• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

IPU's vs. Hong Kong

Beleth said:
No, I am equating "disbelief in existence" with "belief in non-existence", whereas you are equating "doctrine" with "lack of doctrine". I stand by mine. What you are describing is more accurately referred to as "agnosticism", which I pointed out earlier.
Click to expand...

This has been done to f*cking DEATH on this forum :rolleyes:

Which isn't to say you should know that, only that I'm tired of seeing it crop up again and again. I don't want you to think I'm pissed at you or anything :)

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, it is not imcompatible with atheism.

Agnostic-atheist is a perfectly fine term.

Agnostic - one who believes that we cannot know if there is a god or gods - it is an epistomolgical stance.

Theist - one who holds a belief in a god or gods

Atheist - opposite of theism, one who holds no belief in a god or gods.

That is how Yahzi is using the terms (oops, I assume it is :o), that is how the vast majority of people on these boards use the terms.

Just so you know. If you want to drag out various dictionary definitions we can, but it's futile.

Start a thread even, but just accept it for now, ok? It will help move along this discussion I think.

Adam
 
Slim: I still don't buy that Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge in general, unless it's used as an adjective :p

But, you're largely correct. The dictionary, as such, is a frail source to lean on to gleen insight and understanding about a specific idea. The problem is that you are only going to get the most superficial of definitions, and there are no philisophical constructs that can be explained in a few sentences. So, while a snippet might be useful in getting an idea, it really takes numerous pages to truly give justice to the complexity of human idea. The dictionary is rightly used to correct mechanics, and sometimes wrongly used to enforce misconceptions. Remember, our language is a huge associative thing. Any given word can have different layers of meanings when in different contexts.
 
Okay then, what do you call a person who says either:
"I believe that there are no gods", or
"I know there are no gods"?

Neither your definition of "atheist" or "agnostic" applies to those statements.


And in your definitions, Deism would be a subset of Theism. It's the subset that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and then kept his hands off it", as opposed to how I have been using the term Theist, which would be someone that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and sticks his nose into it from time to time".

What would you call a person who says that last statement?
 
"I believe that there are no gods", or
"I know there are no gods"?
Click to expand...

That person would be a positive atheist. The problem is that you were incorrectly ascribing positive atheism to atheism in general. It's exactly the same as somebody saying "all theists believe in Jesus."
 
If Agnosticism is merely a stance on knowledge, put me down as an Agnostic-Deist.
 
Fade said:


If spiritual experience were real, we'd all believe basically the same things.
...
It hasn't. So, they aren't.
Click to expand...

Um, lets see if spriritual experineces are a human perceptual experienec they they could be as varied as the people who experinece them and still valid.

Not to say that Papa, JR., and spooky are actualy walikng around , but that contact with them could be a valid human experience.
 
Um, lets see if spriritual experineces are a human perceptual experienec they they could be as varied as the people who experinece them and still valid.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be as varied as they are.

Native Americans lick frogs and see Coyote. Medieval christian prays and sees Jesus on the cross.

If there something more than our own consciousness playing tricks on us, why are the experiences dissimilar in every way?
 
Beleth said:
If Agnosticism is merely a stance on knowledge, put me down as an Agnostic-Deist.
Click to expand...

I think that there is no problem with that label at all :)

And as to your question about someone who claims to know there are no gods, I would call them a hard atheist.

Mostly, such a position is a strawman, I've met very few people that make such a claim. In fact, the only one I can think of is qed, a poster who hasn't come around in here in quite some time.

Oh! And maybe Thaiboxerken, I can't remember for sure though.

Adam
 
Beleth said:

And in your definitions, Deism would be a subset of Theism. It's the subset that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and then kept his hands off it", as opposed to how I have been using the term Theist, which would be someone that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and sticks his nose into it from time to time".

What would you call a person who says that last statement?
Click to expand...

I would call them a theist, and I would say that Deism is a sub-set of theism as well.

I'm not claiming these are the only classifications that are allowed, I do think though, that they are the ones most people on the board would use.

Which just makes it reasonable to adapt them when speaking here, it reduces the confusion as well as agruments that are based on semantics only.

Adam
 
Fade said:
Take a look at where I live.

I see nothing BUT clouds :\
Click to expand...
Okay then.

Think about how many different ways clouds can look.

Big white fluffy clouds that look like animals.
Dark gray threatening storm clouds.
Thin wispy straight clouds.
And about a hundred different other ways.

Even one particular fluffy cloud that looks like an animal can look like different animals to different people.

This does not mean that clouds do not exist.
 
Beleth said:
Okay then.

Think about how many different ways clouds can look.

Big white fluffy clouds that look like animals.
Dark gray threatening storm clouds.
Thin wispy straight clouds.
And about a hundred different other ways.

Even one particular fluffy cloud that looks like an animal can look like different animals to different people.

This does not mean that clouds do not exist.
Click to expand...


You're describing a bunch of different kinds of clouds. Each of these kinds of clouds can be seen anywhere. Due to their nature, they are never exactly the same shape, but they will always be similar enough that should I describe them to you, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

This is almost as asinine as the "do you SEE the wind" argument.
 
Beleth said:
Nevertheless, it does not prove that clouds do not exist.
Click to expand...

Did you even read what I was saying?

Perhaps you should take a course on logic?
 
Fade said:

Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth.
Click to expand...

Fade:

If you would care to either expound on this, or provide a link, I'd greatly appreciate it; I've never run across such an idea. I've always understood agnosticism the way Slimshady describes, and never a subset of atheism. I would very much like to read more. Thanks......
 
Fade said:


They wouldn't be as varied as they are.

Native Americans lick frogs and see Coyote. Medieval christian prays and sees Jesus on the cross.

If there something more than our own consciousness playing tricks on us, why are the experiences dissimilar in every way?
Click to expand...

Jumpin horny toads Fade , did I say anything different than that? If spiritual experiences are human experiences then they are as individual as the humans expeiencing them. Also I know an anthropologist whose son underwent the Huichole initiation and the drugs did nothing for him because of his cultural mindset, which says each human will have a different cultural/spiritual experience.

Of course it is out consiousness playing tricks on us, but there is something you can learn if you try it.
 
You're describing a bunch of different kinds of spiritual expeience. Each of these kinds of SE can be seen anywhere. Due to their nature, they are never exactly the same shape, but they will always be similar enough that should I describe them to you, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

Modifyed by me the dancing one.

You can apply science to the spiritual experience, still don't mena that Big Bubba, Jimmny and the invisible one are real. But it does mean they are part of valid human experiences.
 
Fade said:


Did you even read what I was saying?

Perhaps you should take a course on logic?
Click to expand...

Whats this more abuse or just your frustration?

Do you read what we say. Is logic all there is gods I hope not, logic is a pisspoor approach to life, it is tool but not some universal replacement for all human values.

Peace Fade, can I pray to the pagan choir that you see some sun soon?
 
Fade said:
Perhaps you should take a course on logic?
Click to expand...
No, I need to take a course on not posting ten seconds before I have to be out the door.

You say that you can describe clouds so that anyone can understand what you mean - that there's some basic "cloudness" that all descriptions of clouds have that anyone can grasp.

Fine. I say that that is true of gods too. Native Americans see Coyote where Europeans see Jesus, fine. But there's some basic "godness" in all those descriptions that anyone can grasp. I mean, you had no difficulty recognizing Coyote as a description of a god, did you? Why would you assume that others would?

In the same sense that different descriptions of clouds, or evolution(!), exist does not disprove the existence of clouds or evolution (no matter how much Creationists like to argue that it does), the fast that different descriptions of gods exist does not disprove the existence of gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom