Why We Believe In GodsFollow

Then defend your assertion that time and space are created by humans. Cause when I disagreed with you, instead of engaging, you spun off on some wacky tangents.
`


I have been completely straightforward. I have written my posts in clear, normal English that anyone who can read the language can understand. You, on the other hand, continue to vaguely refer to half stated philosophical theories, and when caught on them, fall back on dogmatic semantic silliness.

Stop playing word games. Just support your claim. You make this ridiculous assertion, which is not only inapplicable to the issue at hand, but which you cannot apparently defend without falling back on language designed to obfuscate rather than clarify your thinking. And then you insist that I'm a prick for refusing to accept that.


Lol. Try looking in the darn mirror.

Lol! Good one.

Actually though, while there are a lot of different opinions about what being an "agnostic" means, it's usually not that someone doesn't know so much as they don't care. Yes. Literally, the words means "without knowledge", but that's really not the defining characteristic of an agnostic. An agnostic doesn't know for sure if the divine exits, or in what form, but most importantly, it doesn't bother him that he doesn't know. He does not seek out some kind of enlightenment to fulfill his life. He lives his life without worrying about it.

Theists and Atheists spend a lot of time bickering about whether and in what form "God" exists. Agnostics don't. That's why we'll inherit the earth or something...

Well, that's your preferred type of agnosticism. Don't presume to speak for others.

Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "absolute agnosticism")

—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)

—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

* Agnostic atheism

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

* Agnostic theism (also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism")

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

* Ignosticism

—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

love that book.

Heh.

I don't think Apathetic Agnosticism goes far enough to address my personal apathy, and rather seems to focus on God's.

What's it called if the whole question just seems like too much work to answer? I mean, I'd challenge my own beliefs and spirituality, but I don't really see the point.

I guess we were created in his image after all.

Needs that were put there by God silly.

At the risk of stirring the pot:



Wrong about what? You said that "space and time are created by humans". I said that this is incorrect. Period. Full Stop.

I'm not going to "admit I'm wrong" here, when I know darn well that I'm *not* wrong. Now maybe you're pulling a Joph and quibbling over some minor statement I made when arguing in support of my position, but if that's the case, then I have no clue what exactly you're talking about and it's not what's at issue here anyway.

You made a claim about the existence of time and space. I disagreed. That is the *only* issue I care about in the context of our conversation.



I'm sorry, but insisting that I'm not wrong when I don't believe I'm wrong is not "being a child". Repeatedly stating that parroting philosophical theories as support for your claim isn't sufficient is *also* not "being a child". It's actually being quite adult. In the adult world we expect people to be able to defend their own assertions and do so in a manner that shows that they understand not just the subject they're talking about, but how that subject fits into the context of the issue at hand.


I guess I just don't understand why you are so upset about this.




How does that make it better? How about striving to not be childish? When someone disagrees with you, instead of getting upset, try actually defending your position. When he doesn't agree with your argument (or whatever), try clarifying it instead of obfuscating it.


My issue with your posting style is that you tend to toss out some pretty "out there" assertions, which are certainly interesting philosophical fodder, but are often horribly misplaced in the context you use them. When someone tries to point this out, you first fall back to some pretty obfuscated language to insist that you are right and just know more than the other guy or something. When that doesn't work, you get upset.


You might just be a whole lot more happy if you accept that virtually nothing you ever learned in a philosophy class will *ever* apply directly to anything you encounter in the real world (however you want to define that). Attempting to force everyone else to accept those ideas in preference to their own much much common sense and pragmatic ideas is likely going to be doomed to failure. The sorts of subjects you like to wander off into are interesting, but not often relevant. But you don't seem to even realize this and get upset when others don't immediately bow to your vast knowledge...


It's not childish to disagree with someone. It's childish to throw a temper tantrum when it happens. Just saying...

I've tried to read through the derailed argument.. and I still don't see the basis for Pensives statement that space and time wouldn't exist if we didn't. Did he just blindly state it and never defend it properly or am I missing something?

I can't honestly believe I have to play quid pro quo with a grown man. Answer a question before asking one. Nevermind we both know you aren't going to. You're wrong about the logical position, meaning it's commitments, of the assertion.

Here's another one for free.



Are you some kind of dunce?

-Daaaaddddyyy, can I get some icecream while we're at the store?
-No son, but once we get home we can have dinner and then icecream afterwards, okay?
-But, but, I really want some now.
-Oh I know son, but just wait a little bit longer okay?
-NNNNNnnnnnnooooooooooo I want icecream now!

*Ten Minutes Later*

-Damn it kid! Shut up. We're going home.
-WWWWHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

*One Hour Later*

-WWWHHHHHHAAAAAAHHHH
-Son? Are you in there? Let's chat. I'm really sorry for being so cross with you. You can't have icecream before dinner for some very good reasons, but I shouldn't have yelled at you. To placate you, I'm going to give you a cookie now.
-Oh it's okay daddy. I knew you didn't mean anything by it(Haha! What a sucker)

Point 1) We don't blame the child because of his childishness.
Point 2) The child is, in fact, extremely immature and childish, which is fine when he's a child. It's not fine when he's a 25-35 year old man... like you.
Point 3) The father, while childish at first, exhibits maturity by owning his mistakes.
Point 4) The child is incapable of introspection sufficient to admit that he's wrong.



If you think I'm "pulling a jophiel" then I feel a whole lot better about my conviction right now. I don't know how you could have possibly intended that as anything but praise.



Finally! I expected you to say this ages ago.

Your disagreement has nothing at all to do with my anger. This has been tested, verified, and proven by my responses to every single other person in this thread except you, all of whom disagreed with me. Why are you different gbaji? It's because you are 1) demeaning 2) ignorant and 3) proud of being ignorant ie: a @#%^ing child.



Almost no subject worth studying will.



this is almost as monofocused as me

Edited, May 12th 2009 9:58am by Pensive