Science and Religion questions

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

meeting your gardener? why, did he introduce you to yoga?


(btw, just so we're clear, I'm trying to imply your gardners name was Jesus. Which said in the manner I'm doing it implies that I'm belittling your religious convictions. I mean, if I'm going to be inflammatory and hypocritical, might as well go all out, right!?! I MEAN AM I RIGHT! OH CRAP I'M YELLING...sorry....anyways, much respect to you A to the BM)


Ahh, I see. :) Well, since it's you doing the talking, I have a bent ear, because I sense you are a well-intentioned person. Otherwise known as 'good people'. For that, you get much grace and exception in my book.....for what that's worth. :lol: :cheers:
 
Ahh, I see. :) Well, since it's you doing the talking, I have a bent ear, because I sense you are a well-intentioned person. Otherwise known as 'good people'. For that, you get much grace and exception in my book.....for what that's worth. :lol: :cheers:

Thanks.
 
jlkezQv.jpg
 
God has given me great peace and joy to walk through each and every experience. It's the coolest of the coolest.

That's cuz yer special, ABM [blatant effort to cause you to pause and reflect on the suffering innocent millions who weren't selected to Jesus' team, but who must instead suffer first]. I normally don't automatically make the sobriety association when discussing religious experiences. So I find it interesting that you mention it in this context. So to clarify for my own understanding, did your conversion or life change correspond with or have any relation to the use or dependence upon alcohol? [Not insinuating anything by any means. But since you are discussing it openly I wondered if alcohol had anything to do with the course of your old life and thus the reason for a religious move.]
 
Last edited:
I normally don't automatically make the sobriety association when discussing religious experiences. So I find it interesting that you mention it in this context. So to clarify for my own understanding, did your conversion or life change correspond with or have any relation to the use or dependence upon alcohol?

Nah, it's just that, sometimes, people equate so-called "religious experiences" with the use drugs and/or alcohol. My conversion had nothing to do with that....although, I have to say that my 20's very much were regretful years.

I gotta head out to work, but will share more of my testimony later.
 
Come on Denny, that's not what I said, nor is it implied in what I said. My opinion on changing concepts is hardly controversial -- I'm assuming that conceptual change happens when whatever the reality is that is comprised by it, begins to fray its edges. Or maybe think of it more in terms of a snake and its skin; fits great at first, somewhat flexible, but eventually must give way to the present snake ... if it's going to continue to "cover it" adequately.

Anyway, conceptual change is not what your colorful example depicts -- there's nothing arbitrary about conceptual change as I understand it. Your young nazis seem to have merely taken another name, one that has little to do with their former identity.

I don't see any conceptual change or whatever being the issue. You have people who are basically in charge of the vocabulary. They add words, change their meanings, etc., to the dictionaries. In theory, they're intellectually honest about that pursuit. That's why:

1) Neo Nazis can't just call themselves social democrats
2) we all have a common frame of reference (understanding) of what words mean
 
No :)

Still be an agnostic as long as there's any way Reason and evidence could change the person's mind.

Absolutely -- me too. But the label "agnostic" says nothing about whether or not we actually (at this moment) believe in god.
 
Absolutely -- me too. But the label "agnostic" says nothing about whether or not we actually (at this moment) believe in god.

Sure it does.

Agnostic means "does not believe in god, but would believe if evidence arose."

It's consistent with Huxley's definition.
 
Sure it does.

Agnostic means "does not believe in god, but would believe if evidence arose."

It's consistent with Huxley's definition.

I'm glad you are comfortable with calling yourself agnostic. I actually agree its a better term.
 
Sure it does.

Agnostic means "does not believe in god, but would believe if evidence arose."

It's consistent with Huxley's definition.

There's a difference between "consistent with" and "defined by". Your description of your beliefs is also consistent with being a vegetarian. Again, "agnostic" is not a statement of belief.
 
There's a difference between "consistent with" and "defined by". Your description of your beliefs is also consistent with being a vegetarian. Again, "agnostic" is not a statement of belief.

Why wouldn't it be? If someone says "I'm agnostic"; they are just admitting they don't have enough evidence to be either a theist or atheist. I don't understand why that couldn't be a belief?

This reminds me of what you said yesterday. It's just arguing semantics of the word.
 
