Agnostics.

[Caligastia]

Im waiting for you to spring your "trap" Sloww....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If you're counting on scientists to "figure it all out", you're screwed.

Who is? Anyone who thinks that they can "figure it all out" by any means is delusional and arrogant. That's EXACTLY why agnostics believe the way they do. There is no way to have the answer to the existence of God, so speculating about it is pointless wasting of energy.

Right here you've said exactly why agnostics have it right, and theists/atheists are wasting their time.

[SlowwHand]

Why does no one doubt the existence of Plato? Merely because he was written about?
Then how do you distinguish between who to believe in, and who to not?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Into the trap steps Boris and Cal.
How are the people referenced any different than...anyone else?

What trap? Where? I don't see any trap.

I answered this in my previous post. Historical record vs. No evidence whatsoever.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why does no one doubt the existence of Plato? Merely because he was written about?
Then how do you distinguish between who to believe in, and who to not?

Plato was more than just "written about", he had a major influence on civilization.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why does no one doubt the existence of Plato? Merely because he was written about?
Then how do you distinguish between who to believe in, and who to not?

1. Plato also wrote, and there is historical record of his existence, and we have his writings. You would be better to ask about Socrates, as there is no evidence he existed except for Plato's writings about him. He may very well be a figment of Plato's imagination.

If that is the case: who cares? Does Socrates being real or not impact my world? No. Does it chage the value of Plato's writings on him? No.

So I will answer that by saying this: I will likely never know for sure whether or not Socrates really existed. So I don't care if he did or did not.

2. If you can't see the difference in believing in people of whom their is a lot of historical record, evidence, personal writings and (as for Curie) photographs, and believing in an unseen omnipotent deity for which there is not a shred of evidence, then you need serious help.

[Arrian]

SlowwHand,

Everyone has a limit to what they can reasonably accept as proof that something happened. The evidence of Plato's existence falls well within my acceptable limit. The "evidence" of God's existence rates about a .1/10 on my that-makes-sense-to-me-o-meter.

But lack of evidence doesn't prove the non-existence of God. Hence, I cannot dismiss the possibility.

Lack of evidence cannot prove/disprove something absolutely.
Evidence can, however, prove something.

See the difference?

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Plato was more than just "written about", he had a major influence on civilization.

HA! Hahahaha!
Cal, you're a riot.


You guys are getting off course anyway.
I'm not one of the "good" Christians. One that cares if you burn in Hell or not. That's on you.
This thread is about people who probably can't even decide on a shirt when they get dressed.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
This thread is about people who probably can't even decide on a shirt when they get dressed.

Agnostics you mean.

[SlowwHand]

Right on, Cal.

[Boris Godunov]

And again, its a bigoted assumption that Agnostics are the way they are because of indecision. I've made my decision quite firmly in this regards.

Unlike religions, Agnosticism isn't penchant on having faith, nor in making arrogant assumptions that one knows the truth and everyone else is wrong. That is a mindset that has been perpetrated on the world by inflexible religious dogma. While you may not be such a person, you do appear to be a victim of such thinking in this regard.

The fact is, Agnostics are the only ones who have it right. There's no way to prove God exists. There's no way to prove he doesn't exist. Therefore we shall never know for certain if he does or does not. Ergo any speculation as to the nature of God is pointless and a waste of time. That is not fence-sitting, it is facing reality.

I think it is far harder to come to such a decision than it is to mindlessly follow the flock and bend in prayer to a God whom you've imagined in your head and have assigned attributes to that are--for a supposedly omnipotent, perfect being--meaningless.

[SlowwHand]

Hmmm. Sounds like you've come down on one side of the fence, Boris.

[Wraith]

Another religion thread, and this one is offensive from an angle I wasn't expecting. *sigh*

--"What other explanation other than indecisive is there Osweld?"

Logic. I have never seen an actual logical, rational argument that could prove that there is a god. I have seen no documented evidence that there is a god. Logicially, I have found nothing yet that requires that there be a god. Therefore I cannot prove that there is a god to believe in (or that our belief is a requirement for a god).
By a similar token, negatives cannot be proved. Therefore no one can prove that there is not a god. By far the simpler explanation is that there is no god, and Ockham's Razor applies, suggesting this is the more likely case, but it cannot be proved.

This is logic, not fence-sitting or indeciseiveness.

--"Agnostics are just busy pissing their pants over what to believe."

Why do you have such a problem with agnosticism, Slowhand? An agnostic drop a skunk in your cradle when you were a baby?

--"If you really know something for sure, why would there be a need to believe in it?"

This is rather the point. I do not like the concept of belief. I want proof. I will not "believe" that there is no god, I merely accept it as the most likely possibility.

Wraith
"If there was a God in this world, it would be ME!"
-- Dark Schneider ("Bastard!")

[Arrian]

Well said, Wraith. Though it's a wasted effort. It will have no effect on Slowwhand, obviously.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Obviously.