If you aren't agnostic, you suck. :)

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by adj
well . . . . objective truth is worth seeking and can be found from any person's current "status"; hindering it are simply imagination and prior beliefs -- iinstead of looking at the basic simple truth of something, we try to mold it to our predetermined point of view.

This makes it very difficult (impossible?) for typical man. Look a small things first -- the leap from water is wet (to whom? a fish?) to does God exists, without a basic objective reasoing building blocks firmly establised is, well . . . nothing more than a leap of faith

I think I follow you and I believe you to be correct. It is definately a leap of faith. I don't believe it to be a reasonable leap of faith. That's kind of my whole point. I think faith is better place in things like "my foot exists" or "there exists an objective reality" but all are equally leaps of faith. I suppose it's just where you're placing it that I have a problem with. I'm crass and arrogant enough to think that the idea of GOD is actually a horrible place to place faith. (which isn't exactly what i'm arguing in this thread) I might be wrong. I am wise regarding the topic but wisdom has no maximum value. OR DOES IT!?!?!?! LOL. Teasing there.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I think both require agnosticism if the point is objective truth.

No, it's not a prerequisite.

I can't stand theism and I see it to be the most presumptuous assertion possible.

What if I give a cosmotheistic definition and define God as the Universe?

For the sake of my argument I hold the following: Athiests: There IS no GOD or god. Theists: THERE IS A GOD DUMBASS! Agnostics: Not enough info for an accurate decision.

But that's not really the way things are.

I choose this because these are the only ways to define them such that they are unique things. If you say "weak theist" you have destroyed the capacity to reasonable argue against that position. For the purposes of what I'm attempting to assert, I say you've mislabeled "weak theist" or "weak athiest". They are actually agnostics.

I do understand what you're getting at but it makes the dialogue much more adversarial than it needs to be.

Mostly to realize the semantics games that one is tempted with as a philosopher. It's easy to get lost in redefining things. Things like "weak theist". I've realized the only way to advance the argument is to hold to strict definitions, thusly "weak theist" is an oxymoron.

Again, I get it but your lining yourself up for some strong opposition. Point being is that you are setting the definitions in such a way as to preclude argument. Which is rather manipulative. For instance I can define everyone (hopefully) as atheist if I define God as the invisible pink elephant living in my basement. Granted, leaving definitions somewhat up in the air makes things much more complex and difficult to reason out but there is no other truly honest way to do it.

I will admit however, I could be completely full of shit.

No, I do understand and think that you have a relevant point. That being an argument against unremitting assumptions. But I think defining everyone that allows for flexibility and uncertainty as agnostic is not really an accurate representation. Some people choose to hold their judgment in abeyance, these are the agnostics. Others will make a judgment based upon what is available, yet remain open to new argument and evidence. Yet others steadfastly refuse to even consider that they might be wrong, some even refusing to consider hypothetical possibilities. I do agree with you that people of the last example in regards to this subject (and most subjects) are morons.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

so if I define 0, in between and 1, (athiesm, agnosticism and theism) that's not a fair way to set things up? It's a valid comparison by definition and further, the conceptual basis for logic. I'd swear if you focus on that, you'll see something very very important. I'll spew more later. I'm not trying to be presumtuous or condescending. I'm quite earnest in this. Of course I may be completely full of shit (that's my way of saying that I'm agnostic about my own opinion as well as yours) but I mean well.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

In my experience, Agnostics are much better than Atheists. Agnostics are at least open to an extent to certain things.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

in my opinion you should never be part of any group...do your own thinking

 

[adj]

Originally posted by wesmorris
so if I define 0, in between and 1, (athiesm, agnosticism and theism) that's not a fair way to set things up? It's a valid comparison by definition and further, the conceptual basis for logic. I'd swear if you focus on that, you'll see something very very important. I'll spew more later. I'm not trying to be presumtuous or condescending. I'm quite earnest in this. Of course I may be completely full of shit (that's my way of saying that I'm agnostic about my own opinion as well as yours) but I mean well.

you are absolutely correct in your example, however what if your example does not include all possibilities? You see, I have found a way, a "path" that led me to unbelievable (at first) practical conclusions that satisfy most scientific as well as historical religious facts. Now most of science concerns itself with facts and little of religious spouting has anything to do with facts, but if you search for absolute truth in all forms and from all sources, you will find a commonality that ties everything together. In this manner, I have found "god", but NOT in a manner, shape or form that would please any religious group that I know of, and pisses off most! I would say in that manner I am theist (more so than anyone of "faith") but outside your 0 - 1 definition, while being completely atheist about common religious practices and beliefs.

 

[Empty Dragon]

in my opinion you should never be part of any group...do your own thinking

I think thats the whole point.

 

[wesmorris]

Adj,

I've been down that road, but the only way to "go there" is to redefine god. As I've said in my previous arguments, I think that is mincing terms. Generally, I use the "creator of the universe" definition, but will extend it to "gods" like Thor flavor or similars for the purposes of this argument. In my opinion, if you extend the definition further, you are destroying the meaning the word was created to describe (same with my 0 and 1 thing in my last post). I think you have a valid point with what you're saying, it's just that you've extended your definition beyond what is reasonable (in my opinion). You may be fully correct but I would maintain you've got to come up with a new word (other than god) or something (and fully define it) in order to have a strong argument.

 

[Phaedrus]

The problem I have with your debate though, is that you cannot stretch the definitions for the sake of contemplating an alternative perspective.

The problem with this argument is that you are the one who is creating this problem. You are looking at only part of the definition, not the whole thing. When you look at parts of the definition of agnostic-atheist-theist, then your argument becomes valid in the sense that the idea cannot be argued, but again, the definitions can. You cannot look at only one part of a definition. To say that the only thing an atheist says is "I am sure that god does not exists," is incorrect. That is one of the types of atheists, not all of them. I am going by the definitions here, I am not stretching anything. I coped and paste the definitions, so no stretching. What you are trying to do is to shrink the definition. Stop...bad.

Oh wait, first I have to take offense at you telling me my reasoning is flawed without ever really having contemplated it.

I can say your reasoning is flawed all I really want to. You admitted yourself that you have not studied logic, so you cannot be very good at a reasonable argument, since reason requires logic.

All definitions are interpreted subjectively and I don't believe it to be intellectually fair to ignore it when your debate opponent stipulates it early in the argument

Your stipulations are wrong however. I will give an example. Let us say I started a forums called "is christianity wrong?" Then I started to argue, however my definitino of christianity was southern baptist (a protestant denomination). So, the argument title should be "are the southern baptists incorrect." Your problem with this is that you do not clearly show what you mean. If you said, "I am arguing against atheist who say that they are sure god exists." that is one thing, but to say, "atheists who say that are not positive of the fact that god exists are actually agnostics, is another thing all together. You are shrinking the definition of atheist too far, and you are stretching the definition of agnostic too far.

This is the last time I will discuss the word belief when applied to agnosticism, atheist, and theism. So please read carefully. I have taken my info from your favorite dictionary website (www.m-w.com). So feel free to reference.

I have taken this off the m-w.com site off the definition of belief:
BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>.

Atheism (other than the archaic version)
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Theism:
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Agnosticism:
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Now, atheism and theism both use the word "belief" or "disbelief." And the quote from the word belief shows that one does not have to hold a belief as a fact. So, if you follow the correct definitions, a weak atheist would not be an agnostic nor would a weak theist.

Probably. hmm. probably. This hmm.. sounds suspiciously undecided. Almost as if... well. Agnostic. So I say that a weak thiest is really agnostic.

No, as you can see that you are wrong. If you use the broad definition of agnosticism (which I see you do) then you do not believe in the existence or non-existence of god, a theist and agnostic can both "believe," and still not hold for a fact. So you were just using an incorrect assumption. If I say, "I believe my foot exists," so I think you are misconstruing the definitions. Just because it "sounds" like what you think an agnostic is, that does not mean it is.

I will go ahead and attack this:

For the sake of my argument I hold the following: Athiests: There IS no GOD or god. Theists: THERE IS A GOD DUMBASS! Agnostics: Not enough info for an accurate decision.

Yea sure, you can try to redefine if you want. But these are not the proper definitions. It would be the same if I started a thread about Buddhism and defined Buddhism as "The belief that Buddha is the savior of mankind." That is only including parts of buddhism, not the whole thing. How about another example, a forum called "white people respond" and inside the forum I define white people as "people who when standing next to a beige wall, seem lighter than it." That would not include many white people and it would also include a number of people who are black with certain diseases.

Point being is that you are setting the definitions in such a way as to preclude argument. Which is rather manipulative.

I fully agree Raithere.

the conceptual basis for logic.

Wes, please do not speak about logic when you admit you have not studied it.

I've been down that road, but the only way to "go there" is to redefine god.

Hate to tell you, but you cannot define the word God and include all conceptions of god.

- Phaedrus

 

[spuriousmonkey]

quote:

in my opinion you should never be part of any group...do your own thinking

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
I think thats the whole point.

then you also shouldn't be an agnostic

 

[Slacker47]

Agnosticism is true...in a monotheistic sense, but i believe that Buddhism is the true religion. I cannot prove/disprove Nirvana. All i can do is seek enlightenment.

