18-02-2004 02:33									#122
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

"Agnostics"

Or

A- Gnostics?

I wonder about the etymology of the word.

	18-02-2004 02:40									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi "Agnostics" Or A- Gnostics? I wonder about the etymology of the word.

Agnosticism wasn't coined as phrase until the 19th century, by Herbert Spencer. It does, however, mean "without" Gnosticism, as Gnosticism believed one could know the absolute truth of God through revelation. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know the absolute truth about God.

	18-02-2004 02:52									#125
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Elok Shallow, and only superficially thoughtful. Now, having slogged through all your self-important quotes, I must insist that you read some real Orthodox Christian theology, C.S. Lewis, some sort of Kabbalistic thought, or other thoughtful belief, and THEN, and only then, attack religion.

I can't actually swallow the notion that you're using C.S. Lewis to propound the 'revealed truth' of religion.

Thnaks, but I was steeped in theology and religion from an early age, even have a cousin who's a Catholic priest.

I don't need the adolescent maunderings of someone harping on about the existence of god and how his beliefs are superior to my 'opinions' because well, they're 'religious' beliefs, and well, self-evidently superior. Who then cops out and says, I can't prove god exists to you, only you can see god. As good a description of paranoid schizophrenic delusions as any, I suppose.

Your example of gravity and god is absurd.

Imagine, only 'religious belief' is thoughtful belief. And you had the gall to describe Richard Dawkins, Nabokov and Oliver Sacks as self-important. The notion that secular humanism is opposed to god is another one of your self-deceptions.

You seem unable to understand that some humanists do not see god as a necessary prerequisite. I am no more opposed to god than I am to the Tooth Fairy, Noddy and Big Ears, or Jane Eyre.

Time for you to reacquaint yourself with some of that religionista humility.

	18-02-2004 03:16									#127
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Elok I'm afraid it can't be done. Only you can see God. I can't see him for you. If you're going to ask for God to give you a miracle before you believe, you're starting from the wrong attitude entirely. You might as well ask gravity to ease up a little to make getting on the bathroom scale less depressing. You're insisting that the system adjust to fit your wishes, and it ain't gonna happen. See what I mean?

Asking for evidence before belief is the wrong attitude? I should just have "faith"? Why should I believe in your god, instead of Allah or Yahweh?

	18-02-2004 03:37									#129
	Inflate your Upload Space

Okay, I've had a few glasses of wine, so take the following with a grain or two of salt.

Your secular humanist crap defined itself as directly opposed to religion. Verbatim. It also expressed admiration for the idea of defiance of convention, which is merely a refusal to outgrow adolescence. Ideas ought to be good on their own merit, not because they happen to oppose somebody else's ideas.

And I did not say that those people were self-important, but that your quotes were. They in no way contributed to the argument, they did not convince me, and at least one of them, the one about American patriotism, wasn't even relevant. It was just a heap of self-congratulation.

Interaction with the Divine is a personal thing. I do not refer to some sort of hallucination, but to a kind of perception separate from sight, touch, taste, and the like, which is attained by contemplation. If your Catholic priest of a cousin failed to tell you that, it has little to do with me. Catholicism as a ship has been sinking since Vatican II. And C.S. Lewis makes perfect sense if you read him thoughtfully and objectively, as opposed to digging at it for details to make fun of. You do realize he wrote stuff other than the Chronicles of Narnia, right? Anyway, stop putting words in my mouth.

And even tipsy as I am, I can see the logic in what I said. Skywalker insisted that I provide "empirical, repeatable evidence" of God. "Empirical" and "repeatable," which is to say to some extent predictable, are characteristics of natural events. If they happened predictably, they would hardly be proof of the supernatural in the first place. They would be merely another kind of natural event. In other words, I am challenged to prove the supernatural by means of the natural. He's asking me to knowingly play with a deck stacked against me, and I'm not that dumb. If you refuse to see anything except in terms of naturalistic consequences, of course I can't "prove" God. God is a self-aware being, not a background process like photosynthesis or something. You can't expect me to order him to do tricks for you like a dog.

I am saying that there *are* ways to experience the supernatural. It's called asceticism. I do not promise that they will work for you, because I do not know the workings of your mind. If you refuse anything that doesn't come with a money-back guarantee, I have nothing to say to you. If you refuse it out of hand, ridiculing it as a form of schizophrenia, that proves nothing but your own stubbornness.

I didn't say that only religious belief is thoughtful belief. The stuff you are oh-so proud of largely has little if anything to do with atheism as such. Or at least, the sensible parts of it don't. Atheism is not a philosophy itself. It is only the statement that there is no God. The long tracts you copy-and-pasted for me have had atheism tacked on to otherwise common belief, and furthermore the parts tacked on are the least intelligent.

Do you know what can actually be extrapolated from the statement, "there is no God"? Nothing. It's just four words that function only to negate another belief. Which is all that the word "atheist" really means. If you think you have to not believe in God to dislike bigotry, censorship, and violence, or whatever you said, you're wrong. Nor did I say you have to believe in God to think so. I merely said that atheism itself is meaningless, and if you happen to have some kind of happy-go-lucky personal motto to go with it, that's peachy keen but hardly my concern.

	18-02-2004 03:43									#130
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: And even tipsy as I am, I can see the logic in what I said. Skywalker insisted that I provide "empirical, repeatable evidence" of God. "Empirical" and "repeatable," which is to say to some extent predictable, are characteristics of natural events. If they happened predictably, they would hardly be proof of the supernatural in the first place. They would be merely another kind of natural event. In other words, I am challenged to prove the supernatural by means of the natural. He's asking me to knowingly play with a deck stacked against me, and I'm not that dumb. If you refuse to see anything except in terms of naturalistic consequences, of course I can't "prove" God. God is a self-aware being, not a background process like photosynthesis or something. You can't expect me to order him to do tricks for you like a dog.

Supernatural is an oxymoron. Nature = the universe = the set of all that exists, thus anything outside of nature does not exists. If you are using a different definition of nature, provide it, but make sure it's consistent

Also, you haven't answer MY question, which is: "why should I believe you, as opposed to a rabbi or whatever muslims call their religious people?"

	18-02-2004 03:48									#131
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: An agnostic believes it is impossible to know the absolute truth about God.

Then couldn't, technically, an agnostic believe in God? After all there are plenty of believers who believe that it is impossible to know the absolute truth about God, only that he exists somewhere.

	18-02-2004 03:50									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Asking for evidence before belief is the wrong attitude? I should just have "faith"? Why should I believe in your god, instead of Allah or Yahweh?

Well, if you would consider the possibility that I did not make this system up myself...argh.

There is something to our perception that transcends normal reason. I have felt it only in the faintest glimmers here and there, but it is there. You may say it is only a facet of my mind, but I might just as well say sight, or hearing, is an illusion. If I am to selectively distrust my own senses, how am I to know which to trust?

I am not offering you a contract. I do not tell you, "sign here, and here, and here, and I will show you God." If it were that easy, it would be commonplace, and there would be no atheists in the world. I am telling you the way it is. You must actively seek God to find him, unless he is willing to show himself to you, and I will not presume to dictate his actions. You may fail to feel anything. I don't know. If you do not like it, I have no other option to offer you. All I'm saying is that none of you have any right to mock what you have never known.

	18-02-2004 03:51									#133
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Elok Okay, I've had a few glasses of wine, so take the following with a grain or two of salt. Your secular humanist crap defined itself as directly opposed to religion. Verbatim. It also expressed admiration for the idea of defiance of convention, which is merely a refusal to outgrow adolescence. Ideas ought to be good on their own merit, not because they happen to oppose somebody else's ideas. Interaction with the Divine is a personal thing. I do not refer to some sort of hallucination, but to a kind of perception separate from sight, touch, taste, and the like, which is attained by contemplation. If your Catholic priest of a cousin failed to tell you that, it has little to do with me. You do realize he wrote stuff other than the Chronicles of Narnia, right? Anyway, stop putting words in my mouth. And even tipsy as I am, I can see the logic in what I said. I am saying that there *are* ways to experience the supernatural. It's called asceticism.

Unbelievably pompous and arrogant, but to be expected from a religionista. Oooh, yes, I do know C.S. Lewis wrote things other than the Narnia cycle. Why, I even know about his bein' a perfesser, and writin' scribbles an' stuff about litter a chewer. I might even have read some of his essays on mediaeval epic poetry, and gosh, even some of his theological mumblings.

