Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

I'll send along everyone's wishes. That should help. We need more cantankerous men around here.....we don't have enough.

I just love irascible people. They're so vinegarish. Yum

You're a naughty, Mr. Snood!

Lola:-

If you call that being naughty it explains some of your earlier positions.

Would you provide your definition of "naughty?" Mr. first-we-need-to-define-our-terms.

Lola:-

Naughty is a girly thing really but it is permissible under the poetic licence regulations to stretch it to cover full-blown ladies providing that readers are aware of the dangers.
It is also a relative term.What is naughty to some is all in an evening's work to others.Location is also important.Certain events which take place in public ceremonials when a Queen in a place like Tonga has her annual equivalent of Opening The Houses of Parliament ritual would probably be considered to be very naughty in places like Albuquerque.It's a matter of taste.
It is not a word I would use in relation to male behaviour.It connotes fun,shamelessness,harmlessness and approved self indulgence out of reach of previously held repressions.

How's that?

Snood merely expressed in the nicest way what some of us felt.He ought to be complimented for his restraint.

Calling him naughty was a compliment.......and I called you a naughty too.

Lola:-

I'm more interested in what you thought of my tentative definition of "naughty" your Naughtiness.

I agree with your tentative definition. And I also admit to being a girl.

Hey guys, how about the meaning of "ghastly"?

Codeborg/tcis: I've had a few discussions with Frank on this subject, and while I've rarely(if ever) had a problem with his language, other people are quite frequently on the receiving end. I think it happens as a result of his experience.

He has heard most of these arguments many times before, and as such is exasperated by them, which leads to his being abrupt with "newbies". Then, when they respond to this perceived slight in an insulting manner, he responds in kind twice as hard, which makes people even more upset.

I personally think he could stand to tone himself down, but I completely understand why he thinks he shouldn't have to.

As far as the actual topic of this thread goes: speaking as another agnostic, I would say that "word games" isn't what agnosticism is about. Someone earlier made the point about probability, which I think is true: you can have opinions, and lean towards one side or another, and still be an agnostic, but the difference, I think, lies in theists/atheists' unwillingness to admit that their beliefs are based on guesswork/probability, and profession that they "know" one way or another.

I personally think there is slightly more evidence substantiating the position that God does exist...but only by a small, highly unreliable margin, so I remain in the neutral category of the agnostic(with a leaning, though). While I cannot say this with any definite ability, I think Frank has just collected so much information about both sides that they balance out in his mind, and he truly is in the middle.

Once people know how to discuss things with him, I think that they find he is very interesting...unfortunately, it's hard to do that unless you already agree with him.

That's my explanation of Frank; anyone else have something to add? Also, why exactly was Frank kicked off? That's no good.

Great taliesin 181,

I'm sure I'm not the only curious one re. your position that God "does" exist. Please, let us hear your evidence.

Taliesin, I do not think that Frank's positions is like yours. You say that:

I personally think there is slightly more evidence substantiating the position that God does exist...but only by a small, highly unreliable margin, so I remain in the neutral category of the agnostic(with a leaning, though). While I cannot say this with any definite ability, I think Frank has just collected so much information about both sides that they balance out in his mind, and he truly is in the middle.

I tried to get him to acknowledge that agnosticism is what you claim, a position wherein there is as much chance either way (theism or atheism). What was his response? It certainly was not in agreement. You are undecided; Frank seems to be very decided, in no way neutral. He knows that he doesn't know and finds that a very satisfyling form of knowledge. That's fine with me.

hmmm...

Did everyone agree on a workable definition of God at one point in this discussion?

If so, if someone knows it or could link to it, that would be great.

What is the defintion of God?

Is it a spirit, a creator, a force? Science? A guy with robes? Something humans can relate to? Supreme Mover? Supreme Creator? Creation itself? Does it care about us? On and on and on...but to keep it brief:

What is the defintion of God?

Gosh I feel funny asking all these easy questions.

The Christian fundamentalists I know conceive of their god as a very powerful and egotistical being, one who needs very desperately to be loved, worshipped and glorified by a groveling crowd of unthinking minions.

JLN:-

It goes way back.The Pantheon had a meeting once to discuss eradicating us as being useless and trouble-causing.They defeated the motion on the grounds that they would have nobody to love,worship and glorify them.

Humans with a need to love,glorify and worship something invented God(s) because they couldn't bring themselves to love,worship and glorify any humans on account of their general all-round uselessness and possibly because humans go to the toilet everyday.

But,to be serious for a moment,the idea of "knowing" comes from the desire to control.To know something is to be on the way to controlling it and this leads to the notion that "knowers" are control freaks.

Thus I agree with sweet FA.On the basic premise.Where I disagree is with bothering about it.
I too would like to know why he has been pariahed if only to help me avoid a similar fate.

JLNobody




If Frank did not agree that there is "as much change either way" then I agree with him, because it is simple false JLNobody.

There could be a seventy or eighty percent change that god exists (whatever that would mean), but if you don't know you don't know.

And besides, the law of the excluded middle isn't based on percentages. Either god exists or god does not exist. It has nothing to do with chance.

In other words;

It is already the case that god exists.
Or.
It is already the case that god does not exist.

We (most it seems) just don't know which one is true and which one is false.

Surely God can do anything.That's what omnipotent
means.So He could exist some of the time and when He fancied a change He could cease to exist.
A bit like when the riot squad pull back and let the football fans fight it out.Which phase we might be in is an open question which provides many happy hours of useless activity for those with a penchant for such things.

Taliesin wrote:


I'll let Frank speak for himself when we've talked him into coming back, but I don't think Frank thinks he shouldn't have to tone himself down. He's just easily sparked, so to speak.



I'm interested in hearing about this evidence. Can you tell us more?

And this is a gross understatement. Their god has a huge paddle in his hand and he has no interest in fun, only in blind conformity. He's a coercive god and needs, as you say JLN to be needed......sounds pretty sick to me. Oh dear, don't get me started.