|
Leonardo_R
Stranger
Registered: 02/06/06
Posts: 4
Last seen: 17 years, 11 months
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5269041 - 02/06/06 11:12 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Athiesm is one who does not have the answer and an Agnostic is one who believes he has the answers. Believing is saying that he knows all. When in fact he is just like the Athiest where in front of people he does not know the answer.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: Leonardo_R]
#5269087 - 02/06/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Leonardo_R said: Athiesm is one who does not have the answer and an Agnostic is one who believes he has the answers. Believing is saying that he knows all. When in fact he is just like the Athiest where in front of people he does not know the answer.
You've got that backwards.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5269161 - 02/06/06 11:47 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thats what I was talking about sclorch.
In essence, its all divine.
It's when the human starts putting labels on things that the walls the separate go up.
Just like how we have woods, metals, natural fiber materials, synthetic fibers, stones, dirt clay, etc. They don't appear to be the same thing but, and we believe they are different and treat them differently and give them different values and uses. You can also strip away the apparent differences to makes and take them all back to a common element of star dust, or atoms, or quarks or materialized aether where its all the same material in essence.
The difference is perceptual and experiential and based on practical and functional values given.
Do you eat aluminum? Is there a difference to you in what you label edible or not?
Do you wash your hair with grape jelly? Is there a difference with what you consider shampoo or not?
Jelly and aluminum may be divine things in essence, but how you use them makes an experiential difference.
Like the difference between eating aluminum or a banana splits and the difference between washing your hair with mud or shampoo.
If you can teach people to believe there is no practical, functional difference in how we experience and perceive the value and uses for things of material matter, good luck with that.
Same with people. They may all be divine beings but we sure don't experience everyone in the same light. If we did, everyone would be exactly the same as you.
You already found a difference between how you see it and I see it.
I can't make a baby with another female, I need a male to do that. There is a practical difference, as divine as both men and women may be.
If you don't see practical or experiential differences then I suspect you will be eating aluminum for lunch, washing your hair with grape jelly and trying to start a family with lobster and find it all to be divine, yes?
I say calling everything the same in the realm of physical matter sounds like garbly gook. Motor oil for tooth paste! 
Yes, Jesus was a bright man. He said a difference that makes no different is no different. makes sense to me and I agree with that. What about when something makes a difference in the world of matter? I find shampoo makes a clean difference when I use it to wash my hair and that my car runs better when there is gasoline in the tank and that my cat is healthier when I feed her and play with her.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
dr0mni
My Own Messiah


Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
I'm not even going to comment on this thread
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
If it's all divine, then "divine" is a useless term.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Athiesm vs Agnosticism [Re: dr0mni]
#5269331 - 02/06/06 12:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dr0mni said: I'm not even going to comment on this thread
Too late.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5269692 - 02/06/06 02:36 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: If it's all divine, then "divine" is a useless term.
In essence it all is. Maybe people use it to remind ourselves of that; the essence of matter that isn't always experienced as being divine. That essense is God to some people.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Exactly, you are talking about forming concepts to fit facts. Hu-mans make up facts.
Humans "make up" linguistic devices that refer to what is objectively the case - in this sense, humans indeed create facts - but these creations are mutually contingent upon reality. Water does not boil at -2 degrees Fahrenheit - this article of knowledge; read: fact, would not exist if there were no such existent in the first place. "Hu-mans" discover facts.
So concepts formed to fit something human made, have what to do with true objective natural reality?
Saying "concepts formed to fit something human made" is an unnecessary redundancy. [Human] concepts are human made, and that which they are based in, is reality. Say I form the concept that would refer to existents which can be described as "things which have four legs, are furry, with a long tail and pointy ears". This concept may be named "cat". What does this have to do with a true, objective, natural existent in the form described as above? It would have to do with everything involving the metaphysical union between such entities. Facts are not "intrinsic" to external reality nor are they merely "subjective". They are determined by the nature of reality, and are to be discovered by man's mind.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Okay, use that argument and apply it to people discovering God/Supreme being/ the All That Is/ Source/Creator Whatever, in the fabric of reality. Some will tell you its a fact of their lives. You ask for proof and they say, "Look at the life around you. Evidence is everywhere to be seen and found."
Like sclorch was saying, there ultimately is no difference, its all the same thing-Divine.
Motor oil for tooth paste and grape jelly for a hair cleanser just is what it is-Divine. He's right, You're right. We all see in our own light. 
I'm going to fall sideways out of this one now. Thanks for the discussion guys. 
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: Like sclorch was saying, there ultimately is no difference, its all the same thing-Divine.
Motor oil for tooth paste and grape jelly for a hair cleanser just is what it is-Divine. He's right, You're right. We all see in our own light.
Yep, you lost me. I was suggesting throwing out the concept of "divine" altogether. It's all HUMAN. So you can stop brushing your teeth with 10W-30. No, really... it's unbecoming.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5271824 - 02/06/06 10:58 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"Divine" is a description of the mysterious nature of existence. In a way, it's not so much that everything is individually divine. It is existence itself which is divine.
