Agnosticism: To believe or NOT to believe...

Ruash,

That post by McG was not directed at me at all. LOL

Are you saying that you do not have the PMs anymore? Frankly I do not know, don't care either because you seem to be confirming this youself.

Now like I said, this can be proven if you want to allow it. I'm not using my knowledge of the system to attack you. You are just wary that there really is a way to prove that you are lying.

0 Replies

You are using the system. You just posted

Quote:

Original PMs are only accessible from your account or that of those you sent it to. So your account is now frozen (so that you can't delete anything) and you have a choice.

You will need a new account to answer about your decision.

Choice 1: Your login will be reset and the login posted here so that others can see the "original" PMs as you demand. That is the only way to satisfy your demand for access to "original" PMs.

Choice 2: If the PMs are still there you can have me take screen shots of the PMs and post them.

Choice 3: You can quit lying and cut your losses.

Number 1 and number 2 satisfy your demands. I will be more than happy to oblige you.

So if you have another way, do it. You need to back up what you have accussed me of.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Ruach wrote:
What if an agnostic states God is stupid, God is cruel. Doesn't that leave the listener to have the opinion that the agnostic is leaning to a side of credibility of God that they claim they do not know exists.

Not if the agnostic is saying that the god described in the Bible is a murderous, jealous, quick to anger, vengeful, barbaric monster.

That is the kind of god described in the Bible. It is appropriate for an agnostic to mention that.

There is no belief involved there.

Read the Bible -- and you will see that the god described in it is all the things I've mentioned.

But you have enough information to discredit another's beliefs?

The God of the bible is also describes as a loving, caring, forgiving God who provided a world for man to inhabit, yet you repeatedly only choose to be derisive and inflammatory in your words on others Gods.

Is it because you lack belief that you need to stomp on others beliefs?

If you have no belief in God one way or another, it would seem that you should steer clear of the religious fora altogether as all you seem to do is make people angry with you.

I am not interested in whether or not people are angry with me, McG -- and I find the religion threads very interesting, so I will continue to post in them.

YOU initiated this thread because of a discussion we were having in another thread.

The thread is about AGNOSTICISM.

I am an agnostic.

And now you are, in effect, telling me to butt out.

You are simply not thinking clearly on this issue, McG.

0 Replies

Craven,

Quote:

That post by McG was not directed at me at all. LOL

Jesus again you don't read. I never said it was to you, as a fact it was to me. This is what is nasty about a2k. Bickering and quibbeling over who said what. I state things clearly, you can't understand, or read concisely or choose to be condescending to look better to others. That is your personality.

0 Replies

Please post my pm's. I ask in the interest of fairness for you to post all of your pm's also so that people can see who called who names and under what circumstances that you dream of. IF you do not do this then every one will know that you are a moral coward and a pseudo intellectual idiot. Because regardless of what is written in english you continue to subvert it to your own convoluted ideology. Which , as anyone who has a modicum of understanding of the english language is evident as to what I have actually written, not what you and others have in the recesses of your moral bankruptcy decided. Craven, you have said you were once a Christian and inspite of your professed non belief now God Loves You and I in the name of Jesus love you too and will lift you up in prayer. That all might someday know the Joy of the Lord is your strength. Very Happy

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ruach wrote:
What if an agnostic states God is stupid, God is cruel. Doesn't that leave the listener to have the opinion that the agnostic is leaning to a side of credibility of God that they claim they do not know exists.

Not if the agnostic is saying that the god described in the Bible is a murderous, jealous, quick to anger, vengeful, barbaric monster.

That is the kind of god described in the Bible. It is appropriate for an agnostic to mention that.

There is no belief involved there.

Read the Bible -- and you will see that the god described in it is all the things I've mentioned.

But you have enough information to discredit another's beliefs?

The God of the bible is also describes as a loving, caring, forgiving God who provided a world for man to inhabit, yet you repeatedly only choose to be derisive and inflammatory in your words on others Gods.

Is it because you lack belief that you need to stomp on others beliefs?

If you have no belief in God one way or another, it would seem that you should steer clear of the religious fora altogether as all you seem to do is make people angry with you.

I am not interested in whether or not people are angry with me, McG -- and I find the religion threads very interesting, so I will continue to post in them.

YOU initiated this thread because of a discussion we were having in another thread.

The thread is about AGNOSTICISM.

I am an agnostic.

And now you are, in effect, telling me to butt out.

You are simply not thinking clearly on this issue, McG.

And I appreciate you posting. Your unique perspective on things has made me change my views on many subjects.

I am telling no one to butt out of anything Frank, I just know now how to regard your further posts on topics of belief and I hope others can do the same. Maybe that will help to save future threads from becoming whatthis one has become.

So feel free to spread your particular faith/non-faith/whatever as, for the most part, I find your views interesting.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I used to believe that Craven was the Anti-Christ, but then it occurred to me that as i have no good reason to believe the Christ fairy tale, that he must be the Anti-something else. I'm still working on just what that may be . . .

LOL! I have called Craven the anti-christ in jest, too!

However, for the purposes of this forum, I would think the fairest "anti" descriptor would be "anti-unfairness".

He is the fairest anti whatever I have ever come across.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I am telling no one to butt out of anything Frank, I just know now how to regard your further posts on topics of belief and I hope others can do the same.

I could not ask for any more.

For the record --have you come to any conclusions?

Quote:

Maybe that will help to save future threads from becoming whatthis one has become.

I hope no other threads get like this one.

Quote:

So feel free to spread your particular faith/non-faith/whatever as, for the most part, I find your views interesting.

Thank you, McG.

I suspect however that you still do not see that I am not spreading faith nor non-faith. I am simply sharing my views here in an Internet forum designed for that purpose.

And of course, since I am an agnostic, my views often take a decidedly agnostic slant.

I look forward to continuing our discussions -- if not in this thread -- then in the others where we will trade perspectives.

0 Replies

Er - I hesitate to walk in here, and I wonder if what I am going to say has already been said - I haven't read everything - apologies if it has.

To be an agnostic seems to me to be obviously a belief. I do not think it forms a belief SYSTEM, as such, necessarily - but I believe it is PART of a belief system - some of which might not always be immediately obvious to the believer.

For instance, agnosticism is generally based on the whole "enlightenment" belief system of rationality over mysticism - logic over intuition - investigation over authority - empiricism over revelation.

0 Replies

Ruach,

Jesus told me that I was being stupid to play along with the PM denials. Jesus also told me to get coding on a solution to this.

So I obeyed, now there's a "report PM" feature that will send the reported messages to the moderators. Hopefully this will mean less reports sent to me and more that they can take care of.

It was a long overdue feature and you helped show why it's so necessary. Thanks.

0 Replies

dlowan,

Exactly!...the meanng of a concept lies in its social evolution. It is a token of interactional exchange between self/other (or self/self). This is valid for all concepts "God", "Reality ," "Agnosticism", "Objectivity", etc. We cannot examine one element of the web without examining them all.

0 Replies

LOL! There's another belief system...

0 Replies

True ! (Whatever THAT means in THIS social context) Cool

0 Replies

Bit of an infinite regression, ain't it?

0 Replies

Wittgenstein would perhaps say "not quite". Social recognition of the limits of a particular discourse is essentially "agreement". The rest tends to "word salad" or the playing of different "language games".

This point is transcendent of an infinite regress.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Er - I hesitate to walk in here, and I wonder if what I am going to say has already been said - I haven't read everything - apologies if it has.

To be an agnostic seems to me to be obviously a belief.

It may seem that way to you -- but it isn't.

Quote:

I do not think it forms a belief SYSTEM, as such, necessarily - but I believe it is PART of a belief system - some of which might not always be immediately obvious to the believer.

