Agnostic belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2011, 10:12 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2011 10:18 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Agnostic belief
Hey, Mike.

Well there is no third answer to your question. But that's only because it's framed as a yes no dichotomy.

If the question is framed as "what do you believe" then the game changes.

A – That God exists
B – That God does not exist
C – That it’s equally possible that God does and does not exist (that's not the only way to phrase that)

In your frame, I'm relegated to your second option by default for not responding yes to the question, but the problem is that it assumes that my position is that I DON'T believe, which is not the case. In terms of my frame, if you ask me, do you believe A, my answer is no. If you ask me, do you believe B, again, my answer is no. In my frame, there has to be a third response.

Frames are powerful things and they exacerbate the limits of models that I explained before. Doesn't mean frames and models are bad, far from it, we wouldn't be able to think without them. It just means that, as far as I am concerned, we need to understand the limitations of models and the limitations of frames so as not to become mired in those limitations.

I just thought of a good analogy. Your wife is pregnant. You have not done an ultrasound and the gender is still in question. Your frame is the equivalent of the question; do you think it will be a boy? Yes and no are the only possible answers. My frame is the equivalent of the question; what gender do you think the child will be? One can answer, boy, girl and it could be either a boy or a girl.

Hey, Unbeliever.

The reason I respectfully agree to disagree is because you have very eloquently laid out your argument on several occasions and clarified your position further with your last response. Through our discussions I've come to understand your argument but I've also come to the realisation that your beliefs on the matter are incompatible with my beliefs on the matter. My beliefs cannot function in a binary system and your beliefs cannot allow anything other than a binary system. So I give full value to your argument, I have heard it and I accept it. I respectfully agree to disagree because I'm not dismissing your argument or telling you that you're wrong, but there's no point in trying to reconcile two incompatible ideas. I simply disagree.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 03:11 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
(30-05-2011 10:12 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I just thought of a good analogy. Your wife is pregnant. You have not done an ultrasound and the gender is still in question. Your frame is the equivalent of the question; do you think it will be a boy? Yes and no are the only possible answers. My frame is the equivalent of the question; what gender do you think the child will be? One can answer, boy, girl and it could be either a boy or a girl.

Hey Matt, I don't mean this as an argument as much as a clarification. To me it seems like "boy, girl, or it could be either a boy or a girl" is still a dichotomy (boy or girl) with a reaffirmation of the two choices at the end (either a boy or a girl). To say either a boy or a girl doesn't seem like a third choice to me, but just another way of stating the two possible choices. What am I missing?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 01:40 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
Hey, Stark.

Saying boy means you think that the child will be a boy. Saying girl means that you think that the child will be a girl. Saying I don't know (or it could be either, or I don't care, however you wish to formulate the sentence) means neither. I am neither leaning towards boy nor girl. I cannot be placed in either the boy or girl camp because I am not saying that I believe it will be one over the other. There are only two possible outcomes but the outcome is not the belief. The question is moot after birth because it's answered. Same with God. God either exists or it doesn't. Knowing which it is is the outcome. Once that happems the question is moot because it's answered. But before then, there is, there isn't and I don't know are three completely different answers to the question of, what do you believe?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 03:32 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
Ok, I think I'm starting to get you. I've been struggling with this since I met you when you first joined the forum. Still struggling, but I am gradually starting to understand your view in a way that makes sense to me. (Nobody ever said I was the quickest bunny in the forest)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2011 03:53 PM by MikeNH.)
RE: Agnostic belief
(30-05-2011 10:12 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mike.

Well there is no third answer to your question. But that's only because it's framed as a yes no dichotomy.

It is framed that way because that is the question that the theist/atheist concepts answer.

Quote:If the question is framed as "what do you believe" then the game changes.

A – That God exists
B – That God does not exist
C – That it’s equally possible that God does and does not exist (that's not the only way to phrase that)

A - Theist
B - Strong Atheist
C - If you answered this way, I would then ask the original question I posed. I personally think it is certainly possible that a God exists, but I don't hold the belief that a god does exist and am therefore an atheist. This showcases why it's important to frame the question how I did, because there is, in my opinion, for someone to fall into a category other than either they hold the belief that god exists or that he doesn't. The person in this situation may very well accept that there is a chance God could exist, but they must be able to answer the question as to their belief that he does exist in yes or no terms, I don't see any other way around this.

