Deities do or do not exist?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
The Esotericist,
There is no known objective meaning or purpose to life. Until, or if, we discover otherwise, the meaning of life is entirely subjective to the individual. It is their choice whether to create a meaning for their life or not. Many never find a meaning or create a purpose for themselves.
That is an unsupported assertion. Clearly we have the ability to appreciate beauty, and experience many emotions. And until someone can show otherwise we have no reason to believe that these experiences are anything other than naturalistic. The brain being the overwhelming likely cause of these conditions.
Another unsupported assertion. The brain is likely doing a good job here, there is no evidence to the contrary.
Huh! That’s just unexplained gibberish.
If the word is annoying, then simply cease to use it and refer to people by their actual beliefs, not by one umbrella type expression.
What makes you imagine that S.A.M. is interested in reducing the level of annoyance associated with her speech on this subject?
The inclusion of "needlessly" again begs the question: what if what S.A.M. wants is exactly combat?
It's only "needless" if your goals include rational inquiry and mutual understanding. But there is scant evidence of such.
I mean, come on: this thread was started as a transparent ploy to pigeonhole and bait non-believers. That alone should be sufficient to revoke the benefit of the doubt.
Why do people keep indulging her pretense of respectable discourse? It certainly doesn't result in any reciprocity.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
I am in complete agreement. I knew right away that this was flamebait, which is why I said the on page 4 that the word didn't matter... only the beliefs involved mattered. The argument distills down into attacking a group of people, in the context of a single term, that doesn't adequately encompass all the beliefs of those who are labelled under that term. What she hates is the symbol of what the word has come to mean to her.
Rather than accept that incontrovertable truth, the OP chose to continue to operate on that obstinately false basis. I think it very clear SAM simply has an axe to grind against those who don't worship magical beings...and she follows through on that effort by behaving like a little asshole.
Rather than accept that incontrovertable truth, the OP chose to continue to operate on that obstinately false basis. I think it very clear SAM simply has an axe to grind against those who don't worship magical beings...and she follows through on that effort by behaving like a little asshole.
But isn't she reflecting exactly the Muslim policy on atheism? It is a no compromise, vitriolic, hatred, of the atheist position. Is she merely obstitinately combative or is it really the effect of total indoctrination we see at work? If you listen to any of the fundamantalist Muslims on TV you will see the same total abstinence of reason and even deeper hatred of anything non-Islamic.
I would be careful not to impute S.A.M.'s characteristics onto any of the larger groups she variously claims to represent.
In the first place, they're very big groups and so tend to defy generalization. And in the second place, it plays right into the contest of group chauvinisms that she is looking for. She gets to play spokesfool for Islam, while justifying this as a reaction to your bigotry, and meanwhile any chance of decent people having a productive discussion is drowned out.
The basic urge to act like an ass is a personality issue. The selection of targets (or, really, screens) is driven by her background and circumstances (and specifically the dissonance between them).
As far as indoctrination, I am left unconvinced that she actually means much of anything that she says in the first place. Her statements appear to be selected for the emotional responses they will elicit, rather than drawn from a coherent ideology. So you can't impute much about her actual understanding from these inanities. For example, I doubt very much that she behaves this way in settings where individuals cannot be easily reduced to ideological tokens (such as, say, real life).
I was created as I am so complex in everything .
Are you afraid of being created would automatically imply a creator ?.
Actually I know who my progenitors are and am quite happy with them.
And yes created implies an entity doing the creating, but any one who thinks they were created has obviously not done much creating.
Spawning and growing is a much more effective method of generating young.
Then you don't really understand it.
Nah, that's only one of the flavors of agnosticism. There are several others, not least of which is agnostic theism (i.e., the simultaneous belief that a deity exists, and that this existance cannot be proven).
lixluke,
What he did say was -
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
and
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
He was a scientist and all he was saying is - it is wrong to make a conclusion unless you have evidence.
It is not a belief system, i.e. a creed, but a method of approaching a problem - seek and show evidence for your claims. Or in other words don't claim to know something until you can show some support for it.
Well, no. Huxley said nothing like that.
What he did say was -
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
and
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
He was a scientist and all he was saying is - it is wrong to make a conclusion unless you have evidence.
It is not a belief system, i.e. a creed, but a method of approaching a problem - seek and show evidence for your claims. Or in other words don't claim to know something until you can show some support for it.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
So I'm not the only one who can understand a nuanced position. Good Deal!
And I must say those are the only theists who have a viable, if irrational, position. They don't know, but they have faith any way just cause.
Agreed. :cheers: Cheers good sir, to the source of beauty, love, intelligence and grace, what ever those may be, and how ever we may view such concepts coming into consciousness of humanity.
I come not to argue or debate, only to pose questions to make one think.
Let's run a credibility check...
You are about to jump out of an airplane and you ask "is my parachute packed right?" and I say "I believe it is." Do you jump?
I point a gun at you and am about to pull the trigger and say "don't worry, I believe it is unloaded" are do you say go ahead?
You are looking at a $60K car and I say "I believe it runs." Is that good enough?
I guess what I'm trying to say is...Who the @#$% cares what you believe?
If you can't offer better due diligence than "I believe," then you don't actually have anything to offer to the conversation. If you can't produce an actual god, then what's the point?
Most words have more than one meaning.
Poorly stated. You are kind of merging two different positions.
Some agnostics work from a personal lack of knowledge. They personally don't know if god exists but are making no general claim about others.
Some agnostics hold the nature of a "god" is such that it is not knowable, just like we can't know what it feels like to stand on the sun. The Buddha put it as any claim we might make of gods is so far off as to be an insult.
Some agnostics just want to see your proof if you are going to make a claim.
In a rational world may be. But the reverse is not true. Not all agnostics are complete skeptics. Many are completely ok with ordinary knowledge.
It all cases it depends who the statement is coming from and one's relationship with the speaker.
For instance if your doctor says "I believe you have a throat infection" what do you do?
If a car mechanic says "I believe you should regrease the bearings" what then?
If your three year old says the same, what then?
And to top it all off, after all is said and done, one person continues to (dis)believe in whatever despite whatever comes to the fore (a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still)
:shrug: