On Agnosticism

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Therefore, you cannot insist that it be defined as one gender or the other.

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

 

[no one in particular]

What other account?

NoDeity seems to be the poster that really has this guy figured out. He seems to be a con man (for example, the use of "Dr." in his title when trying to sell his book) albeit very unsuccessful. His previous incarnation was AtheistRevolution.

 

[Sundog]

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

You are making the logical error of anthropomorphism: of assuming that intelligent beings, divine or otherwise, would necessarily have human, or even animal, characteristics. You have no evidence to base such a conclusion on.

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

You are making the logical error of anthropomorphism: of assuming that intelligent beings, divine or otherwise, would necessarily have human, or even animal, characteristics. You have no evidence to base such a conclusion on.

I am not assuming anything. I have reached no such conclusions.
You are claiming I am assuming this and that and you continuously try to tell me that I said this or that or that I believe this or that...

Stop trying to put words in my posts...

 

[diddidit]

Is it possible that an unknown exists? Yes. Can we know what this unknow is? No! So how can we make a claim to know that this unknown exists? We cannot. rational people do not take ideological positions based on lack of knowledge.

Isn't that precisely what agnosticism is?

Have you read The Demon-Haunted World, Max? Can you logically prove that there isn't an undetectable dragon in my garage?

My goodness, but you're bad at this!

did

 

[Sundog]

I am not assuming anything. I have reached no such conclusions.
You are claiming I am assuming this and that and you continuously try to tell me that I said this or that or that I believe this or that...

Stop trying to put words in my posts...

Not true. You said this:


So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.



Do you withdraw your demand that we classify this "god" as male or female, then?

 

[diddidit]

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

Didn't you insist that we had to know that to know that this supreme being exists (or not know, as the agnostic case you've misidentified would say)? Ya know, I think people here could just ignore you, as you've done a fine job of refuting yourself!

did

 

[Fun2BFree]

George (edited to correct the name of the author) Smith's The Case Against God makes a long and complicated argument very similar to AW.c--if you have never read it, AW.c, I suggest you do...it is too complex for me to recount here but I think you will like it...

I think part of the problem with the agnostic position on God is that the God notion is afforded more leeway than just about any other unsubstantiated idea or thing....I mean there are a lot of things for which there is a lack of evidence and we are very comfortable saying that the probabilty that such a thing exists is so small that it is fair to say it does not exist....it does seem that the God hypothesis is not held by agnostics to the same standard as other hypotheses...how many agnostics are willing to give EQUAL consideration to the God hypothesis and to the idea that those nut jobs who wore the purple shrouds and Nike's are actually enjoying eternity riding around behind a comet? Belief in God does direct one to behave in a particular way--as does not believing in God...sort of like a rudder on a boat...but I am unclear on what the agnostic position does to influence the arc of one's behavior? Deciding to decide not to decide--- if followed to consistently, it is a bit like a rudderless ship, isn't it?

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Fun2BFree thanks for the tip.
and I agree with your observations.

To the previous poster who posted this

Do you withdraw your demand that we classify this "god" as male or female, then?

Yes as long as you convince all deists to do the same. We were talking about the deist/passive god after all and it is not I who made the claim of this god's gender but the deists themselves.


As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.

 

[Pahansiri]

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

If it were a “ supreme being “ it would not be supreme as it would need craftsman to design it, produce the components, and construct it.

It would seem these “things, beings” would then be the creators not the “robot or a machine”.

For that reason this post is illogical and perhaps as you say

Please stay out if you have nothing relevant to contribute

This is not how I believe as this is a forum and all are free to speak if their point is logical and relevant, or not.

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

If it were a “ supreme being “ it would not be supreme as it would need craftsman to design it, produce the components, and construct it.

It would seem these “things, beings” would then be the creators not the “robot or a machine”.

We were talking about "god" in this thread not about supremebeings.

But let me entertain your rants anyhow.

Are you claiming that there is only one level of "supreme beings"?

if yes, can you show any evidence that supreme beings exist and can you describe what they are like, what they may look like and what their characteristics and atributes are?

otherwise what is the point of your rants?

For that reason this post is illogical and perhaps as you say...

 

[Upchurch]

Wow. You're just not getting this, are you? Let me explain.