Quote:In your frame, I'm relegated to your second option by default for not responding yes to the question, but the problem is that it assumes that my position is that I DON'T believe, which is not the case.

I still affirm that there is a true dichotomy here, you cannot both believe God exists and not believe God exists simultaneously. Either you hold that belief or you don't.

Quote:In terms of my frame, if you ask me, do you believe A, my answer is no. If you ask me, do you believe B, again, my answer is no. In my frame, there has to be a third response.

I fit neither into A nor B in your framing too, but I am still an atheist... Look at it this way, If I ask you if you believe in some God - any god(s), and you cannot answer this question with a direct "yes" then you are an atheist. If you are unsure and consider the chances to be 50/50, I still hold that you either hold such a belief or not, and can therefore be categorized on either the atheist or theist side.

Quote:I just thought of a good analogy. Your wife is pregnant. You have not done an ultrasound and the gender is still in question. Your frame is the equivalent of the question; do you think it will be a boy? Yes and no are the only possible answers. My frame is the equivalent of the question; what gender do you think the child will be? One can answer, boy, girl and it could be either a boy or a girl.

This analogy still holds true with my scenario, but I find it has some major falws, and I'll explain why. If you asked me if I personally believed that the baby would be a boy, I would obviously not have enough information to know what the gender is, and realistically have no reason to think it was more likely to be a boy or girl (assuming a true 50/50 chance) THEREFORE I would NOT hold the belief that it would be a boy. It very well could be a boy, and the same can be said for it being a girl, BUT because it is completely unknown I do not hold the belief that it is a boy.

This analogy gets quite rough because you might initially equate thinking it's a boy with theism and thinking its a girl to atheism, but that is not a fair representation of the sides.. Lets make up some names for the different positions in this situation and see how I think a fair allocation of terms would be:

1) "Babyist Type A"- someone who believes their child will be male
2) "Babyist Type B"- someone who believes their child will be female
3) "Ababyist" - someone who does not hold the belief that their child will be male, or likewise someone who does not believe their child will be female. This person knows that their child will be either female or male (for the sake of this analogy lets not get into gender debates) but has no reason to hold the belief that it will specifically be either one. (Also compare the type-a and type-b babyists to the number of different theists and their definitions of god that are mutually exclusive.)
4) "Strong Ababyist" - someone who believes their wife isn't pregnant at all. (this is mostly for giggles)

If you asked me the question that you framed, "what gender do you think the child will be", I would have to say that I don't have a belief either way. In this case I cannot rationally hold the belief that it will be specifically a boy or girl, therefore I withhold belief, therefore I am an ababyist in regards to the gender of my baby.

To apply this analogy back to our discussion:

1) "Theist Type A"- Someone who believes the Christian God exists.
2) "Theist Type B" - Someone who believes that the Muslim God exists.
3) "Theist Type C,D,E,F,G"...... so on and so forth...
4) "Atheist" - Someone who does not hold any of the above beliefs for any reason, including but not limited to:
- They've never heard about the particular God in question
- They have evidence to think such a God cannot exist
- They have no evidence leading them to think that the particular God does or does not exist, but they do not believe it does or doesn't.
5) "Strong atheist" - someone who believes that God doesn't exist.
(31-05-2011 03:32 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ok, I think I'm starting to get you. I've been struggling with this since I met you when you first joined the forum. Still struggling, but I am gradually starting to understand your view in a way that makes sense to me. (Nobody ever said I was the quickest bunny in the forest)

check out my explanation above of his baby analogy. There is really only two categories and I still think it's a true dichotomy:

1) Someone who believes their child's gender is specifically male or specifically female (theist) (compare believing its a boy or girl to believing God is allah or yahweh)
2) Someone who doesn't hold either belief because there is no evidence either way. (atheist)

This analogy still sucks in my opinion... It's confusing because we are not comparing the existence of God and the existence of a baby, we are comparing someone's believe that a God exists to someone's belief that the gender of a child is knowable even though we have no evidence leading us to believe it's one or the other. The atheist in this case would say there is no evidence so don't even bother believing either way because it's like believing heads will come up in a coin toss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 07:12 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
Hey, Stark.

