All he did was thow down the gauntlet.
I'd like to help out by being paratheistic (see early post by someone) but I can't, I just can't, I have struggles enought with even one, which you all know I can't with either.
Paratheistic is belief in more than one god? Yes? I'd like to believe in multi deism - you know, checks and balances and all.
Multi-deism? Paratheism? Isn't that what the ancient greeks used to have? Ooh, that's old school...
It's what someone mentioned earlier in the thread and I glommed on to, for lack of something better to do. I am personally even less enthused about paras than uni gods.
Quote:Isn't that what the ancient greeks used to have?
No, that was the killer cocktail of pinworms and syphilis.
Pin worms, euwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
parados wrote:I get the feeling God told Frank to start this thread.
Maybe its the same God that told Pat Robertson that judges should be impeached.
this will be interesting to watch
Since we're on the subject of umm something to do with theism... what's pantheism?
Quietly sits and watches.
Frank, you never answered my claim (on more than one occasion) that implicit in the agnostic's position is the notion that there MAY be a god. Since you don't know; there is, in your logic, just as much chance that god exists as not. I know your emphasis is on your not knowing, either way. As such, you claim that the atheist is just as irrational as is the theist. Do you really believe that? I predict that your answer will evade my question.
I'm off to bed; I hope to awaken to your response tomorrow.
Frank,
Here's my issue. You're playing word games.
Anyone of the meanest intelligence realises that their beliefs and knowledge have a margin of error. This doesn't prevent you from holding an opinion on a matter.
There are cases where it is otherwise, where ignorance is so total that you can't even venture an opinion. If someone asks me what football team will win the next grand final, I have to admit that I have no idea. My complete ignorance of football would mean any guess would simply be naming at random one of the few teams whose names I know. (though in and of itself that would give me a better than random chance of accuracy since fame and success are somewhat linked).
I'm an atheist. Do I know that there is no divine entities? Hell no. Never the less I hold an opinion. My belief, is also that YOU have an opinion, concious or unconcious, voiced or unvoiced. The problem is that you're playing wordgames and stating that you "don't know".
The thing is, no one (of any intelligence) is asking you what you know. They're asking you for your opinion, because that's all any of us have. To claim agnositicism here, is to say that you know so little about the field that you can't even form an opinion which I find unrealistic in the environment of our religious culture.
Stop playing word games and join the rest of us in venturing to share our opinions, instincts and feelings. We're all agnostic. But that doesn't stop us from being atheists or theists, even if only mildly one way or the other.
If morality was not tied to god no one would be having this conversation, because no one would care. Heaven/hell would not exist as an eventual reward/punishment for following the 'absolute' morals of a given deity. I refuse to accept the irrational morality of others based on a higher power whose existence cannot presently be proven.
If one is going to use the existence of a god to justify his or her moral beliefs, it is necessary to prove the existence of said deity. Personally, by professing agnosticism, I make the point that the existence or nonexistence of a higher power is wholly irrelevant to the equation of morality. A person should lead a moral life regardless of his personal beliefs regarding supernatural entities.
I suspect that morals were not handed down from gods, but rather that gods were created to support morality. If any given moral statement does not make rational sense, then it should be discarded. Whether god says it should be so is impossible to tell, and therefore his input cannot be added into the equation. Reason is our only guide in this matter. Just because at some point it was written down does not make it the word of god.
Why shouldn't we think for ourselves?
Wow...I look in and four pages already.
Thank you everyone for participating.
But I am waiting for Lola and Blatham.
fredjones wrote:If one is going to use the existence of a god to justify his or her moral beliefs, it is necessary to prove the existence of said deity.
Exactly. I never thought about it that way before, but that makes a lot of sense.
Quote:Personally, by professing agnosticism, I make the point that the existence or nonexistence of a higher power is wholly irrelevant to the equation of morality.
Well yes, naturally. However that's not the issue. The issue is, do you think that a god exists?
Quote:I suspect that morals were not handed down from gods, but rather that gods were created to support morality.
I like it... Very nice theory.
I've seen a theory that early deists, who associated their clan with a potential source of food, were involved in a sort of resource partitioning. Because a group was not allowed to exploit this source except at times of ceremonial significance, neighboring clans could live in close proximity without clashing over scarce resources (as the clans would have different deities).
Purely speculative and probably wildly wrong, but an idea nonetheless.
LOL........back later.
Do I want to do this again? Well, maybe one more try. He he
Lola wrote:LOL........back later.
Do I want to do this again? Well, maybe one more try. He he
Again?
You mean we've had this discussion before???
This is not a good start!
JLNobody wrote: ...Since you don't know; there is, in your logic, just as much chance that god exists as not. I know your emphasis is on your not knowing, either way. As such, you claim that the atheist is just as irrational as is the theist. Do you really believe that?
I'm not Frank but yes, I really believe that.
