i prefer Huxley's definition of agnosticm, he was after all the one who coined the term:

Quote :

" Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle.... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. --Agnosticism, by Thomas H. Huxley. February, 1889. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_huxley/huxley_wace/part_02.html "

4/2/2006 1:19:33 AM

Okay, we're impressed with your historical knowledge.

However, how does that definition differ functionally from what I've been putting in the thread thus far?

4/2/2006 1:26:14 AM

sorry, i kind of blurred over your posts. what were you saying?

4/2/2006 1:31:59 AM

4/2/2006 1:32:49 AM

^ yeah, i already got that much. which is why i blurred the rest.

Q.E.D.

4/2/2006 1:35:50 AM

Well, way to kill a decent discussion.

We'll just have to wait on msb2ncsu's response now.

4/2/2006 1:38:01 AM

Quote :

"PROVE IT."

Look it up.

Quote :

"^^ I'd say a social contract is much more rational than believing in a religion. It's called a truce. What is irrational about a truce?"

The whole point is that you have no way of knowing what the person's take on a "social contract" is. Religions have social contracts built-in ("love your neighbor as you love yourself", etc.). When there is no "higher law" we can renegotiate social contracts to more suitable standards to fit our situation.

4/2/2006 1:46:31 AM

^ This is the human condition.

Even so, arguing that a religion does the job better does not somehow validate religion as being true, or something we should believe.

People subscribe to social contracts because of safety in numbers. It makes sense. Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you. Messing with you would open me up to attacks/reprisals or punishment from others who wish to uphold the social contract.

4/2/2006 1:49:19 AM

Quote :

"Even so, arguing that a religion does the job better does not somehow validate religion as being true, or something we should believe."

Eh, I think there was some miscommunication somewhere. I'm not trying to argue the "truth" of religion or say that it is something people should believe.

Quote :

"People subscribe to social contracts because of safety in numbers. It makes sense. Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you. Messing with you would open me up to attacks/reprisals or punishment from others who wish to uphold the social contract."

Of course it makes sense. It also makes sense that people eventually see the opportunity for exploitation of said contracts, and sense they have no higher allegiance that might pressure them to reconsider it is only a matter of time before they renegotiate the terms of the social contract to better fit their desired position. My whole point is that most religions give me more insight as to how a person is going to handle generic social contracts and what motivates them in that decision making process. Its not that I think atheists are inferior at adhering to a moral code or anything, simply talking in terms of picking people with no other information on them available.

4/2/2006 3:04:54 AM

Ah, yes.

Knowing somebody's religion let's you pin down some of their basic beliefs. I agree.

4/2/2006 3:07:08 AM

msb2ncsu is full of shit when he says:

Quote :

"Oh and they have discovered physical text specimens that date to within a decade of the life of Paul "

the oldest extant letters of Paul, are found in a collection called Papyrus 46 and is dated around the year 200 CE, fully 150 years after Paul disappeared from history and for reference, the oldest extant complete texts of the New Testament, containing all the canonical books are:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century)
Codex Vaticanus (4th century)
Codex Alexandrius (5th century)
Codex Ephemeris Receptus (5th century) <-- aka "Textus Receptus", the singular text from which the KJV was translated

further,

Quote :

" considering the authorship is pretty uniform throughout "

this is sadly inadequate. Some of Pauls epistles are undisputedly written by him. namely,

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon

but others are definitely problematic

Collossians
Ephesians
Second Thessalonians

as they each have markedly different language, vocabulary and eschatology from the undisputed epistles.

and then some are extremely disputed, where most modern theologians and even some early church fathers rejected the notion of Pauline Authorship:

First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

and finally, everyone, including the early church fathers, agreed that the Letter to Hebrews was not written by Paul.

Quote :

" there is no reason to believe that the texts weren't written in the company of the apostle."

partially true: those written by paul were written by paul. those written pseudonymously in his name were written after he was dead.

Quote :

" the fact that the original author doesn't sign his name at the end does not make the text any less viable. "

paul (or his forgers) essentially 'signed' the epistles. in that he (they) wrote "I Paul, am writing to you, So-and-So, because I heard that... blah blah blah".

you are confusing the problem of unsigned authorship to the gospels. those are the ones that were written much later, and have absolutely NO internal indication of who the author was. it was only the church fathers in the 2nd century who decided to assign names to the books.

Quote :

"Heck, the New Testament has a pretty solid foundation as far as ancient texts go."

yeah. except for all the holes.







[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 3:20 AM. Reason : ]

4/2/2006 3:14:42 AM

Quote :

"Ah, yes. Knowing somebody's religion let's you pin down some of their basic beliefs. I agree."

