First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Your Opinion Does not Count Because…
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/2/10 , edited 3/2/10


I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)
Posted 3/2/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)
As for myself, I just assumed their concepts and ran the whole 10 yards with it, just so I can show them how illogical their subjective view can be.

I embarrassed more people than I can convince them with this approach of mine, even though I did managed to assimilate their mentality completely. So either I was good at making sense on just about everything, or I'm just down right crazy, or I can be both.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 3/3/10 , edited 3/3/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



I don't think being agnostic is illogical. Perhaps it may seem to you, but I don't think there is something wrong in believing that there is in no way possible to confirm something that does not exist. That is like the Schrodinger cat's box. You can never say that the cat is alive or not in the box unless you opened it. Believing that god is a entity that can never be proven or unproven is just like that. And I think that it is the best course of action. In Logic, you cannot judge something without apprehension. The concept of god may be something like that. And in other view, I doubt that Atheist would even have evidence that god does not exist. God may exist. But humans might be incapable of knowing and grasping what is his true nature. What if god is not what you expect to be? Then is he still god? And God may not exist. However, the concept of god may be just like a Schrodinger's cat box. just like that.

Well, just my opinion.

@Seraph. In a normal debate, that would qualify already as an ad hominem which may invalidate their opinion because experience is not the only known basis in proving a claim because the human mind is not like a tabula rasa that Locke argues.
Posted 3/3/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



I don't think being agnostic is illogical. Perhaps it may seem to you, but I don't think there is something wrong in believing that there is in no way possible to confirm something that does not exist. That is like the Schrodinger cat's box. You can never say that the cat is alive or not in the box unless you opened it. Believing that god is a entity that can never be proven or unproven is just like that. And I think that it is the best course of action. In Logic, you cannot judge something without apprehension. The concept of god may be something like that. And in other view, I doubt that Atheist would even have evidence that god does not exist. God may exist. But humans might be incapable of knowing and grasping what is his true nature. What if god is not what you expect to be? Then is he still god? And God may not exist. However, the concept of god may be just like a Schrodinger's cat box. just like that.

Well, just my opinion.

@Seraph. In a normal debate, that would qualify already as an ad hominem which may invalidate their opinion because experience is not the only known basis in proving a claim because the human mind is not like a tabula rasa that Locke argues.
Then I invoke that either theologists managed to find God among Earth, or build their own God. Otherwise your Schrodinger's cat analogy will be exploited by theologists as an excuse for them doing absolutely nothing, as long as the theory of God itself is just uncertainty.

Quantum theory is therefore not a theory of God, when we managed to built functional machines by us applying the theory.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/3/10 , edited 3/3/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



No, I've already explained this before, agnosticism is the only rational theological idea, atheism or conclusively saying there is no apple tree in space is irrational. Can you prove there isn't? No, there's no way of testing this. Therefore saying there isn't one is irrational. Agnosticism doesn't come to any conclusions on anything that cannot be tested, and that's what rationality is. If you don't got the evidence, you can't reach a conclusion. You can't test for anything concerning God, or anything outside our realm of existence, therefore any conclusions on these things is irrational. Atheism comes to the conclusion that there are no deities, therefore atheism is irrational.
Posted 3/3/10 , edited 3/3/10

Yei wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



No, I've already explained this before, agnosticism is the only rational theological idea, atheism or conclusively saying there is no apple tree in space is irrational. Can you prove there isn't? No, there's no way of testing this. Therefore saying there isn't one is irrational. Agnosticism doesn't come to any conclusions on anything that cannot be tested, and that's what rationality is. If you don't got the evidence, you can't reach a conclusion. You can't test for anything concerning God, or anything outside our realm of existence, therefore any conclusions on these things is irrational. Atheism comes to the conclusion that there are no deities, therefore atheism is irrational.
So the only rationality that agnosticism has about God is "I don't know anything".

Are you trying to say something relevant?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/3/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)


So disbelief is the default stance and you should assume that something does not exist if somebody cannot logically demonstrate that it exists? Well, I cannot provide you with any evidence that I exist. So, following your approach, you must assume I do not exist. Yet, you are sensing me in some sort of way, so you must explain that phenomenon. To do this, however, you have to invent a whole alternate take on reality. The Hindus, for example, faced this “cogito ergo sum,” wall by inventing an illusion of reality. Yet, that cannot be logically demonstrated either. So you must disbelieve that as well. By your approach, you must disbelieve everything.

Here’s where we get to have some more fun. In logic circle arguments are to be disregarded. For example:

You cannot believe the bible because it contains miracles, and you cannot believe miracles because they’re brought up by the bible which cannot be believed.

