|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
|
|
imatwirp
Professional
|
Definition Lesson There are believers who believe in a higher power. There are Agnostics who believe that there might be a god but are not sure. Then there are Atheists who believe that there is no god. A person can be an atheist but still acknowledge the possibility of a higher power. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a higher power. But I also do not believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, etc. Thus, I believe both could be possible. Both hold some partial truth.
------- If I wanted to listen to an asshole. Id fart.
|
|
|
|
|
airemaye
Yeah, what do we do?
Patron
|
Everyone seems to be hating on agnostics lately. Haha.
------- And while the seagulls are crying, We fall but our souls are flying.
|
1:33 pm on July 7, 2009 | Joined: Feb. 2006 | Days Active: 1,031 Join to learn more about airemaye Illinois, United States | GLBT Ally Female | Posts: 12,614 | Points: 34,683
|
|
| |
|
|
Moridin
Guru
Ad Free
|
Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:22 pm on July 7, 2009
Quote: from Moridin at 3:51 pm on July 6, 2009
Quote: from Event Horizon at 11:48 pm on July 6, 2009
No. That isn't what I'm arguing.
But that is precisely what you are arguing. Agnostics have to deny knowledge about god, yet hold that the concept of god is meaningful requires positive properties, which would by definition be knowledge about god. 
I think you're slipping away from the basic definition of agnostic. I don't believe it refers to "knowledge about god(s)", but to "knowledge of the existence of god(s)".
The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.
Agnostic
It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god.
------- "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)
|
|
|
Event Horizon
Connoisseur
Patron
|
Well, let me ask you this: Do you know anything about god at the moment? Do you have any means of actively seeking knowledge about god? I think the fact that we can't answer yes to either of these questions justifies our saying "we don't know jack about god". These are points made by agnostics: --If god is physically immeasurable or otherwise observable materially then we do not have a way of gaining knowledge of such a being, at least for now. --If god IS material or somehow physical, then we still have no way of knowing this; or at least we have no way YET of obtaining this knowledge. --If god is material or somehow physical, we as yet have no knowledge of such a being, and as aforementioned, we have no way, as of yet, to find out any such knowledge. Any way you look at it, "we know jack."
------- Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition that's troublesome. --Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Moridin
Guru
Ad Free
|
If there is in principle no way to gain knowledge about god, then the god-concept is meaningless since it is pragmatically useless. But if that is the case, you could be sure that no gods existed, since meaningless concepts cannot refer to anything that exists.
------- "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)
|
|
|
|
|
Moridin
Guru
Ad Free
|
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:42 am on July 8, 2009
Quote: from Moridin at 5:27 pm on July 7, 2009
It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god.
Understanding the concept of god(s) is not the same as having knowledge of the existence of god(s). And it's that understanding that probably leads the agnostic person to believe that that knowledge is unknowable. 
I find this to be a very interesting argument worth further exploration. I'd like to ask you the following question: how is it possible to understand a concept (that is, assigning primary qualities to it), yet hold that it is in principle impossible to acquire knowledge? If something has primary qualities, it is by definition possible to corroborate or refute this in principle (although of course not always in practice).
------- "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)
|
|
|
Forever Angel
Pectus Pectoris Memor
Sustainer
|
Quote: from Moridin at 6:08 pm on July 7, 2009
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:42 am on July 8, 2009
Quote: from Moridin at 5:27 pm on July 7, 2009
It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god.
Understanding the concept of god(s) is not the same as having knowledge of the existence of god(s). And it's that understanding that probably leads the agnostic person to believe that that knowledge is unknowable. 
I find this to be a very interesting argument worth further exploration. I'd like to ask you the following question: how is it possible to understand a concept (that is, assigning primary qualities to it), yet hold that it is in principle impossible to acquire knowledge? If something has primary qualities, it is by definition possible to corroborate or refute this in principle (although of course not always in practice). 
It's not that hard to develop a concept. Proving, or even providing evidence, that the object of that concept is actual or imaginary is quite different. http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/god-west.htm
Western concepts of God have ranged from the detached transcendent demiurge of Aristotle to the pantheism of Spinoza. Nevertheless, much of western thought about God has fallen within some broad form of theism. Theism is the view that God is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection; and is the creator and sustainer of the universe. Though regarded as sexless, God has traditionally been referred to by the masculine pronoun. Concepts of God in philosophy are entwined with concepts of God in religion. This is most obvious in figures like Augustine and Aquinas, who sought to bring more rigor and consistency to concepts found in religion. Others, like Leibniz and Hegel, interacted constructively and deeply with religious concepts. Even those like Hume and Nietzsche, who criticized the concept of God, dealt with religious concepts. While Western philosophy has interfaced most obviously with Christianity, Judaism and Islam have had some influence. The orthodox forms of all three religions have embraced theism, though each religion has also yielded a wide array of other views. Philosophy has shown a similar variety. For example, with regard to the initiating cause of the world, Plato and Aristotle held God to be the crafter of uncreated matter. Plotinus regarded matter as emanating from God. Spinoza, departing from his judaistic roots, held God to be identical with the universe, while Hegel came to a similar view by reinterpreting Christianity. Issues related to Western concepts of God include the nature of divine attributes and how they can be known, if or how that knowledge can be communicated, the relation between such knowledge and logic, the nature of divine causality, and the relation between the divine and the human will.
------- "God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein "God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking Bohica
|
|
|
theyareAs
Visionary
Patron
|
He's an idiot, agnostics just dont care. Atheists openly hate on people of faith more or less
------- So why did I do it? I could offer a million answers, all false. The truth is that I'm a bad person, but that's going to change. I'm going to change.
|
8:39 pm on July 8, 2009 | Joined: July 2008 | Days Active: 330 Join to learn more about theyareAs North Dakota, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 5,106 | Points: 9,200
|
|
| |
|
|
Emilybird
Quality Control Engineer
|
i never did understand quite what being agnostic meant..
|
|
|
invisable me
Personal Assistant
|
to me an agnostic is someone "sitting on the fence." they are not saying god exists, but they arent saying he doesnt, and that there will never be proof to find out if he exists or not. and i agree, so u dont have to be atheist to be an agnostic
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic |  |
|