On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 2:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an >> atheist. I realized that atheists believe to much in the christian God, >> paradoxically enough. >> >> >> By your logic one cannot disbelieve in anything because to do so you have >> to conceive of what it is your are failing to believe (otherwise you don't >> know what you're talking about); >> >> >> >> Well, yes. Of course you have to be able to conceive of what you are >> going to make a choice to believe in or not! Implying that you "have the >> right" to disbelieve in something you cannot conceive of is the height of >> sophistry. You are merely testifying to the limitation of your own, or of >> human imagination but that is precisely the terrain we are treading here: >> the interface of human ignorance with what is really real. >> >> Of course the human imagination cannot conceive of God the way God is. >> This is because WE ARE ALL THE EYES AND EARS OF GOD. The eye cannot see >> itself. The hammer cannot hit itself. It can only infer it's true nature >> using the imagination and HOPE that the description adopted is exact. It >> never is. We cannot know what or who we are. It's a pretty miserable state >> of affairs, particularly if you are a hard-nosed scientist, I gather. >> >> >> Hard-nosed scientists are inured to not knowing things. It's mystics >> who insist on making up an answer because they are uncomfortable with >> uncertainty. >> > > "Not knowing" > > a- (not) > -gnostic (know) > > If scientists are inured to not knowing, why not consider yourself > agnostic? > > > "Agnostic" is a broad term. You can be agnostic about almost any > question. People mean so many different things by "God" to say one is > agnostic about the existence of God is virtually meaningless. > I agree, but I also think the same applies to atheism, (which god exactly is it you believe does not exist?) > But to say you are an atheist is fairly specific, one who doesn't > believe the theist god exists. > I think you are perhaps in the minority to take definition of the term, though I respect it for its enhanced specificity. > So, if asked, I could say I'm agnostic, but what would I be agnostic > about. I wouldn't be agnostic about the god of Abraham (which is how it's > likely to be understood in the U.S.). What would you mean if you said you > were an agnostic? > By saying I was agnostic, I would mean that I don't proclaim to have reached any final truths concerning the nature of reality. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
