Tribe.net. Local Connections Passion http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#d4162a79-a514-4a69-a6c9-f52f253d9062 2009-06-03T19:58:02Z 2009-06-03T19:58:02Z

Hmmm - I can't speak for all agnostics (of course) but for myself, I'm pretty much as sure that there is no God - as in biblical or hindu or such - as I am that there is no FSM or teapot orbiting - but I'm not so sure there isn't something more than this earthly mortal experience. And it seems likely (but of course I have no hard proof and never will) that human beings have taken their possibly real experiences of fleeting interaction with other ways of experiencing and spun them into what were originally metaphors and poetry and became through our weak wills and need for power some sort of dogma or another. That said, I can't imagine that any "otherworldly" experience would be able to be measured with the limitations of our "worldly" tools and methods and so no one's ever going to win Randy's money but that doesn't mean there's nothing but the worms for us and all living things. Truth is that I never did understand why people need to define these experiences, prove or disprove them, etc. unless they want to use them for some method of control - that's not spirituality. But that also doesn't prove that spirituatlity isn't a real phenomena of valuable to us on some level. And I'm talking about a level far more than just making us feel cozy in delusion too. The scientific method is very important and valuable and should absolutely be used as our most valuable current tool. But if I am supposed to get on a plane and statistically that plane (new and worked on by the best mechanics) is not at all likely to crash but my gut is crying out for me to miss it - guess what I'm going to listen to? My gut - and not because I don't trust science and statistical analysis - but because I don't think that the tools we currently have an understanding of are the ONLY tools we might ever understand - I'm glad that scientists and others before us weren't so arrogant. Try to imagine Newton being asked to contemplate some of what Einstein brought to the table and dismissing it as nonsense - it may even have happened then - history doesn't record that which was laughed out of the meeting halls - at least not very accurately. Truth is that we don't know many things still and arrogantly thinking otherwise will not promote scientific advancement, but rather limit it to the current field of vision.

Passion 2009-06-03T19:58:02Z Ignignokt http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#9c462d57-e358-46f9-84d3-0d0704869970 2009-04-27T09:27:13Z 2009-04-27T09:27:13Z

I'm channeling rage. Cherry Slurpee.

Ignignokt 2009-04-27T09:27:13Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#cb0adb65-79e3-4183-8dec-2b417cf72ac7 2009-04-26T03:38:26Z 2009-04-26T03:38:26Z

you're working within a framework of self-control. how much self control does a fish have in a fishbowl? the environment which created your thoughts and very organic being did come about through some process which we do not fully understand. Even if we return to the big bang we still have to answer what created that matter, what are the bounds of the universe, what lay outside those bounds and how does that relate to beings who could never make the trip to those bounds. this argument i've made is the same one religious fanatics have unwittingly championed for ages- which is god filling up the gaps of knowledge. it's worked well because there is so much to know. strong as the god-gap argument is it is not proof either. just because a fish is familiar with his bowl and says i'm not feeding him doesn't mean i'm not feeding him. we can take this further in suggesting that an omnipotent being put together a series of objects knowing the outcome and humans, as part of it, can never fully grasp that they are just one string in a greater universal fabric. The problem i have with atheism isn't so much that they don't believe in god so much as they leave as many gaps in the picture as religious people. They do this with much more logic, but still they don't adopt the burden of proof they so desperately require from the other side. however, i used to be an athiest so i certainly don't consider this a character flaw or invalid belief. it just doesn't fit my own mindset.

Chris 2009-04-26T03:38:26Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#62bf3294-bdb3-45a0-a3a0-587b1b3f00af 2009-04-26T03:28:12Z 2009-04-26T03:28:12Z

My only difficulty with your stance are the loopholes in science. Science is not complete by any stretch and we will likely not see a complete understanding in our lives. There are too many unknowns to claim a side yet. An argument i've seen much of is how divine texts fit into categorizing these three different belief systems. A secular mind count religious texts as validation, a purely scientific mind will claim them as proof of invalidity. As an agnostic i claim that they are inconsequential. God may or may not exist regardless of whether any religious text is believe, written, spoken or culturally shared. A god, being almighty by definition, is not dependent on any object of his creation to exist. Thus if you set aside religious texts as inconsequential then you require proof from either side otherwise the conclusions are faith/belief based. Consider the Fermilab group who have been trying to prove the higgs boson. they have demonstrated collisions at many different energy levels to prove the higgs boson is NOT found at those levels. This work has taken many years and the team knows it's just as important to prove what isn't as it is to prove what is otherwise we have gaps in our understanding of phenomenon.

Chris 2009-04-26T03:28:12Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#2399f196-ace0-48c1-97a6-694cc9d27d1a 2009-04-26T03:13:32Z 2009-04-26T03:13:32Z

you know, i must add that i honestly like the idea of a supreme god being. it's fun to imagine the complexity of this all-knowing thing, but it's troubling too when you consider the limits of understanding, science, space and time we are constrianed within. it's somewhat frustrating trying to tell anyone i'm agnostic because they don't get my disappointment in my own belief. i don't want to be godless or a heathen, i just want to be honest. religious people claim honesty is integral to their beliefs but when you tell them you honestly don't know whether there is or isn't a god they either take it as a threat or a mission to change you. but i don't feel like i can go back. it's like when you find out there's no santa clause. no book, lecture or anything will return your brain to the days when you thought he was real. i did go through the atheistic phase and i do see much of what richard has argued against proven on this board. atheists argue that their science doesn't support a god so it mustn't exist- but that definition is limited by current science which still has much to discover and prove. Which is to say their belief is based on incomplete evidence. Science MAY in fact, prove there is a god, regardless of whether divine texts are valid or not. A god does not require divine texts or faith in such texts to exist. But atheism only stands (by my definition) if there is proof there is no God. I know there is no proof either way. And i can't say i enjoy knowing that. i miss santa clause and i miss a god who might act as a safety net and good luck charm. the only hope for agnosticism is not missing a god i can blame for all the bad in the world. if atheists or religious fanatics want to hate me for being honest that's fine but i think you'd get more out of your time and energy by simply ignoring my kind instead. sincerely.

Chris 2009-04-26T03:13:32Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#bb69a18e-1f49-4e0f-aae8-d9cf6011de7c 2009-04-26T02:59:10Z 2009-04-26T02:59:10Z

Hello fello agnostic. I fully agree that the opposite of faith isn't proof. In fact, i believe agnosticism is the only logical, honest approach to religion one can adopt. I think Atheists are a kind of agnostic in denial. They swung so far from religion that they haven't yet recognized their own fundamentalist leanings. I also believe disorder/chaos/disorganization bother many people and that drives them to one extreme or the other. Why not admit that regardless of what is written there is no real proof for either side? And why can't the religious fanatics recognize that this doesn't entirely devalue their beliefs or works? There are good moral lessons in religion that can help people. Must I believe in God to adopt 'the golden rule'? I hope not. I am going to church tomorrow for my family, as i believe my choice is my own. it makes no demands that they feel/believe the same and i can tolerate their beliefs. too bad my wife can't tolerate mine. if there is a god, that god has a peculiar sense of humor. Anyway, thanks for bringing this topic up.

Chris 2009-04-26T02:59:10Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#a9c1fd69-5cb2-4b94-ac1a-ec2f7076dfee 2009-04-20T16:04:49Z 2009-04-20T16:04:49Z

porn and slurpees... any preference on slurpee flavors?

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-20T16:04:49Z Ignignokt http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#c3092855-d0de-4bd6-9ed3-6fbe17b6d202 2009-04-20T11:57:15Z 2009-04-20T11:57:15Z

All this talk is pointless, because the moon created all of you silly earthlings. We are you lord and masters. All we demand in return is your pornography. Give it to us now, or your world will be crushed by the mega quad laser. You can't escape it's beam. Don't bother trying to run and hide. We also enjoy slurpees.

Ignignokt 2009-04-20T11:57:15Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#52c857c0-594f-4983-b6f1-b2ecc0e6a94f 2009-04-20T03:47:51Z 2009-04-20T03:33:53Z

Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax" - Sounds interesting Erik. Thanks for that. Ever read David Mills 'Atheist Universe"? Brendan, I enjoyed your 2:51 PM comment - it shows positive signs that improvement may be on the way. "Well then I suppose I'm an Athiest too in the "absense of belief" sense of the term." I like that comment. It shows that you're beginning to understand what "atheist" really is. You may be an "atheist" on many different specific topics as it simply means an "absence of belief." I have an absence of belief on what I call "book religion" these holy books never seem to be able to produce valid evidence of their god claims. However, I was never comfortable with being an atheist for many years as I was so uncomfortable with the *LABEL* I spent several years as an agnostic as that label is easier and carriers less judgment from others. After several years, I lost interest in and fear of what others might think and realized how atheist I was on so many religious issues. Still, I had a passion for theology, comparative religion and spirituality of all sorts. I am still agnostic on many other specific issues since it simply means non-committal. When it comes to a god beyond religious texts I'm willing to be agnostic about it. I am an atheist in the weak or negative sense and feel positive or strong atheists should find a new word to describe themselves because atheist isn't it as it is clearly an "absence of belief" not a "denial of" or "belief that no god exists." "An Atheist who says "there is no God" with absolute certainty is a few cans short of a sixpack," I would disagree that - I was a theist for several years since I was raised that way and it took much investigation for me to make the transition, but still to date there is no valid evidence for any god that has been sold to us by the most pious among us. Theists or god believers certainly have no valid evidence to support their claims. So just because an atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods doesn't mean that person is inaccurate. The burden of proof rests in the hands of those making a positive claim. One is not a true skeptic if they are not willing to entertain the thought that due to the severe lack of evidence, it is possible, that there really is no god. I'm not fond of any particular label but I needed to finally be honest with myself. Theistic arguments have all failed miserably. I like to say, When God comes down from heaven to be on the evening news and finally select a specific religious denomination and political party for all the world to see, then we will have something very interesting to talk about. "Rocky, take up Yoga or something" I do meditation, Ju-Jitzu and many other things.

Rocky 2009-04-20T03:33:53Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#2ae76c81-5471-4f78-953e-dd518d70fe48 2009-04-19T22:39:30Z 2009-04-19T22:39:30Z

You got me, Sherlock. I go to Clown Shoe Anonymous meetings every other week. We pathologically embarrass free thinkers everywhere. My furvor for inaccuracy is limitless. I just can't help my utter ignorance. I need to read more books and make the necessary adjustments and corrections. Clown Shoes like me are so juvenile. We embarrass the entire freethinking community. I'll just shut up and start a new tribe to endorse false positions, inaccurate information and ignorance. The only redeeming quality about being a Clown Shoe is I don't project my own insecurities onto other people like a douchebag.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-19T22:39:30Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#8c5669ac-4ce6-4ad1-a79a-097f814bc9ff 2009-04-19T21:51:36Z 2009-04-19T21:51:36Z

Well then I suppose I'm an Athiest too in the "absense of belief" sense of the term. There's just a fine line between not believing in something and being certain that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven to one's satisfaction. An Atheist who says "there is no God" with absolute certainty is a few cans short of a sixpack, IMO, whereas an Atheist who suspends their belief in god in lieu of evidence is more awake. So, smart people share the skepticism, and we're all just gettiing caught up in labels in this thread. I'm still fond of my "Agnostic" label. Thank you for being concise and reasonable, Erik. That cleared up my understanding of Atheism quite well, and I'm glad to hear that it isn't just the polar opposite of pure faith in a god/religion. Rocky, take up Yoga or something. You'll live a lot longer if you learn to relax a bit.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-19T21:51:36Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#9c8ac64b-b073-4f27-87e5-bea24a4f38e7 2009-04-19T20:56:18Z 2009-04-19T20:56:18Z

Yep. Rocky might be a little on the abrasive side, but he's right. Atheism is an absence of belief. I'd be happy to believe in God, or whatever. Just provide the evidence to support your hypothesis. So far, it isn't convincing. At least not to me. And I might add, a whole bunch of really smart folks. Again, I highly recommend Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax" for any who actually want to understand the logic that leads to atheism.

