›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

"Agnostics are fence-sitting cowards"

2»

Comments

  • DonZabuDonZabu
    edited 2011-07-02 18:17:51

    This is getting ridiculous.

    Really, how do you even qualify what is evidence of God's existence and what isn't? Virtually anything can be argued as evidence one way or the other, and that's not even considering all the different ways god could function if he existed.

    As a side note: IJBM: all these debates implicitly argue between "God doesn't exist" and "God does exist, and we're talking about the Judeo-Christian god here", when many other ideas about what God is could be true as well.

    Sorry if I'm not making sense.

  • MadassAlexMadassAlex
    edited 2011-07-02 18:19:28
    One foot in front of the other, every day.
    ^^ So it would be fair to say that, under your definition, proof is a particularly strong form of evidence. I suspect this is a personal decision rather than a generally-supported division in language.

    In any case, science doesn't assume. There is no such thing as a 100% proven theory until it has been tested in all environments under all conditions. You can't say "X has worked in A, B and C conditions, therefore it will work in D condition". You have to test X in D condition, watching for variables that could adversely affect your research and give you inaccurate results. 
  • ninjaclownninjaclown
    I came to identify myself as agnostic after I realized I didn't know anything about faith or religion AND I didn't care.
  • NyktosNyktos
    edited 2011-07-02 18:29:56
    a little muffled
    @MadnessAlex:
    So it would be fair to say that, under your definition, proof is a
    particularly strong form of evidence. I suspect this is a personal
    decision rather than a generally-supported division in language.
    No, it's not a particularly strong form of evidence, it's something different, though related. With enough evidence, you can be arbitrarily certain of something, but you can't actually prove it.

    Some people might not make the distinction between evidence, but no, this isn't a personal dictionary thing. Honestly, I'd have thought it was common sense that proof proves something. I've certainly seen the distinction made by others.

    In any case, science doesn't assume. There is no such thing as a 100%
    proven theory until it has been tested in all environments under all
    conditions. You can't say "X has worked in A, B and C conditions,
    therefore it will work in D condition". You have to test X in D
    condition, watching for variables that could adversely affect your
    research and give you inaccurate results. 
    I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant.

    Honestly, this whole proof/evidence thing is kinda dumb. I apologize if my use of language was confusing. The second paragraph of that post is by far the more important one to the actual topic of this thread.
  • MadassAlexMadassAlex
    One foot in front of the other, every day.
    From dictionary.com for evidence:

    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

    And from proof:

    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

    So "proof" is a high degree of evidence, although "evidence" is a perfectly fine word to use for proof. We have been splitting hairs and they are not "completely different". In any case, this thread doesn't exist to establish a difference between evidence and proof.


  • NyktosNyktos
    edited 2011-07-02 18:43:16
    a little muffled
    I think it's kinda stupid that the words would be defined that way, but if that's how they're going to be used, fine, I'll amend my statment:

    "Sure it is. It doesn't prove absence, but it can be pretty strong evidence thereof."

    Can we get back to talking about agnosticism now?
  • DonZabuDonZabu
    Have I mentioned the infinity/1 principle before?
  • BobBob
    As a side note: IJBM: all these debates implicitly argue between "God doesn't exist" and "God does exist, and we're talking about the Judeo-Christian god here", when many other ideas about what God is could be true as well.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Okay, I sometimes find myself having to explain what kind of atheist I am, so I think I'll take the opportunity to organize my thoughts on the matter.

    I don't think it's very... scientific (?) to completely disregard an explanation until it has been... disproven (?). And there are some notions of a god that would not necessarily logically conflict with what we have known and experienced.

    I don't believe in a god. I entertain the possibility that there is one on some level, but that isn't saying much considering that I likewise entertain the possibility of many other very, very unlikely things. I entertain the possibility that the moon is made of cheese, that I am a pony, that Vorpy is a virgin. But I disregard all these things because they do not provide any extra explanatory power. Believing in these things doesn't allow me to more accurately predict things about my surroundings. To put it in plainer yet less accurate speech, I would say I know that these things are not true. I might say I believe 100% that something is false, but that's only after some rounding up. My world view isn't going to completely shatter if I learn that I was wrong about something I was certain about.

    Of course, there are so many different definitions of god that I think there might be someone out there with similar beliefs as me who might refer to something that I think exists as a god. Like say, all of existence, or the collection of human experience and emotion.

    I guess you could call me agnostic and be reasonably accurate, but doing so would I believe overstate the amount of respect I have for religion. Which is to say, very, very little.
  • NyktosNyktos
    a little muffled
    I guess you could call me agnostic and be reasonably accurate, but
    doing so would I believe overstate the amount of respect I have for
    religion. Which is to say, very, very little.
    This basically applies to me as well. I used to identify as agnostic until I realized it gave people the wrong idea as to what I actually believe.

  • BeholderessBeholderess
    It is indeed annoying that agnosticism is considered "fence sitting". Granted, the are people, and lots of them, for whom their agnosticism is exactly that, but such people would be more accurately described as apatheists.

    But anyway, for this one agnosticism is a reasoned position, and it deals not as much with existence of god/s, but with impossibility of knowing them.
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    Well, the best critique of agnosticism is this: Are you also 'agnostic' about the fairies living in your garden, or the Loch Ness monster, or what have you?
  • BobBob
    There are religions positing fairies or the Loch Ness monster as god?

    Jeez, why can't those guys go from door to door with pamphlets...
  • DonZabuDonZabu
    ^^ Those are a good deal more verifiable than God, at any rate.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    What does "agnost" mean?
  • BobBob
    http://www.agnost.net/
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭

    Teing a strong believer on one religion is not necessarily a good idea

    because we do not know which religion is the right one.

    So it is better to be a nice guy and hope for the best.

  • BobBob
    (Sebastion Mecklenburg)
  • CounterclockCounterclock
    Belief
    What's so cowardly about sitting on a fence?

    because the person doesn't pick a side? that's silly, I'll make up my own side! screw that noise!
  • BobBob
    If sitting on a fence, sipping southern sweet tea and basking in the summer sun as a breeze flows through my hair, short shorts and oddly revealing tank top makes me a coward, I don't wanna be brave.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    "(Faries and the Loch Ness Monster) are a good deal more verifiable than God, at any rate."

    Not really. Just say they don't leave physical evidence and you have just as hard a time disproving them.
Sign In or Register to comment.