In effect, I am this man.....below (John 9:1-25):

1-2 Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?”

3-5 Jesus said, “You’re asking the wrong question. You’re looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do. We need to be energetically at work for the One who sent me here, working while the sun shines. When night falls, the workday is over. For as long as I am in the world, there is plenty of light. I am the world’s Light.”

6-7 He said this and then spit in the dust, made a clay paste with the saliva, rubbed the paste on the blind man’s eyes, and said, “Go, wash at the Pool of Siloam” (Siloam means “Sent”). The man went and washed—and saw.

8 Soon the town was buzzing. His relatives and those who year after year had seen him as a blind man begging were saying, “Why, isn’t this the man we knew, who sat here and begged?”

9 Others said, “It’s him all right!”

But others objected, “It’s not the same man at all. It just looks like him.”

He said, “It’s me, the very one.”

10 They said, “How did your eyes get opened?”

11 “A man named Jesus made a paste and rubbed it on my eyes and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ I did what he said. When I washed, I saw.”

12 “So where is he?”

“I don’t know.”

13-15 They marched the man to the Pharisees. This day when Jesus made the paste and healed his blindness was the Sabbath. The Pharisees grilled him again on how he had come to see. He said, “He put a clay paste on my eyes, and I washed, and now I see.”

16 Some of the Pharisees said, “Obviously, this man can’t be from God. He doesn’t keep the Sabbath.”

Others countered, “How can a bad man do miraculous, God-revealing things like this?” There was a split in their ranks.

17 They came back at the blind man, “You’re the expert. He opened your eyes. What do you say about him?”

He said, “He is a prophet.”

18-19 The Jews didn’t believe it, didn’t believe the man was blind to begin with. So they called the parents of the man now bright-eyed with sight. They asked them, “Is this your son, the one you say was born blind? So how is it that he now sees?”

20-23 His parents said, “We know he is our son, and we know he was born blind. But we don’t know how he came to see—haven’t a clue about who opened his eyes. Why don’t you ask him? He’s a grown man and can speak for himself.” (His parents were talking like this because they were intimidated by the Jewish leaders, who had already decided that anyone who took a stand that this was the Messiah would be kicked out of the meeting place. That’s why his parents said, “Ask him. He’s a grown man.”)

24 They called the man back a second time—the man who had been blind—and told him, “Give credit to God. We know this man is an impostor.”

25 He replied, “I know nothing about that one way or the other. But I know one thing for sure: I was blind . . . I now see.”
 
There's a difference between "consistent with" and "defined by". Your description of your beliefs is also consistent with being a vegetarian. Again, "agnostic" is not a statement of belief.

Merriam-Webster: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

If you're not committed to believing, you don't believe.

Consistent with and defined by are equivalent.

"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 the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

Follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations (e.g. faith). No evidence for god.

Do not pretend the conclusions are certain. If there's a chariot of fire...

Once a person is certain of the objective truth (there is no god) without evidence to justify it, he becomes an atheist. MARIS61.
 
Why wouldn't it be? If someone says "I'm agnostic"; they are just admitting they don't have enough evidence to be either a theist or atheist. I don't understand why that couldn't be a belief?

Because belief is not always based on evidence. =)

And you're right that it is semantics, to a certain extent. I understand what Denny in describing -- it's almost exactly how I would describe my own beliefs. For whatever reason, though, he is uncomfortable expressing his disbelief directly (using the word "atheist") and would rather express it indirectly (by stating that he believes knowledge is achieved through empirical methods).

I think that comfort with "atheism" is really what this all boils down to. There's a negative stigma attached to the word, as if all atheists are grumpy, evangelical old cranks who regularly go on tirades about the word "God" appearing on money. But the limited definition that y'all seem to prefer would reduce the usefulness of the word to almost nothing. By Denny's own admission, if "atheism" only meant the strictest and strongest form of disbelief ("there is no god, and nothing could possibly convince me otherwise"), there would be essentially no atheists, statistically speaking. I certainly wouldn't know any. So why neuter a perfectly reasonable word by limiting it to a population of almost zero? Why shoehorn the milder form of disbelief ("I don't believe, but I could be convinced otherwise with enough evidence") into a word that doesn't, strictly speaking, directly address belief in god at all?
 
