Total Posts:167|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions I have about god

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

Why do people turn to religion?

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

Why is the existence of a god important?

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

---

I will take part in the thread based on any answer(s) I get from people.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

Why is the existence of a god important?

It would have implications for the human condition, our purpose, and our morals.

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

It cannot. We're not in a position to objectively know given the limited knowledge available to us.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:08:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

Why is the existence of a god important?

It would have implications for the human condition, our purpose, and our morals.

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

It cannot. We're not in a position to objectively know given the limited knowledge available to us.

I'm going to address these three answers specifically.

If we are not in the position to objectively know then why should we continue the debate?

Even if the existence of god may have implications on morals, Should we continue the debate? And assuming one does exist, does it actually affect us? Since we have the ability to make our own decisions and shape our own lives, does it actually have an affect on our capabilities to have morals? Does this god even care about our existence?

If the unknowable is mixed with what is tangible in the world, would it not be of social detriment? For all to believe in god would mean that they are susceptible to who defines their religion, no? So how does that bode for major churches and organized religion in general?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:44:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:08:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

Why is the existence of a god important?

It would have implications for the human condition, our purpose, and our morals.

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

It cannot. We're not in a position to objectively know given the limited knowledge available to us.

I'm going to address these three answers specifically.

If we are not in the position to objectively know then why should we continue the debate?

We are not in a position to know about morality, yet we debate it. I guess there are 3 reasons to continue the debate: firstly, while we may never know perfectly, we can always improve our understanding; secondly, we are humans and our curiosity compels us to engage in the debate; and, thirdly, even if debate cannot prove objectively what is true, it can sway individual opinions.

And assuming one does exist, does it actually affect us? Since we have the ability to make our own decisions and shape our own lives, does it actually have an affect on our capabilities to have morals? Does this god even care about our existence?

How do you know that it doesn't actually have an impact on your life or that you have free will. Perhaps all your choices have been predestined by this God? Perhaps, even if he allows us free will, he still interferes from time to time. We just don't know.

If the unknowable is mixed with what is tangible in the world, would it not be of social detriment? For all to believe in god would mean that they are susceptible to who defines their religion, no? So how does that bode for major churches and organized religion in general?

Marx: Religion is the opiate of the masses. While I am not sure I agree with the quote, it seems to be what your getting at. I think religions have a lot of potential for good and bad, and I don't think belief in god should be a free pass for us to not question perfectly fallible human beings.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:56:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religion is personal, and so long as someone isn't making a blatant monstrosity out of existence with their belief, then they should be left alone. Honestly, the next person really can't say what is justifiable or honest for you. If they are being perfectly honest themselves, then they must be agnostic as regards your very existence. Where does that conversation end up? We all get swallowed up by the infinite, and the infinite might easily whisper different things to different people; that's where. Life is a dream.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:59:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Something interesting: Did you know that, in people who hear voices in America vs. India, in America 99% of the time those voices are preaching evil, to do bad stuff, while in India it's the exact opposite, 99% of the time those voices are something like companions? This seems to sum up spirituality for me quite well, to be honest. We are all quite lost, but some people are lost somewhere more frightening.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:01:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?
What if logic reflects the nature of God?, unfortunately the nature of humans is to decide for themselves what they may or may not think is logical. (Minus of course the obvious)
Why do people turn to religion?

I know of many people who are religious. Some turned to it because it offered a healing. And I mean literally a healing that could only be explained by their experience, not guessed at by others. To even offer a guess is to do nothing but admit disrespect for your fellow human and to demean their ability to know what they experienced. Everyone I know in my family who are religous are filled with so much joy it honestly can get really annoying sometimes. Lol (anecdotal example. I know of a person who was delivered from severe drug addiction in what could only be described as instantaneously being "changed". No physical withdrawals. No psychological ones either. And they have never looked back.)
Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

Everything is intellectually acceptable, if an individual accepts it within themselves, they're fine in my book,.
Why is the existence of a god important?

That's a good question. I think what's more important is why do we find people who don't believe a God exists to be just as invested in discussing God as people who do?
Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

Believers believe it benefits others to know God, non believers seem to think they are out to save humanity from religion, at least to me. Funny how both seem to want to save humanity in some way or another,
---

I will take part in the thread based on any answer(s) I get from people.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I'll have a go
Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This question assumes that logic has limits, logic is a tricky subject man, how would you define logic.

Why do people turn to religion?