Christians best defense: "But God said so!"
Atheist(which i am): "Its illogical!"

 

[spuriousmonkey]

individual

the whole point of being an 'individualist' (as compared to being an agnostic, atheist, theist, or whatever) is that nothing is true, since every truth is an individual truth and cannot be an universal truth.


ps. i now coined the term 'individualist', but we have to keep in mind that an individualist doesn't belong to any group and hence can't be part of a group named 'individualists.'

 

[Raithere]

Re: individual

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
ps. i now coined the term 'individualist', but we have to keep in mind that an individualist doesn't belong to any group and hence can't be part of a group named 'individualists.'

In this sense we're simply dealing with categorization not defining membership to a group. People may fit in to one or more theistic categories depending upon what they believe, how they believe, and how we define those categories. I tend towards categorizing myself as an atheist but I do hold beliefs that could be defined as agnostic and even theistic (in a cosmotheistic sense).

The whole thing gets very complex very quickly, but such is the nature of our world. I find that it is necessary to keep things like this in mind and remain flexible so that we can continue to discuss and examine these important ideas in as many ways as possible. Truth often pops up in the strangest of places and constraining one's thoughts to narrow definition limits our ability to address and find them. Wes's definitions are fine in regards to the point he was making and the perception he was trying to relay... we just need to be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that there is only one correct definition and only one way of thinking about things.

~Raithere

 

[Zero]

I think, the reason why inter-religious debate never reaches a conclusion is because all viewpoints have a different structure of reasoning and their fundamental assumptions are different. Same to what they focus on when they search for "truth". A perfect recipe for :m:

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

 

[adj]

Zero; you're right that inter religious debate does not go far because the source of "reason" is belief based -- with different beliefs seeming incompatable.

How about considering the various "successful" religions, such as Hindu, Shinto, Buddism, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, et al -- could it be a reasonable assumption (hate that word) that there must be some underlying truth in each of them, otherwise they would not "succeed"? And would not any truths there also exist in scientific form? Philosophical form?

What I'm getting at is, what can you discover that is absolute truth (verses simple belief) in the various religions that they all have in common? Like, do they all have an "in the beginning" which could lead you to the conclusion that at least something had a beginning as opposed to an "always been there?'

For example, the great flood of the Christian belief can be found in other beliefs as well (the Zuni indians for one) -- does that lend support to a reasonable person to begin to accept that event as factual? What other common "features" or events or beliefs can you find, and in doing so, does that increase the possibility of there being underlying truth in them?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Phaedrus
The problem with this argument is that you are the one who is creating this problem. You are looking at only part of the definition, not the whole thing. When you look at parts of the definition of agnostic-atheist-theist, then your argument becomes valid in the sense that the idea cannot be argued, but again, the definitions can. You cannot look at only one part of a definition. To say that the only thing an atheist says is "I am sure that god does not exists," is incorrect. That is one of the types of atheists, not all of them. I am going by the definitions here, I am not stretching anything. I coped and paste the definitions, so no stretching. What you are trying to do is to shrink the definition. Stop...bad.

You sound like a fascist. I can qualify an argument however I like.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

I can say your reasoning is flawed all I really want to.

Of course you can, but it doesn't mean you're right.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

You admitted yourself that you have not studied logic

I have a BS in Industrial Engineering. I've taken a complete series in probability, operations research methods, mathematics through differential equations, and well a bunch more junk. I won't give you my entire transcript but I'm quite qualified to discuss logic. I've just never taken a philosophy course specifically.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

so you cannot be very good at a reasonable argument, since reason requires logic.

that's pretty presumptuous. you sound a little frustrated.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Your stipulations are wrong however. I will give an example. Let us say I started a forums called "is christianity wrong?" Then I started to argue, however my definitino of christianity was southern baptist (a protestant denomination). So, the argument title should be "are the southern baptists incorrect." Your problem with this is that you do not clearly show what you mean. If you said, "I am arguing against atheist who say that they are sure god exists."

that's bascially what I said, except for I've added the stipulation that I'm convinced that if you are an athiest who says that they aren't sure if god exists you've mislabelled yourself such that you make a successful argument against your position impossible. (hence I'm saying it defines itself). Consider the following: If I'm am to describe my confidence level as to if you exist there are three inherent possibilities. You exist, you don't exist or, I'm not sure if you exist. a ven diagram of that solution set would graphically display the fact the possibilities are mutually exclusive. It is a circle with a line through it. On one side, yes, on the other no and outside the circle, undecided. I cannot logically say "my position is that 'i exist but I'm not sure if I exist'" because those two sets do not overlap. You are making a non-statement which inherently in this case lumps you into the middle or "you're not sure" because in order for you to BE sure you have to go through the act of categorization. the words aithiest, agnostic and theist all include the relevent relationship as just described within their definitions. my contention is twofold: 1) invoking a word assigns intentionality, which allows me to qualify an argument; and 2) the words atheist, agnostic and theist are intended to desribe the relationship described before (0, between, and 1, athiest, agnostic and theist).