The argument is that you cannot believe in the miracles of Jesus because you cannot believe the bible, and you cannot believe the bible because it contains the miracles of Jesus. One premise does not stand without the other so neither premise can support the other, and since neither premise has support both premises collapse.

Thus, a circle argument is logically illogical. Yet, the only way to defend logic (say as compared to intuition,) is through logic…but that’s a circle argument which is illogical according to the logic you are defending.

Thus! You must either disbelieve in logic (since it cannot be logically demonstrated) or make a base level intuitive assumption that logic is true based on intuition! Yet, if you disbelieve logic you must still explain the phenomenon. It’s a bit like saying a fetus is a potential human. If anything is something potentially, you must explain what that anything is in actuality. So if logic is not logic because it cannot be logically demonstrated, then it is just logic by appearance. And if it is logic by appearance, what is it by actuality? So, if you are to find an answer for that question which requires you to invent something else.

So long as you walk down that trail of disbelief the cycle is never ending. Thus, the most intellectually honest (and logical) stance is agnosticism.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/3/10

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



No, I've already explained this before, agnosticism is the only rational theological idea, atheism or conclusively saying there is no apple tree in space is irrational. Can you prove there isn't? No, there's no way of testing this. Therefore saying there isn't one is irrational. Agnosticism doesn't come to any conclusions on anything that cannot be tested, and that's what rationality is. If you don't got the evidence, you can't reach a conclusion. You can't test for anything concerning God, or anything outside our realm of existence, therefore any conclusions on these things is irrational. Atheism comes to the conclusion that there are no deities, therefore atheism is irrational.
So the only rationality that agnosticism has about God is "I don't know anything".

Are you trying to say something relevant?


The only rational conclusion to make about God or anything outside our realm of existence or anything that is completely untestable/unknowable, is an agnostic stance. So theism and atheism are irrational. Do you understand why? I thought I explained it pretty clearly in my last post.

Yes, it's very relevant to the current discussion.
Posted 3/3/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



No, I've already explained this before, agnosticism is the only rational theological idea, atheism or conclusively saying there is no apple tree in space is irrational. Can you prove there isn't? No, there's no way of testing this. Therefore saying there isn't one is irrational. Agnosticism doesn't come to any conclusions on anything that cannot be tested, and that's what rationality is. If you don't got the evidence, you can't reach a conclusion. You can't test for anything concerning God, or anything outside our realm of existence, therefore any conclusions on these things is irrational. Atheism comes to the conclusion that there are no deities, therefore atheism is irrational.
So the only rationality that agnosticism has about God is "I don't know anything".

Are you trying to say something relevant?


The only rational conclusion to make about God or anything outside our realm of existence or anything that is completely untestable/unknowable, is an agnostic stance. So theism and atheism are irrational. Do you understand why? I thought I explained it pretty clearly in my last post.

Yes, it's very relevant to the current discussion.
That just means that what we got here are 3 camps. With agnostics don't know a thing about God, the theists just claiming to know about God, and the atheists unraveling the mystery of the universe; something that the theists said that it's invading on God's creation.

Then as an agnostic, can you tell those theists to just leave those atheists alone? But that's when they'll just ignore you because you don't share the same belief as they do.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/3/10 , edited 3/3/10

DomFortress wrote:

That just means that what we got here are 3 camps. With agnostics don't know a thing about God, the theists just claiming to know about God, and the atheists unraveling the mystery of the universe; something that the theists said that it's invading on God's creation.

Then as an agnostic, can you tell those theists to just leave those atheists alone? But that's when they'll just ignore you because you don't share the same belief as they do.


That's a very bad way to put it, it's easier to just divide it into two camps, the rational and the irrational. Agnostics are rational, theists and atheists are irrational. I'm a rational person and I don't like believing in things that I have no proof of, that's why I chose agnosticism.

Both theists and atheists claim to know about God, both have reached conclusions on God. Theists obviously have different opinions but all say they somehow know a God exists, atheists all say they somehow know God doesn't exist. Atheists are not unraveling the mystery of the universe, generally, theists try to do that, they do it irrationally most of the time, but still, the original concepts of higher powers and Gods were attempts at unraveling the mystery of the universe.

Atheism doesn't unravel anything about the mysteries of the universe, it's just the idea that God doesn't exist. That's it. No mysteries have been explored, just one simple idea that doesn't need to be taken any further.

What people say or do is irrelevant. There's no point in talking about certain crazy theists and their behaviour, it doesn't say anything about theism just like pointing out the crazy atheists' behaviour doesn't say anything about atheism. We should talk about the actual ideas and not how some people behave.
Posted 3/3/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That just means that what we got here are 3 camps. With agnostics don't know a thing about God, the theists just claiming to know about God, and the atheists unraveling the mystery of the universe; something that the theists said that it's invading on God's creation.

