|
Author
|
Topic: Atheist vs Agnostic
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
Message 61 of 111 (189627)
03-02-2005 10:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
03-02-2005 10:06 AM
|
|
PaulK writes: Your reply does not address the point. Rejecting evolution is quite different from rejecting belief in God sicne there is vastly more evidence for evolution. My reply precisely addresses the point. You asked what I think and I gave it to you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:06 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:28 AM | | Monk has replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 62 of 111 (189628)
03-02-2005 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
03-02-2005 9:45 AM
|
|
PaulK writes: Many atheists - even strong atheists - don't. Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying that many 'strong atheist', as loosely defined in other posts in this thread, do not close the door on the possiblity of the existence of God? Are there any so called 'strong atheists' out there who agree?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 9:45 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:30 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 66 of 111 (189632)
03-02-2005 10:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
03-02-2005 10:28 AM
|
|
It's not my intention to appear obtuse. I'm just a little slow. Why don't you reload the 'point' concisely and I'll give it a go.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 10:28 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2005 11:02 AM | | Monk has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 68 of 111 (189634)
03-02-2005 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Ooook!
03-02-2005 10:36 AM
|
|
My apologies. You are correct in that I have auto e-mail reply and jumped the gun in your reply to crashfrog. I very much enjoyed your input and look forward to future conversations.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Ooook!, posted 03-02-2005 10:36 AM | | Ooook! has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
Hangdawg13 writes: Some would say that solid evidence for God must be presented to even entertain the idea of God and since no such evidence exists God is a non issue. IMO, since this contains a judgment that God (whatever that might be) probably doesn't exist this can be called weak atheism expressed in a scientific worldview vocabulary. To me, saying "God is a non issue" appears to avoid the question. There are many, many concepts that are not supported by solid evidence. Take for example the concept of parallel universes. No solid evidence has been presented for their existence. Do those individuals say "parallel universes are a non issue" or do they say, "I don't know if parallel universes exists". And if parallel universes are considered a non issue, then does that imply they are unworthy of further discussion?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-03-2005 12:23 AM | | Hangdawg13 has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 86 of 111 (189765)
03-03-2005 10:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Ooook!
03-03-2005 9:21 AM
|
|
Hi Ooook! I do have a reply for you, but the pesky needs of my day to day existence encroach on the available time I have on this board. I'll get back to you later.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Ooook!, posted 03-03-2005 9:21 AM | | Ooook! has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 90 of 111 (189804)
03-03-2005 2:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by custard
03-03-2005 1:01 PM
|
|
Re: Non Issue
custard writes: It is NOT a copout to say belief in god is a non-issue. What makes that answer unpalatable to MyMonkey, and others, is that belief in god obviously plays an important role in his life so he just can't fathom that some people say this is a non-issue, not because they are equivocating, but because it actually is a non-issue for them. For more than 20 years I considered myself an agnostic and for most of those years I didn't think about God at all. I understand the viewpoint perfectly well. But in light of various discussions in this thread I should explain what the term agnostic meant for me. I wasn't at all convinced that God existed, I didn't know. I believed that if God did exist, then he existed at the 'macro' level. (i.e. caused the big bang and perhaps setup the physical laws of this universe, but then sat back and allowed his creation to operate on its own). But even then, this was a loosely held belief.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by custard, posted 03-03-2005 1:01 PM | | custard has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 91 of 111 (189806)
03-03-2005 2:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Ooook!
03-03-2005 9:21 AM
|
|
Ooook! writes: In science the amount of supporting evidence a theory has defines how established it is and how confident we are of basing ideas and actions upon on it I agree entirely.
Ooook! writes: I believe the same principle can be applied to faith based actions. This is where I disagree with you. One simply cannot use the tools of the physical world, (scientific method, etc) to prove the existence of the spiritual world. It’s disheartening to see believers try because they lose the argument every time. I'm sure that for most atheists, the discussion ends here. No physical evidence, then the conversation is pointless.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Ooook!, posted 03-03-2005 9:21 AM | | Ooook! has replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 96 of 111 (189898)
03-03-2005 8:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by 1.61803
03-03-2005 6:25 PM
|
|
1.61803 writes: **SNL***Church Ladie (" How convienant".) My, My, My, how impertinant of you!!!... .....You must be............................. .....oh I don't know......................... SAATAAN?? 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 03-03-2005 6:25 PM | | 1.61803 has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 99 of 111 (190063)
03-04-2005 1:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by mick
03-04-2005 12:49 PM
|
|
m writes: Talk of a "god" involves clarification. It is possible to talk of god as a moral idea or talk of god as, say, a necessary end to the debate of ‘where did it all begin?’, or both. Obviously much of the time we are talking about both. However, I feel an athiest is essentially just denying the possibility of a moral god...this I find rather plausible. Most of the discussions posted by self proclaimed 'hard atheist' here and in other threads has been the denial of the existence of any God, moral or not.
Therefore, in some sense you could be an athiest and argue for the existence of god. I'm not an atheist so it is difficult for me to present that point of view, but it would seem to me that's a bit of a stretch. IMHO an intelligent designer devoid of morality is still a supernatural being that is not any more palatable to atheist than a moral God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by mick, posted 03-04-2005 12:49 PM | | mick has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
An intelligent designer could still be natural, such as aliens or time-traveling humans. I suppose that's true. Time traveling humans?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2005 2:16 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 106 by mick, posted 03-14-2005 12:56 PM | | Monk has replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 107 of 111 (191467)
03-14-2005 1:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by mick
03-14-2005 12:56 PM
|
|
m writes: Does 'god' necessarily denote intelligence? It depends on who you ask doesn't it? For someone like me who believes in God as the Creator of the universe, then yes, that Creator would denote intelligence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by mick, posted 03-14-2005 12:56 PM | | mick has not replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 109 of 111 (193077)
03-21-2005 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Ooook!
03-21-2005 12:51 PM
|
|
Re: ahem...bump (polite bump)
Ooook writes: Oh, and incidentally — the quote you attributed to me in the last post was actually from MyMonkey. I mean, I know there’s not too much difference between us and the great apes but I'm not entirely sure MMs going to be too happy that you muddled an orangutan with a baby - with them being related. Hi Ooook, No offense taken at all. To me, they both seem like cute "monkeys".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Ooook!, posted 03-21-2005 12:51 PM | | Ooook! has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by jar, posted 03-21-2005 2:37 PM | | Monk has replied |
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
|
|
Message 111 of 111 (193084)
03-21-2005 2:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
03-21-2005 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: ahem...bump (polite bump)
No offspring jar? BTW, your previous post was number 5000. Do you get a prize?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by jar, posted 03-21-2005 2:37 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2