--------------------
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Silversoul]
#5271934 - 02/06/06 11:29 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I can go with that.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. ... The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy. -Hanegraaff
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 29 minutes
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Ravus]
#5272368 - 02/07/06 06:08 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ravus said: I completely agree.
Agnosticism seems unreliable to me. I doubt many people could live their life saying, "I don't know," without ever trying to decide between logic, science and reason or dying traditions, useless faith and unadultered bullshit. I always hope that they'll choose the former, but sadly, many don't seem to...
Does logic, science and reason prove the existence (or no existence) of god ? The biggest bullshit is believing the tools of reason will give you absolute answers regarding this kind of existentialist universal questions, but the TRUTH is and the FACT is they never did. Will they ever do it ? The answer to this question will be always speculative, and speculation is as "right" as any belief system ...
Many people don't need to make such "decision", i mean, can you give me a objective reason to as why such decision has to be made ? In fact, regarding agnostics, the decision as been made already: if no absolute answer can be achieved, be it through science or through belief, then why bother asking such absolute question ? Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate we keep searching ...
IMHO what's unreliable, is achieving such conclusions without absolute proof. This statement can be applied either to theists, and to atheists as well. Why not choosing a humble position, and with respect to others, to their beliefs or logic, try to work in a common ground, instead of instantly dismissing any kind of opposing knowledge ? ... Fundamentalists reside where there's no common ground ...
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5272377 - 02/07/06 06:21 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. ... The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy. -Hanegraaff
There is a difference between an absence of a belief, and the rejectance of a belief - and there is a difference between volitionally withholding any beliefs in absence of evidence and disbelieving in something in spite of objective evidence for it, just as there is a difference between simply not being a theist and being antitheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
We are all born a-theists, a-gremlinists. . .
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
There are far too many notions of god in existence to simply claim that none exist. I'm sure you don't even know the premises of thousands upon thousands of notions of god.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
use that argument and apply it to people discovering God/Supreme being/ the All That Is/ Source/Creator Whatever, in the fabric of reality. Some will tell you its a fact of their lives. You ask for proof and they say, "Look at the life around you. Evidence is everywhere to be seen and found."
Someone who claims to have discovered "a supreme being" which he or she refers to as God, with zero evidential or rational basis, is not equivalent to one who has discovered an actual existent or characteristic of, by necessity, reason or principle. One who has made the claim that he or she is omniscient [while on a shroom trip] is not one who has discovered a fact - although, it can be said it is a fact that he or she made the claim.
What exactly is the purpose of the belief in God - defined as a supreme being or entity?
In all honesty, I must admit I can think of no other purpose than to fill the gap of nescience, plain and simple. Many do not like to think in a vacuum, nor are comfortable with grasping the reality that they don't know anything beyond what we can and do know. Beyond that, and aside from intellectual onanism, there is no other purpose it can serve, because there is no substantial basis for such a belief.
If we are talking about God - defined as the higher archetype of the human being, whereby one has gained an heightened intrapersonal perspective, then it serves a useful purpose. It has great usefulness in solving many problems relating to inter-personal matters - this is because there are many things in reality to which it corresponds.
If such any such notion serves that purpose, then it has valid meaning - only it is not a concept of metaphysics, but of a method pertinent to psychology - however amateur or archaic it may be.
If we are talking about the impersonal version of God - defined merely as "all-that-is", then like Sclorch pointed out: Why all the gobbledygook? Why build up such walls in the first place? What's wrong with "Nature"? "Reality"? "Existence"?
When in doubt about the classification or nature of a concept, always refer ultimately to reality. What gives rise to that concept? Does it correspond to what is objectively the case? What is the purpose of the concept? Does it achieve anything real? Or is it just somebody's arbitrary theory.
I'm going to fall sideways out of this one now. Thanks for the discussion guys.
I predict you will return. Watch. -=pushes the button=-
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5273071 - 02/07/06 11:42 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Premises don't matter. You cannot rationalize something into existence. What matters is evidence.
Unfortunately, God appears to be something 'beyond' this universe and, consequentially, no empiric evidence can ever be gathered to support his existence. If something cannot be verified or refuted through the use of our senses, why make a claim that it even exists? Agnostics will often say its possible that such a being exists, but what is that possibility based on? What does the possibility matter if it can never be verified or refuted?
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01


Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
|
|
Apparently I need to rethink my definition of Agnostic...I have considered myself Agnostic for years with leanings towards Buddhism. I always assumed that being Agnostic implied that I do believe in a God or higher power...but do not believe in organized religion.
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: We are all born a-theists, a-gremlinists. . .
and a-moneyists, a-beerists, etc. Basically, you know nothing of the world when you come out of the womb. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, this hilights the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is indeed an absence of belief, but strong atheism is a rejection of belief. I fail to see how strong atheism could be considered entirely rational.
--------------------
|
|