Okay, enlighten me. What specifically am I "believing?"

Quote:

For instance, agnosticism is generally based on the whole "enlightenment" belief system of rationality over mysticism - logic over intuition - investigation over authority - empiricism over revelation.

I ask again, what specifically am I "believing?"

0 Replies

Well,
I don't mean to answer for Craven, but he has posited that the mere declaration of ignorance by one on the question of the existance of god(s) is based on a conclusion reached about the available information one has, which itself, the conclusion reached about one's available information, is a belief.

Quote:

What I will say is that even then the individual believes that the information they currently have (regardless of what they do not have) indicates a certain conclusion.

Different individuals can come to different conclusions with the same amount of information. This is why it's subjective and can result in different beliefs.

To give an example, Frank says that the information available to him does not lean one way or the other and as such he believes agnosticism is the most sound course.

I think that the information available to Frank should point to atheism. I *believe* that this conclusion is sound.

With pretty much the exact same information, we believe different conclusions are the best.

and goes further, saying,

Quote:

Now even if you try to make it a total void of information there is differing beliefs on what consitutes relevant information at all.

For example one person could see human nature as evidence of no god, another could see it as evidence for a god, and another could see it as irrelevant information altogether.

So even if someone says they are ignorant of any such evidence it's possible that this belief comes into question. The belief that certain items are evidence to one way, or the other, or not evidence at all.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Well,
I don't mean to answer for Craven, but he has posited that the mere declaration of ignorance by one on the question of the existance of god(s) is based on a conclusion reached about the available information one has, which itself, the conclusion reached about one's available information, is a belief.

Quote:
What I will say is that even then the individual believes that the information they currently have (regardless of what they do not have) indicates a certain conclusion.

Different individuals can come to different conclusions with the same amount of information. This is why it's subjective and can result in different beliefs.

To give an example, Frank says that the information available to him does not lean one way or the other and as such he believes agnosticism is the most sound course.

I think that the information available to Frank should point to atheism. I *believe* that this conclusion is sound.

With pretty much the exact same information, we believe different conclusions are the best.

and goes further, saying,

Quote:
Now even if you try to make it a total void of information there is differing beliefs on what consitutes relevant information at all.

For example one person could see human nature as evidence of no god, another could see it as evidence for a god, and another could see it as irrelevant information altogether.

So even if someone says they are ignorant of any such evidence it's possible that this belief comes into question. The belief that certain items are evidence to one way, or the other, or not evidence at all.

Not completely sure what you are getting at here, InfraBlue, but if the final line is that I must "believe" I do not know the answers to the questions to which I say I do not know answers -- then you are wrong.

Frankly, a "belief" only becomes a "belief" when someone identifies it as a belief.

I, or anyone else, can make a guess or estimate -- without it being a "belief."

All beliefs are guesses (they are statements about the unknown) -- but not all guesses are beliefs.

"Beliefs" are guesses that someone is trying to disguise.

0 Replies

If a belief is only a belief when it's self-identified as a belief all the believers who wish to think they are in some special catageory of "knowing" only with no beliefs can delude themselves into thinking so.

Frank,

Do you believe that I do not have enough information to draw a sound conclusion that there is no god?

If you do not believe this but "know" this then I have a follow up.

0 Replies

Frank - you are believing that there is insufficient evidence either way to form an opinion about whether there is a god.

You think this is an obvious reality, or something, I think - but it is based on a whole series of beliefs about, for example, what evidence consists of, that people are entitled to make up their own minds, rather than simply accede to authority (eg think of the Wife of Bath's Tale - "experience, though no authority were in this world, is right enough for me to speak of the woe that is in marriage" - Chaucer here was reflecting the Mediaeval belief that authority - eg the church, was the arbiter of reality, not "experience" or empiricism - the Wife is showing her daring character by questioning this, as thinkers were at the time).

0 Replies

Agnosticism: To believe or NOT to believe...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know