Erik 2009-04-19T20:56:18Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#3b521445-e5d4-4928-97ff-207d2102ca18 2009-04-19T20:50:39Z 2009-04-19T20:42:37Z

Just shut-up Brendan and stop being a moronic clown shoe. You're just trying to save face for the ignorant comments you've made throughout this thread which was started with idiotic comments from richard who embarrasses Agnostics, Atheists and other freethinkers everywhere with his utter ignorance. B "I apologize if you feel as if your ideas regarding Atheism were not validated in this thread" I don't need validation from ignorant moron clown shoes. I'm disgusted with the fact that none of you here had the intellectual honesty or integrity to at least acknowledge the historical facts I provided for your own edification. I made the mistake of thinking you might appreciate those facts in order to make the necessary adjustments with the false assumptions and utter inaccuracies here concerning agnosticism and atheism. "you only seemed to prove Richard's point: Athiests mucking up the Agnostic tribe with their own belief system" See, thank you for being so utter idiotic that you STILL don't understand what "atheist" MEANS let alone "agnostic." richard doesn't have a fucking CLUE & obviously neither do you. It's the blind leading the blind - Agnosticism is YOUR BELIEF you've changed the meaning of agnostic and atheist to meet your own selected perception. You seem to base your evidence on EUPHORIA & faith same as the religious folks do. "people like you who obviously have a strong desire to demonstrate the validity of Atheism" I don't NEED to validate atheism. It's simply an absence of belief and you still can't wrap your head around that. "For example, if Atheism is so great, why are you the most angry, foul-mouthed poster on this thread?" Atheism doesn't make me angry at all - it's the utter ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and juvenile attitude here do. Make the necessary adjustments in your false assumptions and inaccurate meanings before you continue to embarrass all Freethinkers everywhere. "Ironically, religious people seem to share your zeal about their own belief systems, and it's that zeal that I'm trying to get away from by being an Agnostic." Your fuvor for inaccuracy demonstrates your faith, bigotry and biases. Again, it's the utter ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and juvenile attitude here that I take issue with. "What gets me is that you are defending Atheism in an Agnostic tribe." Again, due to the severe ignorance of what atheism actually is. I stand for accuracy and intellectual honesty regardless of the issue or topic. It's called honesty and character. You embarrass the entire freethinking community when you misrepresent positions. Which gives theism ammo. So grow up please. I would defend agnosticism against an atheist if they misrepresented it too. "You take issue with the collective definition of Atheism as it doesn't jive with your own definition. " Again with your utter ignorance - you just can't help it. YOUR definition which you consider atheism to be some sort of "belief" is the new definition created by theists a few years ago to make their straw man arguments appear to have some merit even when they don't. I already shared the Greek root which is an "absence of belief" which is diametrically opposed your opinion. Make the correction. "You seem like the Jerry Falwell of Atheism, the same zealous attitude with a different belief system." Then you must be the Bozo clown shoe of agnosticism. Go study a book on the issue and stop spreading false information, lies and inaccurate definitions - it's an embarrassment to the entire Freethinking community. Just stop being so juvenile and make the necessary adjustments & corrections. We're really on the same team here but not if you're going to endorse false positions, inaccurate information and ignorance. Oh, that's what your new tribe is for.

Rocky 2009-04-19T20:42:37Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#6162452c-a291-4c63-bacc-2814b0a568a6 2009-04-18T02:22:31Z 2009-04-18T02:22:31Z

Oh Rocky... sad clown, turn that frown upside down! The Sun will come out again. Take that thumb out of your mouth, wipe that tear away, and shine a glad smile to the world! Whatever distinguishes us from intellectually honest geniuses such as yourself seems like a good idea to me, sir rocky. I apologize if you feel as if your ideas regarding Atheism were not validated in this thread, but you got very defensive, and you only seemed to prove Richard's point: Athiests mucking up the Agnostic tribe with their own belief system. Your ideas may be sound, but your attitude flushes them down the toilet, IMO. "Agnostics Only" has been created so Agnostics can discuss Agnosticism without having to upset people like you who obviously have a strong desire to demonstrate the validity of Atheism. I may agree with you in so many ways, but I would rather have you on my debate team than on a discussion forum. It's truly unfortunate that you couldn't have taken a more detatched, Socratic approach to making your points on this thread. You seem to have wisdom to share, but if you serve it to people as this thread demonstrates, you only weaken the validity of your arguments. For example, if Atheism is so great, why are you the most angry, foul-mouthed poster on this thread? Ironically, religious people seem to share your zeal about their own belief systems, and it's that zeal that I'm trying to get away from by being an Agnostic. What gets me is that you are defending Atheism in an Agnostic tribe. You take issue with the collective definition of Atheism as it doesn't jive with your own definition. You seem to have failed at creating much interest in your opinions about Atheism, mostly because you seem defensive, combative, and weak. You seem like the Jerry Falwell of Atheism, the same zealous attitude with a different belief system. No self-respecting person can stand behind you when you throw a classic supermarket temper tantrum. Say what you want about mine or Richard's intelligence, at least we can keep a level head and field your incessant insults with humor and enjoyment. You're a wuss.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-18T02:22:31Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#941a3bf2-c7df-46c3-898e-42f8e2052631 2009-04-17T13:22:46Z 2009-04-17T13:22:46Z

All you 3 need to do is create your own "Agnostic Only for intellectually dishonest morons" tribe - it's easy just create your own tribe.