Merriam-Webster: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

If you're not committed to believing, you don't believe.

Consistent with and defined by are equivalent.

"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 the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

Follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations (e.g. faith). No evidence for god.

Do not pretend the conclusions are certain. If there's a chariot of fire...

Once a person is certain of the objective truth (there is no god) without evidence to justify it, he becomes an atheist. MARIS61.

"Consistent with" is absolutely not the same as a "definition", and there is simply no direct statement of belief in the original definition of "agnostic". As I've said before, of course you are free to use the popularized, Merriam-Webster version of the word -- we all know what you are talking about. Just be aware that the vast majority of atheists you meet would consider your statement of belief to fit into the category of "agnostic atheist".
 
Merriam-Webster: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

If you're not committed to believing, you don't believe.

There was a famous tight-rope walker name The Great Sandoni. He once had a big show whereas he was going to walk across Niagra Falls. Thousands of people showed up for the event. Sandoni was also a great showman. He loved to whip the crowds into a frenzy. He made exclamations such as, "Who believes The Great Sandoni can walk across this (fill in the blank here)?!" The crowds would often respond with, "We believe! We believe!"

On this particular day, The Great Sandoni went through the same routine. Only, he added a wheelbarrow to the act. He asked out, "Who believes The Great Sandoni can walk across Niagra Falls rolling this wheelbarrow in front of him?!!" The crowd chanted back, "We believe! We believe!"

He then asked out, "OK, who will be my first volunteer to get into the wheelbarrow?

You could here a pin drop.

As an example, that is the difference between belief and "true" belief.
 
There was a famous tight-rope walker name The Great Sandoni. He once had a big show whereas he was going to walk across Niagra Falls. Thousands of people showed up for the event. Sandoni was also a great showman. He loved to whip the crowds into a frenzy. He made exclamations such as, "Who believes The Great Sandoni can walk across this (fill in the blank here)?!" The crowds would often respond with, "We believe! We believe!"

On this particular day, The Great Sandoni went through the same routine. Only, he added a wheelbarrow to the act. He asked out, "Who believes The Great Sandoni can walk across Niagra Falls rolling this wheelbarrow in front of him?!!" The crowd chanted back, "We believe! We believe!"

He then asked out, "OK, who will be my first volunteer to get into the wheelbarrow?

You could here a pin drop.

As an example, that is the difference between belief and "true" belief.

Pics or it didn't happen.

;)
 
Because belief is not always based on evidence. =)

And you're right that it is semantics, to a certain extent. I understand what Denny in describing -- it's almost exactly how I would describe my own beliefs. For whatever reason, though, he is uncomfortable expressing his disbelief directly (using the word "atheist") and would rather express it indirectly (by stating that he believes knowledge is achieved through empirical methods).

I think that comfort with "atheism" is really what this all boils down to. There's a negative stigma attached to the word, as if all atheists are grumpy, evangelical old cranks who regularly go on tirades about the word "God" appearing on money. But the limited definition that y'all seem to prefer would reduce the usefulness of the word to almost nothing. By Denny's own admission, if "atheism" only meant the strictest and strongest form of disbelief ("there is no god, and nothing could possibly convince me otherwise"), there would be essentially no atheists, statistically speaking. I certainly wouldn't know any. So why neuter a perfectly reasonable word by limiting it to a population of almost zero? Why shoehorn the milder form of disbelief ("I don't believe, but I could be convinced otherwise with enough evidence") into a word that doesn't, strictly speaking, directly address belief in god at all?

I don't see a negative connotation to atheism. It's just a very different mind set.

There absolutely are actual atheists. Marxism rejects religion. I don't at all mean to suggest atheists are marxists. Ayn Rand rejected religion, too, and she's no marxist.

MARIS61 seems to be one. Maybe he was touched by some pedophile priest as a child. Or he simply is angry about the involvement of religious institutions in past (and current) wars. For whatever of these sorts of reasons, I wouldn't call them Reasoned or based on anything resembling absolute convincing evidence.
 
