|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Reality_Check©Reality_Check© Date: Feb 1, 2008 21:33
"Michael Gray" newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:nbb7q31af7nbj8m8ufknuda5udbju82j4r@4ax.com...> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:33 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
> aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Jan 31, 8:35 pm, Michael Gray newsguy.com> wrote:>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:25:18 -0800 (PST), Shapescare
>>>
>>> gmail.com> wrote:>>>>Is it possible to believe in a god if you are an agnostic?
>>>
>>> Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
>>
>>Well, actually, agnosticsm is a belief about knowledge.
>
> In fact, agnosticism is a belief about someone else's claim to a
> belief about knowledge.
> This leads to an infinite regress, which is not at all helpful.
> I prefer my proximal description, than your distal one.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
|
| | 69 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GrayMichael Gray Date: Feb 1, 2008 22:03
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:33:00 -0500, "Reality_Check©"
wrote:
>
>"Michael Gray" newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:nbb7q31af7nbj8m8ufknuda5udbju82j4r@4ax.com...>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:33 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
>> aol.com> wrote:
>>...
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Feb 2, 2008 07:07
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:33:00 -0500, Reality_Check© wrote:
> Agnostics are intellectual cowards.
As opposed to everyone else are intellectually arrogant?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Reverend DaveReverend Dave Date: Feb 2, 2008 09:04
On Feb 2, 12:33 am, "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> "Michael Gray" newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:nbb7q31af7nbj8m8ufknuda5udbju82j4r@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:33 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
>> aol.com> wrote:>
>>>On Jan 31, 8:35 pm, Michael Gray newsguy.com> wrote:>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:25:18 -0800 (PST), Shapescare
>
>>>>>Is it possible to believe in a god if you are an agnostic?
>
>>>> Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RoseRose Date: Feb 2, 2008 17:37
On Feb 2, 9:04 am, Reverend Dave minister.com> wrote:> On Feb 2, 12:33 am, "Reality_Check©" wrote:
>
>
>
>> "Michael Gray" newsguy.com> wrote in message>
>>news:nbb7q31af7nbj8m8ufknuda5udbju82j4r@ 4ax.com... >
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:33 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
>>> aol.com> wrote:>
>>>>On Jan 31, 8:35 pm, Michael Gray newsguy.com> wrote:>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:25:18 -0800 (PST), Shapescare
>
>>>>>>Is it possible to believe in a god if you are an agnostic?
>
>>>>> Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RaaNRaaN Date: Feb 2, 2008 19:58
I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
some belief either for or against something, especially since most
people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
against belief itself. As such that would make one an anti-theist as
much as an anti-atheist (or even an anti-gnostic or anti-agnostic).
What people generally mean by agnostic today is closer to skeptic than
to anti-gnostic as the term agnostic was originally used. A belief
that God is unknowable.
That being said, there are some theories such as the multiple universe
idea that are not scientifically falsifiable even in theory, and as
such may be considered therefore unknowable. A rational scientist
does not therefore disbelieve such a theory but remains simply
ambivalent and thus in a way agnostic with regard to such ideas
outside of the realm of scientific scrutiny. If the will to remain
rational is cowardly it can just as easily said that to commit to
belief, while possibly courageous, is also irrational and moreover
foolish. Naturally there are times when no rationality will obtain
and action must be taken. A gamble is a gamble and for all that is ...
|
| Show full article (3.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GrayMichael Gray Date: Feb 2, 2008 22:24
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:58:48 -0800 (PST), RaaN hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
>may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
>some belief either for or against something,
"may"?
Aren't you sure?
Don't like to adopt a position?
>especially since most
>people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
>necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
>against belief itself.
Rubbish.
If anything, it is a stance against belief without evidence, or in the
face of clear opposing evidence.
> As such that would make one an anti-theist as
>much as an anti-atheist (or even an anti-gnostic or anti-agnostic).
Your premise is faulty, so your conclusions are faulty.
|
| Show full article (1.30Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RaaNRaaN Date: Feb 3, 2008 03:58
On Feb 3, 1:24 am, Michael Gray newsguy.com> wrote:> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:58:48 -0800 (PST), RaaN hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
>>may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
>>some belief either for or against something,
>
> "may"?
> Aren't you sure?
> Don't like to adopt a position?
>
>>especially since most
>>people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
>>necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
>>against belief itself.
>
> Rubbish.
> If anything, it is a stance against belief without evidence, or in the
> face of clear opposing evidence. ...
|
| Show full article (4.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Roy Jose LorrRoy Jose Lorr Date: Feb 3, 2008 05:54
RaaN wrote:
> I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
> may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
> some belief either for or against something, especially...
|
| Show full article (3.55Kb) |
| 7 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RaaNRaaN Date: Feb 3, 2008 06:05
On Feb 3, 8:54 am, Roy Jose Lorr comcast.net> wrote:> RaaN wrote:
>> I prefer the term skeptic (british spelling: sceptic) to agnostic. It
>> may take more courage to adopt that position than to commit blindly to
>> some belief either for or against something, especially since most
>> people tend to fail to understand that not believing something is not
>> necessarily believing something is not. Skepticism is a stance
>> against belief itself. As such that would make one an anti-theist as
>> much as an anti-atheist (or even an anti-gnostic or anti-agnostic).
>> What people generally mean by agnostic today is closer to skeptic than
>> to anti-gnostic as the term agnostic was originally used. A belief
>> that God is unknowable.
>> That being said, there are some theories such as the multiple universe
>> idea that are not scientifically falsifiable even in theory, and as
>> such may be considered therefore unknowable. A rational scientist
>> does not therefore disbelieve such a theory but remains simply
>> ambivalent and thus in a way agnostic with regard to such ideas
>> outside of the realm of scientific scrutiny. If the will to remain
>> rational is cowardly it can just as easily said that to commit to
>> belief, while possibly courageous, is also irrational and moreover ...
|
| Show full article (2.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
