Atheists: Is that your final answer?

[jrbogie]

Whether or not anything is truly KNOWABLE is a question of existence.

For the sake of this discussion, I will concede (to anyone) that you and I exist, along with the rest of the natural world.

Again, I didn't mean to nitpick, I just wanted to make the distinction that I feel very comfortable in taking the position that we have the capability (as humans) to know whether or not God exists - provided that we are provided with evidence to support the position.

i understand your position and you make your point well. but me thinks you've a long wait for someone or something providing that evidence. but even evidence can be suspect. oj was aquitted because his dna, now the gold standard as physical evidence linking someone to a crime, may have been mishandled. the jury found that there was reasonable doubt that his blood may have planted. you and i likely both think that's absurd. the sob did it and now he got away with it. i don't feel it's unreasonable to paraphrase clarence darrow, the reknown trial lawyer. he said that it is not what you can prove that matters in a court of law. all that matters is that you can convince the jury that your side is right. so it is with everything as i see it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i understand your position and you make your point well. but me thinks you've a long wait for someone or something providing that evidence. but even evidence can be suspect. oj was aquitted because his dna, now the gold standard as physical evidence linking someone to a crime, may have been mishandled. the jury found that there was reasonable doubt that his blood may have planted. you and i likely both think that's absurd. the sob did it and now he got away with it. i don't feel it's unreasonable to paraphrase clarence darrow, the reknown trial lawyer. he said that it is not what you can prove that matters in a court of law. all that matters is that you can convince the jury that your side is right. so it is with everything as i see it.

That Clarence Darrow was one shrewd lawyer. I'll tip my hat to ol' Clarence.

As for evidence of God's existence, I'm fairly certain that if He wants me to know that He is here, He can get the message through in an unmistakable manner.

 

[jrbogie]

That Clarence Darrow was one shrewd lawyer. I'll tip my hat to ol' Clarence.

As for evidence of God's existence, I'm fairly certain that if He wants me to know that He is here, He can get the message through in an unmistakable manner.

i can never get a reasonable answer to this one question to the faithful. if god can do anything, and if he does demand that everybody believe in him or else, then why does he not simply tell us to point our telescopes say ten degrees to the left of the moon on may 30, my birthday but anyday will do, and he will create another moon exactly like the one that's there now? seems a simple task for one with unlimited power and ability huh?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i can never get a reasonable answer to this one question to the faithful. if god can do anything, and if he does demand that everybody believe in him or else, then ...

Perhaps it's not a reasonable question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

nope. we agnostics think that the human mind is not capable of knowing such things as gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena.

Some do. Some don't.

 

[jrbogie]

Some do. Some don't.

back to definitions again. from webster:



agnostic


2 entries found.

1. <LI selected="selected">1agnostic (noun)
2. 2agnostic (adjective)

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\ Function: noun Etymology: Greek agn&#333;stos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gn&#333;stos known, from gign&#333;skein to know &#8212; more at know Date: 1869 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
&#8212; ag·nos·ti·cism \-t&#601;-&#716;si-z&#601;m\ noun

so i'll give you that a political agnostic simply won't commit to one side or the other. but we're talking religion here and i've yet to see an agnostic defined as anything other than 1: above. though if you define yourself in the broad example,.......well go right ahead i guess. i simply find the "unknowable" easier to get accross to people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

back to definitions again. from webster:

agnostic

Didn't you just prove his point?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i can never get a reasonable answer to this one question to the faithful. if god can do anything, and if he does demand that everybody believe in him or else, then why does he not simply tell us to point our telescopes say ten degrees to the left of the moon on may 30, my birthday but anyday will do, and he will create another moon exactly like the one that's there now? seems a simple task for one with unlimited power and ability huh?

Seems a fair request of the almighty. I especially like the touch of His choosing your birthday. Do you think He knew it was your birthday, or just a coincidence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

back to definitions again. from webster: ...

Out of curiosity, have you read Huxley?

 

[jrbogie]

Seems a fair request of the almighty. I especially like the touch of His choosing your birthday. Do you think He knew it was your birthday, or just a coincidence?

well he should know right? if he didn't before surely he is savvy enough to hack his way into this forum website huh?

 

[jrbogie]

Out of curiosity, have you read Huxley?

no.................

 

[Copernicus]

Jayhawker Soule: Out of curiosity, have you read Huxley?

no.................