Rocky 2009-04-17T13:22:46Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#a3cb47c7-693c-4df0-b61f-6f3a3720c554 2009-04-17T06:22:08Z 2009-04-17T06:22:08Z

In real life, when people want you to go away they only have to throw a stick. But here...

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-17T06:22:08Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#a401628e-994a-4775-832d-ea2af2d2e7a5 2009-04-17T05:15:26Z 2009-04-17T05:07:49Z

Brendan <<Rocky seems to have a quarrel with all expressions of spirituality, so Agnostics who are willing to entertain religious or spiritual concepts impartially must drive him bonkers.>> UTTER BULLSHIT - you keep demonstrating yourself to every bit as moronic as richard - You STILL don't know the differences between these different labels. I AM interested in religious & spiritual concepts or I wouldn't be a member of several of those tribes including this one dip-shit!!! However, people like those posting in this very thread quickly become obstacles to intelligent discussion of these topics when they don't have a clue what their talking about. Why don't the 3 of you go create the Agnostic-moron tribe rather than ruin this one. Everything was fine until a couple-knuckleheads start making idiotic claims as found in richards original post & throughout this thread. richard Brendan and voodoo would be the perfect candidates for such an intellectually dishonest tribe for which there is no shortage of at tribe to begin with. Maybe one day you'll all learn what atheism & agnosticism really is - I won't hold my breathe. I'm sure you'll continue to make everyone else suffer due to your own utter ignorance and rigid adherence to it.

Rocky 2009-04-17T05:07:49Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#a5464a4a-764b-4011-9049-33ab8704209e 2009-04-16T02:16:37Z 2009-04-16T02:16:37Z

Well, I'm with Richard. When we have such a tragic comedy erupting here with Rocky's forehead veins bulging defending some designer definition of Atheism in an Agnostic tribe, it's time to seek intelligent life elsewhere I suppose. Rocky seems to have a quarrel with all expressions of spirituality, so Agnostics who are willing to entertain religious or spiritual concepts impartially must drive him bonkers. He makes a good case study in the animalistic neuroticism that one can develop when they cling onto one belief system. He's on this thread lashing out at neutral parties, carried away by his own personal fanaticism, his fetish for being right. I'd rather be wrong. If Richard wants to idiot-proof his tribe, more power to him.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-16T02:16:37Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#21e6564b-ef3d-4304-ab03-485faac01cb8 2009-04-15T19:50:44Z 2009-04-15T19:50:44Z

Oops, sorry about the extra "e" there.

Erik 2009-04-15T19:50:44Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#67035d7a-e0e1-4841-b12e-6359f0d24125 2009-04-15T19:49:45Z 2009-04-15T19:49:45Z

Hey, Rockey: "If you want a moron mod to ruin the tribe than why don't you take it[?]" You forgot the question mark. In any event, are you calling me a moron? Not very nice of you. I don't believe I deserved your derision. Did I attack you? Did I slam you with some ad hominem, perceived or otherwise? Maybe you should mod this tribe?

Erik 2009-04-15T19:49:45Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#0c828907-aa86-40e7-b394-dc3559456f48 2009-04-15T18:02:11Z 2009-04-15T18:02:11Z

voodoo <<Seriously Rocky, shut the hell up. All you do is spew hate. You're giving atheists a bad name. This tribe needs a moderator. >>> piss on you voodoo - all you're doing is spewing utter IGNORANCE - you don't even know what atheism is either - you're as moronic as richard None of you should be allowed to mod this tribe - start your own.

Rocky 2009-04-15T18:02:11Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#e402724a-f007-4a3e-9e34-2d5d96bf7b88 2009-04-15T17:56:09Z 2009-04-15T17:54:13Z

piss on you Voodoo - Richard sucks already!!! He doesn't know what agnosticism even IS let alone atheism. <<Hey, maybe Richard will take the job. That way he can boot us all, and change the name to Agnostics Only.>> If you want a moron mod to ruin the tribe than why don't you take it - there's obviously no desire for any kind of accuracy in this thread so there's clearly no IQ test to mod here . richard will ruin the tribe and the only morons that will be left will be richard voodoo & brendan Why don't you all just start your own moronic tribes? You can start off with richard voodoo & brendan ...

Rocky 2009-04-15T17:54:13Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#d7e64e24-20ec-4ef0-87a1-f42aea503afb 2009-04-15T17:14:03Z 2009-04-15T17:14:03Z

Hey, maybe Richard will take the job. That way he can boot us all, and change the name to Agnostics Only.

Erik 2009-04-15T17:14:03Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#69f49a8d-3f56-47a6-8f00-a8b13fea9c52 2009-04-15T17:07:31Z 2009-04-15T17:07:31Z

Seriously Rocky, shut the hell up. All you do is spew hate. You're giving atheists a bad name. This tribe needs a moderator.

VoodooChild 2009-04-15T17:07:31Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#0cd9631d-870f-4053-84ed-742061f5455f 2009-04-15T15:52:36Z 2009-04-15T15:52:36Z

No Jamba Juice card for you, young man...

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-15T15:52:36Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#ff6138ce-3924-4764-866f-0687fe610a6e 2009-04-15T14:20:27Z 2009-04-15T14:17:29Z

Brendan, how about *YOU* <<"shut the hell up...thumb-sucking weasel">> ? Richard starts this thread off with utter ignorance and name calling and now you stoop to his juvenile level as well AFTER I just proved my points. You're now sounding just like richard - who knew nothing about atheism & very little about agnosticism. The name-calling and ignorance demonstrate the weakness of your arguments. And you made the same STUPID mistake richard did - that book wasn't by Ayn Rand are moron. Why do agnostics have their head up their ass? Know wonder they're so non committal - they don't know what they're talking about. So, you yourself may want to "chill out" for long enough to realize it was richard who started this utter nonsensical thread inadvertently exposing the ignorance of agnostics here.

Rocky 2009-04-15T14:17:29Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#cce4ee1a-483a-4a69-85d1-d46d3622c584 2009-04-15T05:59:03Z 2009-04-15T05:59:03Z

"[The Agnostic] quite sure there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster, no leprechauns, no angels pushing planets around a crystalline sphere, no vital spirit, no cosmic ether, no fairies, no WMDs in Iraq, and no perfect women." I'm not sure about flying spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, angels pushing planets around a crystalline sphere, vital spirit, cosmic ether, faires, WMDs in Iraq, and perfect women. Some women have their moments... The more an Agnostic knows, the more s/he knows s/he knows nothing.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-15T05:59:03Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#7a6e2014-fe45-4e48-a5f3-3aa82be54442 2009-04-15T05:38:36Z 2009-04-15T05:38:36Z

"Agnostics seem to have more intellectual humility, and athiests seem to be more certain. It's about skepticism. A true skeptic is skeptical of skeptics, skepticism, and him/herself." I like the comment about a true skeptic being skeptical of skepticisim. Every skeptic has his own brand of skepticism - he is more skeptical of some things and less of others. Whatever world view we settle into, confirmation bias starts operating the moment we think we have the answers. I understand why you would say that agnostics have more humility, after all they are abstaining from answering the question. And frankly, if atheists and agnostics have character traits, there are a lot of belligerent atheists out there who seem to view humility as a weakness (Ayn Rand readers?). Then again, the agnostic may not have adequately applied his normal critical thinking skills to the God question. He's quite sure there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster, no leprechauns, no angels pushing planets around a crystalline sphere, no vital spirit, no cosmic ether, no fairies, no WMDs in Iraq, and no perfect women. I just wonder what makes God different from all these other questions where he can't be motivated to suspend judgment.

VoodooChild 2009-04-15T05:38:36Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#31156e33-5558-40d4-ac18-106e61e6f181 2009-04-15T03:40:04Z 2009-04-15T03:40:04Z

It's all so simple. Ask an athiest and an agnostic if they believe in god, the athiest says "no," and the agnostic says "I don't know." "Yes, it is certainly is and your utter denial demonstrates a severe biases, bigotry and ignorance on your part. You clearly have no formal education on these subjects concerning atheism or agnosticism or theism for that matter. You are not in the position of pretending to be any kind of authority on any of these issues. You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. All you are demonstrating here is your utter discrimination against atheists." Rocky, chill out dude. Why is it that all the people I've met who mention Ayn Rand are morons? She seems to have been a pretty smart lady, someone please tell me why her devout readers end up as thumb-sucking weasels? An athiest has already banged the gavel, but the agnostic is always waiting for the jury. Agnostics seem to have more intellectual humility, and athiests seem to be more certain. It's about skepticism. A true skeptic is skeptical of skeptics, skepticism, and him/herself. Rocky, you're right. We'll all pitch in and get you a giftcard to Jamba Juice if you just shut the hell up.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-15T03:40:04Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#9c05a6f8-9eb0-4f11-afca-078304f65cd0 2009-04-15T00:37:44Z 2009-04-15T00:37:44Z

"Many dictionaries today say that atheists 'deny the existence of God,' which assumes there is a god to deny the existence of." That's the silliest thing I've read all day.

VoodooChild 2009-04-15T00:37:44Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#e04bba9b-a1e0-49a4-99a6-6e6e284d7f21 2009-04-14T23:41:11Z 2009-04-14T23:36:11Z

Richard <<<My statment that atheism is a faith-based belief isn't knocking anyone.>>> Yes, it is certainly is and your utter denial demonstrates a severe biases, bigotry and ignorance on your part. You clearly have no formal education on these subjects concerning atheism or agnosticism or theism for that matter. You are not in the position of pretending to be any kind of authority on any of these issues. You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. All you are demonstrating here is your utter discrimination against atheists. You seem to have an utter ignorance about the scientific principles known as "burden of proof" and "proving a negative" - the 'burden of proof for god rests in the hands of those making positive claims and theists have failed miserably. Demanding atheists prove god doesn't exist demonstrates an utter ignorance of proving a negative - if something doesn't exist the best evidence for that is an absence of evidence which is precisely what we have. So you looked up 'atheism' in a dictionary created and edited by Christians. "If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God." - "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463) Martin goes on to cite several other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of 'atheism', including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html --- "The AAI (Atheist Alliance International) agrees with you on the definition of atheism. In 2003, we assigned your issue to a committee, which gave the definition of atheism, 'Absence of belief in the existence of any gods.' The committee was to have notified dictionary editors and publishers of this. We feel that, as the world's largest atheist organization, we should hold some sway. Many dictionaries today say that atheists 'deny the existence of God,' which assumes there is a god to deny the existence of. As a mostly-volunteer group, we have not yet gotten the word to all of the dictionaries. I hope you will join the AAI and help us in our quest. Best regards, Bobbie Kirkhart President Atheist Alliance International http://www.Atheistalliance.org --- Here's another perfect example: "Some dictionaries define godless as 'wicked', 'immoral'. I don't believe in gods but I am not 'wicked' nor am I 'immoral'. This means that dictionaries are not inerrant. It sounds like the religious society should be blamed for assigning a morally pejorative connotation to an ordinary descriptive adjective." - "Loosing Faith in Faith" page 98 "godless: wicked; evil; sinful." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=godless "What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity." --"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3. Richard your last response to his quote does not suffice as the author was George H. Smith not Ayn Rand as you mistakenly assumed last time - either way it was just an ad hom attack. The fact remains that you had no clue what atheism really was or how atheists themselves define it rather than theists or agnostics attempting to define it for us. Oh and agnosticism is nothing more than being "noncommittal" which isn't really a position at all as explained the "The Agnostic Fallacy" ;

Rocky 2009-04-14T23:36:11Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#cff9e271-b4df-4593-8574-1c2f19c9e935 2009-04-14T20:54:29Z 2009-04-14T20:54:29Z

Yes, but I don't take it on faith that there is no God. Theists claim that there is. I merely ask for evidence to support their claims. This is a rational human response. Hence, miracles. Okay, reproduce them. You do, and I'll believe. You do, and Randi will give you a million bucks too. I don't claim there is no God. The non-existence of anything is the default position. If the theist wants to proclaim something, it is up to them to provide evidence. Yes, the Earth travels around the Universe on the back of a turtle. I claim there is insufficient evidence. That is all. If you find some, I'd be happy to examine it. So, do believe that the possibility of a teapot in orbit is reasonable? Simple question. Will you answer it?

