Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don’t click links on a public forum. But the definition I used (#291) is the definition as it appears in its entirety; that said, I invite anyone to look it up if there is any disbelief (no pun intended) about it.
Evasion noted. I can quote the link if you really want to dig deeper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
Or one can look up Hoxley, who coined the word.
Huxley. Who said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." So he was not just referring to religion. Is it dark in that hole you keep digging?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
To be using it in reference to politics, Porsches, and computer software is not only absurd, it has no relevance to this thread - and it is in complete conflict with its universally accepted definition (#294).
The fact that you do not understand the relevance (despite me twice giving you a clue) does not mean it is irrelevant.
And how can it be a universally accepted definition when other people use it differently (and correctly according to it's Greek origins)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
What you are also repeatedly missing - it’s not whether someone has knowledge or not, it’s whether something is provable or not. I may not have specific knowledge of your Porsche, but it is not beyond material phenomena, it’s proveable. An agnostic believes that anything beyond material phenomena is not proveable, thereby resulting in neither a belief or disbelief in a God.
Except the hidden knowledge you have about my gold plated Porsche is the same hidden knowledge you should have about any gods. I am not repeatedly missing anything, you are repeatedly digging a hole instead of thinking.
Except that everything you listed has a material facet to it, which is not what we are speaking of i.e. a ‘ten-legged mouse’ and gods ‘hiding’ (suggesting they are material and need to be hidden). That’s physical and measurable. I’m referring to any type ‘energy’ we do not have knowledge of - and would not be proveable. I’m not saying I believe anything is there; I’m saying if it were, we don’t know. Mystic said it well (post #295). It’s an excellent question to ponder. (And no one said you had to believe anything.)
What? It's been the whole premise of your bloody argument man! That atheists can't say 'I don't believe that gods might exist', when they don't know if it exists or not. You've been saying it for post after post!
Except the hidden knowledge you have about my gold plated Porsche is the same hidden knowledge you should have about any gods. I am not repeatedly missing anything, you are repeatedly digging a hole instead of thinking.
And something gabfest got completely wrong.
I don’t care about your ‘gold-plated’ Porsche - lol. To say the knowledge is ‘hidden’ (in reference to a god or gods) is to suggest it is physical (and proveable). It simply isn’t.
If you don't see that THAT is not what I'm talking about then there is not a lot anyone can do for you. You are talking about knowledge. I am talking about belief. Despite the number of time I have said that I could be wrong, it doesn't change the fact that I have no belief that gods exist, can exist or even might exist. I can't see how much clearer I can make it.
When you are driving around a blind corner, do you drive really slowly just in case there is a leprechaun sitting in the road? Of course you don't - and why don't you- because you don't believe they exist and you don't even believe that they might exist. Sure you might say, as I do with regard to the existence of gods, leprechauns might exist, but that doesn't cause you to slow down in case there is one sitting there does it? No. You say exactly as I do with regard to gods - I don't believe/expect there is going to be a leprechaun sitting in the road because I don't believe that leprechauns exit. The fact that you could be wrong as I might be regarding gods doesn't alter the fact that you don't believe leprechauns do/can/might exit.
What? It's been the whole premise of your bloody argument man! That atheists can't say that they can't 'not believe' might not in something when they don't know if it exists or not. You've saying it for post after post!
I didn’t say atheists ‘can’t’ do anything; I said, for me - it is why I identify as an agnostic. Because although I do not believe in a Christian God, I think the universe is endless in its possibilities. That, in my opinion, labeling myself as an atheist would shut the door.
I didn’t say atheists ‘can’t’ do anything; I said, for me - it is why I identify as an agnostic. Because although I do not believe in a Christian God, I think the universe is endless in its possibilities. That, in my opinion, labeling myself as an atheist would shut the door.
...but it doesn't shut the door as I have shown you. You can be just like any other atheist in that you don't believe that gods exist, you don't believe that they can exist and you don't believe that they might exist. However, you are willing to concede that you are wrong should undeniable and verifiable evidence for the existence of gods come to light. But that is what you have been telling me that I can't do...because I don't know what is behind every cloud. As you can see. It is perfectly logical to not believe in the existence of gods or even their possibility whilst still remaining open to any new evidence.
I don’t care about your ‘gold-plated’ Porsche - lol. To say the knowledge is ‘hidden’ (in reference to a god or gods) is to suggest it is physical (and proveable). It simply isn’t.
No, you can (and do) use probability for both my alleged car and the idea of gods. Or crossing the road. Or getting on a plane.
Even subconsciously, i.e, hidden. Background knowledge (such as a gold plated Porsche must be rare, and therefore unlikely, hint, hint). We may not be very good at it (because it is a subconscious generalization), but we do use it. So are you really agnostic? Is there really only one type of agnosticism?
I do not believe that gods exist nor do I believe that they might exist.
Are you ok with that as an atheists's beliefs?
Yep - that’s what an atheist is - lol. What people identify as is of no consequence to me.
I think the question raised by Mystic (post #295) is far more interesting to explore than individual labels (which is yet another reason why I continue to identify as an agnostic).
Yep - that’s what an atheist is - lol. What people identify as is of no consequence to me.
Good. Then I don't know what we have been discussing for the past two days.
Quote:
I think the question raised by Mystic (post #295) is far more interesting to explore than individual labels (which is yet another reason why I choose to identify as an agnostic).
I'll have a look but for me, Mystic hasn't said anything interesting for the past ten years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