Pretty much, but a bit further. For instance, if you know someone is a devout Catholic you not only know their core values but have pretty good insight as to how they are to likely address specific situations not covered in their established moral code. Its like you cover every base that is covered by an atheist with social contracts and take it a step further. Plus, you have good reason to expect a stronger adherence to base values when they have something higher to answer to rather than some pissed of neighbors.

4/2/2006 3:37:50 AM

Quote :

"msb2ncsu is full of shit when he says: Quote : "Oh and they have discovered physical text specimens that date to within a decade of the life of Paul " the oldest extant letters of Paul, are found in a collection called Papyrus 46 and is dated around the year 200 CE, fully 150 years after Paul disappeared from history and for reference, the oldest extant complete texts of the New Testament, containing all the canonical books are: Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) Codex Vaticanus (4th century) Codex Alexandrius (5th century) Codex Ephemeris Receptus (5th century) <-- aka "Textus Receptus", the singular text from which the KJV was translated further, "

Actually, I am not full of shit. 117-125 AD is the oldest widely accepted text (with p52) but there is growing debate over a few of potentially older pieces (like 7Q5 and p64). Keep in mind that these are simply the oldest pieces that are still in existence. It would seem niave to conclude that there is no reason to think these were the first written copies of any gospels. Espcially considering that the apostles were concerned with spreading the word by mouth.

Quote :

"considering the authorship is pretty uniform throughout " this is sadly inadequate. Some of Pauls epistles are undisputedly written by him. namely, "

I was talking about the uniformity through out history of the ancient texts, not the books themselves.

We've done the biblical text debate numerous times on here, recently too. These points and counterpoints have been recycled to no end. Why don't you just link http://www.religioustolerance.org and be done?

Quote :

"partially true: those written by paul were written by paul. those written pseudonymously in his name were written after he was dead."

Just to note, Paul probably never wrote anything directly even though he was the "author."

Quote :

"yeah. except for all the holes."

"All the holes" are pretty insignificant when you look at the context of ancent texts in general.

4/2/2006 4:14:04 AM

http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf

This is a pretty good read (medium-length... it's 144 pages of big text, but goes by about as fast as TWW session) on various philosophical things by Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy). A lot of it is stuff that has come up here, but put in to a nicely written package, that's easier to think about than someone's border-line coherent rant.

If anyone doesn't understand agnosticism (that's not what it's about, but it's what I got out of it) after reading it, then you are hopeless.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 9:19 AM. Reason : ]

4/2/2006 9:08:45 AM

msb2ncsu said:

Quote :

"I see no particular reason to expect adherence to any universal social contract. Self-preservation and self-promotion are much stronger motivating factors, expecially if there is not an all-knowing, all-powerful governance to answer to."

PROVE IT.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 9:10 AM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2006 9:10:11 AM

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 9:18 AM. Reason : s]

4/2/2006 9:15:12 AM

Quote :

"Oh; total moral relativism. [ignore]"

No, not "total moral relativism". Sorry you can't answer a simple question like "wrong to who?" That's probably why your morals are so fucked up. You try to define what is right as to what accords with some objective no-person, rather than people that actually live.

4/2/2006 11:32:19 AM

^Now I have to answer questions with self-evident answers? OK: the overwhelming majority of of people, and people in this country in particular, think that the things I listed are wrong.

Quote :

"You should read the definition of falsifiable."

The problem you might run into is that a great many people believe they have spoken directly with the Almighty and heard His response. Sure, they might have been hallucinating, but if you're going to go down that road then nothing is provable and all discussion is moot because I can't really prove/disprove that you exist, can I?

Quote :

"What support do you have for your claim that insects lack free agency?"

The fact that every physically healthy colony insect will fulfill precisely and exclusively a caste function attributed to things that happened before its birth. Other than that, call it an educated guess.

Quote :

"Why are you desperately trying to paint me as an atheist when I'm clearly not?"

I've already said several times, you're a heavily atheist-biased agnostic, which you seem to agree with. To treat you as an unbiased agnostic in argument would be counterproductive.

Quote :

"Twins aren't defined by their DNA, it's their personality and other psychological properties that define a human being."

They are defined by both. The latter can shape the outcome of the former, certainly.

What I was saying about twins was just a simple analogy. An atheist and such a heavily atheist-biased agnostic as McDanger are different people, yes, and they'll do/say some different things, but in several important respects they are identical.