Erik 2009-04-14T20:54:29Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#3c76a62c-e7f4-4da9-b7d7-69c44cb5ec92 2009-04-14T18:28:29Z 2009-04-14T18:28:29Z

Now wait. My statment that atheism is a faith-based belief isn't knocking anyone. It is a belief based on people taking it on faith that there is no god. They don't have proof, therefore, it is based on faith. It's just a statement, not a judgment. As for my quoting from the dictionary, you told me I didn't know the meaning of the word. I was simply backing up what I said. You're questioning the veracity of agnostics, and I don't see you getting "dis-enrolled." You started your last post out with "sorry," then went on to say I'm the problem. Sorry for what? Oh why bother.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-14T18:28:29Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#54e1d106-5159-4286-9291-38323735bc6e 2009-04-14T17:34:42Z 2009-04-14T17:34:42Z

Sorry. You are the one who started by stating that "Atheism is a faith-based belief" in your first post. And you then went on to quote a definition from a dictionary about what an "atheist" is. And, no, this is not a tribe FOR agnostics. It is a tribe about agnosticism, and open to anyone. You are the one who made it about atheists. There actually is an atheists only tribe. If you go there, and start questioning the veracity of atheism, you will find yourself dis-enrolled. Again, you could start, and moderate an agnostics only tribe, and dis-enroll atheists at will. Personally, I like to allow people to define themselves. In another tribe, there is a guy who insists that Sudanese Arabs are actually Africans, not Arabs. They speak Arabic. They are culturally Arab. They can trace their family lines to Arabia. They just happen to have dark skin. He's a racist, of course. Webster is wrong. If you agree with Webster, you are wrong too. Do you concede that there is a possibility that a teapot is orbiting the Sun, halfway between the Earth and Mars? Before you get all huffy about being "jumped on" and depart with a flourish, I'd like to know.

Erik 2009-04-14T17:34:42Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#4c360621-91c3-4d4d-a441-c55cc5de8ca9 2009-04-14T17:32:40Z 2009-04-14T17:32:40Z

Richard, I hope you'll stay and engage in some discussion, and maybe some other agnostics will pop up eventually, though it's been awhile. For future reference, when you accuse atheists of having faith without inquiring what arguments they might have for their position, you're asking for a pissing contest.

VoodooChild 2009-04-14T17:32:40Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#76c4cf24-c048-44f8-8d53-240ec1eb5a2a 2009-04-14T17:24:38Z 2009-04-14T17:24:38Z

I don't think the question of what atheism "is" can necessarily be solved by reference to a dictionary, particularly a generalist dictionary like Merriam-Webster. You might consult a philosophical dictionary, which is a little better. Here's the definition given in one Atheism: (Gr. a, no; theos, god) Two uses of the term: 1. The belief that there is no God. 2. Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic." The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term although widely current in the history of thought. -- V.F. http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html There are different versions of atheism, sometimes divided into a 'weak' form (I have no belief in God) and a 'strong' form (I believe there is no God). You can debate the nuances of these two versions for days, and that's before you even get into the cognitive science of belief and realize that we still really have little idea what beliefs are or how to make sense of them in terms of an underlying neural mechanism.

VoodooChild 2009-04-14T17:24:38Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#e4fa0f70-d6e0-4b2c-8e68-a435044d2fb6 2009-04-14T17:20:39Z 2009-04-14T17:20:39Z

I was attempting to do just that. I got jumped on with accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about etc. How about if I just pull out. This is obviously no longer a tribe for agnostics, as my point was in the beginning.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-14T17:20:39Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#dfb5ed37-196d-402c-a580-2479a571f912 2009-04-14T17:12:38Z 2009-04-14T17:12:38Z

Come on guys, does the world really need another atheism vs. agnosticism pissing contest? I'm happy to engage in a serious discussion of this topic and consider viewpoints other than my own, but if you're just going to trade cheap shots, that doesn't add up to an interesting conversation.

VoodooChild 2009-04-14T17:12:38Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#53c7aa6f-e000-4822-8fcb-9d581884fe26 2009-04-14T16:50:27Z 2009-04-14T16:50:27Z

atheist One entry found. Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist It doesn't say one who doesn't believe in a deity; it says one who believes there IS NO deity. agnostic 2 entries found Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\ Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know Date: 1869 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-14T16:50:27Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#6ec9b29f-c3a2-4637-bc45-b8d1e94623d5 2009-04-14T16:45:17Z 2009-04-14T16:45:17Z

I do know what an atheist is. What does that make you?

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-14T16:45:17Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#3af856f0-dbc2-413f-9306-a0da2fbd9096 2009-04-14T14:23:17Z 2009-04-14T14:23:17Z

<<<"I'm free to start my own tribe? Are you saying I'm not welcome here? ">>> I simply made the point that every single person here knows - You're always free to start your own agnostic tribe. <<<"Ayn Rand...She's a dick.">>> LOL, she knew what an atheist was - you certainly didn't. What does that make you?

Rocky 2009-04-14T14:23:17Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#0f30b5a3-57ba-416b-996d-5927fcfa1365 2009-04-14T12:10:26Z 2009-04-14T12:10:26Z

I'm free to start my own tribe? Are you saying I'm not welcome here? It it you who doesn't know the meaning of atheism. Ayn Rand? Why would I want to listen to anything she had to say? She's a dick.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-14T12:10:26Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#f6370967-c6e8-4518-8477-99bd427f88cb 2009-04-13T23:50:14Z 2009-04-13T23:50:14Z

Richard <<<Atheism is a faith-based belief.>>> This is utterly false. You apparently don't know what atheism is which puts your understanding of agnosticism immediately suspect as well. You're certainly free to start your own agnostic tribe. "What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity." --"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3.