I am an atheist, but I am a skeptical atheist. You have made the claim that the concept of God is logically inconsistant. I'm asking you to prove that claim. I'm trying to work with you to try to help you make your point, yet you are fighting me.

My guess is that you are a "hard atheist" which is also sometimes refered to as a "religious atheist".

So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.

You've made the assumption that gender is a "basic atribute" and that this hypothetical god is a "beast". I've defined this god to be neither.

Regardless, even if I did claim to have knowledge of its existence (which I never did), how by any stretch of the imagination is that circular logic?

Stand back into where? What place?

I was speaking metaphorically. I wasn't assuming physical existance for this god.

So then, how would such a being interact with the physical matter which requires space/time without being inside space/time?

I specifically said that this god doesn't interact with physical matter. Please pay attention.

Again you claim knowledge of a being whose basic atributes you do not know.

Again, I never claimed actual knowledge of a hypothetical being. Regardless, why the tendency to attack me rather than to attack the logical consistancies/inconsistancies of the god? This, in itself is a logical fallacy....

How do you know it is a pasive god?

by definition.

I do not see any evidence for any order in the world aside from that which man has made (limitted as it may be) so what order are you speaking of?

We're not talking about reality, which would require evidence. Your claim is to logical inconsistancy. Please stick to that.

There are many things which are impossible. Are you aware of this? If yes, are you aware that making a claim without substantiation is merely a claim? If that which you claim cannot be defined or its atributes be defined the it is a logical impossibility to the extent we understand nature, logic and the laws there of.

Okay, I'm going to assume that you misunderstood that this is a hypothetical situation.

However, the definition of logical impossiblity has nothing to do with being able to define something. It has to do with consistancy. Have you had any formal training in logic?

I'm going to forego the rest of your post, if you want to take another crack at the logical aspects of it rather than attacking me and my hypothetical model.

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I'm going to forego the rest of your post, if you want to take another crack at the logical aspects of it rather than attacking me and my hypothetical model.

You have not presented any hypothetical "model".
You simply made it up as we went along.

So, why don't you present and outline the scenariou of this passive god of your imaginary hypothetical "model" so we can have a foundation for proper debate.

 

[Pahansiri]

As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.

Again personal attacks against people who do not believe as you do, the same style as the “fundies” you also attack but do not see you are just like.

You judge “all” agnostics as this or that then complain above people here are telling you what you believe or do not believe. Hypocrisy.


You can no more judge or know what “ all” agnostics think or believe then the Christian that says “ everyone is a sinner”.


I as Buddhist look at the god idea 2 ways the first and foremost being it is totally irrelevant.

The second being it seems very illogical and there is no evidence.


I also know that what I know for certain is I certainly do not know much.

There may be a god in some form but could care less.I lose no sleep over it nor start a web site saying there is not or post to many boards being ego filled and unkind demanding there is not.

We just do ( or most) do not attack people for their belief in a god or 2 or a billion.

You keep dancing seeking a set definition of “god” you will never get one.

Allow me to leave you with 2 quotes the first I can not remember who said it

Concervtives: Authoritarian personality syndrome: characterzied by exaggerated submission to authority, extreme levels of conformity to conventional standards of behavior, self rightous hostility and punitiveness toward deviants and members of minority groups. Atlemyer limits the syndrome to the political right wing. Right wing authoritarianism is associated wtih hostility toward homosexuals, Aids victims, drug users, the homeless, and environmentalists.

The 2nd is by Buddha.

'Only here is there purity' -- that's what they say -- 'No other
doctrines are pure' -- so they say. Insisting that what they
depend on is good, they are deeply entrenched in their personal
truths. Seeking debate, they plunge into an assembly, regarding
one another as fools. Dependent on the authority of others, they speak in dispute.
Desiring praise, they claim to be wise. Engaged in disputes in the midst of the assembly,
-- anxious, desiring praise -- the one defeated is staggered. Shaken with criticism, he
seeks for an opening. He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished, defeated, by those
judging the issue: He laments, he grieves -- the inferior exponent. 'He beat me,' he
mourns. These disputes have arisen among contemplatives. In them are victory & defeat.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes, for they have no other goal than the gaining of praise. He who is praised there for expounding his doctrine in the midst of the
assembly, laughs on that account & grows haughty, attaining his heart's desire. That
haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation, for he'll speak in over-estimation & pride.
Seeing this, one would abstain from disputes. No purity is attained by them, say the
wise.... Pasura Sutta

 

[Starrman]

WHAT GOD? WHAT IS GOD? WHAT IS a GOD?

Irrelevant.

An agnostic is admitting his/her ignorance to this question. He/she is not agnostic toward any particular definition of god, just the idea of a supreme being that has some sort of role in the creation of or continuance of the world.

They are admitting that they do not have all of the information necessary to know there is or know there isn't a god of any kind. This is rational.

Now you are saying:

They are simply lazy, period

That is not the same as irrational, are you changing your point from "agnostics are irrational", to "agnostics are lazy?"

 

[Samus]

As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.

It's hopeless to argue here, and I've already made a couple points in this thread that were ignored by you, but I wanted to chime in on this thought.

For the longest time, as I mentioned, I operated under the label of agnostic. We basically live our lives as atheists (don't pray, don't go to church, etc.) It was never much a concern to me to reach a conclusion one way or the other on the existence of god(s).

Simply put, I had other things to worry about. Not everyone can donate as much time as you do to going hog wild on Internet message boards. It had nothing to do with intellectual laziness, it had everything to do with intellectual time management.

I don't think you have a comprehensive understanding of what the average agnostic thinks. Furthermore, making blanket statements (like we're all lazy) shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, that you're not willing to understand the position.

I propose that most agnostics are, to a certain extent, apathetic towards theism. We just don't much care one way or the other.

Edited to add: Looks like Pahansiri beat me to the point.

 

[Pahansiri]

We were talking about "god" in this thread not about supremebeings.

But let me entertain your rants anyhow.

Are you claiming that there is only one level of "supreme beings"?

if yes, can you show any evidence that supreme beings exist and can you describe what they are like, what they may look like and what their characteristics and atributes are?

otherwise what is the point of your rants?

My great friend do you NOT read peoples post or so fast perhaps you do not understand what is written?



You write ;

We were talking about "god" in this thread not about supremebeings.

But p you wrote also and to which I responded to

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

You see my friend YOU are the one talking about supreme beings not me..

Upchurch was talking about a god ( and no he does not believe in gods no matter how much you keep saying he does) having a gender.

You then posted

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

Implying that a god would be a supreme being and a silly statement about a robot or a machine being one. I pointed out it could not be a supreme being as others would have to make it.. I am trying to speak in a way you can understand.

So again reading this slowly can you see you are wrong, again?



You go on to say

Are you claiming that there is only one level of "supreme beings"?

Again I believe you just do not follow a conversation and are not a liar.

PLEASE show me where I said there are any levels of supreme beings or any such thing..

Take a deep breath, get some rest and read and respond free from ego and emotion.

if yes, can you show any evidence that supreme beings exist and can you describe what they are like, what they may look like and what their characteristics and atributes are?

LOL my friend you really become so confused, read all most post again and I will give you $100. For each time I said I believed in a god or supreme beings…


You write in anger;

otherwise what is the point of your rants?

To point out all your silliness.

 

[Upchurch]

You have not presented any hypothetical "model".
You simply made it up as we went along.

Actually, I borrowed from deist philosophy. But regardless, maybe this god at a time idea isn't a very good one.

Let's start over, How is the concept of God logically inconsistant in all cases?

 

[Pahansiri]

All other posters here attempting to have a mature logical conversation with AtheistWorld.Com

AtheistWorld.Com responce to anything logical we post..

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Simply put, I had other things to worry about. Not everyone can donate as much time as you do to going hog wild on Internet message boards. It had nothing to do with intellectual laziness, it had everything to do with intellectual time management.

Wow! You must have alot to think about continuously.... Some of us can think because we are willing to think and willing to excercise our brains which in turn speeds up thr thought process.

I don't think you have a comprehensive understanding of what the average agnostic thinks.

Yes I do. They don't.

Furthermore, making blanket statements (like we're all lazy) shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, that you're not willing to understand the position.

I do understand your position. You are lazy to think.

I propose that most agnostics are, to a certain extent, apathetic towards theism. We just don't much care one way or the other.

Which begs the question as to responsability...
If the problems facing our civilization are not important enough to ponder and resolve them then not only agnostics lazy but parasites as well. Thanks for bringing this up.