Display:
Thanks. I did not like your introducing the notion of "belief" for agnosticism in your earlier comment. I understand your classification, esxcept this one: how can you be a non-agnostic weak atheist??

Weak atheist: you don't believe in god, but don't say there isn't one
non-agnostic: it's possible to know whether god exists.

How can you both know and not know if god exists?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is possible that there could be positive proof of a god. There just isn't. Mind you, you need a good definition of god to come along.

I don't believe in unicorns, but I accept it's possible someone could produce one. I don't not believe in unicorns, not do I believe it's impossible to prove they exist.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see how a positive proof of the existence of god could exist. Hence Pascal's bet.
That's the strength of religions : making you believe something that cannot be proved altogether.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He could drop by for coffee.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:01:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Possibly with his birth-cert.

I'm not being entirely frivolous here: there are possible positive proofs that something god-like could exist  - depending on your definition of god.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pascal's bet has two problems. One is that some gods require honesty in belief. Another is that it is a false dichotomy: if you believe in god A, that doesn't shield you from the wrath of god B should religion B have been correct.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, so, do I have this right?:

you don't believe in god, don't know if there is one of not, but are willing to be convinced either way if a good proof comes along.

That's me as well, then. What were we arguing about, exactly, throughout the day?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:59:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Were we arguing? I thought of it as clarifying.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree - we were looking at different definitions of fundamentalism and at the history of the term.

whistle, whistle,

has the teacher gone, Colman?

Here take that, and you DoDO, buh, argh, uff, autsch

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 01:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think that Jérôme was even able to follow that part of the debate, which is sort of strange.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 01:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sigh I really am not funny, I thought I may make you smile, but then you are just keeping on the thread...

with regards to Jerome,

wouldn't know - don't feel competend to comment

...

hehe, another funny comment, as if that had ever stopped me...

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 01:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You made smile ; Jérôme is not available as far as I know...:)

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry,
I forgot the most important word : ME.
You made ME smile.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
See his remarks way upthread.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I saw them, but religion is a topic I am <s>fundamentally
 <s> unable to argue over with Jérôme. I am a fundamentalist tolerant.
OK, enough with this.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't believe there is a god. I could be wrong. That's all. I don't know if there is one - or many - but I have no reason to believe there are any. I'm just not claiming access to absolute truth.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That sums up my view well.  I think it's a discussion that will go on for thousands of years and perhaps never be settled.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the ultimate hurdle you cannot avoid : faith is about something one can never hold for sure to be there and last. Like love, no matter how hard we try, we can never rest assured that love will not fade away.
Willing to be convinced is a scientific way of thinking, not a religious/sentimental one. They cannot coexist.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:09:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is why the fundamentalists have such a problem with science.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:10:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the ultimate hurdle you cannot avoid : faith is about something one can never hold for sure to be there and last. Like love, no matter how hard we try, we can never rest assured that love will not fade away.
Willing to be convinced is a scientific way of thinking, not a religious/sentimental one. They cannot coexist.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:10:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oops... Double post, sorry.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fixed already.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I killed one, so that's a triple post. I think.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:12:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lemme introduce a further consideration.

Making a decision.

I am a weak atheist who even has time for the religious gnostic argument, that you can know the truth of a religion by faith. Only: as all kinds of religions have believers who think faith was a route to Truth for them, which one to try first?

Similarly, as long as none of them seems more well-founded than a couple of others, you don't need to pose 'absolute' standards of proof for various gods and religions.

A further issue is whether you see the knowability of the existence of gods as a question different from say the knowability of the existence of Saturn or giant squids or fairies or toothbrushes (and that would lead to a whole discussion about the meaning of "to know").

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. Plus, I hinted at false dichotomies. The question is not whether a god exists or not, but whether god A, god B, set of god Ci, god D. etc or noe of them exists. I din't have to disprove every god in one go. (I also note that philosophical agnostics themselves usually restrict their argument to a 'nontrivial' [<-their word] monotheistic God, quite freely discarding most gods.) But I don't want to be more detailed than that, we could debate this single issue for a week.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Almost like me :) I do believe in God, but I don't believe in the possibility of a positive proof of his existence. And I do not believe someone could produce a hard evidence.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:05:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, you're another agnostic theist :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:19:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wonderful DoDo, thanks to you I eventually know who I am ! :)

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow, true faith!

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I did not like your introducing the notion of "belief" for agnosticism in your earlier comment.

Oh, sorry about that, I haven't even noticed (and put it better the second time without even realising I used a different word :-)) - it was sloppiness on my part. (On the other hand, in my experience, those emphasizing their agnosticism tend to call atheism a belief and vice versa - while some of both call their own views a knowledge which is an even stronger claim.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:33:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series