Originally posted by C HessAgnosticism isn't some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism. How hard can this be?
Six posts above yours. Agnosticism isn't some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism. How hard can this be?
Now, deism is a form of theism. A deist don't believe in a personal god, or revelation as a source of knowledge, but do believe that there is a creator god who initiated everything, and then left the universe running according to the natural laws. In other words, a deist doesn't believe that god intervenes with the natural world.
How hard can it be for you to see that I don't define agnosticism as some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism? It certainly wasn't any kind of middle ground for me when I was agnostic.
Originally posted by C Hess...deism is a form of theism. A deist don't believe in a personal god, or revelation as a source of knowledge, but do believe that there is a creator god who initiated everything, and then left the universe running according to the natural laws. In other words, a deist doesn't believe that god intervenes with the natural world.
Six posts above yours. Agnosticism isn't some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism. How hard can this be?
Now, deism is a form of theism. A deist don't believe in a personal god, or revelation as a source of knowledge, but do believe that there is a creator god who initiated everything, and then left the universe running according to the natural laws. In other words, a deist doesn't believe that god intervenes with the natural world.
Thanks, but I did read the article that I provided a link to, and that's how the atheist turned deist defines deism. I know that deism is a form of theism, I was asking what form of deism/theism is it and under what category does it fit in with googlefudges list of definitions...
Never mind, I'll figure it out for myself.
Originally posted by lemon limeUsing the term "agnostic" to describe yourself to others helped you with "maintaining" your beliefs and "appearing to be objective" to them? This seems rather convoluted. Care to explain?
When I was agnostic I wasn't particularly curious or objective, it was simply a safe place for me to maintain my atheism while appearing to be objective. I didn't doubt what I believed, but being an agnostic seemed to be the most reasonable way of maintaining (or perhaps justifying) what I believed.
Originally posted by C Hesslemon lime will appreciate you pointing out his inconsistency in this no frills manner because on page 6 he did say: "I'm annoyed by people who consistently add and subtract from what I'm saying."
Did too: "Either you believed in God or you didn't, or you chose to call yourself an agnostic."
Originally posted by FMFThe 'beliefs' I previously held resulted from what I wanted to believe, in order to justify how I wanted to live my life. It was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse type of reasoning.... I wasn't living my life according to a belief, I was adopting a belief in order to justify what I wanted to do.
Using the term "agnostic" to describe yourself to others helped you with "maintaining" your beliefs and "appearing to be objective" to them? This seems rather convoluted. Care to explain?
-Removed-I'm being honest about what went through my mind at the time I saw myself as an atheist and agnostic... late teens to mid twenties. I'm in my mid-sixties now, and you presume because I'm being honest about how I was then that I'm not being honest now? Really?
A little honesty from you and your buddies would be refreshing to see from time to time, but I don't imagine that can happen unless you begin being honest with yourselves.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf the 'point of reference' was atheists and you were talking specifically about atheists, one wonders why you didn't use the term 'atheists' in the sentence?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 5)
"Atheists do not believe in an afterlife." lemon lime, in my experience the words people speak or write in public don't necessarily reflect the entire scope and spectrum of what they think. Why? Peer pressure. Fear of disapproval. Timidity. Censure. Besides, when the deliberative process is still in pr ...[text shortened]... od by a pastor/teacher from the original languages in which it was written is still in progress.
Originally posted by lemon limeHow can a label 'justify' your perceptions or beliefs? To whom did you seek to 'appear objective'? If you had not used the label ["agnostic"], you would have had difficulty 'maintaining your beliefs', is that what you mean?
The 'beliefs' I previously held resulted from what I wanted to believe, in order to justify how I wanted to live my life. It was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse type of reasoning.... I wasn't living my life according to a belief, I was adopting a belief in order to justify what I wanted to do.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo, your 'summation' is wrong. [completely wrong]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 1)
"twhitehead, when you first became aware of the game of chess with a thimble full of information you could have decided it wasn't of any interest to you. Similarly, when someone becomes aware of the possibility that some god or gods may exist [God consciousness] he or she may decide to summarily dismiss ...[text shortened]... ould either or both of you agree in part or whole with this *summation? Thanks for your replies.
Lets not 'summarise' and lets go with what I actually said.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadI actually rather like the definition given here by Richard Carrier, and for much the same reasons....
I am curious as to how you define 'supernatural'.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
There is a trend in science and law to define the word "supernatural" as "the untestable," which is perhaps understandable for its practicality, but deeply flawed as both philosophy and social policy. Flawed as philosophy, because testability is not even a metaphysical distinction, but an epistemological one, and yet in the real world everyone uses the word “supernatural” to make metaphysical distinctions. And flawed as social policy, because the more that judges and scientists separate themselves from the people with deviant language, the less support they will find from that quarter, and the legal and scientific communities as we know them will crumble if they lose the support of the people. Science and the courts must serve man. And to do that, they must at least try to speak his language. And yet already a rising tide of hostility against both science and the courts is evident. Making it worse is not the solution. ............
...... I define "nature" in Sense and Goodness without God (on pp. 211-12, with a little help from pp. 67-69). But I explain this in elaborate detail, with considerable supporting evidence, in my Secular Web article Defending Naturalism as a Worldview (2003), to which I referred readers in my book. After this, and the publication of Sense and Goodness, I defined the natural-supernatural distinction even more rigorously in the joint statement of the Carrier-Wanchick Debate (2006). Anyone who wishes to interact with my definitions of natural and supernatural must read these two articles.
In short, I argue "naturalism" means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, "supernaturalism" means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things. As I summarized in the Carrier-Wanchick debate (and please pardon the dry, technical wording):
If [naturalism] is true, then all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely caused by natural [i.e. fundamentally nonmental] phenomena. But if naturalism is false, then some minds, or some of the contents or powers or effects of minds, are causally independent of nature. In other words, such things would then be partly or wholly caused by themselves, or exist or operate directly or fundamentally on their own. ........