Then as an agnostic, can you tell those theists to just leave those atheists alone? But that's when they'll just ignore you because you don't share the same belief as they do.


That's a very bad way to put it, it's easier to just divide it into two camps, the rational and the irrational. Agnostics are rational, theists and atheists are irrational. I'm a rational person and I don't like believing in things that I have no proof of, that's why I chose agnosticism.

Both theists and atheists claim to know about God, both have reached conclusions on God. Theists obviously have different opinions but all say they somehow know a God exists, atheists all say they somehow know God doesn't exist. Atheists are not unraveling the mystery of the universe, generally, theists try to do that, they do it irrationally most of the time, but still, the original concepts of higher powers and Gods were attempts at unraveling the mystery of the universe.

Atheism doesn't unravel anything about the mysteries of the universe, it's just the idea that God doesn't exist. That's it. No mysteries have been explored, just one simple idea that doesn't need to be taken any further.

What people say or do is irrelevant. There's no point in talking about certain crazy theists and their behaviour, it doesn't say anything about theism just like pointing out the crazy atheists' behaviour doesn't say anything about atheism. We should talk about the actual ideas and not how some people behave.
Impossible, not when thinking and rationalizing is how our brains being proactive. Therefore agnosticism is just reactionary towards the Theory of God, since the only rational is "I don't know".

While theists are claiming everything that happened in nature be the creation of God's work, atheists OTOH just chuck that theory out of the window.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/3/10

DomFortress wrote:

Impossible, not when thinking and rationalizing is how our brains being proactive. Therefore agnosticism is just reactionary towards the Theory of God, since the only rational is "I don't know".

While theists are claiming everything that happened in nature be the creation of God's work, atheists OTOH just chuck that theory out of the window.


We can talk about how people behave and think the way they do, but that's a different issue, that's under psychology/sociology/anthropology, not theology or philosophy. You have to differentiate between the the ideas themselves and people's behaviour. You can't say atheism involves believing in evolution because many atheists believe in evolution, what some atheists think doesn't matter, the concept of atheism is already defined and it's irrelevant to people's behaviour. So when you use "they" you're not talking about the concepts anymore, you're talking about how the people think, and generalizing how they all think, which is worse.

I don't know how all theists/atheists/agnostics think, and there's no reasonable generalizations you can make of them.

Many theists and atheists are claiming many different things, we have no way of knowing. Many theists may believe in evolution and all science but also believe in God, some atheists may believe a higher power other than God (eg. karma) is responsible for everything and reject science. It would be easier to talk about the concepts themselves.

Agnosticism is not a reaction to anything, it's just being rational. Not believing in anything that can't be proven. God's existence or non-existence just happen to be conclusions that can't be proven. Atheists don't just chuck the theory out the window, they create their own theory that also can't be proven.
Posted 3/3/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Impossible, not when thinking and rationalizing is how our brains being proactive. Therefore agnosticism is just reactionary towards the Theory of God, since the only rational is "I don't know".

While theists are claiming everything that happened in nature be the creation of God's work, atheists OTOH just chuck that theory out of the window.


We can talk about how people behave and think the way they do, but that's a different issue, that's under psychology/sociology/anthropology, not theology or philosophy. You have to differentiate between the the ideas themselves and people's behaviour. You can't say atheism involves believing in evolution because many atheists believe in evolution, what some atheists think doesn't matter, the concept of atheism is already defined and it's irrelevant to people's behaviour. So when you use "they" you're not talking about the concepts anymore, you're talking about how the people think, and generalizing how they all think, which is worse.

I don't know how all theists/atheists/agnostics think, and there's no reasonable generalizations you can make of them.

Many theists and atheists are claiming many different things, we have no way of knowing. Many theists may believe in evolution and all science but also believe in God, some atheists may believe a higher power other than God (eg. karma) is responsible for everything and reject science. It would be easier to talk about the concepts themselves.

Agnosticism is not a reaction to anything, it's just being rational. Not believing in anything that can't be proven. God's existence or non-existence just happen to be conclusions that can't be proven. Atheists don't just chuck the theory out the window, they create their own theory that also can't be proven.
How can you as an agnostic philosophize something that you know nothing of, is that even rationally possible?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/3/10

DomFortress wrote:

How can you as an agnostic philosophize something that you know nothing of, is that even rationally possible?


I can't, and I didn't.
Posted 3/3/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

How can you as an agnostic philosophize something that you know nothing of, is that even rationally possible?


I can't, and I didn't.
Not according to what you claimed here, when you said that both theists and atheists are irrational. And you also said that your stance as an agnostic is the only rational one, therefore it is relevant.

And I'm just making an observation here, when I'm by no means analyzing your thinking. Because you should know that better than me since you're so rational than any atheist, whereas I consider myself an atheist.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.