Comfort, I would be comforted if I knew I had a nice daddy in the sky that looked out for me and would not let anything bad happen to me, and when I die I get to live with him in paradise for eternity. That would be awesome.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

No, one must be open to any possibility, to not do so would be ignorance

Why is the existence of a god important?

It depends on your definition of god. All religions have a varying view of god, if a higher being existed than us, we could learn a lot from it. If we regard it as a creator of the universe, we find out 'why' everything is the way it is. Which would be cool

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

Yeah, if someone comes up with a stellar argument, and advancements in science/philosophy.

---

I will take part in the thread based on any answer(s) I get from people.

Sweet
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

What do you mean by faith? I'd say it is unavoidable depending on what you mean.

Why do people turn to religion?

To fulfill whatever part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they're missing. The lower level needs are easy enough to obtain but if people need love or friendship or a higher purpose they'll use religion as a shortcut to that.


Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

No.

Why is the existence of a god important?

It's not. Even if real, he doesn't want us to know his existence and it's reasonable to think he wants us to live as if he doesn't exist.

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

For the religious and retarded militant atheist, it's because they're idiots and just enjoy each other's company. For philosopher's and intellectuals it's intellectual masturbation.

---

I will take part in the thread based on any answer(s) I get from people.

Good to know
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

Why is the existence of a god important?

It would have implications for the human condition, our purpose, and our morals.

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

It cannot. We're not in a position to objectively know given the limited knowledge available to us.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.

Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word. It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Atheism means you're unconvinced that God exists, so anyone who doesn't believe in God or isn't convinced of him would be considered an atheist. Wikipedia gives a better and fuller position on what it means to be an agnostic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.

Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word.

Wylted, it's not wrong. If people change how they use the word, then the meaning of the words also changes. That's how our language works: words are signifiers, and the only meaning they hold is that which is given to them by their users, meaning that a change in use also is a change in meaning.

It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Wylted, many words have many meanings in different contexts. and you have to appreciate the use of the word in the context in which it was employed. For instance, Nozick is a liberal in that he espouses a form of government restricted by individual freedoms. Yet, he is not a liberal in the sense that he doesn't support various social welfare policies. In the context of political theory, the word "liberal" means something different than it does in the context of modern American politics. Both definitions are correct, depending on the context they are used in.

In this case, I was using the word agnostic in the sense I described above. That is it's common/colloquial meaning, as it is currently used in society. The more arcane but equally correct conception your describing is more fit for theology papers than a casual forum discussion such as this. So, I did not misuse the word, and it is wrong to suggested I employed it incorrectly. Rather, you simply failed to understand how I was using it in context, since both meanings are perfectly fine given the situation.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:30:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:04:53 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

I'll have a go
Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This question assumes that logic has limits, logic is a tricky subject man, how would you define logic.

Why do people turn to religion?

Comfort, I would be comforted if I knew I had a nice daddy in the sky that looked out for me and would not let anything bad happen to me, and when I die I get to live with him in paradise for eternity. That would be awesome.
You do realize claiming what comforts others merely is a reflection of the fact you are not comforted in your life....I.e. You still searching for comfort aren't ya?
Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

No, one must be open to any possibility, to not do so would be ignorance

Why is the existence of a god important?

It depends on your definition of god. All religions have a varying view of god, if a higher being existed than us, we could learn a lot from it. If we regard it as a creator of the universe, we find out 'why' everything is the way it is. Which would be cool

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

Yeah, if someone comes up with a stellar argument, and advancements in science/philosophy.
Umm a wise man once said one must be open to any possibility, to not do so would be ignorant....you're at least open about how ignorant you are. Unless you think bifurcation is what you think is open to any possibility. Because by definition relegating something to only two aspects of life isn't very open to any possibility. Won't be finding anything consistently logical coming from you I gather......I kid, anything is possible.
---

I will take part in the thread based on any answer(s) I get from people.

Sweet
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:33:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.

Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word.

Wylted, it's not wrong. If people change how they use the word, then the meaning of the words also changes. That's how our language works: words are signifiers, and the only meaning they hold is that which is given to them by their users, meaning that a change in use also is a change in meaning.

It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Wylted, many words have many meanings in different contexts. and you have to appreciate the use of the word in the context in which it was employed. For instance, Nozick is a liberal in that he espouses a form of government restricted by individual freedoms. Yet, he is not a liberal in the sense that he doesn't support various social welfare policies. In the context of political theory, the word "liberal" means something different than it does in the context of modern American politics. Both definitions are correct, depending on the context they are used in.