As an agnostic, you ought to know that he coined the word. The meaning has gotten more complex since his day. Now it can refer rather loosely to someone who is conflicted over the existence of gods. A theist might be conflicted but think of a god as a plausible being. An atheist might be conflicted but think of a god as an implausible being. In principle, both theists and atheists can be agnostics, if they believe it impossible to know whether gods exist. Usually, we associate agnosticism with a slight bias against belief.

 

[jrbogie]

As an agnostic, you ought to know that he coined the word. The meaning has gotten more complex since his day. Now it can refer rather loosely to someone who is conflicted over the existence of gods. A theist might be conflicted but think of a god as a plausible being. An atheist might be conflicted but think of a god as an implausible being. In principle, both theists and atheists can be agnostics, if they believe it impossible to know whether gods exist. Usually, we associate agnosticism with a slight bias against belief.

great and thanks but i ought to know only what i chose to know. still, i doubt that i'll read huxley. quite happy with how i go about my thinking. can't imagine he's much of a thriller anyway. and remember, i am retired. everything is about my amuzement and entertainment these days.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I am open to the possibility that there may be some vast intellect(s) that is responsible for all this.

What I consider pure superstition is that intellect, if it exists, has the slightest interest in or concern with us. There is simply zero evidence for that. None, nada, zip, zilch. The universe it designed is - at best - totally indifferent to us. And some of it features openly hostile.

If there is a god - he just don't give a crap 'bout us.

 

[Copernicus]

great and thanks but i ought to know only what i chose to know. still, i doubt that i'll read huxley. quite happy with how i go about my thinking. can't imagine he's much of a thriller anyway. and remember, i am retired. everything is about my amuzement and entertainment these days.

You can find a very short description of Thomas Huxley's views on agnosticism here. He was known as "Darwin's Bulldog". Very interesting fellow.

 

[jrbogie]

You can find a very short description of Thomas Huxley's views on agnosticism here. He was known as "Darwin's Bulldog". Very interesting fellow.

thanks. but i haven't read darwin either. have three dean koontz books here for the beach. now there's one sick mother. but entertaining.

 

[Rand]

In math there is the idea of a limit. As an exponential curve approaches zero or infinity, the value come so close that it can actually be said to be either zero or infinity, though it will never actually reach either number.

That is the idea that I use to describe my atheism. I am a limit approaching zero belief in God. While I will not ever actually reach zero and be able to claim 'I deny the possibility of God' - I can get so close that I may as well actually be described as an atheist of the above statement.

 

[Rin]

I consider myself an atheist. This means that, epistemically, and only epistemically, speaking, I consider God to be in the same class of things as the tooth fairy, santa claus e.t.c. Humans treat things they consider to be in this class as if they don't exist for two reasons:
1) Everybody else does it
2) We wouldn't get any work done if we didn't

We can all think of events surrounding things in this class which, if they happened, would convince us that the thing did not belong to that class. For example, if I catch a fairy stealing my tooth from under my pillow. Nobody wants to rule out this possibility but, at the same time, everybody wants to give it consideration according to its likelihood. The likelihood is so remote that we say that these things do not exist as a convenient shorthand because we believe they are likely to have as much impact on our lives as, say, the possibility that my chair will suddenly turn into an elephant.

Of course this does not mean that we cannot be convinced otherwise. Was Thomas unconvinced when he touched Jesus' wounds? Close mindedness suggests an insensitivity to the kind of facts that should make us convinced. I think all most atheists wish to say is that since they have not put their hand in Jesus' side, they remain unconvinced but, given that chance, they would change their mind.

 

[Tristesse]

Atheism and agnosticism address different issues, agnosticism addresses what you know, and atheism addresses what you believe. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that most atheists are willing to change their mind, when presented with sufficient evidence. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods. It's not always a, I know there is no god, I think you'll be hard pressed to find to many atheists who say, I know there is no god.

 

[Tristesse]

Fairly good answer. It would have been much better had you excised the 'just' from the last sentence. Unless you belong to that lunatic fringe that considers the pet rock to be an atheist, atheist is not only the absence of belief but, also, the presence of a particular assessment as to the character and weight of the evidence for preternatural Agency.

well, Thats all atheism is, is a lack of belief. There are varying degrees of atheism, there's week and strong atheism. But, the definition of atheism, is a disbelief in a god or gods.