Rocky 2009-04-13T23:50:14Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#5457edd0-280a-4983-8860-ad5e610ce245 2009-04-13T22:55:42Z 2009-04-13T22:55:42Z

Of course they are. They are on the side of rational skepticism. It is one sided to demand that someone who makes an assertion provide evidence for it, rather than to demand that those who ask for evidence disprove the assertion. That is how scientific method works. If someone makes a claim, they must provide evidence in support. If they can't, then it is dismissed. There is no more evidence for the existence of Allah than the Hindu Pantheon. If one is true, by definition, the other is not. They can not both be. I merely conclude that both are insufficiently supported (as with all other religions) by the evidence, to be accepted as true. If you, or anybody else, can provide it, I'll be happy to believe. So far, I've found the evidence wanting. I'm most certainly not insinuating that you "believe in some magical, supernatural being" at all. That argument is a straw man. I am insinuating, in fact stating flatly, "that you don't know nor do I nor does anyone that there is or is not" a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars. But, what does reason and logic tell you? I'm also stating that there is no more credible evidence for the existence of "some magical, supernatural being" called God. However, logically, if you dismiss the probability of one as being so remote as to be basically nil, then the other should be assessed similarly. For the same logical reasons, I'm an aUFOist, an aBigfootist, an aAtlantisist, an a9-11truthist, an agrassyknollist, an aBermudatrianglist, an aProtocolsoftheEldersofZionist, an abreatharianist, etc. I suspect, that you are with respect to many, if not all of these, as well. When you actually understand why you are, you may also understand why I'm an atheist. As for PhDs? You will find that the incidence of non-belief is considerably higher among the educated, than less educated. It is merely a statistical conclusion. I'm not drawing any causative inference, merely stating the fact. If you wish, you are welcome to provide a list of great thinkers through history, who firmly believed in God, and I'll make a list of those that didn't, and we can compare. And, no, I do not believe it is true that you have "heard all the arguments for both sides" but merely do not wish to hear "more, thank you." Which is fine, but not any more logical an argument for a position than some kid with their hands over their ears saying "I can't hear you, I can't hear you, lalalalalalala." None the less, Sokal's book is not about atheism, but logic and critical thinking with respect to the philosophy of science. The same logic he uses to dismantle relativism (the social science rather than the physics) is equally applicable to religion, conspiracy theory, claims of suspension of physical laws, etc.

Erik 2009-04-13T22:55:42Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#82299cf1-47e0-40f7-8aca-0e68f4a8ef00 2009-04-13T22:53:14Z 2009-04-13T22:53:14Z

Richard, I'm still interested to hear your answers about whether you are actually agnostic with respect to the invisible moon orbiting the earth, the invisible gremlins in fluorescent lights, and for that matter the Flying Spaghetti Monster and every other deity that has been conjured by the human imagination. You appear to disagree with my argument that agnosticism is a case of special pleading on behalf of God, but I'm not sure on what grounds you disagree. You raise a good point that withholding belief is not the same as disbelief. Whether this makes any difference to the present issue beyond mere semantics is up for grabs, but to be clear I should have worded my principle using the term "disbelief." Like so: If a reasonable argument has not be made for the existence of entity x, we are reasonable in disbelieving in x. This is not to say we have to be closed minded about x - we always have to be willing to look at new evidence. The trouble with respect to the God case is that people have been trying for the better part of 3 millenniums to give evidence for God and so far have failed. Typically we believe in entities because those entities explain our experience - we believe in the moon because it explains an experience we have every night when we look up at the sky. The God hypothesis doesn't do a good job of explaining anything that isn't explained by other means. More likely, it is just a particular case of our well documented anthropomorphic bias. With respect to your point about how scientists reason, there are too many atheistic scientists to count (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Weinberg, Ann Druyan, Jonathan Haidt - this list goes on for days). So either scientists do use a lack of evidence to reason toward the non-existence of things, or there are other arguments for atheism than mere lack of evidence. I would argue that both are true.

VoodooChild 2009-04-13T22:53:14Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#3b11341d-a49f-4dff-a6f1-a6ab089d853b 2009-04-13T22:07:00Z 2009-04-13T22:07:00Z

If a reasonable argument has not be made for the existence of entity x, we are reasonable in withholding belief in x. But disbelief and withholding belief are two different things. Atheism is that belief that gods do not exist. That is not a reasonable withholding of belief in x, but the belief in z, that x does not exist. What is reasonable and logical is that, if you do not have evidence of x, but you do not have evidence that x does not exist at all, then you must admit the possibilty that x might exist. Your argument is assuming that you can be sure of something because you have no evidence of it. That's wrong. You can ony be sure of something if you have proof of it. No scientist will use a lack of evidence as proof of anything. Never. It isn't logical.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-13T22:07:00Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#2abd4c36-bb3c-4b55-b715-efe0b7676102 2009-04-13T21:57:55Z 2009-04-13T21:57:55Z

You do have evidence as to what will happen if you step in front of a train. Poor argument. Science and logic are not one-sided. Why do you continue in insinuate that I believe in some magical, supernatural being? I simply am saying that you don't know nor do I nor does anyone that there is or is not some supreme being. All the PhDs in the world can say what they will, and many intelligent ones will say they believe in gods, and others will say they don't. I've heard all the arguments for both sides, and I don't need one to give me more, thank you. The fact is (this is logic) that you don't know. You may tell yourself that you know, but you don't. That's logical.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-13T21:57:55Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#5aef4176-f3b2-412e-90e0-44e0fbaf2708 2009-04-13T20:03:17Z 2009-04-13T20:03:17Z