Asceticism- hmm, yes, I'm familiar with depriving the body of sensory input, or food, or water, or dwelling in extremes of discomfort, heat, cold, et cetera.

All excellent ways to induce hallucinations and delusions. Of course alcohol seems to be taking you there, but then you could try yohimbine, hallucinatory fungi, sweat lodges, bhang, lotus plants, opium, or whatever else gets you starry eyed.

Religion is not 'god' by the way- to be opposed to religion is not to be opposed to god. Nor is it to assume the existence of a god. I'm opposed to those who believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are the truth too.

Of course interaction with the divine is a 'personal' thing-it's so much more difficult to stage big showy miracles with so many scientists and video cameras around these days.

I like to defy 'convention'- you know, like the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Slavery Leagues, the Suffragettes, and so on.

I suppose they were all adolescent were they? Better than being grown up like all those anti-semitic Catholics and pro-slavery Protestants.

	18-02-2004 03:55									#134
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Natural: the predictable and unaware, that which acts as part of the mechanism of the physical universe. God, being ostensibly self-aware and free to act as he pleases, is inherently unpredictable as a concept. You might say, "why would God deliberately hide himself?" but who's to say he does what he does for the purpose of hiding from you?

	18-02-2004 03:59									#135
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Elok Well, if you would consider the possibility that I did not make this system up myself...argh. There is something to our perception that transcends normal reason. I have felt it only in the faintest glimmers here and there, but it is there. You may say it is only a facet of my mind, but I might just as well say sight, or hearing, is an illusion. If I am to selectively distrust my own senses, how am I to know which to trust? I am not offering you a contract. I do not tell you, "sign here, and here, and here, and I will show you God." If it were that easy, it would be commonplace, and there would be no atheists in the world. I am telling you the way it is. You must actively seek God to find him, unless he is willing to show himself to you, and I will not presume to dictate his actions. You may fail to feel anything. I don't know. If you do not like it, I have no other option to offer you. All I'm saying is that none of you have any right to mock what you have never known.

My point is that every religion offers equally convincing evidence for its truth, so there is no reason to presume one is correct, instead of the other.

	18-02-2004 04:09									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Asceticism is more attitude than action, you idjit. Try "Way of the Ascetics" by Tito Colliander. Barely mentions fasting at all. It's almost entirely mental.

And if you make one more stupid Savaesque implication that I'm part of a conspiracy to hide from science...ngh. Have you ever tried to argue reasonably instead of making wild-ass, speculative accusations against the people who disagree with you? Have you tried all those religious convictions you're making fun of, or do you just say something scornful about elves and call it an argument? I'm not going to make God perform miracles for your benefit.

And the idea that fighting convention is intrinsically valuable IS adolescent. Women's Suffrage et al had some sort of message of their own. Your secular humanist crap says nothing to call its own but "there is no god." It's proud to fight religion-which is the name of every human attempt to search for or understand god, by the way; if you're going to ignore him, and he you, God doesn't matter-even though it offers nothing new of its own. Facile.

	18-02-2004 04:11									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Elok Natural: the predictable and unaware, that which acts as part of the mechanism of the physical universe. God, being ostensibly self-aware and free to act as he pleases, is inherently unpredictable as a concept. You might say, "why would God deliberately hide himself?" but who's to say he does what he does for the purpose of hiding from you?

What do you mean by a "physical universe"? A contiguous region of spacetime? By "predictable", are you asserting that this "physical universe" is deterministic and God is not?

	18-02-2004 04:13									#138
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by skywalker My point is that every religion offers equally convincing evidence for its truth, so there is no reason to presume one is correct, instead of the other.

My point is that what you call "evidence" is not the whole story. But fair enough. As long as you're not babbling recycled cynicism like this chick here, I can respect that. Sorry for sounding grumpy, I'm a little tipsy, like I said, and my waning tolerence for trollguments is bleeding onto innocent bystanders.

	18-02-2004 04:14									#139
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Elok Asceticism is more attitude than action, you idjit. Try "Way of the Ascetics" by Tito Colliander. Barely mentions fasting at all. It's almost entirely mental. And if you make one more stupid Savaesque implication that I'm part of a conspiracy to hide from science...ngh. Have you ever tried to argue reasonably instead of making wild-ass, speculative accusations against the people who disagree with you? Have you tried all those religious convictions you're making fun of, or do you just say something scornful about elves and call it an argument? I'm not going to make God perform miracles for your benefit.

I've done nothing of the sort... I'm pointing out the fact that you haven't given me any better reason to believe you than anyone else, thus why would I believe you? Because you say so? The other people say so too.

quote: And the idea that fighting convention is intrinsically valuable IS adolescent. Women's Suffrage et al had some sort of message of their own. Your secular humanist crap says nothing to call its own but "there is no god." It's proud to fight religion-which is the name of every human attempt to search for or understand god, by the way; if you're going to ignore him, and he you, God doesn't matter-even though it offers nothing new of its own. Facile.

When have I even said fighting convention is intrinsically valuable? Being "conventional" confers no value at all on an idea, nor does being "unconventional".

	18-02-2004 04:23									#140
	Remove this text

God is not deterministic, no, being capable of independent actions. Whether the physical universe is entirely deterministic depends on what you think about quantum mechanics. But even if you do believe in a certain erratic aspect of the universe, you are still positing a predictably unpredictable element. How would you calculate a formula allowing for the existence of an all-powerful, omnipresent being who transcends time? There's no way to guarantee what God would or would not do in any given circumstances, so there's no accurate means of testing him. A "negative" could mean an actual negative, or that the nature of God goes against the test in some way. Since we're way too limited in context to go second-guessing an all-powerful deity, well, we're stuck on square one.

To sum up, anything that happens predictably in response to certain stimuli can be safely said to be NOT God, so how would you have me prove God via a system of reasoning that insists on evidence that occurs predictably in response to certain set stimuli?

	18-02-2004 04:23									#141
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Elok My point is that what you call "evidence" is not the whole story. But fair enough. As long as you're not babbling recycled cynicism like this chick here, I can respect that. Sorry for sounding grumpy, I'm a little tipsy, like I said, and my waning tolerence for trollguments is bleeding onto innocent bystanders.

Forgiven

I'm going to have to disagree with your statement about "evidence" though

1. The existence of God is a truth about the world, and thus cannot be proven or disproven without knowledge of the world.

There is no reason God "must" exist, a priori. This is in contrast to the fact that, for example, 2 + 2 must equal 4, or P must imply P.

2. Knowledge about the world can only be achieved through empirical evidence

Obviously, one can only know anything about the world through the senses (the senses being defined as the means by which one acquires knowledge about the world ), and empirical evidence is sensory information that is consistantly verifiable. A "truth" that is not consistantly verifiable is not true.

3. The existance of God can only be achieved through empirical evidence

Follows from 1 and 2

	18-02-2004 04:25									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Elok God is not deterministic, no, being capable of independent actions. Whether the physical universe is entirely deterministic depends on what you think about quantum mechanics. But even if you do believe in a certain erratic aspect of the universe, you are still positing a predictably unpredictable element. How would you calculate a formula allowing for the existence of an all-powerful, omnipresent being who transcends time? There's no way to guarantee what God would or would not do in any given circumstances, so there's no accurate means of testing him. A "negative" could mean an actual negative, or that the nature of God goes against the test in some way. Since we're way too limited in context to go second-guessing an all-powerful deity, well, we're stuck on square one. To sum up, anything that happens predictably in response to certain stimuli can be safely said to be NOT God, so how would you have me prove God via a system of reasoning that insists on evidence that occurs predictably in response to certain set stimuli?

If god is not deterministic, he is probabilistic. You are apparently rejecting applying the probabilism suggested by quantum physics to god, so you must be referring tot he probabilism in which all events are equally likely. How can you distinguish such a "God" from chance?

	18-02-2004 04:26									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Elok Asceticism is more attitude than action, you idjit. ..... ...to argue reasonably instead of making wild-ass, speculative accusations against the people who disagree with you? I'm not going to make God perform miracles for your benefit. And the idea that fighting convention is intrinsically valuable IS adolescent. Women's Suffrage et al had some sort of message of their own. Your secular humanist crap says nothing to call its own but "there is no god." It's proud to fight religion-which is the name of every human attempt to search for or understand god, by the way;

Wrong in fact. Asceticism is amongst other things, severe abstinence (from stimuli, food, water, et cetera) as well as severe self-discipline. From the greek askeo- exercise. Very kenobiist of you to attempt to ring fence terms.

To argue reasonably- against unreason? What would be the point, I wonder? Wild ass speculations? Such as there is a god, or a pantheon of gods, or the Flaming Carrot constructed the universe before lunch?

You can't make your deity perform tricks- well of course you can't. I can't make Shakespeare's Cleopatra do tricks either. Not sure what your point is there.

Secular humanism will withstand your attempts to limit its meaning to 'there is no god'.

By the way, I'm not a 'chick' and even if I were, I don't think I'd like being described as one, little boy.

	18-02-2004 04:32									#144
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Heh, my conversation with you is getting mixed up with my conversation with Molly. I should have quoted, sorry. I think I sort of answered your last post in *my* last post.

If it doesn't, well, the moon can be verified by empirical evidence, insofar as it reliably comes up in the sky and goes through certain phases, like a luminous teenager in orbit or something. But the very fact that it can be reliably measured shows that the moon is probably not a god, because it never does a frigging thing but spin around the world in circles. The very fact that it can be measured more readily than the workings of your digestive system makes it hard to accept as a God. Self-aware beings tend to act in unusual ways, provided they are not on the Off-Topic section of Apolyton, in which case they will predictably drag the conversation to match their particular subject of interest. Moon doesn't do that either, if it comes to that.

Jeez, only two glasses and I'm typing like the stoner from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. My tolerance sucks.

	18-02-2004 04:34									#145
	Increase the size of your Attachments

People can act predictably as well. So? The weather isn't very predictable at all. So? "Predictability" is merely a function of complexity.

	18-02-2004 04:37									#146
	Suffering from ads?

Okay, the aussie's on the ignore list. Conversation sucked anyway, did nothing but raise my blood pressure. Anyway, humans don't behave in a deterministic way we can define, do they? Can any science factor in human behavior without knowing anything about the origins or thought processes of the human in question?

	18-02-2004 04:40									#147
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Assuming you had a powerful enough computer, and assuming the universe actually is deterministic, then yes, you could predict the actions of a human being.

	18-02-2004 12:19									#148
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: Atheism is quite literally a lack of beliefs. Every time anybody on this board tries to refer to it as a religious belief, he or she gets (rightly)shouted down, as atheism is just the belief that there is no god. There's not much intrinsic to that message. False. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

You are referring to Strong (or Positive) Atheism. Weak (or Negative) Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god (or gods).

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Being a belief, it would be no more logical than the belief that the Smurfs are actually omnipotent beings that created the universe, if it weren't for Occam's razor.

Not sure if that is necessarily. There are two position you can take:

1. Accept any and all metaphysical beliefs until they are proven false, or
2. Reject any and all metaphysical beliefs until they are proven true

You can always accept some and reject others, but that will be arbitrary and inconsistent.

In the case of Judeo-Christianity, you can actually establish a refutation based on the orthodox doctrines.

	18-02-2004 12:28									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Elok Now, having slogged through all your self-important quotes, I must insist that you read some real Orthodox Christian theology, C.S. Lewis, some sort of Kabbalistic thought, or other thoughtful belief, and THEN, and only then, attack religion.

C.S. Lewis? He's a puff, at least when it comes to theology. I suggest stronger stuff, say, Aquinas, Taylor, Plantinga, and Swinburne, for example.

However, I don't see why you limit others to philosophical attacks against Judeo-Christianity. You would have a point if it has been limiting itself to philosophical discussions. Since that's not the case, however, I don't see why anybody can't launch attacks grounding in secular humanism, say.

	18-02-2004 19:09									#150
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Sorry, I noticed my mood was becoming dangerously erratic (I think I was about to say, "skywalker, you're awesome, man" ), so I decided to sleep it off.

C.S. Lewis is an apologist. Aquinas is "heavier stuff," yes, but when I made that suggestion I was under the impression that Molly could be convinced by reason, and wanted something light and easy to understand, as in Mere Christianity. Anything more mystical than that, I figured she'd mock first and ask questions later. Moot point now.

The thing is, how would you go about factoring in the possible actions of God when trying to determine his existence, skywalker? To be able to predict how he would act implies knowledge of how he thinks, which in turn requires you to know he exists in the first place. You can't really judge what a "reasonable person" would do, because the average person is not omniscient, omnipresent, and extratemporal. We have no experience that could prepare us to place ourselves in that context. That's what I'm getting at.

Whoops, running short on time. I'll be back after class.