For what it's worth, I consider many of the great philosophers such as Descartes and Aquinas to fit into the "agnostic theist" category. They believed in a creator that was completely evident to the rational mind, and minimized the importance of secret, personal revelations. Of course, they were condemned for this by many of their not-so-agnostic peers, but cest la vie. :)

DISCLAIMER: I know this is getting far off of the beaten path of common terminology -- I don't know of anyone who calls themselves an "agnostic theist". It's just my way of combining the actual, intended definitions of the words to complex belief systems. Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's a different mind set. There's absolutely zero requirement for anything related to evidence, empirical or otherwise, in atheism. The outright rejection of deities is the mind set.

MARIS61's negative reasons clearly preclude him from being agnostic, according to Huxley's description.

I am quite close to being outright atheist myself. All evidence and reason tell me there's no deity or deities, period. The odds are zero. Yet, the nature of how deities are described, not being bound to the laws of nature, etc., along with the very long lived and wide spread belief in some sort of deity or deities suggests it would be foolish to deny some possibility outside the realm of our senses.
 
MARIS61's negative reasons clearly preclude him from being agnostic, according to Huxley's description.

Agreed -- I don't know Maris personally, but if he believes as you describe, he would probably be considered a "gnostic atheist".
 
Do you think Ayn Rand would have converted if she had witnessed incontrovertible evidence of god's existence?

No.

I think she was extremely antagonistic towards agnosticism.
 
No.

I think she was extremely antagonistic towards agnosticism.

But don't you think this had more to do with her commitment to taking strong positions than to an actual unwillingness to accept new evidence? I don't know -- I'm certainly no expert on her life or personality -- but she doesn't strike me as one who would reject strong evidence outright... Anyway, I'll defer to your expertise on this one. :)
 
But don't you think this had more to do with her commitment to taking strong positions than to an actual unwillingness to accept new evidence? I don't know -- I'm certainly know expert on her life or personality -- but she doesn't strike me as one who would reject strong evidence outright... Anyway, I'll defer to your expertise on this one. :)

I think you offered up a hypothetical that is nonsensical. Do you agree?

I mean, if the nature of "god" is metaphysical, then there would be no empirical evidence he exists. If his nature is within the laws of nature, we'd be finding physical evidence all over the place.
 
Because belief is not always based on evidence. =)

And you're right that it is semantics, to a certain extent. I understand what Denny in describing -- it's almost exactly how I would describe my own beliefs. For whatever reason, though, he is uncomfortable expressing his disbelief directly (using the word "atheist") and would rather express it indirectly (by stating that he believes knowledge is achieved through empirical methods).

I think that comfort with "atheism" is really what this all boils down to. There's a negative stigma attached to the word, as if all atheists are grumpy, evangelical old cranks who regularly go on tirades about the word "God" appearing on money. But the limited definition that y'all seem to prefer would reduce the usefulness of the word to almost nothing. By Denny's own admission, if "atheism" only meant the strictest and strongest form of disbelief ("there is no god, and nothing could possibly convince me otherwise"), there would be essentially no atheists, statistically speaking. I certainly wouldn't know any. So why neuter a perfectly reasonable word by limiting it to a population of almost zero? Why shoehorn the milder form of disbelief ("I don't believe, but I could be convinced otherwise with enough evidence") into a word that doesn't, strictly speaking, directly address belief in god at all?

Which is why atheism isn't a sound belief. ;)

I think a true atheist would be the one that has God himself manifest in front of him and tell him "I am your creator!" Then the atheist said "well anyone can do magic!"
 
I think you offered up a hypothetical that is nonsensical. Do you agree?

I mean, if the nature of "god" is metaphysical, then there would be no empirical evidence he exists. If his nature is within the laws of nature, we'd be finding physical evidence all over the place.

Exactly. If god is outside the realm of our natural world; how can we find evidence unless part of us is not part if this natural word and it separates from this world and into his/her/its.
 
I think you offered up a hypothetical that is nonsensical. Do you agree?

I mean, if the nature of "god" is metaphysical, then there would be no empirical evidence he exists. If his nature is within the laws of nature, we'd be finding physical evidence all over the place.

A nonsensical hypothetical? In what way?

Many of the great philosophers believed they had found empirical evidence for the existence of god, and absolutely thought that his nature was to be found within the laws of nature. I disagree with their conclusions, but their methods were absolutely inline with the assertions of Huxley. They rejected mysticism and revelation as keys to understanding god, believing that the mind was the strongest tool for achieving knowledge. This is the fundamental difference between gnosticism and agnosticism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top