In this case, I was using the word agnostic in the sense I described above. That is it's common/colloquial meaning, as it is currently used in society. The more arcane but equally correct conception your describing is more fit for theology papers than a casual forum discussion such as this. So, I did not misuse the word, and it is wrong to suggested I employed it incorrectly. Rather, you simply failed to understand how I was using it in context, since both meanings are perfectly fine given the situation.

Sounds reasonable, but I don't like it. If somebody asked me if I'm agnostic, Under your definition I'd have to say yes, but I feel like atheist would be more appropriate, and I've never once defined myself as agnostic. I literally bite down on my lips until they bleed or grit my teeth everytime I see it used like that. It just makes my skin crawl. I'm afraid if we keep using that word in that way, the philosophy of agnosticism will be lost forever.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:33:01 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word.

Wylted, it's not wrong. If people change how they use the word, then the meaning of the words also changes. That's how our language works: words are signifiers, and the only meaning they hold is that which is given to them by their users, meaning that a change in use also is a change in meaning.

It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Wylted, many words have many meanings in different contexts. and you have to appreciate the use of the word in the context in which it was employed. For instance, Nozick is a liberal in that he espouses a form of government restricted by individual freedoms. Yet, he is not a liberal in the sense that he doesn't support various social welfare policies. In the context of political theory, the word "liberal" means something different than it does in the context of modern American politics. Both definitions are correct, depending on the context they are used in.

In this case, I was using the word agnostic in the sense I described above. That is it's common/colloquial meaning, as it is currently used in society. The more arcane but equally correct conception your describing is more fit for theology papers than a casual forum discussion such as this. So, I did not misuse the word, and it is wrong to suggested I employed it incorrectly. Rather, you simply failed to understand how I was using it in context, since both meanings are perfectly fine given the situation.

Sounds reasonable, but I don't like it. If somebody asked me if I'm agnostic, Under your definition I'd have to say yes, but I feel like atheist would be more appropriate, and I've never once defined myself as agnostic.

I would just explain what you meant by whatever label you used.

I literally bite down on my lips until they bleed or grit my teeth everytime I see it used like that. It just makes my skin crawl. I'm afraid if we keep using that word in that way, the philosophy of agnosticism will be lost forever.

The word is not the idea. Changing the word is not the same as destroying the idea.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:38:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
BSH1 "The word is not the idea. Changing the word is not the same as destroying the idea."

Yeah, well it makes it harder to google it, if the word changes meaning and becomes more common.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:39:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:38:12 PM, Wylted wrote:
BSH1 "The word is not the idea. Changing the word is not the same as destroying the idea."

Yeah, well it makes it harder to google it, if the word changes meaning and becomes more common.

Lol...I guess.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:30:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
You do realize claiming what comforts others merely is a reflection of the fact you are not comforted in your life....I.e. You still searching for comfort aren't ya?

I'm always searching for comfort :)

Umm a wise man once said one must be open to any possibility, to not do so would be ignorant....you're at least open about how ignorant you are. Unless you think bifurcation is what you think is open to any possibility. Because by definition relegating something to only two aspects of life isn't very open to any possibility. Won't be finding anything consistently logical coming from you I gather......I kid, anything is possible.

lol
mrsatan
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:34:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.

Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word.

Wylted, it's not wrong. If people change how they use the word, then the meaning of the words also changes. That's how our language works: words are signifiers, and the only meaning they hold is that which is given to them by their users, meaning that a change in use also is a change in meaning.

It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Wylted, many words have many meanings in different contexts. and you have to appreciate the use of the word in the context in which it was employed. For instance, Nozick is a liberal in that he espouses a form of government restricted by individual freedoms. Yet, he is not a liberal in the sense that he doesn't support various social welfare policies. In the context of political theory, the word "liberal" means something different than it does in the context of modern American politics. Both definitions are correct, depending on the context they are used in.

In this case, I was using the word agnostic in the sense I described above. That is it's common/colloquial meaning, as it is currently used in society. The more arcane but equally correct conception your describing is more fit for theology papers than a casual forum discussion such as this. So, I did not misuse the word, and it is wrong to suggested I employed it incorrectly. Rather, you simply failed to understand how I was using it in context, since both meanings are perfectly fine given the situation.

While I agree with you about how meanings and language can change due to common use (and share Wylteds' dislike of this change in particular), wouldn't "explicit denial" be a strong atheists standpoint rather than an agnostic one? Or, more precisely, affirming non-existence as opposed to being uncommitted to either side?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 12:34:18 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.

Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word.

Wylted, it's not wrong. If people change how they use the word, then the meaning of the words also changes. That's how our language works: words are signifiers, and the only meaning they hold is that which is given to them by their users, meaning that a change in use also is a change in meaning.

It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Wylted, many words have many meanings in different contexts. and you have to appreciate the use of the word in the context in which it was employed. For instance, Nozick is a liberal in that he espouses a form of government restricted by individual freedoms. Yet, he is not a liberal in the sense that he doesn't support various social welfare policies. In the context of political theory, the word "liberal" means something different than it does in the context of modern American politics. Both definitions are correct, depending on the context they are used in.

In this case, I was using the word agnostic in the sense I described above. That is it's common/colloquial meaning, as it is currently used in society. The more arcane but equally correct conception your describing is more fit for theology papers than a casual forum discussion such as this. So, I did not misuse the word, and it is wrong to suggested I employed it incorrectly. Rather, you simply failed to understand how I was using it in context, since both meanings are perfectly fine given the situation.

While I agree with you about how meanings and language can change due to common use (and share Wylteds' dislike of this change in particular), wouldn't "explicit denial" be a strong atheists standpoint rather than an agnostic one? Or, more precisely, affirming non-existence as opposed to being uncommitted to either side?

I didn't say agnosticism was explicit denial. I said it was being unsure/uncommitted about the existence (or not) of God.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
mrsatan
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:40:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 12:35:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 12:34:18 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

This is a very, very fascinating question. I would say that it probably isn't, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Why do people turn to religion?

For solace, for answers, for strength.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.

This bugs the hell out of me BSH1. I hate seeing people use this word wrong. It is a philosophical position that means one can not know whether God exists or not. An agnostic can either be atheist or a theist. It is not a position that means neither atheist nor theist. I know the rest of society is using the word wrong also, but please don't be one of those people.

An agnostic is "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Agnosticism is then reasonably described as a position of doubt regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. I don't see how I used it incorrectly, because if one is unsure if God exists, it would be contradictory to assert God's existence or nonexistence. Either you believe he exists or he doesn't exist, or you you are unsure.

Sorry but Merriam Webster got it wrong. It's understandable they have, since people are starting to change the meaning of this word.

Wylted, it's not wrong. If people change how they use the word, then the meaning of the words also changes. That's how our language works: words are signifiers, and the only meaning they hold is that which is given to them by their users, meaning that a change in use also is a change in meaning.

It literally is a philosophical position that explains one cannot know whether God exists or not. One can be a theistic or atheist agnostic.

Wylted, many words have many meanings in different contexts. and you have to appreciate the use of the word in the context in which it was employed. For instance, Nozick is a liberal in that he espouses a form of government restricted by individual freedoms. Yet, he is not a liberal in the sense that he doesn't support various social welfare policies. In the context of political theory, the word "liberal" means something different than it does in the context of modern American politics. Both definitions are correct, depending on the context they are used in.

In this case, I was using the word agnostic in the sense I described above. That is it's common/colloquial meaning, as it is currently used in society. The more arcane but equally correct conception your describing is more fit for theology papers than a casual forum discussion such as this. So, I did not misuse the word, and it is wrong to suggested I employed it incorrectly. Rather, you simply failed to understand how I was using it in context, since both meanings are perfectly fine given the situation.

While I agree with you about how meanings and language can change due to common use (and share Wylteds' dislike of this change in particular), wouldn't "explicit denial" be a strong atheists standpoint rather than an agnostic one? Or, more precisely, affirming non-existence as opposed to being uncommitted to either side?

I didn't say agnosticism was explicit denial. I said it was being unsure/uncommitted about the existence (or not) of God.

Perhaps I misunderstood. The question you were answering was about explicit denial. It struck me as equating explicit denial with agnosticism.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:42:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 12:40:04 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/28/2015 12:35:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 12:34:18 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.
While I agree with you about how meanings and language can change due to common use (and share Wylteds' dislike of this change in particular), wouldn't "explicit denial" be a strong atheists standpoint rather than an agnostic one? Or, more precisely, affirming non-existence as opposed to being uncommitted to either side?

I didn't say agnosticism was explicit denial. I said it was being unsure/uncommitted about the existence (or not) of God.

Perhaps I misunderstood. The question you were answering was about explicit denial. It struck me as equating explicit denial with agnosticism.

I said that I don't think explicit denial is intellectually acceptable. Then I said that agnosticism is the most honest approach. Agnosticism was given as the better alternative to atheism.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:49:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

- That's self-contradictory.

Why do people turn to religion?

- They're designed that way. I mean by religion here any belief system.

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

- Depends on what sort of "god".

Why is the existence of a god important?

- Origins are all that matters.

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

- This era is one with a stark Christian/Atheist worldview. The said argument generally exists within this worldview, it doesn't necessarily exist in all others. In past eras, & in future eras, metaphysics looked & would probably look different.

I will take part in the thread based on any answer(s) I get from people.

- Sure thing.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:55:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 12:49:12 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
This thread is to be geared towards anyone, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Is faith an intellectually acceptable answer to the limits of human logic?

- That's self-contradictory.

How so?

Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

- Depends on what sort of "god".

The explicit denial of all gods from existence.

Why is the existence of a god important?

- Origins are all that matters.

Why?

Can the argument purely about the existence of god ever be resolved? If not, why does the argument take place?

- This era is one with a stark Christian/Atheist worldview. The said argument generally exists within this worldview, it doesn't necessarily exist in all others. In past eras, & in future eras, metaphysics looked & would probably look different.

How is it confined to that worldview?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
mrsatan
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:57:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 12:42:26 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 12:40:04 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/28/2015 12:35:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 12:34:18 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:26:40 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:19:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:14:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:09:16 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:36:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is the explicit denial of a god or gods an intellectually acceptable position?

I don't think so. I think agnosticism is the most intellectually honest approach.
While I agree with you about how meanings and language can change due to common use (and share Wylteds' dislike of this change in particular), wouldn't "explicit denial" be a strong atheists standpoint rather than an agnostic one? Or, more precisely, affirming non-existence as opposed to being uncommitted to either side?

I didn't say agnosticism was explicit denial. I said it was being unsure/uncommitted about the existence (or not) of God.

Perhaps I misunderstood. The question you were answering was about explicit denial. It struck me as equating explicit denial with agnosticism.

I said that I don't think explicit denial is intellectually acceptable. Then I said that agnosticism is the most honest approach. Agnosticism was given as the better alternative to atheism.

I know what you said, the wording threw me off. Considering you didn't suggest any meaning for agnosticism to begin with, the argument with Wylted seemed out of place unless you considered explicit denial an agnostic standpoint.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:44:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:08:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If we are not in the position to objectively know then why should we continue the debate?
And assuming one does exist, does it actually affect us? Since we have the ability to make our own decisions and shape our own lives, does it actually have an affect on our capabilities to have morals? Does this god even care about our existence?

How do you know that it doesn't actually have an impact on your life or that you have free will. Perhaps all your choices have been predestined by this God? Perhaps, even if he allows us free will, he still interferes from time to time. We just don't know.

How do we know? We don't - but what's the difference? Does it change anything? Even if it does impact our life - since we do not know, should we continue?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:01:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 1:00:31 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:44:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:08:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If we are not in the position to objectively know then why should we continue the debate?
And assuming one does exist, does it actually affect us? Since we have the ability to make our own decisions and shape our own lives, does it actually have an affect on our capabilities to have morals? Does this god even care about our existence?

How do you know that it doesn't actually have an impact on your life or that you have free will. Perhaps all your choices have been predestined by this God? Perhaps, even if he allows us free will, he still interferes from time to time. We just don't know.

How do we know? We don't - but what's the difference? Does it change anything? Even if it does impact our life - since we do not know, should we continue?

Could you perhaps condense that into a single question? I am not quite sure what you're asking.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:04:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 12:55:22 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

How so?

- If faith is beyond the intellect, then it can not intellectually accessible, thus nor acceptable.

The explicit denial of all gods from existence.

- Then, NO.

Why?

- EXACTLY!

How is it confined to that worldview?

- Secularist & atheistic Thought emerged particularly in the Christian domain, hence the confinement.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:09:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 1:00:31 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:44:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:08:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 9/27/2015 9:54:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
If we are not in the position to objectively know then why should we continue the debate?
And assuming one does exist, does it actually affect us? Since we have the ability to make our own decisions and shape our own lives, does it actually have an affect on our capabilities to have morals? Does this god even care about our existence?

How do you know that it doesn't actually have an impact on your life or that you have free will. Perhaps all your choices have been predestined by this God? Perhaps, even if he allows us free will, he still interferes from time to time. We just don't know.

How do we know? We don't - but what's the difference? Does it change anything? Even if it does impact our life - since we do not know, should we continue?

If you mean, should we continue living if there is no god, the answer is: yes. We can add purpose and value to our own lives even without a deity or without surety that such a deity exists. And, the mere possibility of a god would add credence to the idea that we should continue to live.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...