Positive proof?

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39933
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:22 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Blind groper wrote:All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't help our side of the argument when you make posts like this. In fact, the vast majority of atheists are agnostics. Seth knows this, but refuses to acknowledge it as it destroys his idiotic biases.
T.H. Huxley coined the phrase 'agnostic' to reflect an epistemic position which was antithetical to those whom declared knowledge of God; to denote not that God was simply unknowable, but that knowledge of God was absent and to deny even the possibility of such knowledge. Though nowadays the term reflects a position of essential uncertainty, doubtfulness, non-committal, or even general ambivalence on the question of the existence of God or gods, being agnostic renders one a default atheist - for all those who are not counted as theists are necessarily a-theists; no-theists, not-theists.

The problem for Seth's point of view is that it is a political position (about granting people a right to be left alone to believe anything they want - which is something many, if not most, atheists would agree people are entitled to do even though he chides us for denying it if-and-when we challenge religiosity in the public square) which he merely asserts as a 'rationally and logically' necessary epistemic practice in order to bolster his self-declared authority on this matter.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Svartalf » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:27 am

rainbow wrote:
Svartalf wrote:is that the bottle's countenance or the proof of the vodka?
That is 100% proof.
The point is can you be spiritual without spirits?
I'd say no, then again I'm an alcoholic
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39933
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:36 am

Svartalf wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Svartalf wrote:is that the bottle's countenance or the proof of the vodka?
That is 100% proof.
The point is can you be spiritual without spirits?
I'd say no, then again I'm an alcoholic
What? You should, at the very least, be an agloholic, because every 'rational and logical' person should know that agloholicism is the 'rational and logical' normative to which every 'rational and logical' person must aspire - or else they're succumbing to the Agloholic Fallacy, which is neither 'rashlaholical or logicoholicalolical'.

*hic* *lol*
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Svartalf » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:47 am

I'll anshwer thath when I'm shoberer
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74145
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by JimC » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:12 am

Gin is a very spiritual drink... :levi:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Svartalf » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:16 am

Whereas whisky is spirited
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13757
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by rainbow » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:34 am

Svartalf wrote:Whereas whisky is spirited
Image

How much more proof do you need?

Oh ye of little faith!
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Svartalf » Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:15 am

I Yield me, 100 proof rye whiskey is plenty spiritual
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:38 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Blind groper wrote:REvo

I have always considered an atheist to be one who denies deity, while an agnostic simply sits on the fence.

Do you have an alternate definition?
FFS of course I do. What have you been doing on the forums for the last 10 years?!? We've covered this over and over and over again.
Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png
I don't think that chart is accurate, but of course it depends on the definition one wants to apply to the words.

Agnostic traditionally means a person who claims that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of gods. It's not really about "doubt" or 100% certainty vs. some degree of confidence, etc. Gnosticism relates to the belief that supernatural phenomena or God can be known like other things can be known.

So, yes, you can be an agnostic atheist "I don't believe in god, because I don't think supernatural things can be known."
Or, you can be a agnostic theist: "I'm a Christian, but I don't think we can ever really know anything about God." They have faith, but don't claim any knowledge.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Hermit » Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:25 pm

Image
Forty Two wrote:I don't think that chart is accurate, but of course it depends on the definition one wants to apply to the words.

Agnostic traditionally means a person who claims that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of gods. It's not really about "doubt" or 100% certainty vs. some degree of confidence, etc. Gnosticism relates to the belief that supernatural phenomena or God can be known like other things can be known.

So, yes, you can be an agnostic atheist "I don't believe in god, because I don't think supernatural things can be known."
Or, you can be a agnostic theist: "I'm a Christian, but I don't think we can ever really know anything about God." They have faith, but don't claim any knowledge.
The above diagrammatic depiction of the various attitudes regarding looks accurate to me. There are people who are 100% certain that a God exists and other people who are 100% certain that God does not exist. Then there are people who think that God exists but they leave room for doubt on the matter and there are people who think that God does not exist but they leave room for doubt on the matter. The relationship between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism can be equally well illustrated with a Venn diagram.

Image

One thing neither diagram illustrates is magnitude. The diagrams do not attempt to indicate what percentage of (a)theists is (a)gnostic nor the level of uncertainty of those who are agnostic.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:57 pm

But, agnosticism isn't about degrees of certainty. It's about whether humans can know about God or the supernatural at all. A gnostic says yes we can know (not necessarily that we do know), and an agnostic says we can't. It's not "doubtful" position. Although, people do tend to use the word agnosticism as meaning "one who has doubts or isn't sure about the existence of God."

I have doubts, but I'm not agnostic. I'm not 100% certain of atheism, because I'm not 100% certain of existence or that up is up and down is down. I think, however, that I'm technically gnostic because I don't think any knowledge has been shown to be out of human reach. We seem to always extend our reach. So, what we can't figure out today, we may figure out tomorrow or the next day.
"
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13757
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by rainbow » Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:03 pm

Svartalf wrote:I Yield me, 100 proof rye whiskey is plenty spiritual
Image
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Hermit » Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:10 pm

Forty Two wrote:But, agnosticism isn't about degrees of certainty. It's about whether humans can know about God or the supernatural at all.
Yes. That is all the diagram is about. Accurately enough for what it tries to illustrate.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13757
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by rainbow » Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:15 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:But, agnosticism isn't about degrees of certainty. It's about whether humans can know about God or the supernatural at all.
Yes. That is all the diagram is about. Accurately enough for what it tries to illustrate.
We actually get it.
You believe or you don't believe, or you're undecided.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:36 pm

If you're undecided as to whether or not you think there is a God, then isn't it accurate to say you don't believe?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests