|
Post by goz on Apr 12, 2017 5:31:33 GMT
I am a Christian, which means, among other things, that I know that Jesus is God and King of the Universe. You can't 'know' that! You can only think that you know that!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 12, 2017 5:36:00 GMT
I wonder why someone chooses to believe or deny dieties mindlessly by becoming a theist or atheist, when the only rational position is agnosticism? If there are no proofs about the existence or nonexistence of gods, the only rational choice is to wait until somehow it can be proven by facts. People who believe or deny without facts have irrational minds. I choose agnosticism. I have always had more respect for the intelligence of agnostics than for the intelligence of atheists. Agnosticism is a sort of "normal" attitude toward things that are not yet known. I believe it takes exposure to religion to understand the benefits of it and "agnostics" have generally not been exposed to the better renderings of religion. "Atheists" have often been exposed only to the worst readings of religion, or perhaps "misreadings" is the proper term, so I should probably give them more credit too. It might help all around if more people would read a book all the way through at least once in their lives. LOL, you never fail to amuse! Which book?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 12, 2017 10:07:39 GMT
I have always had more respect for the intelligence of agnostics than for the intelligence of atheists. Agnosticism is a sort of "normal" attitude toward things that are not yet known. I believe it takes exposure to religion to understand the benefits of it and "agnostics" have generally not been exposed to the better renderings of religion. "Atheists" have often been exposed only to the worst readings of religion, or perhaps "misreadings" is the proper term, so I should probably give them more credit too. It might help all around if more people would read a book all the way through at least once in their lives. LOL, you never fail to amuse! Which book? The Bible is actually a better book than many people realize, but almost any book in the library and any book without pornography can help a lot. Even the Bible is not much help with religion unless "prophets" or people with access to the Holy Spirit help put the Bible in context.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 12, 2017 10:22:51 GMT
My stance is orthodox but if need be, I can mix it up and switch to southpaw.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 12, 2017 12:37:20 GMT
No one on this board appreciates precision more than I do. So when you attempt to be precise about "belief" as compared to "knowledge" there is no one on this board more pleased with such efforts. I'm sorry, but given your insistence that atheists are atheists and agnostics are agnostics, what you consider to be "precision" is actually pedantry, and you measure "precision" by how well statements conform to your definitions. See, I'm an atheist. I am also an agnostic. In fact, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not pretend to know gods exist, and indeed I do not pretend to know anything at all with absolute certainty. This makes me agnostic. However, I do believe there are no gods - this makes me an atheist. I am not on the fence about it at all. "I'm not sure" does not cover my position, but neither does "I am sure". I am, however, reasonably sure there are no gods. So I am an agnostic atheist, which the majority of atheists are. What numbers? No one talked about numbers until you brought it up, as if someone tried to categorise by numbers - which no one did. The chart you object to is pretty succinct, straightforward, and yet you said nothing to actually contradict it. I had hoped for a bit more precision from the one person on this entire board to whom precision matters the most.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 12, 2017 16:26:26 GMT
I wonder why someone chooses to believe or deny dieties mindlessly by becoming a theist or atheist, when the only rational position is agnosticism? First, agnosticism is not the only rational position. Materialists may believe that it might be possible to find evidence about the existence of deities; theists might have personal experience that they classify as evidence for a deity. Booth stances can be rationalized. Second: Even if agnosticism was the only rational position: Who said that you should be rational about this? See above. People may interpret evidence as proof; or absence of evidence as evidence of absence. And maybe people don't want to be rational about this. So what? That's what you think. Others (like me) believe that agnosticism means that it is not possible to have knowledge about deities. In that sense, agnosticism is very irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 12, 2017 23:25:42 GMT
QED. I brought up numbers to illustrate the point that your definitions have no meaning to anyone but you, if they even mean anything to you.The chart pretends to present a definition of "gnosis" which it obviously cannot. It has no standard mutually agreed upon. It presents no standard at all. That "gnosis" is "knowledge" and "knowledge" is "gnosis" is called a "circular" definition. A circular definition serves no purpose at all. Knowledge of concrete blocks is widely recognized. "Knowledge" of god is not something concrete and as I explained there is the problem. You really don't have a definition of it at all.Perhaps as I hope you improve.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 13, 2017 0:06:51 GMT
QED. I brought up numbers to illustrate the point that your definitions have no meaning to anyone but you, if they even mean anything to you. If you could not comprehend the meaning from the chart, nor as I spelled it out for you, then I really don't know what to say. Cannot? It did, so obviously it could. "Gnosis" simply means "knowledge", and the word is placed in a context here which is very clear, but which you still object to. Extremely few things in life are universally agreed upon. But when one uses a word in a certain way, explaining the exact meaning and the context in which that meaning applies, then it is mutually agreed upon - even if you disagree with it. Plenty of words have specific meanings in specific contexts. If I talk about the quillon of a sword and call it a cross - which is perfectly legitimate - it would be unreasonable for you to object to that word by pointing out the definition you have in mind, when it is perfectly obvious what the meaning of "cross" is in the context of the discussion of swords. What exactly do you understand by the word "standard"? The chart was pretty clear. And it uses a very common definition of the word. And who here has been guilty of this circular definition? Not a one. You are presenting a strawman. Then why do you not object to the word "agnostic" - "without knowledge"? This does not refer to someone who has no knowledge, as you seem to imply, but who believe that certain knowledge cannot be attained. Gnostics, on the other hand, believe that certain knowledge can be attained (and tend to believe that they possess this knowledge, and you are such a one yourself). That you claim this is a "special" type of knowledge which is "not concrete", is neither here nor there. Whether concrete or not, you claim to possess this knowledge, making you a gnostic theist. The agnostic, on the other hand, says you are wrong: you do not have knowledge, you only believe you do. Because according to agnostics, one cannot know, concretely or not, either way. I suspect that you reserve the word "gnostic" only for Gnosticism, but you should be aware that the Gnostics of old never described themselves as such - it wasn't until the 17th century that this label was put upon them. It's not like the definition is copyrighted, however: definitions are fluid. And in this context, "gnostic" is placed in opposition to "agnostic", to refer to how one feels about knowledge - it does not refer to what knowledge one actually possesses.