Sorry Actinoids, Agnostic doesnt require faith and i am not so sure that Theism is an absolute since it is recognized as involving some kind of faith. This is why i say there cannot be such a thing as an Atheist. I dont care what a person calls themselves but if we are going for accuracy then i know i am 100% correct. Bit it is good to know the definitions because most Atheists i come across do not seem to know the definition and dont realize they are Agnostic.
What caused you to turn away from your faith?
- Thread starter Acitnoids
- Start date
Sorry Actinoids, Agnostic doesnt require faith and i am not so sure that Theism is an absolute since it is recognized as involving some kind of faith. This is why i say there cannot be such a thing as an Atheist. I dont care what a person calls themselves but if we are going for accuracy then i know i am 100% correct. Bit it is good to know the definitions because most Atheists i come across do not seem to know the definition and dont realize they are Agnostic.
Agnostic. Agnosticism is not encapsulated within Atheism per se.
Then you're wrong.
Sorry dyw, i just cannot be wrong. Not on this. My view comes from a place of logic and reasoning. If i say it cannot exist (given the state of proofs) then there is no reason to give it a name.
More evidence of your faulty "thinking".
You are wrong, as you have been many times.
I doubt that. It may based on what you consider logic and reasoning, but...
Wrong again.
Atheism (like theism) is based on belief not proof.
An atheist believes there is no god, a theist believes there is.
If Atheism was based on belief then it is Agnostic. The reason is because once you say 'believe' then you are saying you can also believe the opposite whereas now you are saying 'maybe'.
So i say:
pers. 1: I believe the car was red.
pers. 2: but it may have been blue?
pers. 1: of course it may have been blue, i i knew it was red i would not have said 'i believe'.
Agnosticism is not what is perceived to be Atheism
Utter bull.
By your "logic" theism would also be agnostic, since they don't know for sure, they just believe.
Nope. Wrong.
Agnosticism is admitting you don't know.
Atheism is (generally) saying you believe for sure there isn't a god.
What?
How does that come into it?
I'm not sure what you mean by "permeates science" but I do know which part of my post you're referring to. I was comparing two forms of faith. In one hand we have those who are willing to accept another persons faith without asking for a shred of empirical evidence in return. In the other hand we have those who are willing to accept another persons belief in something for as long as there is a good chance that empirical evidence can be found. In both cases we have two sets of people who are willing to accept another persons belief simply on faith.
"Boyant"?
Why did they build the LHC? It had to of taken a measurable degree of faith to strap Yuri Gagarin into a Vostok 3KA spacecraft on April 12, 1961. Not only was he the first man to journey into outer space but he also completed one full orbit around the planet. He had to believe that everyone in his space program did exactly what they were suppose to do and they all had to believe that what they were doing could be done.
That wont cut it.
More arrant nonsense.
Since theism and atheism are statements of belief then (again by your "logic") they are both agnostic.
There are no facts available to decide who is correct.
Posting one-liners such as the above doesn't help your "argument" one whit.
You failed miserably to support your position since it's based on your own personal (twisted) assessment.
your previous post (#167) supports my argument quite well.
Then you really should learn to read and to understand what you read.
It denies, categorically, your "position".
Atheism is a belief (i.e. there are no facts to support it) as is theism. Therefore your claim that atheists are really agnostics because it's a belief is entirely wrong.
If atheism is actually agnostic then so is theism.
The definition is a statement of personal belief.
The word is a descriptor.
How many years of research with the senses would you expect it to take to locate something beyond the sesnes?
I'm not denying that empiricism is valid in certain contexts.
What I am questioning is whether or to what degree post dated rain cheques are compatible with it.
It also takes an element of faith to accept the instruction manual that comes with a kiddie chemistry set.
It becomes something slightly different when you extrapolate that to all circumstances.
For instance its one thing to say "we can send a man into space"
It becomes something else to say "we can one day send a man anywhere into space"
Or similarly its one thing to say "light rays can be materially reduced to an analysis of its particles"
And its another to say "all things can be reduced to an analysis of its particles"
In both cases, the underlying faith of both claims is the superiority of the senses. IOW it presupposes that there is nothing "knowable" outside of applying one's senses.
This approach doesn't factor in the existence of higher sentience (such as god), an existence we wouldn't expect to be privy to with the blunt application of one's senses.
As a gross example, take the example of the president.
On an empirical level, all that is required to directly perceive him is to open about 15 doors at the whitehouse.
However since the president enjoys a higher social status, such an approach won't see one get past the first of his 100 secretaries. Rather, direct perception is achieved by being compliant with his needs, interests and concerns (which is how such persons as the secretary of defense and others get to directly perceive him).
Validating the existence of god occurs along similar lines.
Feel free to indicate anything you have located without one of the senses... and I'm not just talking your five classical senses. And then show how you are locating it without... um... sensing it? :shrug:How many years of research with the senses would you expect it to take to locate something beyond the sesnes?
To what extent would your life change if it turned out President Obama was really just a figurehead or a fictional being? To what extent would your life change if the same turned out for "God"? Which one serves as more of a basis for your way of life? Besides, it doesn't take that much dedication to catch a glimpse of the President if you feel it's that important; you don't have to go through a series of rituals, change your personal philosophy or take anyone's second-hand word for it. Go to a campaign rally in some quaint little town, presidents go everywhere looking for votes these days. Besides, if there were to be a set of public trials to see which could be proven more real by the most accurate measurements, Obama couldn't possibly lose.
huh?
You're not just talking about the 5 senses?
What non-empirical gibberish are you spouting?
Then we would have a radically different picture on the role of the individual in regards to the nation (at least as far as an american citizen is concerned) ... which would also trickle down into international affairs given the key figure of the USA
The same as above, except the ante is upped since the playing field is the universe.
Given that it is the universe that houses all things, including nations and the political parties that lead them, it should be obvious
If you want to lend authority to second hand accounts and re-presentations, its also just as easy to do the same with god
If its not direct perception, you certainly are taking someone's word for it ... and you certainly are bringing on board a whole levy of ideas and knowledge that makes the term "president" vastly more distinguishable than "janitor" or even "manager"
Kind of amazing the results one can procure by applying one's self in accordance with the desire and intentions of the personality, isn't it?
well sure
If we composed a similar across the board trial for electrons vs tomato plants, guess what people would be having in their salad?