Richard, I've presented a fairly non-controversial epistemic principle and applied it to the God question. It is not the only argument for atheism, but I think it is a pretty strong one. Rather than just telling me that I have faith, which as you'd guess, I don't believe I do, I'd be much more interested if you could tell me what's wrong with the principle or how I am misapplying it. Or maybe you could cite some counterexamples. Once again the principle is this: If a reasonable argument has not be made for the existence of entity x, we are reasonable in withholding belief in x. I've given examples of how to apply this principle, and here are a couple more that I think most people would find reasonable. I propose that there is a second invisible mass-less moon orbiting the earth. My evidence for this is nothing - suppose I just say it's true. Do you suspend judgment about the existence of this moon? Because if I were you in this case, I'd tell me that I was just making stuff up (which of course I am). Here's another example: fluorescent lights work because there are invisible gremlins inside making them work. My evidence for this? Again, nothing. Are you agnostic about the gremlins? Do I merely have faith that they don't exist? Or am I simply applying a commonsense epistemic principle that we all take for granted when reasoning our way through questions of existence? There are various reasons one might give for agnosticism, but when an agnostic offers up the "no evidence either way" argument, I think they are refusing the apply the same principle to God that they apply to reasoning about other matters. In other words, they are engaging in "special pleading" on behalf of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

VoodooChild 2009-04-13T20:03:17Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#747568c6-faeb-4e3f-b846-3e236e361773 2009-04-13T19:55:27Z 2009-04-13T19:55:27Z

Well, that is the way it works. And, yes, logic and scientific method are, to some extent, one sided. But, when they are used to conclude that something is so, they are always open to being disproved. And this is often the case. I believe there is no teapot in orbit someplace between Earth and Mars. There is no evidence that there is not one. What do you think? As I said, I'd be happy to believe in whatever supernatural magical being you want. Just provide the evidence. You might consider reading Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax." He has PhDs in Physics and Applied Mathematics, and teaches at Oxford. Pretty bright guy. Make you think anyhow. By the way, I also don't believe you will survive stepping in front of a tram moving at say 50 KM per hour. I've no direct empirical evidence for this. If you believe otherwise, please don't try to prove me wrong.

Erik 2009-04-13T19:55:27Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#96ebd4f4-e8b0-441a-9540-55622fc9454b 2009-04-13T17:17:22Z 2009-04-13T17:17:22Z

But you are being one-sided. You believe there is no god because there is no evidence. There is also no evidence that there is not one. You are basing your belief on something you don't know. Hmm. That's faith-based. Sorry. The atheist is refusing not to make an exception for what they don't want to believe.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-13T17:17:22Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#a5ccd4a3-73b6-4e36-83e6-ac373565c230 2009-04-13T17:11:17Z 2009-04-13T17:11:17Z

Don't get me wrong, folks. I'm not knocking your beliefs or your right to post. I welcome all. I suppose I'm complaining more that agnostics don't participate enough, but I've been on several Yahoo gorups, etc. that were supposed to be for agnostics, but I got jumped on by atheists constantly for my own beliefs, and there were no other agnostics that I could see. As for atheism being faith-based, sorry, but it's true. You base your belief that there is no god of any sort strictly on faith. Science has never disproved the existence of a supreme being. Agnosticism is the only believe that, in admitting that no one, not Christians, not Jews, not Muslims, Hindus or atheists know for sure.

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-13T17:11:17Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#fe7a2daa-3a3f-4adf-8329-63bfb09775e0 2009-04-13T16:42:24Z 2009-04-13T16:42:24Z

Don't blame atheists for posting - nobody is stopping the agnostics but themselves. Atheism is not a faith-based belief. Pretty much everyone these days is an atheist with respect to Marduk, Poseidon, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster; or to carry the same epistemic principle to another domain, to caloric fluid, cosmic aether, and vital spirit. The general principle in play is: if a reasonable argument can't be made for the existence of entity x, then we are not compelled to believe in entity x. The atheist is merely refusing to make an exception to this principle for God.

VoodooChild 2009-04-13T16:42:24Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#2ff2254d-d063-4c81-aaf8-c28dfbe33964 2009-04-13T08:04:44Z 2009-04-13T08:04:44Z

I often call myself an atheist. However, when I try to explain to the faithful my views, they often tell me I'm an agnostic. I define myself, as I wish. My atheism is most certainly not faith-based, unless you are referring to faith in scientific method and logic. It is like the old teapot in orbit thing. If you claim that there is one, it is up to you to provide evidence of it. Until someone does, I'll not believe it is so. I'd be happy to believe in whatever religion. Simply provide me with convincing evidence. So far, nope. I've read many different holy books, all supposed to be the infallible word of an omnipotent being. They contradict each other so, by definition, some must be wrong. They all contain numerous demonstrable falsehoods, explaining phenomenon we now understand. The evidence they provide is weak hearsay, not reproducible, and only explained through circular logic. As such, I dismiss it as I would any other weak evidence. As far as this tribe being taken over by atheists? I'm sorry, it is a public tribe, for discussion of agnosticism by all, be they atheist, agnostic, or religious. I've been a member for several years. If you go to the athieists tribe, you will find non-atheists arguing (usually pretty poorly) for their particular point of view. There is, of course, the atheists only tribe. Perhaps you could start an agnostics only tribe? What would you do with the agnostics who, through force of logic, slip into the atheist category though?

Erik 2009-04-13T08:04:44Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/0a2cd9e4-ef2c-48fa-9beb-db547968d437#022e2b2f-5044-4622-907c-0efa97d597b1 2009-04-13T03:14:26Z 2009-04-13T03:14:26Z

Why is it that every group I join that is supposed to be for agnostics is overrun by atheists? Agnostics are not just shy atheists. Atheism is a faith-based belief. Agnositcism is not. I have nothing agaisnt atheists, I just wish they would quit taking over agnostics' sites as if we are lost and can't find our way. :?r

$item.owner.firstName 2009-04-13T03:14:26Z