Momma, I will take the social risk of breaking rank and agreeing with your assessment of Frank. He has considerable intellectual ability and, best of all, integrity. But it is sometimes difficult to get his point because of the inflammatory power of his style.
I love him just the same. He's such a cowboy.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Chumly wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:but have subsequently modified my views
Is that like changing your mind?
Fair question. For many decades, I saw no reason to believe that there was a god. The entire concept made absolutely no sense to me. After listening to Frank's harangues for a time, he got me to thinking. I started to reevaluate. I realized that although the probability of there being a god, of the sort that many people characteristically believe in, was infinitesimally small, the idea could not be discarded, out of hand. Fact is, we don't really know.
So at this point in time, I consider myself an atheist agnostic. That is, I live my life without a god, but I really don't know what it is that is running the whole shebang..............And what's more, I don't really care.
I was kind'a teasing, modified my views = changing your mind! That's why the
.
My past parallels yours, but I am still more the atheist you, perhaps skeptical agnostic (timberlandko coined) is term I will adopt. But Asimov/Doctor S/Edgarblythe's et al arguments are very convincing indeed.
My perspective:
skeptical agnostic = weak atheist
there is no god = strong atheist
Asimov wrote: I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
Frank bears the stigma of the impassioned. He gets so overwrought, making a point many don't recognize, he lets it all out without restraint after a time.
<<<deleted by this author>>>
btw, of what value is typing in <deleted by author>? is this an attempt to make a statement without making a statement?
ummm... deleted by god and satan. Must be a message there somplace.....
dys,
THAT was sarcasm. :wink:
Why not argue the points of the thread instead of turning it into an attack Frank thread.
a commonality of most humanoids is the love of having someone/something to hate.
Hi Frank,
As has been said before, (and if you have answered this 1st part then I missed it) if the only rational argument that an agnostic can make is that we do not know enough to make an assessment, that would be an acceptable argument only if the agnostic is willing to give equal or more credence to taro cards, alien abductions, talking to the dead, astrology, witches, zombies, flying saucers, ghosts, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus etc.
As per your position as an agnostic, are willing to give equal or more credence to taro cards, alien abductions, talking to the dead, astrology, witches, zombies, flying saucers, ghosts, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus etc as you are to the presumption of a god?
If so how much credence are you giving all these 'manifestations' inclusive of god?
Have you given any more thought to the skeptical agnostic (timberlandko coined) term?
I've said to Frank many times that I am an atheist rather than an agnostic because an agnostic is one who says, or implies from his position on the fence, that there is a 50% chance that there IS a god and a 50% chance that there is no god. As a closet atheist he would not want to agree with that.
There is a point to be made. I know that I have told this story before, but I think that it is worth repeating. (I do believe that this is the second time in as many days that I have repeated myself about something, but oh well!)
Anyhow, there was a woman with whom I worked. She was very, very bright, and very, very argumentative. I was at a staff meeting with her, and we were discussing a proposed change in the way that we did something or other.
She started in with her "backing to the wall" style of discussion. I found myself at odds with her, and argued against her suggestions.
When I walked out of the meeting, it suddenly hit me. I had initially thought that her ideas were sound, but was reacting to her method of presentation. When I thought about it for awhile, I realized that because of the way that she presented herself, it was almost mandatory to argue against her.
I am not making this story up. It really happened, and I think that there is a lesson to be learned from it!
And, then there are those of us who are wishy-washy, flip-floppy, depending on what day it is and what side of the bed we got up on ists. Some days I'm agnostic, some days pantheist, some days deist, and some days atheist. It's all good, and Truth is probably none of the above but when all is said and done, the only thing that matters to me is how we treat each other and that we each strive to make the world a better place than it was before we got here. :wink:
dyslexia wrote:btw, of what value is typing in <deleted by author>? is this an attempt to make a statement without making a statement?
See, dys, if I type something, then think better of it, I don't have the option of deleting the whole post - I only have the option of deleting what I wrote, and then entering a blank post, or a post that says I deleted what I wrote. It's nothing nefarious or complicated, just me changing my mind about posting something.
Is that some kind of problem for you?
Snood- I dunno. If no one has replied to a post, a person has the option of deleting it. Once the post has been replied to, the member is stuck with it.
Many of us remember Frank from Abuzz. It was always like this. That's why he takes vacations away from posting. He doesn't want personalities to be the focus of his interactions.
