RE: Agnosticism

RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

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

Message

Ishtarr -> RE: Agnosticism (11/24/2011 9:27:00 PM)
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. Above, you just stated that you know. The same as you're now again stating that you know. What is missing -both from this thread as well as the other one- is ANY sort of argument, no matter how valid or invalid, that explains to any of us WHY you think you know. Any time somebody has asked you for your reasoning, all you do is tell us you know. Sorry... but that reeks an awful lot like mere faith to me.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/24/2011 10:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Whether or not there is evidence for God was not the issue. We were discussing the meaning of the statement "there is no God"... 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. I have no idea what relevance children play in all this, or why you are introducing them to the subject. But for the second time now you've referred me to this Santa Claus theme as an "explanation" of what you mean by "there is no God". And despite your complaining about people who don't "get it," what anyone is supposed to deduce from that continues to eludes me. Is there a problem with simply stating exactly what you mean by "there is no God," if not that "there is no God," which obviously nobody would have any trouble getting? K.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/24/2011 11:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Please SMM, consider the virtues of uncertainty. And where exactly am I not considering them? I am the one who says that even 2+2=4 is uncertain. Or you answered my posting without checking what I wrote before? I am saying that even 2+2=4 is uncertain. And I explained exactly why it is uncertain, and even so uncertain, that I cannot even calculate a probability of it being true. It is all in my previous posting, the previous to the one you answered. But I still, by convention, for reasons of comfort, write "2+2=4" instead of the whole assert (which I wrote in the posting I mention). And by the same convention, I write "I have a nose" and "God does not exist". Because I have a reasoning (which may be wrong) based on data (which may be false) that leads me to "2 + 2 = 4". And I have another reasoning (which may be wrong) based on data (which may be false) leading me to "God does not exist". Actually, I have three of them. I have the impression that you are ignoring the virtues of uncertainty much more than me. So, please, tweakabelle, consider the virtues of uncertainty...

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 1:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I am saying that even 2+2=4 is uncertain. Yes you are saying it, but I can't imagine why even after reading your "explanation." Numerical statements like 2 + 2 = 4 are exact. There is no uncertainty, i.e., 2 + 2 ≈ 4, and no occasion when 2 + 2 ≠ 4. Any lack of confidence must necessarily be attributed to other causes, e.g., your visual or tactile senses, ability to count, arithmetic skills, etc. About those you may be uncertain, but not that 2 + 2 = 4. K.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 3:12:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Yes you are saying it, but I can't imagine (...) I see. You can't imagine it. Well, well. So is life. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata (...) I would beg you to notice that it did not ask a question. K. [;)]

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 3:26:28 AM)
Matrix Calculations [:D] It is interesting how the movie "Matrix" has made some conversations easier for me. It is IMHO not a very good film (it is pleasant: period), but it was so popular, that I can spare a lot of time and effort when I want to express that kind of scenarios. They were not new, either, but how many people have read "Congress of Futurology" or "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch"? Not many. Everybody has seen "Matrix"! It is a pleasant film. Too bad they never made any sequels.

MadAxeman -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 4:03:16 AM)
How can you deny the existence of Santa? Trips to visit him can be purchased from this site. http://www.northpole.com/

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 4:42:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadAxeman How can you deny the existence of Santa? I can't imagine.

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 4:54:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel 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? Sorry I missed your post GS. Based upon the first line I quoted, quote: according to reason, used by me (I can make mistakes) on the data I get (which can be misleading), until somebody proves me otherwise. He has already admitted to two areas where he cannot be 100% certain he is correct, yet based upon those two areas, he has already dismissed the possibility. quote: Exactly as sure as that. How can one be exactly sure if they admit to making mistakes and data that can be misleading? quote: All the "rational arguments" I know Again, he admits he can make mistakes and that data can be misleading... so his knowledge would be called into question if this were any other subject. quote: as IMHO bogus, wrong, ill-based, ill-constructed, invalid and/or untrue. Again, would not his opinion be based upon his ability to reason, as he states in the first quote... yet that is a reason he admits could be wrong? I suppose me problem with his statements is that he insists on his correctness on these issues, yet admits that he deducted that certainty from places of uncertainty. As such, he would not be able too ascertain the truth behind an argument because he isnt willing to acknowledge his inability to be correct due to his own stated limitations. In other words, he states he makes mistakes, he states data can be wrong, but he is absolutely certain regardless of those facts.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 5:11:46 AM)
Zonie, you see what I mean about how there are some people who seem to be trying really hard not to get it. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 12:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Yes you are saying it, but I can't imagine (...) I see. You can't imagine it. Well, well. So is life. Sorry, I was just trying to help. [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 1:21:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Zonie, you see what I mean about how there are some people who seem to be trying really hard not to get it. I would prefer you reference this post instead: quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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." Are you ever going to get around to that? K.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 4:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I have no idea what relevance children play in all this, or why you are introducing them to the subject. But for the second time now you've referred me to this Santa Claus theme as an "explanation" of what you mean by "there is no God". And despite your complaining about people who don't "get it," what anyone is supposed to deduce from that continues to eludes me. Food for thought, has it ever occurred to you to try and figure out what's going on before you start attacking people? In this case for instance you could have saved yourself a trip to the dentist to get your foot removed from your mouth by asking instead of accusing since the problem you're running into is your inability to figure out a simple analogy. It's easily explainable but frankly since you're not even able to grasp that Santa Claus isn't real I just don't think there's any point.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 6:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Please SMM, consider the virtues of uncertainty. It's my understanding that the only thing one has complete certainty of is ones own existence (and some question even that) in everything else there is some amount of uncertainty. Claiming the same level of certainty for the statements "2+2=4" and "there is no God" seems off to me but I can understand people making the statement there is no God in the same way that they would make the statement that there is no Santa Claus. By the way, tweakabelle, does Santa Claus exist?

