change to this forum

quote:

---

Mike,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as "very sceptical", though, so I might still stick with the half-and-half stance (especially considering that so many seem to think that agnostics believe in some kind of god).
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The half-and-half stance is a logical contradiction. You can't both be one who is sceptical about the existence of God but not
profess true atheism and be an atheist.

---

You may be right but there are two far more likely alternatives:

1) Some forum members seem to think Mike is -=>God<=-. Read any lengthy religious text, and you'll see that God has not shown (him/her/it)self to be particularly self-consistent in the past. Therefore, if Mike actually is God then he's allowed to contradict himself - which is entirely consistent with his/her/its past behaviour.

2) In the unlikely event that Mike is not, in fact, God then the most obvious explanation is that he's in a superposition of quantum states. In order to determine whether he's an atheist or an agnostic an experiment must be performed...

--Jeremy

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Pig, Parry, Mana, Taste.

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

The only, rather insubstantial, evidence that I see for Him is that the computer which hosts this site seems to believe in His existence.

I work with computers - I know just how wrong they can be.

Martin

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

quote:

---

The half-and-half stance is a logical contradiction. You can't both be one who is sceptical about the existence of God but not
profess true atheism and be an atheist.

---

Don't get so pedantic on me. My stance is merely one of open-mindedness. I currently don't have enough prove that god exists, therefore I don't believe he does. However, I accept that he may actually exist, but hasn't seen fit to prove it to my satisfaction.

I'm not one of those guys who can look at a flower, and blithely assume that god must have been involved in its creation. I must have more concrete proof of something so fantastical as "god".

quote:

---

If that works for you. But I'd rather use words correctly and let the reader be confused.

---

I usually agree, as I don't appreciate the concept of dumbing-down the world. However, we are discussing the concept of communication. If you really want to get your point across, then you must consider the possibility of misunderstading. This is especially true with decidely ambiguous terms like "hoi pollie", where the two meanings are polar opposites.

For a contrary example, I often use the word "appreciate" to mean "to recognize, to understand". However, some people misconstrue my meaning as "to show gratitude", which confuses them a bit. That's not enough reason to stop using the word, though.

quote:

---

It's shown itself to be a useful invention and far more precise than grunts and farts.

---

Of course it's useful, but it's also silly sometimes. Hell, everything is silly, if you try hard enough.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

In the unlikely event that Mike is not, in fact, God

---

I like your attitude. Ok, you'll be allowed into the Kingdom of Heavan. (Or is that Heathen?)

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

embarking on a proof one way or the other is logically futile since you have to have a clear idea the "god" properties are so that you can match that with the properties you uncover in a candidate god you may find by whatever construction.

of course, the statement "i believe in god" is a completely different proposition, and is very personal, and requires no proof. you can get several people to "believe in god" --sometimes for the good, but other times, with devasatingly disastrous consequences.

my 2c worth...

enjoy

ken

Paul S.

Is spinning heads the incredible forum improvement you promised us?

Wowee!

quote:

---

My stance is merely one of open-mindedness.

---

Open-mindedness is a good thing. But what you wrote -- holding the middle ground between two positions that are mutually exclusive -- is not being open minded. It's being logically inconsistent. It makes as much sense as a saying you can draw a square circle.

quote:

---

If you really want to get your point across, then you must consider the possibility of misunderstading. This is especially true with decidely ambiguous terms like "hoi pollie", where the two meanings are polar opposites.

---

Well, yeah. There's always room for misunderstanding. It's what generates about 90% of the replies on this forum. But people who are too lazy to look up words they don't know deserve to be confused.

quote:

---

For a contrary example, I often use the word "appreciate" to mean "to recognize, to understand". However, some people misconstrue my meaning as "to show gratitude", which confuses them a bit. That's not enough reason to stop using
the word, though.

---

What kind of company do you keep that people can't sort out which meaning of "appreciate" you intended through context?

quote:

---

Of course it's useful, but it's also silly sometimes. Hell, everything is silly, if you try hard enough.

---

Apparently.

Joe

quote:

---

Open-mindedness is a good thing. But what you wrote -- holding the middle ground between two positions that are mutually exclusive -- is not being open minded.

---

I don't believe that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, in the strictest sense. I look at the concept of belief as a range. At the "Full" mark on the god-gauge, we have people willing to commit suicide bombings for their god. (Nice god, eh?) At the "Empty" mark are atheists. I would put agnostics at the somewhere between 1/8 and 1/4. Or are those to mutually exclusive?

In my case, I don't believe in god, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise (given the right evidence, of course). I still think that puts me a bit above empty, but probably less than 1/8 full.

quote:

---

But people who are too lazy to look up words they don't know deserve to be confused.

---

Sounds like you're a language zealot. I suppose it's as good a god as any other.

quote:

---

Misunderstanding ... generates about 90% of the replies on this forum. .... What kind of company do you keep that people can't sort out which meaning of "appreciate" you intended through context?

---

Connect the dots.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

I don't believe that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive

---

It's not a matter of belief; it's one of logic. An atheist believes that god doesn't exist. But since you can't prove the non-existence of something -- proving a negative, as it's called -- atheism is, in fact, a faith-based position. It's the ultimate irony, really: atheism is a belief as firmly rooted in faith as is theism -- that is, both positions are accepted on faith, not evidence.

An agnostic, on the other hand, believes that the existence of god is not provable. If you think about it, this is the only position a rationalist can take. And it's a position fundamentally different from that held by an atheist.

quote:

---

Sounds like you're a language zealot. I suppose it's as good a god as any other.