Word.

Hey, Mike.

Mike Wrote:If you asked me the question that you framed, "what gender do you think the child will be", I would have to say that I don't have a belief either way. In this case I cannot rationally hold the belief that it will be specifically a boy or girl, therefore I withhold belief, therefore I am an ababyist in regards to the gender of my baby.

But that's Agnosticism. You can't know so you don't claim either way. That's what it means and that's exactly how Thomas Henry Huxley defined it.

You might not have any logical reason to think it's a boy, but people say all the time and with utter confidence, "I'm gonna have a son!"

Mike Wrote:I still affirm that there is a true dichotomy here, you cannot both believe God exists and not believe God exists simultaneously. Either you hold that belief or you don't.

And yet I do. So either you’re wrong or I’m a liar and as biased as I might be on this one, I ain’t no liar. As I said, if the model fails to represent reality then it's time to change the model, not reality.

Mike Wrote:Look at it this way, If I ask you if you believe in some God - any god(s), and you cannot answer this question with a direct "yes" then you are an atheist.

I do look at it that way. Like I said before, I recognise several models of this question and this is very much one of them. The definition of Atheist in this model is not-Theist. In terms of this model, I am an Atheist. But I don't accept how this model characterises me. This is what I meant when I mentioned the "Do you think it will be a boy?" question. If your answer to that question is anything other than yes, then you are an Aboyist. Which is true. You are not among the group that believes it will be a boy. But within the Aboyists, there are some people who think it will be a girl and others who will not venture a guess either way. Those are two very different positions. Just as with the not-Theist definition of Atheism, there are some people who don't believe in God and some who will not venture a guess either way. Those are two very different positions. But in both cases, those two very different positions are considered the exact same thing. As someone who will never say "I do not believe in God," I do not accept being lumped into a category where it is assumed I hold a belief, or lack thereof, that I do not, will not and cannot. Calling me an Atheist is as ridiculous to me as calling me a Theist because I don’t answer yes to the question, do you disbelieve in the existence of God? I am not served at all by the not-Theist model and neither are a great many others.

So going forward, if you try to convince me of how the not-Theist model works, you're preaching to the converted. I get it. I'm just offering a different model. Question it, take it, leave it, it's your choice. But when speaking about how I self-identify, I self-identify as an Agnostic. Period. I will never self-identify as an Atheist and no one can ever make me.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 07:57 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
(31-05-2011 07:12 PM)Ghost Wrote:  But that's Agnosticism. You can't know so you don't claim either way. That's what it means and that's exactly how Thomas Henry Huxley defined it.

You might not have any logical reason to think it's a boy, but people say all the time and with utter confidence, "I'm gonna have a son!"

No, agnosticism would be in this case saying that there is no possible way to know if it's a boy or a girl (assuming we can't do an ultrasound). Atheism in this case is withholding belief due to a lack of evidence. Simple as that - atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Quote:And yet I do. So either you’re wrong or I’m a liar and as biased as I might be on this one, I ain’t no liar. As I said, if the model fails to represent reality then it's time to change the model, not reality.

Well your whole description using quantum mechanics, schroedingers cat, probabilities, etc., really throws a wrench into the discussion because we could go off on a large number of tangents here. I simply reject your notion that "until we look inside the box, god both exists and doesn't exist"... There are countless mutually exclusive definitions of God that cannot all exist, but they surely can all not exist, and I'm not quite sure how you could use quantum mechanics/probabilities/wave functions/etc., to rationalize a supernatural beings existence or non existence, but that's a different idea.

It still seems to me that there is no possible way for one to simultaneously believe something exists and also believe it doesn't exist, and your linked post hasn't really convinced me otherwise. I still assert that "remaining neutral" in terms of belief, such as saying I don't believe God exists or doesn't exist, is atheism, and doing the same in terms of knowledge, such as saying I don't think we could know either way, is agnosticism.
Quote:I do look at it that way. Like I said before, I recognise several models of this question and this is very much one of them. The definition of Atheist in this model is not-Theist. In terms of this model, I am an Atheist.