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 13, 2017 0:17:58 GMT
Extremely few things in life are universally agreed upon. But when one uses a word in a certain way, explaining the exact meaning and the context in which that meaning applies, then it is mutually agreed upon - even if you disagree with it. I was thinking the same thing myself. It is no problem accepting claims that a person does not know something. There is a fierce logic here.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 13, 2017 0:40:26 GMT
Extremely few things in life are universally agreed upon. But when one uses a word in a certain way, explaining the exact meaning and the context in which that meaning applies, then it is mutually agreed upon - even if you disagree with it. I was thinking the same thing myself. It is no problem accepting claims that a person does not know something. There is a fierce logic here. Then why do you object to "gnostic"? After all, you claim to know, even if this is not "concrete" knowledge - so why do you object to the notion of people claiming to know something?
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Apr 13, 2017 1:00:49 GMT
Gnosis is the claim, not the actual "measured" knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 13, 2017 1:07:07 GMT
I wonder why someone chooses to believe or deny dieties mindlessly by becoming a theist or atheist, when the only rational position is agnosticism? If there are no proofs about the existence or nonexistence of gods, the only rational choice is to wait until somehow it can be proven by facts. People who believe or deny without facts have irrational minds. I choose agnosticism. Why do we have to do this over and over? I'm an atheist because I have no belief in any deities. This is not a position of faith If you do not identify as a theist, then you are an atheist. Agnostic is not the middle ground. It doesn't even address the same question.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 13, 2017 7:26:29 GMT
LOL, you never fail to amuse! Which book? The Bible is actually a better book than many people realize, but almost any book in the library and any book without pornography can help a lot. Even the Bible is not much help with religion unless "prophets" or people with access to the Holy Spirit help put the Bible in context. You see Arlon, this is where everyone laughs at you. To be able willing and avid to read, is great. The skill to discriminate on 'what' you read, is even more important, once your reading reaches a certain level. The Bible is important to read as a tool to see why those who espouse it as more than interesting historical book, make it anything more than just that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 13, 2017 9:12:49 GMT
I was thinking the same thing myself. It is no problem accepting claims that a person does not know something. There is a fierce logic here. Then why do you object to "gnostic"? After all, you claim to know, even if this is not "concrete" knowledge - so why do you object to the notion of people claiming to know something? I do not claim to know. Rather I was very clear that the people most likely to know do not claim to know. Remember the list? The Pope, the Dalai Lama, Franklin Graham, the various Imams, all those people do not claim to be "gnostics," (in the wider world) and I don't either. Like them I understand language and whether experiences are common. If you do not have the same experience I have I do not expect you to accept my experience. Since you do not even understand my experience it would be bizarre if you did "accept" it as more than a belief. I realize to you it is only something I believe. When I cannot prove something I don't even bother trying. You apparently do. That is because you are "intellectually disabled" to put it in Obama terms, and a public nuisance. It might have much to do with the fact you have never been in public since your internet experience does not count. What I very well do "know" is that you are not communicating, I am. You are lost in a jungle of words that you can never connect to any experience or send on any public journey. If I say I "know" there is a block of concrete and I tell you it's in the garage, you can go to the garage and check. You can then see that I indeed did "know" about the block of concrete. Knowledge of such abstractions as a "god" is essentially different and it very much does matter that it is essentially different.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 13, 2017 9:39:00 GMT
The Bible is important to read as a tool to see why those who espouse it as more than interesting historical book, make it anything more than just that. My sentence parser went into neurogenic shock.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 14, 2017 4:38:24 GMT
The Bible is important to read as a tool to see why those who espouse it as more than interesting historical book, make it anything more than just that. My sentence parser went into neurogenic shock. What don't you understand?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 14, 2017 8:25:34 GMT
My sentence parser went into neurogenic shock. What don't you understand? I just didn't expect you to say that, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 14, 2017 8:30:41 GMT
What don't you understand? I just didn't expect you to say that, I suppose. Well, you must know that I think that the Bible is nothing more than a historical collection of old myths and stories without any foundation in truth, so I don't know why you were surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 14, 2017 9:33:10 GMT
I just didn't expect you to say that, I suppose. Well, you must know that I think that the Bible is nothing more than a historical collection of old myths and stories without any foundation in truth, so I don't know why you were surprised. It at least appears that much truth escapes you.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Apr 15, 2017 3:11:00 GMT
I'm a theist. A non-denominational Christian, to be specific.
|
|