|
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]
#5273540 - 02/07/06 01:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Context, context, context.
I have just demonstrated a very reasonable, popular context inhabited by great minds such as Spinoza and Einstein, as well as many others. And within this context, atheism does fail.
No claim was made to the contrary - I agree.
You can create any sort of context you want to make yourself believe that your position is sound, but I'm sorry to inform you my friend, it isn't.
No, my friend - you are incorrect. As long as there are different definitions of the word, there will therefore be differing contexts. Hence, any assessment of Agnosticism or Atheism, is contingent upon the subject at hand, and the relevant context. It must be dealt with on a case by case basis.
You can't dismiss notions of god as part of another "context", simply because they contradict your reasoning.
Absent any negation of my personal assessment of your intelligence, I fail to grasp how you think you can deem Atheism as invalid, on ALL accounts - regardless of differing premises, differing definitions, differing contexts and so forth. It makes zero sense.
The fact stands: As there is no one universally accepted definition of God, no such universal assessment of Atheism can be made. Again, case by case.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Theists claim only that their notion of god is sound. Atheists claim that all notions of god are unsound. As you can see, the burden is on the atheist. When you say "God" with a capital "G", you are greatly narrowing your spectrum and uniquely discussing the Judeo-Christian God, for it is one of the few which capitalize the G.
Atheists do not only function within a certain context or paradigm, you can't be an atheist when it comes to Judeo-Christianity but a theist when it comes to Spinoza. I am a theist but I too do not believe in the orthodox Judeo-Christian conception of god.
Atheists do not believe in ANY gods of ANY context. That is the philosophical definition of atheism, one who does not believe in any deities/gods.
I have demonstrated a god which is in fact TRUE and VALID, this contradicts atheism, atheism fails.
Edited by spud (02/07/06 02:59 PM)
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5273702 - 02/07/06 02:26 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The burden is on the atheist? I've got nothing in my hand... will you accept that as evidence that there is no god?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5273730 - 02/07/06 02:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
hah!
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 1 hour
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5274287 - 02/07/06 05:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: It is important to keep in mind that someone who experiences gnosis and Gnostics are too things not the same. For example, Hermeticism was a non-Christian school of Gnosis, while Gnosticism is heavily tied with Christianity.
 Yeap, thanks for reminding me about this.
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 19 days, 1 hour
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5274309 - 02/07/06 05:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: The burden is on the atheist? I've got nothing in my hand... will you accept that as evidence that there is no god?
god is in the air ... just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
#5274353 - 02/07/06 05:55 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MAIA said:
god is in the air ... just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
MAIA
I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there. Gospel of Thomas Saying 77
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: MAIA]
#5274410 - 02/07/06 06:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Denial of the antecedent. Such implication is invalid because something can exist whether is verified or not. Example: Pluto was found in 1914, but it has existed prior to your knowledge about it.
Yes, but we're talking about something which cannot be verified empirically, not something which hasn't yet been verified. The existence Pluto falls within the realm of our senses and can be verified or refuted. God can't.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5274453 - 02/07/06 06:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have demonstrated a god which is in fact TRUE and VALID, this contradicts atheism, atheism fails.
You haven't provided any empirical support for this claim. Baseless reason doesn't demonstrate anything.
the burden is on the atheist
All an atheist has to do is point out the total absence of evidence supporting the God hypothesis. You cannot research non-existence.
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
Quote:
You haven't provided any empirical support for this claim. Baseless reason doesn't demonstrate anything.
That didn't even make sense, god is an abstract notion. You can't empirically prove it, just like how you can't empirically prove love. Abstracts are proven through logic, rational, etc; the tools of philosophy. Skorpivo already admitted to Spinoza's God being completely rational and logical, and he was the one who I was debating with. If you beg to differ, please illustrate how Spinoza's God is not logical. I'd really love to hear this; start:
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5274575 - 02/07/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I agree! God exists only in the mind and is considered apart from existence. Hence, is non-existent.
just like how you can't empirically prove love
Love can be put into operational terms which can be supported or refuted.
Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/07/06 08:15 PM)
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: I agree! God exists only in the mind and is considered apart from existence. Hence, is non-existent.
Whoa, how the hell did you jump to that conclusion??? Explain to me how the mind is considered apart from existence.
|
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]
#5274665 - 02/07/06 06:53 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Theists claim only that their notion of god is sound. Atheists claim that all notions of god are unsound.
False. You are misrepresenting Atheism. Implicit in your statement is that Atheists are incapable of differentiating between rational atheism and irrational atheism - which certainly does not apply to myself, as evidenced in this thread. If we are discussing a variant of god that is defined as the higher human archetype, or any other definition of god that has zero contradictions, is consistent and logical, free from rational scrutiny, then indeed it would be irrational atheism to reject such a notion. Likewise, there is rational skepticism and irrational skepticism.
Atheists do not only function within a certain context or paradigm, you can't be aa atheist when it comes to Judeo-Christianity but a theist when it comes to Spinoza. I am a theist but I too do not believe in the orthodox Judeo-Christian conception of god.
Double-standard. You do not believe in the Ortho-Judeo Christian concept of god [which classifies you as an Atheist in that respect], and assert your belief in a different form of theism, and in the same breath you claim that Atheists cannot do precisely what you are doing.
At best, to your diaphanous defense, you will find a general definition which suggests that atheism is the disbelief in God or gods. Just like the third definition of Skepticism, from dictionary.com "Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets." I, along with you, and many others in here, are skeptics - in varying contexts. Certainly, it would make no sense to say that we disbelief and/or doubt ALL religious tenets, now would it? If you look up the wiki-article on atheism, you will even see that there are three different types of atheism more specifically, and only one of which you could be talking about. If you read the article in its entirety, you will see that the word atheism is still a rather loosely defined term, where even writers have disagreements or divergents of it - hey, sorta like that g-word. 
As you can see, the burden is on the atheist.
Not quite so. The one who makes the claim, is the one who must back it up with evidence. Absent any evidence, the other is free to reserve their belief, until shown otherwise. In the face of evidence, the other is free to irrationally disbelieve in the premise - but they are by no means, not to be close-mindedly grouped amongst the rational minded who would accept the premise as true. Case in point: Skorpivo. Provide me with a definition of god that isn't irrational, illogical, contradictory and arbitrary, and I will have zero problem accepting that particular premise. If the opposite occurs, then I will hold an atheist position, plain and simple. There is a difference between irrational atheism and rational atheism.
Skorpivo already admitted to Spinoza's God being completely rational and logical
For the record: You were the one who declared the Spinoza's god to be such - I merely took your word for it, and clarified that such a version would in fact, be free from rational and logical scrutiny. I don't actually know about Spinoza's god - I hadn't heard of it [if memory serves correct] before you told me about it today. I trusted that you were accurate in your assessment.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5274689 - 02/07/06 07:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: I agree! God exists only in the mind and is considered apart from existence. Hence, is non-existent.
Whoa, how the hell did you jump to that conclusion??? Explain to me how the mind is considered apart from existence.
Aww, man. Not the St. Thomas Aquinas argument...
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.
Well presented
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5274985 - 02/07/06 08:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Eh?
God is apart from existence. (See: Abstract)
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: spud]
#5275195 - 02/07/06 08:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.
You just got a gold star!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5275207 - 02/07/06 09:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said:
Quote:
spud said: Alright, well said. It looks like I misinterpreted some of the premises due to ignorance on behalf of my side. I was working with an alternate definition of Atheism, one that varies greatly with what you are proposing. In that sense, yes Atheism is logical and Agnosticism is a sort of cop out due to intellectual sedation and laziness.
You just got a gold star!
Actually, yeah. It is quite a noble gesture when someone admits to being wrong in the Philosophy forum.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
Slight tangent...
Skorpivo has made me reconsider my self-categorization as an Athiest-leaning Agnostic. But I will think about this more before posting anything. Until then...
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Atheism vs Agnosticism [Re: Sclorch]
#5275247 - 02/07/06 09:06 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
|
|