Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 1, 2010 at 7:53pm

On a side note, I think you almost have to be an English major to appreciate any mangling of the language. In all fairness, it was a total mess before any of us even got a good hack at it.

Haha, so true. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 1, 2010 at 7:00pm

No worries, Shine. You'd be surprised how often I double check words just to be sure that they mean what I think they mean in a given context. On occasion, I have found myself to be using some words in error for years simply because others around me have, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wesley on February 1, 2010 at 7:34pm

I think we need to 'refine' the definitions.. If you take atheism to mean that you definately do not accept ANY of the God proposals of the major and minor religions put forth by human beings on this earth... then yes.. that's me. I'm not agnostic about that at all.

However....if you want to say that agnosticism is the witholding of judgement about the possibility of some kind of 'superintelligence'... some kind of 'higher life-form' or 'consciousness' in the universe or multi-verse etc... then I can say that if evidence ever points to such a thing I'm willing to take it under examination and possibly consideration.

In that sense you could call me a 'potential' agnostic. I don't think I would call it a 'god' in the sense of the god definitions we currently have before us.

There 'could' be advanced races of beings that evolved in some other part of the universe that would appear to us as 'godlike' by what they might be able to do. They might have vastly superior minds... MUCH FASTER, GREATER STORAGE CAPACITY, Greater multi-tasking, etc.... They might have vastly superior bodies.. able to withstand the extremes of heat and cold, acids, shocks, trauma, etc... They might be able to raise the dead and walk on water... levitate... read minds...'predict the future,(prophecy..lol) and we would be forced by definition(at least the religious would be) to say that they were performing miracles.

YEt they would be doing all these things by manipulation of natural laws..not supernatural ones.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 1, 2010 at 7:39pm

If you take atheism to mean that you definately do not accept ANY of the God proposals of the major and minor religions put forth by human beings on this earth... then yes.. that's me. I'm not agnostic about that at all.

And that is what atheism really means to me. My level of agnosticism about theistic claims is so low, that it could be said to be nonexistent. It would be cruel to saddle something so tiny with such a large title (no penis jokes, please).

Allowing for some unknown, well, why do I need to preface the unknown with titles? Not knowing the unkown is what makes it the unknown.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 1, 2010 at 7:55pm

Not knowing the unkown is what makes it the unknown.

Cheers!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 1, 2010 at 10:24pm

However....if you want to say that agnosticism is the witholding of judgement about the possibility of some kind of 'superintelligence'... some kind of 'higher life-form' or 'consciousness' in the universe or multi-verse etc...

I think this is where the definition of agnosticism--at least, per my understanding--seems to go astray. Agnosticism does not involve any act of judgment; it is simply a state of being ignorant regarding a certain subject. It is the belief system that involves the act of judging.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 1, 2010 at 11:12pm

It's not a well-defined term. Ignorance and agnosticism have a common etymological root, but there isn't a simple connection between them that I'm aware of.

People use it to mean something that isn't known or currently cannot be known, but it can also mean that which inherently cannot be known in any absolute terms. In the latter case, it's ill-fitting to use the word ignorance, in my opinion. In the former case, perhaps it works.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 1, 2010 at 11:35pm

True, ignorance may more accurately reflect lack of knowledge about something that is at least potentially knowable, whereas agnosticism speaks specifically about that which is inherently unknowable.

But my point was that agnosticism makes no judgment; this is where I feel that the definition goes astray, and ventures into the realm of belief.

Permalink Reply by Nature Identical on February 3, 2010 at 4:24am

I think if there are beings out there, then perhaps they are receiving signals from Earth's satellites.
They might be receiving little tit-bits of films such as Terminator :-) I bet they will be thinking 'No way are we going to that planet. The inhabitants are brutal maniacs'
Lol! Just a silly little thought going around in my head :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 3, 2010 at 6:59am

Something interesting that I just realized recently is that our radio wave bubble is still tiny compared to the size of just our galaxy (say, about 80x2 light years across for the radio bubble with Earth at the center and the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across with Earth on the outskirts). Another civilization might not pick up our transmissions until long after we have perished as a species, if they ever do at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a7 on February 7, 2010 at 1:57pm

thats what the bfight is all about, a biblical god not anything we may find out aboutbsome super duper intellegent fellow.

there is no biblical god, full stop

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 7, 2010 at 11:02am

Yes, you are all wet and espouse some very ignorant views, not just about liberals, but about the world at large. And yes, I am aware of Pat Condell, I subscribe to him on Youtube, and I like him and his views very much. And I think the liberal that you say "sandbagged" you, whatever that means, was correct in calling you naive.

Firstly....2012? Really? Do you think this is the first time some nutjobs have predicted the end of the world?

they can't push the date forward any more, they will lose all the followers

Who are you talking about? Muslims? I think you have confused religious Muslims with Hollywood Producers who were marketing a movie. And what is your point about Israel testing air defenses? This all just comes across as incoherent babble.

Secondly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Funny how when Conservatives were in power, he was merely a mouthpiece for those who truly held the reigns over Iran (the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader). Now that the Conservatives are marginalized, they hoot and holler about how Ahmadinejad is now an all powerful madman who has his finger on the button, just waiting for an excuse. And you repeat it here. I see it as evidence that you don't know very much about Iran, it's government, or it's people.

If the liberals have there way we will lose our guns just like you in the UK did, then it's all over.

Seriously, you need get better sources for your information. UK does have some of the toughest gun laws in the world. But why is this the inevitable result of "liberals run amok"? Because uninformed people merely repeat what they are told, that's why. Why don't you look into an even more progressive society like Switzerland, and report back to us on their liberal gun laws. And I do mean liberal in the sense that they are liberal and that they are Liberal. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world. Go ahead. Research it. The Conservative political machine points to England only because they are trying to scare the dimwits who, unfortunately, constitute the majority of the voting bloc.

I know Europe is hopping we don't let liberals do what they have done in the UK and Europe, but ours are so full of them selfs they will not even try to stop Islamic woman from being honor killed and raped, the now movement is no place to be found standing up for the woman of the Arab world.

Again. WTF? First, you say that Islamic women are being honor killed and raped. I don't really think that you believe that there are incestuous necrophiliacs running around en masse in the Islamic world, but aside from your sloppy phrasing, I do wonder if you even understand the situation at all.

So, what has been the non-liberal response to honor killings? I have heard from many conservative friends here in the States that the solution is to "turn the Middle East into a parking lot", a reference to killing everyone over there with nukes. But other than that, what is the non-liberal plan of action? Could you inform us liberal weenies?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page