---

Language a god? I don't see why metaphysics need be invoked because I own a dictionary and consult it from time to time.

quote:

---

Connect the dots.

---

I did. It appears to be a cat wearing a hat.

Joe

[This message was edited by Joe Petrik on MONDAY 13 August 2001 at 19:15.]

quote:

---

An atheist believes that god doesn't exist. But since you can't prove the non-existence of something -- proving a negative, as it's called -- atheism is, in fact, a faith-based position. It's the ultimate irony, really: atheism is a belief as firmly rooted in faith as is theism -- that is, both positions are accepted on faith, not evidence.

An agnostic, on the other hand, believes that the existence of god is not provable. If you think about it, this is the only position a rationalist can take. And it's a position fundamentally different from that held by an atheist.

---

I disagree. In a sense, atheists are merely agnostics who don't have enough proof, and are extremely pessimistic about ever getting that proof. If a god actually appeared before an atheistic and performed some miraculous feat, the atheist would willingly change his stance. (If not, then he's an idiot as well as an atheist.)

We're talking about one's belief in god. You either believe, you don't believe, or you're somewhere between the two extremes. Atheists are focused on the current summation of the proof (or lack thereof), while agnostics are focused on the burden of proof. That's the key difference.

I feel that I alternate between both of these stances; i.e. I don't currently have proof, and I doubt that I'll ever get that proof, yet I'm willing to accept the proof if it comes along. Therefore, I'm half way between agnostic and atheist. So there!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

I disagree.

---

OK, but you're wrong.

quote:

---

I'm half way between agnostic and atheist

---

Then you're a squircle -- a square circle.

I better stop now before someone accuses me (and you) of filling the Pig-and-Perry void.

Joe

quote:

---

I better stop now before someone accuses me (and you) of filling the Pig-and-Perry void.

---

I don't think there's any chance of that happening, as neither of us is as intellectually and socially challenged as Mr. Pig. Besides, we're both courteous enough to agree to disagree, and to leave it at that.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I'll do your proof-reading next time, Roy!

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

They still manage to plough their own furrow, though -- and that's rare now. Well done, Mr. Gandy.

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)

quote:

---

An atheist believes that god doesn't exist. But since you can't prove the non-existence of something -- proving a negative, as it's called -- atheism is, in fact, a faith-based position. It's the ultimate irony, really: atheism is a belief as firmly rooted in faith as is theism -- that is, both positions are accepted on faith, not evidence.

---

Inasmuch as we can prove anything we can equally prove existence or non-existence. For example, one can prove that between any two real numbers there is an infinite number of real numbers. One can also prove that there is no number that is both greater than zero and less than zero. All proofs, whether logical, mathematical or less abstract depend on some axioms / beliefs that are taken to be true.

I doubt that many modern theists would argue that they have scientific proof that God exists. Certainly most of the theists I have discussed this with take the existence of God to be axiomatic. Indeed, for some Christians I've spoken to faith without proof seems an important part of their belief.

By contrast, atheists tend to view disbelief in the existence of God as a consequence of their axioms - not as an axiom in itself. As an atheist my attitude is: I can think of no rational reason to either believe that God exists or even to consider that God might exist - consequently my default position is disbelief in God.

In case anyone is still convinced that atheism and theism are truly equivalent, here's an example:

I don't believe that there is a planet in our galaxy [called Squornshellous Zeta by its monstrous, green, gelatinous inhabitants] whose surface is made from a porridge-like substance. It could be argued that someone who believes that such a planet exists is in an equivalent position to mine. Both of us have a belief about this planet, and neither of us has proof one way or another. From a purely logical point of view, our beliefs are indeed equivalent. But there is more to rationality than mere logic. The act of faith for the non-believer in Squornshellous Zeta is the belief that there is no rational reason to believe that such a planet exists - it is NOT the belief that it does not exist. The act of faith for the believer is simply the belief that Squornshellous Zeta - with its green jelly-monsters - exists.

Mike:

quote:

---

In a sense, atheists are merely agnostics who don't have enough proof, and are extremely pessimistic about ever getting that proof.

---

While "atheism" has a fairly clear meaning, "agnosticism" has several different meanings. There's no point in Joe and you even discussing the subject unless you agree on a common definition. I certainly don't understand what definition you are using.

quote:

---

If a god actually appeared before an atheistic and performed some miraculous feat, the atheist would willingly change his stance. (If not, then he's an idiot as well as an atheist.)

---

So if someone lands a helicopter in the depths of the Amazon and shows an "undiscovered" tribe a satellite broadcast of The Simpsons, the tribespeople, if atheists, would be stupid not to believe in God?

Hmmm... "Our Homer, who art in Springfield..."

--Jeremy

[This message was edited by Sproggle on TUESDAY 14 August 2001 at 13:15.]

quote:

---

By contrast, atheists tend to view disbelief in the existence of God as a consequence of their axioms - not as an axiom in itself. As an atheist my attitude is: I can think of no rational reason to either believe that God exists or even to consider that God might exist - consequently my default position is disbelief in God.

---

Hmmm, the (erroneous) argument from personal incredulity: I can't conceive of a rational reason why X should exist, therefore, X doesn't exist.

quote:

---

In case anyone is still convinced that atheism and theism are truly equivalent...

---

They're equivalent only in the sense that both are faith-based positions.

Paul, the enhancements to the forum are giving me a migraine.

Joe