I'm probably not allowed to think that stuff either eh?. *giggle* (sorry I'm easily amused)

Originally posted by Phaedrus

that is one thing, but to say, "atheists who say that are not positive of the fact that god exists are actually agnostics, is another thing all together. You are shrinking the definition of atheist too far, and you are stretching the definition of agnostic too far.

you sound like a fascist.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

This is the last time I will discuss the word belief when applied to agnosticism, atheist, and theism. So please read carefully. I have taken my info from your favorite dictionary website (www.m-w.com). So feel free to reference.

you're very kind.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

I have taken this off the m-w.com site off the definition of belief:
BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>.

Now, atheism and theism both use the word "belief" or "disbelief." And the quote from the word belief shows that one does not have to hold a belief as a fact. So, if you follow the correct definitions, a weak atheist would not be an agnostic nor would a weak theist.

yes, but I can use the the word believe to say "I hold as fact" without having to use that many words to say it. it can be infered or specified by the person who made the statement. you still sound like a fascist to me.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

No, as you can see that you are wrong.

I would say in the worst case we're both correct, but I'm pretty sure I'm more correct.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

If you use the broad definition of agnosticism (which I see you do) then you do not believe in the existence or non-existence of god, a theist and agnostic can both "believe," and still not hold for a fact. So you were just using an incorrect assumption.

No, I'm invoking an instance of a definition. I've established that.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

If I say, "I believe my foot exists," so I think you are misconstruing the definitions. Just because it "sounds" like what you think an agnostic is, that does not mean it is.
- Phaedrus

I don't get it.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

I will go ahead and attack this:

Yea sure, you can try to redefine if you want. But these are not the proper definitions.

I redefined nothing. I used the part of the defition I was talking about. I even said that was what I was doing and you told me I'm not allowed to do that. I say, "can so.".

Originally posted by Phaedrus

It would be the same if I started a thread about Buddhism and defined Buddhism as "The belief that Buddha is the savior of mankind." That is only including parts of buddhism, not the whole thing.

Okay. Go ahead. I'd be all "you mean, you're only talking about the buddists who think that thing about budda?" and you'd be all "yeah" and I'd be all "ok then.. " and be able to keep track of what you meant throughout your argument. at the end I'd be all "those one buddists are that way" and know that it doesn't neccesarily apply to all buddists because that's what you'd stipulated at the beginning of the argument. I might however, ponder to myself at that point though "hmmmm... I mean, what does it really mean to be buddist, it seems to me that most buddists believe.. bla blah bla" and then explore that whole thing.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

How about another example, a forum called "white people respond" and inside the forum I define white people as "people who when standing next to a beige wall, seem lighter than it." That would not include many white people and it would also include a number of people who are black with certain diseases.

you say "here's this relationship, now this stuff, based on this relationship" I have to say "yeah, that stuff, based on that relationship is true" though that relationship may not always be valid, that is the function of a stipulation.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

I fully agree Raithere.

*giggle* uh, well you guys now come on. first of all, manipulation is what we are all doing when we engage in debate. we are trying to manipulate our communication skills such that we attain our objective (different for all of us I'm sure, but prolly most based in curiosity). yes, i manipulate the language to attempt to argue my perspective. guilty as charged.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Wes, please do not speak about logic when you admit you have not studied it.- Phaedrus

Okay, now I'm SURE you're a fascist. Wow you're cocky. Well, I respect your confidence I guess though it seems misplaced.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Hate to tell you, but you cannot define the word God and include all conceptions of god.

what if i say i don't have to because you just did? how about if I define god as "all conceptions of god" and leave it as a recursive relationship? what if I add " what if I say "god is whatever you say god is". You are destroying the word for the purposes of your argument. You take all meaning from it. In general, the word god describes "the intelligence behind the design" or "the higher consciousness" or "the creator" or something like that. it implies intelligence. It is valid to discuss that, further, the word has to MEAN something. You suck all meaning from it when you asser that "you cannot define the word god and include all conceptions of god". Further, I specified all pertinent definitions as soon as I realized my intent had not been properly communicated.