Okay...let's see...where was I...

Eorl

Your arguments are so wrong...I almost don't know where to begin.

I'll take it piece by piece.




No, Eorl. Atheism, at best, can say to people who "believe" there is a God....that they (the atheists) "believe" there are no gods.

And I've never seen anything that even remotely resembles evidence that there are no gods other than..."you people cannot produce your gods."




Well...the fact of the matter is that theistic claims MAY indeed be true. Their guesses about REALITY may be correct. And of course, atheistic claims MAY indeed be true. Your guesses about REALITY may be correct.

Are you suggesting that you know their claims ARE NOT TRUE?

And if so, please produce your proof of this assertion.




If a majority of the people want something to happen...and there are no safeguards in place to protect the rights of the minority...then whatever the majority wants happens.

That is a discussion better suited for the political forum.

Here, we are discussing the question: What is the true nature of REALITY?

I do not know the true nature of REALITY....so I cannot exclude the possibility that there is a God...or the possibility that there are no gods.


If you can...produce the evidence upon which you base it so we can all see it and evaluate it.




Atheism allows for only one thing: It allows theists to continue with their reasoning that the true nature of REALITY can be known...or surmised. It does not contradict that assertion. It merely suggests that the theists are wrong in what they claim to know, believe, or surmise.

Essentially, atheism is simply guessing in the opposite direction of what theism guesses.

Atheism, in short, abets theism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, challenges the foundations of theism...something atheism cannot do.





The only thing atheism has to contribute to society is the perpetuation of the myth that the ultimate nature of REALITY can be known or surmised.

That is a net negative for society.

Atheism has nowhere near as much to contribute to society than does agnosticism.

Guilty as charged....and goddam proud of it.

You will be happy to know, Dys, that your boot print has finally worn off my forehead.

:wink:

(so far, dyslexia has made the only bulletproof argument in favor of atheism)

Frank
Frank, it's about time you got your lazy butt back here so we can pick on you.

I became an agnostic when I was about fourteen years old. I made this decision after studying the religions of the world on my own. By age 23, I decided that agnosticism was a cop-out and after thinking about it for a while, I became an atheist.

I'm now nearly 76 years old and have never found anything to cause me to change my mind---even after continuing study of religious movements around the world.

If it turns out there really is a God, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out it is Dog (god spelled backwards.)

BBB

BBB

You wrote:



Why did you decide that agnosticism is a cop-out????

I do not see it as a cop-out in any respect.

The question being asked is: What is the nature of the Ultimate REALITY?

If you do not know the answer to that question...how can acknowledging that you do not know possibly be a cop-out?


Why would you possibly consider guessing to be an improvement on that?

Personally I think we're arguing over semantics, but I don't have the time to elaborate now. This internet connection in the hotel costs $10.00 a day. That's ridiculous.

Bernie says to say that he thinks Agnosticism is nothing but Atheism Lite. And I agree.

Dys,

From one party animal to another......atheists rule!

Lola:-

That alone was worth $10 of the MG's cash.Cheap at twice the price.

You guys couldn't be more wrong...but I'll wait until you have more time to rationalize. :wink:

Frank
Frank wrote: "Why did you decide that agnosticism is a cop-out????

I do not see it as a cop-out in any respect.

The question being asked is: What is the nature of the Ultimate REALITY?

If you do not know the answer to that question...how can acknowledging that you do not know possibly be a cop-out?


Why would you possibly consider guessing to be an improvement on that?"

Frank, I recall my agnostic reasoning as a teenager was to protect myself from the abuse of atheists by the public. I was adopted and raised in a religious, but hypocritic family. If you think atheist have a tough time today, you have to realize how difficult it was in my youth. It took me about ten years to have the courage to acknowledge that I really was an atheist.

I spent years reading, discussing in a rational manner to reach my conclusion and I continue to explore this topic today.

I guess I don't have to explain my reasons to anyone. They are mine and do not need defending. I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise.

BBB

BBB wrote:


Of course you don't have to explain your reasons to anyone, but I would be most appreciative if you did. Also, your response begs the question: If you're not here to explain your values, then why are you here? (<--This is not an attempt at nastiness, just an honest question. )

To my mind, explaining and questioning value systems are the main reason we're here. I welcome questions and suggestions, and would expect others to feel similarly. Is there some reason you don't wish to share on this particular topic? Hope to hear from you soon.

Frank,

I knew I was in for a bruising when I got in the ring with you !! S'OK I'm up for it.

I see the whole situation a bit like this question:

34x + 11x =

a) 454
b) 57 million
c) calcium
d) gravity

The agnostic response is : the answer cannot be known.

The atheist response is a) 454

The agnostic answer is more correct, while the atheist answer is more useful. If this was a question you were faced with to save your life what would you choose?

Are all answers equally likely just because you cannot be certain?

Hi, Frank. Welcome back.

Taliesin181
Taliesin181, I've spent a lifetime exploring what I believed, trying to explain to others my beliefs, developing a thick skin in defense of my beliefs. There comes a time when I no longer want to engage in debate with others who scorn atheism. I do not imply that you or many other A2Kers are among those that scorn. I generally know those A2K members who do scorn those that don't agree with their religious beliefs.

Belive it or not, I don't and have not, spent a lot of time debating atheism with others. I've always considered it my personal, private belief and, unlike evangelists, I've never attempted to persuade anyone to become an atheist.

I became an atheist after studying and thinking about it for a long time, even if it started at an early age. I long ago discovered that I have a genetic tendency to think outside the box and to challenge my elders' pronoucements. I drove most of my teachers crazy with my questions and challenges to doctrine consensus. I've never outgrown that annoying attitude. It showed up again when I was finally able to attend college for the first time in my forties before the demands of my job caused me to have to drop out of school, abandoning my 3.85 grade average. I wanted to go on to get a BA because I've always been attracted to people and institutions from whom I can learn.

I've tried to compensate by self-education. I tried to instill that habit in my children, too. That education passion probably led me to atheism tempered by my pesky tendency to think outside the box.

I would have to write a thesis to explain my analysis of religion, primarily organized religion. At age 76, I've grown tired of the debate---primarily because I find most people are locked into their religious beliefs and do not have open minds---so what is the point.

I'm not a cold rationalist. I have a passionate sense of justice and I care about people and other life forms, and this planet's condition. I think I've learned to understand people, their needs and motives. I learned to recognize the good people---and the sorts who abuse, manipulate and abuse others. It's not faith I object to, it's doctrine. I think one of the most destructive forces on this planet is doctrinaire organized religion.

I recommend a great book, "The End of Faith" if you really want to understand my thinking.

---BBB

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason -- by Sam Harris.
Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
Sam Harris cranks out blunt, hard-hitting chapters to make his case for why faith itself is the most dangerous element of modern life. And if the devil's in the details, then you'll find Satan waiting at the back of the book in the very substantial notes section where Harris saves his more esoteric discussions to avoid sidetracking the urgency of his message.
Interestingly, Harris is not just focused on debunking religious faith, though he makes his compelling arguments with verve and intellectual clarity. The End of Faith is also a bit of a philosophical Swiss Army knife. Once he has presented his arguments on why, in an age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, belief is now a hazard of great proportions, he focuses on proposing alternate approaches to the mysteries of life. Harris recognizes the truth of the human condition, that we fear death, and we often crave "something more" we cannot easily define, and which is not met by accumulating more material possessions. But by attempting to provide the cure for the ills it defines, the book bites off a bit more than it can comfortably chew in its modest page count (however the rich Bibliography provides more than enough background for an intrigued reader to follow up for months on any particular strand of the author' musings.)

Harris' heart is not as much in the latter chapters, though, but in presenting his main premise. Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with assurance about the hereafter has the potential to place far less value on the here and now. And thus the corollary -- when death is simply a door translating us from one existence to another, it loses its sting and finality. Harris pointedly asks us to consider that those who do not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient scriptures instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have these weapons in their own hands. If thoughts along the same line haunt you, this is your book.--Ed Dobeas

From Publishers Weekly
In this sometimes simplistic and misguided book, Harris calls for the end of religious faith in the modern world. Not only does such faith lack a rational base, he argues, but even the urge for religious toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists. Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another. Very simply, religion is a form of terrorism for Harris. Predictably, he argues that a rational and scientific view?-one that relies on the power of empirical evidence to support knowledge and understanding?-should replace religious faith. We no longer need gods to make laws for us when we can sensibly make them for ourselves. But Harris overstates his case by misunderstanding religious faith, as when he makes the audaciously naïve statement that "mysticism is a rational enterprise; religion is not." As William James ably demonstrated, mysticism is far from a rational enterprise, while religion might often require rationality in order to function properly. On balance, Harris's book generalizes so much about both religion and reason that it is ineffectual.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Nope...no bruising. Just discussion.




I'm terrible at math...but I suspect if I were posed your question, I would point out that different values of "x" will produce different answers. The lowest possible answer (assuming "x" to be 1) would be 45.

I would also point out that as presented....there is no solution.

I have absolutely no idea of why any atheist would choose 454..and then insist that answer is correct...especially since I can find no value for "x" that would make 454 be correct.

I also have absolutely no idea of why any atheist would consider a wrong answer to be "more useful" than an acknowledgement that one does not know the answer.

Your reasoning...and your question....make no sense.

Wanna give it another try?





Absolutely not. Are you of the mistaken impression that agnostics consider all answers to all questions to be equally likely?

If "yes"...why are you of that mistaken impression?

Re: Frank


BBB

I am not asking you to "defend" your reasons...but since you brought the issue to this thread, I simply asked for a clarification...and I hoped to initiate a bit of discussion.

Sorry if you got the wrong idea.

I honestly do not see the agnostic position as a cop-out in any way!

But if you prefer not to discuss it....no problem.

I want to stay on your good side, BBB. You offer this forum more useful information than anyone else with your many informative posts.

Once again...a big "HELLO" to everyone welcoming me back.

If x=2 Then the answer would be 454.

Maybe I should have written it 34_ + 11_

but I know you understood my point even if my example looked dodgy. It simply represents a situation that seems obvious but not definite due to the lack of complete data.

I guess my point is that even though you cannot have an answer you can be certain of, you can make a reasonable estimate based on the data you do have. Agnosticism seems to be principled refusal to make a guess no matter how educated that guess may be, (perhaps due to the fear that it may validate all other guesses as equally valid)...is that a fair comment?

Anyone hear the recent broadcast of This American Life on NPR? The topic was Godless America: Defending the Faithless. The Julia Sweeney essay is brilliant - warning - it could create a crisis of faith.

Here is the audio link: http://www.thislife.org/

Thanks GW

Wish I could access RealAudio.

I'll look up Sweeney instead and see what I can find.

Eorl, if x=2 the answer is 90, not 454. If x=1266667, the answer is very close to 57 million.

Guessing wrong by that many orders of magnitude could be worse than not guessing at all.

When it comes to gods, choosing the wrong one or worshiping improperly may target us for divine wrath. We have no way of knowing what the gods (if they exist) really want from us, if anything. For all we know, incessant praying may annoy them more than respectful silence.

-----

Hi, Frank.