Announcement

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:17

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Slow: Such an assertion is bull****, because it relies on an either/or proposition. Nothing in the real world is black/white, either/or.

I am afraid you are wrong. It's like I ask you, "Do you believe that I have an invisble, non-corporeal dragon in my basement?"

You either believe or not believe, simple as that.

**SlowwHand** · May 23, 2002, 11:23

That's fairly accurate.
You also have to decide whether to accept or ignore evidence of the dragon.

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:25

Originally posted by Caligastia
I have more respect for an agnostic who has the humility to admit that he doesnt know whether God exists or not, than for an atheist who arrogantly states that he knows God doesnt exist.

First of all, not all atheists make this assertion.

Weak (negative) atheists hold that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of a god ("I do not believe in the existence of a god.")

Strong (positive) atheists hold that there are good reasons to believe in the non-existence of gods ("I believe that god(s) do not exist.")

I don't see how that can be construed as arrogance.

On the other hand, the agnostic position is a cop-out, a refusal to choose sides.

**Caligastia** · May 23, 2002, 11:28

Sloww-
Theres nothing wrong with admitting you dont know the answer to something. If I ask you whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, can you honestly say for sure that there is or there isnt? The only honest answer is "Im not sure".

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:33

Originally posted by paiktis22
putting people in neat little boxes based on whether they are atheists, religious or agnostic doesn't really stick.

There are religious people who are great just as they are some who are disgusting.

same with the other 2 "categories".

Certainly, but that has nothing to do with the issue.

Originally posted by paiktis22
in the end of the day is the system of values that one holds that counts and that is NOT confined in one of the 3 categories.

you can find a religious person and an agnostic or an atheist who share virtually the same system of values.

What kind of values? Moral values? While the Christian morality can be successfully duplicated with secular moral theories, there really are some fundamental differences between Christians and atheists.

**Caligastia** · May 23, 2002, 11:35

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

First of all, not all atheists make this assertion.

Weak (negative) atheists hold that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of a god ("I do not believe in the existence of a god.")

Strong (positive) atheists hold that there are good reasons to believe in the non-existence of gods ("I believe that god(s) do not exist.")

I don't see how that can be construed as arrogance.

On the other hand, the agnostic position is a cop-out, a refusal to choose sides.

Its not arrogance to say that you see no good reason to believe in God as long as you admit that you dont know for sure. This is the case in the examples you gave.

I dont see being agnostic as a cop-out. Why should anyone choose sides on an issue they are either not interested in or dont know enough about to make a decision? If someone asked you if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and you said "Im not sure", would it be fair to accuse you of "copping out" or "refusing to choose sides"?

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:38

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sloww-
Theres nothing wrong with admitting you dont know the answer to something. If I ask you whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, can you honestly say for sure that there is or there isnt? The only honest answer is "Im not sure".

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Christians believe in the existence of their God, and not in the existence of Odin, Zeus, Brahma, and Ralph the snake god.

Atheists do not believe in any of these.

Agnostics are waffling

**Rogan Josh** · May 23, 2002, 11:40

I thought an agnostic was someone who believed that one could never know whether or not God exists (ie. in principle)? Am I wrong?

**Caligastia** · May 23, 2002, 11:42

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Whats the difference? If you dont really know something for sure, then how can you say you believe it?

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:42

Originally posted by Caligastia
I dont see being agnostic as a cop-out. Why should anyone choose sides on an issue they are either not interested in or dont know enough about to make a decision? If someone asked you if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and you said "Im not sure", would it be fair to accuse you of "copping out" or "refusing to choose sides"?

I am not sure if you are understanding this correctly, that's why you asked a wrong question.

The right question is, "Do you believe in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe?"

You either believe or not believe. Even if you don't care, you still believe (or not believe).

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:44

Originally posted by Caligastia
Whats the difference? If you dont really know something for sure, then how can you say you believe it?

If you really know something for sure, why would there be a need to believe in it? Do you believe in the Earth?

**Urban Ranger** · May 23, 2002, 11:47

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I thought an agnostic was someone who believed that one could never know whether or not God exists (ie. in principle)? Am I wrong?

This is what the Merrriam-Webster dictionary says:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

**Caligastia** · May 23, 2002, 11:55

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If you really know something for sure, why would there be a need to believe in it? Do you believe in the Earth?

If you really know something for sure then you do believe in it. If you dont know something for sure then you cant believe in it 100% can you? and if you dont believe in it 100% then you have to admit you dont know for sure - if you are being honest.

Agnostics are just being honest about the fact that they dont know for sure, while atheists like to sound like they are sure of the answer when they really arent. Thats arrogance IMO.

**Bereta_Eder** · May 23, 2002, 12:00

urban,
an atheist and a religious or agnost person can share the same values of life, that includes mainly moral.

one religious person can put more emphasis to :gays go to hell" part of the scriputeres.

another can put more epmhasis to: judge not so you will not be judged.

an atheist can say gays are an abnormality
another atheist can say: freedom of sexual choice is good.

**SlowwHand** · May 23, 2002, 12:05

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sloww-
Theres nothing wrong with admitting you dont know the answer to something. If I ask you whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, can you honestly say for sure that there is or there isnt? The only honest answer is "Im not sure".

Well, I'm no "Trekkie" or anything, but my answer would be "I have no doubt".

Announcement

Agnostics.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment