(March 24, 2016 at 8:02 pm)Felasco Wrote: Can we use reason to fall in love, a key aspiration of most humans?   No, we can't.

Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction. IMHO that is why so many movie stars 'fall in love'. The love scenes induce the chemical attraction, but as they become accustomed to the 'love' they soon find out that they do not really like that person and divorce ensues.

(March 25, 2016 at 8:45 am)Felasco Wrote:

Quote:Sorry, but if you are putting the credibility of ancient texts on the same footing as reason (evidence and sound/valid logic), we may not have anything left to talk about.

That's ok with me, thanks for the chat.

So, you are admitting that you believe the credibility of ancient texts is on par with the credibility of reason?


Also, it has not gone unnoticed that you are ignoring every other point that I made in direct response to your statements.

How nice for you that you found a way to ignore my other points by singling out one facetious statement.


By the way, it has also not gone unnoticed that you continue to ignore the one simple question posed by other members here, and me.

Here it is again.

Do you currently accept the premise that a god exists, to be true?

Quote:So, you are admitting that you believe the credibility of ancient texts is on par with the credibility of reason?

I agree that we don't have that much to talk about, and that this post editor is hopelessly broken.  

Quote:Also, it has not gone unnoticed that you are ignoring every other point that I made in direct response to your statements.

Glad to know you are on the job.

Quote:How nice for you that you found a way to ignore my other points by singling out one facetious statement.

You said we have little to talk about, I agreed.

Quote:By the way, it has also not gone unnoticed that you continue to ignore the one simple question posed by other members here, and me.  Here it is again.

Do you currently accept the premise that a god exists, to be true?

No comma needed in that sentence, don't recall anybody asking this above, and the answer is I have not the slightest idea whether a god exists, as would already be clear to anybody actually reading my posts.

(March 25, 2016 at 4:43 pm)Felasco Wrote:

Quote:Do you currently accept the premise that a god exists, to be true?

No comma needed in that sentence, don't recall anybody asking this above, and the answer is I have not the slightest idea whether a god exists, as would already be clear to anybody actually reading my posts.

It's been asked. I will get the post numbers if needed.

I hate to break it to you, but that would make you an atheist. 

You seem to be responding to a question I am not asking. I don't care whether you do not claim to know if a god exists. I am asking about a belief, not knowledge.

If the answer to the question, "do you believe a god exists" is anything besides "yes", that is atheism.

For clarity, belief is defined as the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true. Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts the premise that a god exist to be true (theism), or they do not accept the premise (atheism).

There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism is not a fence sitting position.

(March 25, 2016 at 11:58 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I am however providing them with an opportunity to reflect on a different perspective that is immune to the arguments of convenience most use to justify their disbelief.

I call bullshit. Most here claim lack of evidence as the basis for lack of belief.

That is not in any way an "argument of convenience".

Quote:There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism is not a fence sitting position.

Do you believe I'm wearing shoes, or not?  Which is it, it must be one or the other, there is no middle ground, you must choose a team, you don't have the option to simply say that you just don't know.   Silly, eh?

Let's wrap this up by agreeing that you have ripped everything I've said to shreds with your laser sharp logic and reduced me to an embarrassed sniveling little worm who will never recover from the awesome power of your genius gotchas.

(March 25, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Felasco Wrote:

Quote:There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism is not a fence sitting position.

Do you believe I'm wearing shoes, or not?  Which is it, it must be one or the other, there is no middle ground, you must choose a team, you don't have the option to simply say that you just don't know.   Silly, eh?

Are you claiming to be wearing shoes?
It doesn't look like it, so what's to believe?

Were you claiming to be wearing shoes, I'd have little problem believing you... I've worn shoes myself, several times...I've seen many people wearing shoes. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities. Actually, it's a likely proposition.

The god hypothesis, however... Seems far from likely.

(March 25, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Felasco Wrote:

Quote:There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism is not a fence sitting position.

Do you believe I'm wearing shoes, or not?  Which is it, it must be one or the other, there is no middle ground, you must choose a team, you don't have the option to simply say that you just don't know.   Silly, eh?

First of all, that is a pretty mundane claim. If you told me you were wearing shoes, I'd have no reason to disbelieve you. If you told me you weren't wearing shoes, I'd have no reason to disbelieve you. If you told me you were wearing shoes that were given to you by aliens, I'd need a lot more evidence before I believed you.

Why don't I have an option of saying "I don't know"? You have the option of saying "I don't know" when it comes to the god claim. I also take the position that I don't know if gods exist or not.

I am really getting the impression that you don't understand the difference between "belief" and "knowledge".

When it comes to the god claim, I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist. This make me an agnostic.

When it comes to the god claim, I disbelieve that gods exist. This makes me an atheist.

Like me, you also seem to hold the position that you don't know if gods exist or not. You are agnostic.

If you currently do not accept the claim that at least one god exists to be true. You are an atheist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions. Most atheists are also agnostic.

[/quote]

When someone makes a claim, you aren't forced to decide whether you believe the claim is true or that it is false. You can simply have no belief either way.

If you literally couldn't do this, your beliefs could be altered against your will just by being asked questions.

I go into a lot more detail on my website here.

Suffice to say, if you're "just agnostic", then by our definitions you are an atheist. By your definition, you may not be. But it doesn't make the position different. By default, an atheist is an agnostic, and one with no belief that God does or does not exist. In other words, undecided. This is weak atheism. Some atheists may go further and have a positive belief that there is no God, these are strong atheists.

If our weak atheism equals your "just agnostic", then that's fine. You can call yourself whatever you want, but they are the same thing regardless.

(March 25, 2016 at 12:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 9:56 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I have never seen a good definition of god.

Plotinus has one. Aquinas's is highly developed. Spinoza takes a different tack but is equally well defined.

Can I have the definition in easy to follow bullet points.
e.g. God is:

A: Green
B: Made of coconut milk
C: Lives just off the M5 in a box

NB "Arguments for" do not count as a definition of god, "arguments for" are not what god is. They are the elaboration. If you are going to put something fatuous like "necessary" then remember I said good definitions.