Excellent! A point of agreement!

Quote:But I don't accept how this model characterises me.

It doesn't characterize you in any other way other than saying you are not a theist.

Quote:This is what I meant when I mentioned the "Do you think it will be a boy?" question. If your answer to that question is anything other than yes, then you are an Aboyist. Which is true. You are not among the group that believes it will be a boy. But within the Aboyists, there are some people who think it will be a girl and others who will not venture a guess either way. Those are two very different positions. Just as with the not-Theist definition of Atheism, there are some people who don't believe in God and some who will not venture a guess either way. Those are two very different positions. But in both cases, those two very different positions are considered the exact same thing. As someone who will never say "I do not believe in God," I do not accept being lumped into a category where it is assumed I hold a belief, or lack thereof, that I do not, will not and cannot. Calling me an Atheist is as ridiculous to me as calling me a Theist because I don’t answer yes to the question, do you disbelieve in the existence of God? I am not served at all by the not-Theist model and neither are a great many others.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I find that calling myself an agnostic atheist does the trick perfectly in describing my general views. Sure, the labels leave a lot unanswered, but that comes in discussion. Realistically speaking, I have different labels for different proposed definitions of God. I consider myself a pretty strong atheist, and may even come close to gnostic, in terms of the biblical God. At the same time, I consider myself an agnostic atheist in terms of a generic non-personal god that simply created the universe and cares not about humanity or earth. These labels are indeed flawed in that you cannot describe anyone fully simply using labels, but they are extremely useful in boiling down particular facets of one's worldview into simply one or two word terms.

Quote:So going forward, if you try to convince me of how the not-Theist model works, you're preaching to the converted. I get it. I'm just offering a different model. Question it, take it, leave it, it's your choice. But when speaking about how I self-identify, I self-identify as an Agnostic. Period. I will never self-identify as an Atheist and no one can ever make me.

Call yourself whatever you'd like, it just seems to me that you are only answering half of the question: What do you believe and do you claim knowledge? One is theological and one is epistemological.

Even though we disagree, it's been a pleasure having this conversation, thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 08:45 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
Hey, Mike.

It has been good.

I have told you what I believe, but you reject even the possibility of it. Somehow your rejection of it means I don't believe it. So I got nothing for ya.

I'm glad Agnostic Atheist works well for you, but it sucks my ball sack.

Quote:It doesn't characterize you in any other way other than saying you are not a theist.

Meh. I'm tired of pretending this isn't BS. Atheists don't believe in God and they need to fess up. Qualify it all you like, that's the bottom line. You're notorious and I don't want to be associated with you because I haven't sided with you. I get angry when Atheists say they're Agnostics because they're full of crap and they're using the term in the loosest lip service way possible (like saying that ‘I'm only 99.99999% sure’ actually has some kind of meaning or operational value). Your use of the term diminishes me and my beliefs in my opinion. It's like when Americans sew Canadian flags to their backpacks when they tramp across Europe. I just want to scream, "Fuck of! You're making me look bad!" Agnosticism isn't a weekend retreat for me. It's not a way station. I'm not some wayward potential rational human being too scared to make the final jump to Atheism (an argument that makes no fucking sense whatsoever if we're all just a bunch of not-Theist Atheists anyway and even less sense if Atheism espouses absolutely nothing: but that's part of the problem. Atheist arguments and Atheist definitions don't support one another). I am an Agnostic. Like Martin Luther I'm nailing it to the door. <steps down from dais>

Anyhoo, like I said to Unbeliever, I might as well be asking you to eat a baby when I ask you to try and see it as something other than a dichotomy. In the system that is your belief, that dichotomy is a keystone. Your system cannot function without it. I might as well ask the Pope to consider that Jesus was just a really righteous dude with some good ideas. I can accept all of that. What I can't accept is your system, because my system can't function with the dichotomy. All of this is fine. It's how human brains work. And it's problem free when we're trying to understand each other's systems. But if we're talking about what IS, then we're gonna go nowhere because the notions are incompatible. If people want to accept the dichotomy as the inviolable truth, more power to them. It's just not a ride I can take.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2011, 09:38 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
(31-05-2011 08:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I have told you what I believe, but you reject even the possibility of it. Somehow your rejection of it means I don't believe it. So I got nothing for ya.

