edited by GotSteel -- 11/24/2011 12:03:55 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 7:56:35 PM

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

Isn't is amazing how much controversy a non-opinion (agnosticism: retaining an open mind on the existence/non-existence of a deity/deities) can generate!

Please boys let's be honest. None of us knows. There are lots of reasonble positions around, (with varying degrees of validity to be sure). But let's stop being categorical about agnosticism. It's core position is about as un-categorical as it can get, it seems to me. Which is, to me, one of its more appealing qualities.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/24/2011 7:58:35 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to GotSteel)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 8:46:59 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Please boys let's be honest. None of us knows.

As much as I know that 2+2=4 . See above.

quote:

retaining an open mind on the existence/non-existence of a deity/deities

Fallacy. I retain an open mind on it, but I am not agnostic.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/24/2011 8:47:49 PM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to tweakabelle)

RE: Agnosticism - 11/24/2011 9:03:23 PM

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Please boys let's be honest. None of us knows.
As much as I know that 2+2=4 . See above.

quote:

retaining an open mind on the existence/non-existence of a deity/deities
Fallacy. I retain an open mind on it, but I am not agnostic.

Well, I tried ....... So did Ishtarr. It seems to me we had the same goal but slightly diverse ways if achieving it.

Please SMM, consider the virtues of uncertainty. There's an awful lot about it that's enticing. The impossibility of dogma being one of its more attractive features.

_____________________________

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Agnosticism

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.098