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 7:15:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It's easily explainable but frankly since you're not even able to grasp that Santa Claus isn't real I just don't think there's any point. That's pretty much the kind of answer I figured I'd end up with from you sooner or later. I'm glad you finally decided to take off your phoney mask and deliver. It is always helpful when everyone has a clear picture of what they're dealing with. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 7:29:05 PM)
quote: GotSteel By the way, tweakabelle, does Santa Claus exist? Can I get back to you on that after I check my Christmas presents please? [:D] The constant demand for definitive answers to a question for which there can be no definitive answers puzzles me. What is it about "they might or mightn't be a deity" that makes ppl so uncomfortable? That seems to threaten them so much? To the extent they're ready to accept any fairy story either way no matter how implausible? To me it seems humans would be far better off if we just accepted our own limitations instead of forever inventing non-existent certainties and then punishing anyone who dissents. We don't know anything absolutely. We never have. We never will. In terms of knowledge, if there is an answer, it seems to lie forever beyond human potential. If in the end, a deity/deities actually exists, there may be other routes to an awareness of it/them. Knowledge doesn't appear to be a potentially successful means of resolving this issue either way.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 8:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel By the way, tweakabelle, does Santa Claus exist? Ohferchrissake, are we back to Santa Claus again? You keep harping on this claim that saying "there is no God" is analogous to saying "there is no Santa Claus," as if that explains something. Be advised that it doesn't. If by Santa Claus you mean a real physical fat man man who lives at the North Pole, then when you say "there is no God" you are only saying that God is not an actual physical being, which isn't at all the same as saying there is no God. Of course, that would certainly explain why it doesn't make sense and people don't "get it." But hell, who knows? And how could anybody? You have repeatedly refused to reveal the secret. You just run off at the mouth proclaiming "there is no God," wincing and whining that people misinterpret your words, while refusing to tell us what you mean by them. Is there a Mystery here? Some mystical teaching that can only be conveyed by parable and allegory? Because I suggest for your consideration that such a fellow, if he isn't crazy, is either a mystic or else somebody who can't answer the question because he himself doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. And since you ain't a mystic, it looks to me like a coin flip. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 8:30:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: according to reason, used by me (I can make mistakes) on the data I get (which can be misleading), until somebody proves me otherwise. He has already admitted to two areas where he cannot be 100% certain he is correct, yet based upon those two areas, he has already dismissed the possibility. He's admitting that he isn't infallible and is open to someone illuminating where his reasoning or data are unsound. That part looks to be a claim that he's relatively open minded to being shown that there is a God. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Exactly as sure as that. How can one be exactly sure if they admit to making mistakes and data that can be misleading? That he claims to be as sure that there is no God as that 2+2=4 does bother me. One could certainly make a case that it would likely take a higher burden of proof for him than it would for me but that still doesn't get him to the blanket rejection of valid and rational arguments. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: All the "rational arguments" I know Again, he admits he can make mistakes and that data can be misleading... so his knowledge would be called into question if this were any other subject. There he's talking about Christian apologetics and he's right all the usual suspects are fallacious in one way or another. The ones that aren't obvious attempts at emotional manipulation are generally all about trying to baffle with bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: as IMHO bogus, wrong, ill-based, ill-constructed, invalid and/or untrue. Again, would not his opinion be based upon his ability to reason, as he states in the first quote... yet that is a reason he admits could be wrong? I suppose me problem with his statements is that he insists on his correctness on these issues, yet admits that he deducted that certainty from places of uncertainty. As such, he would not be able too ascertain the truth behind an argument because he isnt willing to acknowledge his inability to be correct due to his own stated limitations. In other words, he states he makes mistakes, he states data can be wrong, but he is absolutely certain regardless of those facts. Where does he claim absolute certainty? As a weak atheist I've seen people pretend time and again that I'm claiming absolute certainty so whenever someone claims an atheist is doing that it sets off a red flag in my head. I haven't read most of his posts so I can't say that he isn't but if he is that's what you should quote instead of the passages you have been.

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 8:34:45 PM)
quote: Where does he claim absolute certainty? As a weak atheist I've seen people pretend time and again that I'm claiming absolute certainty so whenever someone claims an atheist is doing that it sets off a red flag in my head. I haven't read most of his posts so I can't say that he isn't but if he is that's what you should quote instead of the passages you have been. It would be a lot more compelling. I did. quote: 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.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/25/2011 8:41:02 PM)
I seem to recall him saying that he didn't have absolute certainty that 2+2=4. If I recall correctly it ha something to do with the matrix. I'm falling asleep at the moment but I'll try and look it up tomorrow.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1132813