I'm sure you believe what it is you believe, but I think you're wrong in what you call it, simply as that. What it seems you are doing, at least using my definitions, is having blonde hair while calling yourself a brunette.

Quote:I'm glad Agnostic Atheist works well for you, but it sucks my ball sack.

I lol'd

Quote:Meh. I'm tired of pretending this isn't BS. Atheists don't believe in God and they need to fess up.

And? That's what I've been saying all along. I don't believe in God.

Quote:Qualify it all you like, that's the bottom line. You're notorious and I don't want to be associated with you because I haven't sided with you.

I'm notorious? I had no idea.

Quote:I get angry when Atheists say they're Agnostics because they're full of crap and they're using the term in the loosest lip service way possible (like saying that ‘I'm only 99.99999% sure’ actually has some kind of meaning or operational value). Your use of the term diminishes me and my beliefs in my opinion.

Not full of crap at all, the two labels are used to explain two sides on two different concepts, belief and knowledge. I don't see why it's so hard to understand this.

Quote:It's like when Americans sew Canadian flags to their backpacks when they tramp across Europe. I just want to scream, "Fuck of! You're making me look bad!"

How am I making you look bad by using the term atheist to describe my lack of belief?
Quote:Agnosticism isn't a weekend retreat for me. It's not a way station. I'm not some wayward potential rational human being too scared to make the final jump to Atheism (an argument that makes no fucking sense whatsoever if we're all just a bunch of not-Theist Atheists anyway and even less sense if Atheism espouses absolutely nothing: but that's part of the problem. Atheist arguments and Atheist definitions don't support one another). I am an Agnostic. Like Martin Luther I'm nailing it to the door. <steps down from dais>

Too scared to make the final jump?? What the hell are you talking about? There are certain definitions of God that I assert do not exist, and other definitions I assert I simply do not know and could never actually have anything resembling knowledge of. I can confidently say that an all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly benevolent God does not exist because all evidence and logic point to this not being the case. I can also confidently say that a supernatural creator that simply created the universe and it's laws while completely remaining outside of our realm of detection, not intervening in any way such as answering prayers, etc., could very well exist - but I simply don't hold the belief that it does because there is no reason to. I don't understand why you disagree that this is a rational position and that the labels of agnosticism and atheism/strong atheism don't explain very well my general positions on the different topics.

Quote:Anyhoo, like I said to Unbeliever, I might as well be asking you to eat a baby when I ask you to try and see it as something other than a dichotomy. In the system that is your belief, that dichotomy is a keystone. Your system cannot function without it.

If by my 'system' you mean trying to use the terms as I feel as though they are meant to be used, explained by their etymology, and clearly understood by most people I talk to, sure that is my system. I use a system where the two important questions, belief and knowledge, are answered separately and labels can be attached accordingly to provide a quick and easy reference so we don't have to reinvent the wheel in every discussion.

Quote:What I can't accept is your system, because my system can't function with the dichotomy. All of this is fine. It's how human brains work. And it's problem free when we're trying to understand each other's systems. But if we're talking about what IS, then we're gonna go nowhere because the notions are incompatible. If people want to accept the dichotomy as the inviolable truth, more power to them. It's just not a ride I can take.

Fine, whatever works for you. I think you are limiting yourself though.. Do you take all God claims and definitions as equally possible? Is the deist God just as likely, in your mind, as the literal biblical God? Is there any definition of God, out of the thousands upon thousands that have been proposed, that you would claim you know doesn't exist? Are you not compelled at all by the problem of evil compared to the definitions of some all powerful benevolent God? What about Zeus? Allah? Jesus? Ra? Are they all just as likely?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2011, 07:41 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
Hey, Mike.

Mike Wrote:And? That's what I've been saying all along. I don't believe in God.

I know. That's the problem. I don't share that belief. So how can I be you?