4/2/2006 2:10:21 PM

^ The way by which you cling to your ignorance is unbelievable to me (THERE I GO AGAIN WITH THE DISBELIEF)

Quote :

"heavily atheist-biased agnostic reality"

Do you really think I get my jollies by not participating in a faith where there's an all-powerful being that loves me and wants to spend eternity in everlasting bliss with me?

The only reason I lean in that direction is because if we were to ASSUME that the existence of God is an answerable question (it is not), then the atheists would be beating your ass right now.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 2:15:17 PM

Does anyone else think that McDanger's certainty that we should not attempt to answer questions without verifiable answers is effectively against any and all philosophy?

4/2/2006 2:37:39 PM

^ argumentum ad populum

4/2/2006 2:46:36 PM

Answer the question directly: do you think that people should trifle with philosophy at all? Yes or no?

4/2/2006 2:50:40 PM

Of course.

But you have to promise not to use any more logical party fouls.

Philosophy is fair game.

4/2/2006 2:54:57 PM

says the champion of ad hominem

4/2/2006 3:12:50 PM

Shh, this discussion is for big boys.

Go back to the kiddy table.

4/2/2006 3:13:18 PM

please tell me you did that on purpose.

if you did, it'd be pretty funny I must say.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ,]

4/2/2006 3:16:46 PM

argumentum ad hominem

Quote :

"the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself"

I don't try to validate my points or my argument by attacking the character or motives of my opponent. I'm prone to calling people I argue with a fucking moron from time to time, but I haven't slandered Grumpy in an attempt to strengthen my argument logically.

Example of what would be an actual "ad hominem" attack:

"GrumpyGOP is a hardliner idiot theist, should you even believe anything this guy has to say?"

4/2/2006 3:19:06 PM

Quote :

"Now I have to answer questions with self-evident answers? OK: the overwhelming majority of of people, and people in this country in particular, think that the things I listed are wrong."

Yeah, I guess that's pretty self-evident, but any philosophy (especially relativism) can say "x is wrong to most people". You seem to be saying the things on your list are just wrong period. What supports that?

4/2/2006 3:19:06 PM

^^ even funnier, gg.

4/2/2006 3:22:38 PM

*takes a bow*

Now can we continue with meaningful discourse?

4/2/2006 3:23:43 PM

^This guy is rewriting the books

Philosophy is the study of how you think, it has nothing to do with the validation on whether to ask questions or not.

4/2/2006 4:01:42 PM

^ No, that's psychology.

Philosophy is investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

4/2/2006 4:12:41 PM

the study of thinking is actually metaphysics.

4/2/2006 4:13:27 PM

When I wrote the "study of how you think" I meant to impose a contradicting opinion to Grumpy's question about philosophy (it was vague, sorry about that). Since philosophy is a fundamental method of interpreting opinions and beliefs I tried to correct him in the usage of that term. When he asked "we should not attempt to answer questions without verifiable answers is effectively against any and all philosophy?" My implied answer was that, because philosophy has to do with everything regarding critical thinking and interpreting thought, the subject of validating the decision to question (or lack thereof) are not fundamental to the usage of philosphy. Not answering a question that is unanswerable, as he put it, does not mean one is going against the priciples of philosphy. To put it in better words.


[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 4:27:12 PM

^ That's a much better explanation than the one you first provided.

Philosophy is basically a different way of exploring the world than science, one that uses logic.

Philosophical achievements can and should be trumped by scientific achievements that prove something to the contrary. Logic is strong, but alas is a construction of the human brain.

4/2/2006 4:30:24 PM

umm.... you do realize that science was a splinter off of philosophy and at that time, it was said that science was indeed, "philosophy without a soul"

in the end, science is nothing more than a philosophy itself, akin to nihilism, humanism, existentialism, etc.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : s]

4/2/2006 4:44:18 PM

Quote :

"Philosophy is fair game."

Why? You've lambasted religion and atheism as both attempting to answer unanswerable questions. Why do only philosophers get to do that?

Quote :

"You seem to be saying the things on your list are just wrong period. What supports that?"

That's a completely different point of mine -- that any sort of morality without a basis in a higher power is utterly insupportable and meangingless. It is also not a discussion I'm going to have here.

4/2/2006 4:47:21 PM

Quote :

"umm.... you do realize that science was a splinter off of philosophy and at that time, it was said that science was indeed, "philosophy without a soul""

Why yes I do, thanks for asking.

Quote :

"in the end, science is nothing more than a philosophy itself"

Whoops!

A knight is a noble, a noble is not necessarily a knight...

Come on man.

Philosophy and science differ in their methods of exploration.

Quote :

"Why? You've lambasted religion and atheism as both attempting to answer unanswerable questions. Why do only philosophers get to do that?"

Because plenty of things in philosophy are falsifiable. Philosophy is a broad category, with many unanswerable questions of its own. This doesn't mean every field of philosophy is characterized by this, however.

Philosophy actually changes with what we know. A scientific finding CAN trump a line of reasoning in philosophy. Plenty of things are logically consistent, but only relevant to this world if true.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 4:47:32 PM

so you determine what can be found and what can't, and based on that, decide what is worth your time?

You'll learn this later, but sometimes you get more out of looking for the answer than getting it.

4/2/2006 4:57:34 PM

Quote :

"so you determine what can be found and what can't, and based on that, decide what is worth your time?"

Correct.

Quote :

"You'll learn this later, but sometimes you get more out of looking for the answer than getting it."

Maybe true, but once you settle on a religion (most of the time) this doesn't mean you're looking for the answer anymore. It means you've decided that you have it.

Besides -- which unanswerable question is worth chasing after? There is an infinite number of them. How can I select one without being totally arbitrary?

4/2/2006 5:02:33 PM

psst... you don't have to select just one.

4/2/2006 5:04:26 PM

How many should I chase? Under what criteria? How long?

You're being ridiculously vague here. I think I should stick to answering questions that have answers. I'll learn a lot more about my environment and existence by sticking to the realm of meaning and straying from the world of nonsense.

4/2/2006 5:07:26 PM

I need to point this out in a fresh post:

Quote :

"You've lambasted religion and atheism as both attempting to answer unanswerable questions. Why do only philosophers get to do that?"

This is the biggest mischaracterization of philosophy ever.

4/2/2006 5:23:11 PM

Quote :

"Whoops! A knight is a noble, a noble is not necessarily a knight... Come on man. Philosophy and science differ in their methods of exploration. "

NO. Science is a philosophy. It is not the field of philosophy, but it is a philosophy, as I said before, like humanism, existentialism, etc.

4/2/2006 5:27:11 PM

^^^ There is no one size fits all answer. If you are uncomfortable thinking about unprovable things, then perhaps it is better for you to just not try.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 5:28:36 PM

Quote :

"NO. Science is a philosophy. It is not the field of philosophy, but it is a philosophy, as I said before, like humanism, existentialism, etc."

But this does not mean that philosophy is science.

It means that science is philosophy, with a different method of exploration.

More importantly, what the hell is your point?

I'm admittedly confused. The only important distinction in any of my arguments has been the method by which science operates as opposed to philosophy, and why that's an important distinction to make.

Quote :

"If you are uncomfortable thinking about unprovable things, then perhaps it is better for you to just not try."

This isn't really an issue of my mental capabilities. I CAN think about it. Anybody can. However, nobody gets anywhere. They get "somewhere" in the arbitrary systems they've cooked up -- but that's hardly useful since the premise itself is meaningless.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 5:35:07 PM

Quote :

"This is the biggest mischaracterization of philosophy ever."

Explain instead of just being curt and smug.

Or now are you limiting the field of philosophy to include only thoroughly answerable questions?

4/2/2006 5:43:52 PM

I don't claim to speak for philosophers.

Some chase after questions that you cannot answer (theologians are like this too).

Some chase after questions that are answerable, or that time will tell whether they are answerable or not.

One example is trying to find rules of induction. The reason why no rule of induction as of yet has worked is because there has always been some case exposed that contradicts and crumbles the attempted law/explanation.

Either way, we can test these rules of induction by seeing if they hold up or not. While it's not really tangible concept, it's falsifiable. This is why falsifiability is so important -- it means that theories are testable, and thus relevant as a means of explanation.

The question of a undetectable, non-physical object's existence is not falsifiable, thus meaningless. Questions of philosophy, though deceptively similar in their abstract nature, are often falsifiable.

4/2/2006 5:51:58 PM

Quote :

"I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING This remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity on the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X. My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where the absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended. ... Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" --or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and of knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude. -- Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger: Volume I, p. ii"

4/2/2006 7:30:21 PM

Quote :

" I needed reinforcements. “Look,” I said, “four billion peo- ple believe in some sort of God and free will. They can’t all be wrong.” “Very few people believe in God,” he replied. I didn’t see how he could deny the obvious. “Of course they do. Billions of people believe in God.” The old man leaned toward me, resting a blanketed elbow on the arm of his rocker. “Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe..." [...] “They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don’t do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would haveto do. “If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck..." "

4/2/2006 8:10:05 PM