Thomas Henry Huxley Wrote:Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

A lot of Atheists that call themselves Agnostic Atheists adhere to this principle in the thinnest of senses. They say “I don't believe in God, but I'm not 100% certain”. In doing so they accomplish two things. 1 - They get to claim Agnosticism when really, their belief in the non-existence of God is so near 100% that they might as well just say they're certain. 2 - By doing so, they get to claim that they are more open minded and not as rigidly dogmatic as Theists. That dogmatism is exactly what Huxley was responding to and it's what we true Agnostics wish to separate from. For real Agnostics, not pretending conclusions are certain doesn't mean operate as if they are but pay lip service to the fact they're not, it means operate as though they are not. When you say "I don't believe in God" you've taken a position, the true Atheist position, one that many Atheists deny they’ve taken and for all intents and purposes you're all pretending that it's certain.

Mike Wrote:How am I making you look bad by using the term atheist to describe my lack of belief?

No, not Atheism. If you could go ahead and keep that that'd be greaaaaaaat. Agnosticism. You've sewn an Agnostic flag on your backpack. Well stop it because the Dutch really like us and now they're gonna think that we're a bunch of douche bags Cool

Mike Wrote:Too scared to make the final jump?? What the hell are you talking about?

It's an Atheist talking point. Didn't mean to make it sound like you were saying it.

Mike Wrote:Do you take all God claims and definitions as equally possible? Is the deist God just as likely, in your mind, as the literal biblical God? Is there any definition of God, out of the thousands upon thousands that have been proposed, that you would claim you know doesn't exist? Are you not compelled at all by the problem of evil compared to the definitions of some all powerful benevolent God? What about Zeus? Allah? Jesus? Ra? Are they all just as likely?

Yes. That's why I'm an Agnostic.

My concern is very simple. I know that the natural universe exists and that I am governed by its rules. Of that, I am certain because it has been demonstrated time and time again. My only question is, does the supernatural, that which is above/beyond (super to) the natural, exist? The supernatural is not governed by the rules of the natural universe, it governs them.

If the supernatural is impossible, then no God, not a single one of the thousands, can possibly exist. If the supernatural does exist, then all Gods are possible.

There is absolutely no way for me to answer the question, does the supernatural exist? None whatsoever. Since I cannot answer that fundamental question, I cannot answer the God question. Any of them. So yes, deist God, Judeo-Christian God, Crow spirit, Zeus and his Pantheon, Shiva, Osiris and the Gang, they may all exist. Who knows? Maybe they all do. Maybe there's only a single God that masquerades as all of them. Maybe there's only a single God and they're all interpretations of it. Maybe there's only a single God and everyone's holy books have all of the details wrong. I don't know, I can't know and so as a practicing Agnostic, I cannot make a claim one way of the other. Do I believe they're possible? Yes. Do I believe they might not be? Yes. Do I believe one over the other? No.

I could give a fuck about the Bible, or the Gita, or the Qur'an. They're books. They're either written by God, which I can never know, or they're written by men. If they're written by God, well, then that's that. If they're written by men, their accuracy, or lack thereof, makes absolutely zero comment on the existence of God. They could be an absolute casserole of nonsense and God could still exist.

So the problem of evil doesn't bother me at all. First of all, I think that good and evil are human constructs. I don't believe in good and evil. They're childish concepts. Second, if evil is caused by God, then that is reality and our crappy book is wrong. Reality trumps all models always, including master narratives.

To understand me you must understand what Huxley says. I vigorously apply a single principle. I don't make conclusions about what is neither demonstrated nor demonstrable. No one has ever demonstrated that God exists. No one has ever demonstrated that God does not exist (I’m aware of the proving a negative thing but if it’s a hurdle that can’t be surmounted, then just admit that it can’t be surmounted). Because of the limitations of the human brain organ and the limitations of mathematics and the scientific method (both of which can only make comments on the natural universe) I do not believe that the God question is demonstrable. Therefore, because the God question is both undemonstrated and indemonstrable, I do not and will not make a conclusion. Period. That, to me, is what Agnosticism is and that, to me, is why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist. Both Theists and Atheists have made their conclusions. They can justify, qualify and testify all they want, but they've made them. I have not. And I won't. You've failed, your highness. I am an Agnostic like my father before me.... So be it... Agnostic.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: