BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Agnostic or Atheist

  
  

Page: (1)23456... 14

 
 
Opps!!
16:38 / 18.11.06
Following Quintum's invitation i am re-starting a thread i set-up in Head Shop on 14/11/06. I think it will be interesting to see the different views on the subject between those who frequent Head Shop and Temple (sorry to those who use both)

So here's the original posting:

I have spent the last few months trawling the internet looking for a concrete definition of the terms atheist and agnostic to try to decide which camp i reside.

All i can find are vague, confusing views that combine and overlap to create more confusion than when i simply termed myself as agnostic.

So here's the challenge, either 1) using simple terms define the two terms, and/or 2) i would be grateful for links to sources that people think might help.
 
 
the Kite
17:09 / 18.11.06
We can start with two basic definitions:

Atheist. One who believes that no God exists. Typical description of those who don't believe in the God of mainstream Christianity and similar.

Agnostic. One who remains unsure about the existence of God.

However, according to Antony Flew in 'God and Philosophy' and 'God, Freedom and Immortality', the word 'agnostic' will not do. The agnostic merely refuses to commit on the matter of God's existence, while taking for granted the validity of the concept 'God.'

Flew uses the term 'agnostic' to describe not a position, but a method: 'I cleave to the Agnostic Principle, that we ought always to proportion our belief to the evidence. And ... I insist that, wherever the argument may eventually lead, we should start by positioning ourselves upon the firmest and most universally familiar ground.' This he calls, confusingly, 'the presumption of atheism'

For Flew, an atheist doesn't necessarily even accept the concept of God as valid, and 'is simply not a theist.'
Therefore his presumption of atheism contends that 'the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition. It would be up to [theists]:first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objections that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God,' there is a God.'

Within the terms of Flew's debate, he makes a very strong case. At least he's got his terms sorted out.
 
 
Opps!!
19:45 / 18.11.06
One thing that was hinted at in the original thread was if atheism is just a western/christian concept. Does anyone have any idea of how eastern cultures see this concept? Is this dilema just part of my conditioning as part of a western society?

Also, Quintum started to talk about the concept of atheism in relation to chaos magick as people shift between 'gods' depending on their needs.

As i said this does get complex and this is what i'm trying to get an idea of.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
20:19 / 18.11.06
my understanding of the words starts from how they're put together: the 'a' refers to a lack of something or a negation of something (I'm sure someone else can say this more accurately.) An atheist believes in a total lack of any kind of diety. to understand agnostic you have to know what a gnostic is. I believe that gnosis means knowledge and the gnostics believe that in our flawed world with our flawed minds it is impossible to understand the true nature of stuff/god, *unless* you are given that knowledge from outside the flawed zone - in other words, God has to reach down from the perfect zone and stick knowledge into your head. the vague understanding I have is that you can study all you like and pray all you like and whatever all you like and you might never achieve gnosis - the active part has to come from God, God has to pick you.

an agnostic is someone who believes in more or less the same setup - namely, that it's impossible to ever know for sure, or to be able to prove, whether or not there is a God/diety, or whether it's more correct to say your prayers in latin or english, or whatever - but with the added restriction that Gnosis never occurs. we are imperfect and proving something like God is impossible, so stop trying to pretend that you know anything for sure and, especially, doing drastic things like the Crusades based on knowledge that can't be proven.

someone with more knowledge of Words and things might be able to improve on this considerably, but I think that's the general idea?
 
 
SMS
03:53 / 19.11.06
Agnosticism is in some ways more extreme than atheism, because the skeptical claim is a positive one: God's existence or non-existence cannot be known. Thus, it fits into that most heinous of all scientific theories: the kind that aren't even wrong. For a theory that can be shown to be wrong at least maintains the dignity of saying something. David Hume was agnostic.

Atheism is the claim that the concept of God is meaningful, falsifiable (at least provisionally), and false. True, some atheists will admit that one cannot prove a negative, but may nevertheless accept atheism as the default position. This kind of atheism usually conceives of God as a part of the world and as a craftsman of the universe in which we all now live. From my perspective, such a god is not God because he is not Creator. He is instead that being who, with powers not identical with himself brought the universe into its present state but never created it. With respect to such a god, it is not only reasonable to be atheistic, but, even if atheism is not true, it is reasonable not to worship this god. Another kind of atheism is that kind which believes that the concept of God is inherently incoherent. The argument from evil gives us an atheistic conclusion. The theory of God's "existence" can be proved in the negative by this argument, and we are not at all left with agnosticism.

It is important not to confuse agnosticism either with humility or doubt. One may be agnostic or atheistic without claiming apodictic certainty about the truth of these positions.

But the relationship is further complicated by the more pagan beliefs in god-constructs. If one locates the site of God's being within the limitations of human social being, for instance, then the idea of God tends to be subsumed under the will of the people, and the direction of worship reverses itself. No longer does the Gift of God proceed entirely from God's Being towards that of human being; now, human beings create God and worship what is within their possession. This happens not out of malice but out of the conviction that human relationship with God couldn't take any other shape. It can result purely from the logic of a closed universe. For instance, that universe which takes its entire order from the Kantian [b]I think[/b] is one in which the concept of God must be entirely subjected to the moral law already within us. God is conceived as the moral lawgiver, but knowing this of His status does not in any way alter our perception of the moral law. In other words, the very constitution of God is subjected to the moral principles that the human being has within himself. This same logic can take numerous forms, replacing the [b]I think[/b] with notions of human society, for instance. In that case, the shape of God is determined by the social body.

To each of these various concepts of God, one may be atheistic or agnostic. What is difficult, however, is identifying the need for otherness in the concept of God. How much distance does there need to be between what God is and what I am in order for me to say truly that God is. If I take my existence from God and God takes God's existence from me, too, does that mean God is? Is that really God? And we could ask a variety of similar questions.
 
 
the Kite
09:38 / 19.11.06
Hey Opps!,

Can't give first-hand info on Eastern approaches to atheism, but can note that Buddha started off by kicking his culture's gods into touch. He never planned to become a god himself, apparently.

Secondly, the rise of communism in the far east suggests a readiness to embrace forms of atheism, but they had to take their ideas for that from a western dialectical materialism, belief in God as a tool of oppressors.

Thirdly, the western term 'Hinduism' covers a multitude of philosophical approaches to what you might best call 'engaging with mystery.' And yes, I do recall coming across a Hindu philosophy that I found at the time indistinguishable from atheism. Sorry I just don't remember how they did it.
 
 
the Kite
10:11 / 19.11.06
Ooh, and something else. Opps!, you (or at any rate the original posting) asked about chaos magic in relation to atheism, and you mentioned using the thread we're generating to help you choose some form of atheism or agnosticism is necessary.

As a magician, I regard myself as an arch-sceptic, on the principle of chaos magic that we use beliefs as tools for our own purposes, and we choose our tools from (at present) four popular toolboxes: spirit models, energy models, psychological models and information models. Having used a given tool, we feel free to put it back in the box and not to worship it. Some of us use the term 'model agnosticism' to characterise such a position.

Some contributors to this thread have pointed out the positive nature of some forms of agnosticism. I distance myself from belief even in that, except where I find a use for such a belief.

What kind of a use could I find for positive agnosticism? Annoying Christians (ambiguity intended), debunking charlatans, debunking one's inner charlatan and restoring a sensory-based perspective (banishing magical consciousness) either for immediate practical purposes or as a longer-term exercise in metamorphosis ...
 
 
*
05:51 / 20.11.06
Atheism was one of the charges leveled against Socrates by Meletus, according to Plato's Apologia, and already it meant belief in no gods— which, as Plato's Socrates argues, means belief in no divine beings, spirits, or demigods either. By contrast Epicurus was called impious, or lacking respect for the gods. According to the Platonic definition of atheism, then, you can't properly be an atheist and believe in any supernatural being, agency, or power, or any spirit, angel, or soul. According to this definition, the instant you believe in nonphysical spiritual entities and/or agencies, you are not an atheist— you believe in something that could be called a god by someone, even if not by you. So I bet there are people who identify themselves as atheists who don't fit this definition (which I'm not actually sure is the best definition, but it's out there).
 
 
EmberLeo
06:56 / 20.11.06
Over on Brunchma in Wax Intellectual, this came up a lot.

The definitions we usually settled on were thus:

Soft Atheism: "I do not believe God exists."
Hard Atheism: "I firmly believe God does not exist."

Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know if God exists."
Hard Agnosticism: "I don't believe it is possible to know if God exists"

None of these should be confused with Apathy: "I don't care if God exists"

--Ember--
 
 
EmberLeo
06:57 / 20.11.06
Pardon me, that's not quite right. It should say:

Hard Agnosticism: "I firmly believe it is not possible to know if God exists."

--Ember--
 
 
Unconditional Love
09:45 / 20.11.06
An agnostic can also be a person whom is uncertain to all claims of knowledge. No body of knowledge is definate fact or fiction.
 
 
yemeth
10:50 / 20.11.06
As a (model?) agnostic, I would define my reasoning as: the symbolic domain and meaning are inextricably interlaced, so even if there is any knowledge coming from the outside (in the gnostic sense that was described above), any dimension of meaning and structure given by it would be built, adapted and enclosed by such symbol/meaning network which is strictly our interface to reality. This network does not extend beyond the human mind since meaning arises entangled with the symbolic, even though making models (and believing them) is an useful way to interact with reality. So, the most we can do regarding theism is to define concepts of "god" (which are meaningless beyond human symbolism) that might be better or worse adjusted to what we want to structure/understand. I do not find it however a really useful concept when strictly dealing with knowledge and modelling reality, due to the subjectivity that this word already contains.

As well, this personally means as well that while I may have some consideration on the thought put on abstract semi-theist concepts of god ("the spark of conscience", whatever), gods like that of the bible, anthropomorphic gods, etc, when taken literally, make me rise an eyebrow.
 
 
Quantum
11:48 / 20.11.06
Link to the HS thread, and quoting grant
a-theist - without God. (There is no God.)
a-gnostic - without knowledge. (Whether or not there is a God is unknown, and possibly unknowable.)
 
 
Opps!!
18:52 / 20.11.06
Thanks folks for all the info. I must say that i am closer to being an atheist now than agnostic but i'm still going to continue the enquiry. You know, i just enjoy the chase/confusion.

The thing that has effected me most so far from these posts was Penn Jillette quote 'anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.'

I just like this idea, remaining atheist and looking for evidence. A continuous enquiry.

The game goes on...
 
 
EvskiG
21:19 / 20.11.06
Just finished Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

If I understand him correctly, he'd say that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God because he or she has no convincing evidence that God exists.

He suggests that atheism is (or at least should be) a default condition -- NOT an affirmative belief that is equal to (and no better or more justified than) a belief in god.

It makes no more sense to assume the existence of God than to assume the existence of Easter Bunny, a tiny teapot orbiting the Earth, or sentient purple muffins.

A fairly convincing argument, I think.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
23:52 / 20.11.06
Interesting review of Dawkin's arguments here

Will read both The God Delusion and The Dawkin's Delusion when the latter is released next year.

Could you elaborate a bit on why Dawkin's asserts that atheism "should be" the "default position"? These terms are a bit strange, to me...if he's saying that atheists do not believe in God because they have no convincing evidence that God exists, then surely the "default position" for those that do "should be" theism?
 
 
Char Aina
00:23 / 21.11.06
i think his point is that folk with convincing evidence are pretty scarce.
dawkins argues the world is without evidence of god, hence atheism as default over theism.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:32 / 21.11.06
Ah...'evidence' of the sort that can be viewed on Youtube or hung on the wall or contained in a lengthy dissertation or studied with micro/tele-scopes.

I see.

Ta!
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:59 / 21.11.06
Aside : The debate which continues re: the Dawkin's / McGrath take on these issues beneath the article is a fantastic microcosm of the history of this debate generally.

Is it just me, or is it all really tedious? Why is everybody so invested in convincing each other or themselves of their own horseshit? Surely it's all cultural baggage, all of it? All put in there by millenia of thoughts, feelings and mentations which are not what they seem to be at all, at all...(yours, mine, Richard Dawkin's or the Holy Pope's...it's all second hand, if not million billionth hand, used goods, buyer beware, caveat emptor)

I challenge Richard Dawkin's and The Pope to say a single original thing. One. Single. Thing.

Then, and only then, might they be interesting enough to be worth reading about. To me, anyway.

Do let me know if it happens.
 
 
SMS
02:56 / 21.11.06
I don't think it's particularly tedious if you are talking about a concept of God actually worth worshipping. If, for instance, there is such a thing as The Good, and if that Good is also personal, this is, by definition, a crucial reality for how we ought to live our lives. Because, if it is possible to speak truly of "the Good," then it is only proper for us to try to participate as fully as possible in that Good. If that Good is impersonal, like, say, a Categorical Imperative, then we should strive for something ideal rather than personal, but if that Good is fundamentally wrapped up in the Encounter with the Other as an epistemologically prior category to subjectivity, then we should not expect the moral law to offer a full account of that towards which we should strive. Instead, our full humanity will only be possible in the space of intersubjectivity. But if there is no Good at all (as many lithers would say) or if there are many goods which both conflict with each other and are incommensurable with each other, then we should behave quite differently.

Now, I know this is the Temple thread, here, but I make this suggestion because I think the existence of God is not at all unimportant. And I think that the idea that it is stems largely from an attempt to tame religion, first by subjugating it to individual reasoning, and then by locating its domain in an entirely separate realm from all secular modes of thought and behavior.
 
 
SMS
02:59 / 21.11.06
Actually, maybe I was mistaken. The Dawkins' McGrath debates actually get a bit tedious for me. But I wouldn't want to generalize, is all.
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:06 / 21.11.06
I challenge Richard Dawkin's and The Pope to say a single original thing.

I take it you've not read The Selfish Gene then?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
07:58 / 21.11.06
Yes, I have.

I take it you haven't read U G Krishnamurti, though.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:42 / 21.11.06
I take it you haven't read U G Krishnamurti, though.

No I haven't. How relevant is it to your challenge to Richard Dawkins to write something original?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
09:49 / 21.11.06
It strikes me as quite ironic that Dawkins should have thought, way back then, that employing the conceit of atrtributing 'personality' to a 'mechanical process' was the best, or at least snappiest, way of conveying his understanding.

I'm not knocking 'your hero'. I love the guy. He's adorable, like a human-with-a-doctorate equivalent of the hamster frantically scurrying away convinced it's nearly cleared the terrible fog it's been labouring to escape from for, like, ever, while all the time smoke continues pouring out of the spindle holding the wheel it is statically rotating on the spot with all it's efforts.

Like I say, hes cute.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:10 / 21.11.06
I'm not knocking 'your hero'. I love the guy. He's adorable, like a human-with-a-doctorate equivalent of the hamster frantically scurrying away convinced it's nearly cleared the terrible fog it's been labouring to escape from for, like, ever, while all the time smoke continues pouring out of the spindle holding the wheel it is statically rotating on the spot with all it's efforts.

No, you're not knocking him at all. No sir. Wow, that's completely changed my view on the world. How could I have even thought of choosing atheism? Silly me for requiring something more than faith in order to choose my spiritual path.

Now, if you could explain to me why you believe the above metaphor is appropriate to Dawkin's stance on spirituality/religion I'd be terribly grateful.

Out of interest, you wrote:

I challenge Richard Dawkin's and The Pope to say a single original thing. One. Single. Thing.

Then, and only then, might they be interesting enough to be worth reading about. To me, anyway.

Which led me to believe that you were unaware of Richard Dawkins ground-breaking work in the field of Darwinian evolution (hence me asking if you'd read Selfish Gene). However you then said:

Yes, I have.

Which suggests that, you have already found him interesting enough to be worth reading about. To you, anyway.

Oh, one last question (actually it's rephrasing the one I asked you a few posts above).

How relevant are the works of U G Krishnamurti to your challenge to Richard Dawkins to write something original?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:45 / 21.11.06
Well, that and the fact that I already stated I was going to get both The God Delusion and the Dawkins Delusion in February, and read both.

In fact, the latter example is much better, because, as you point out, though I have already found him interesting enough to read about, this in no way indicates that I still find him interesting enough to read about. Opinions do, and will always change. Like, I was an atheist too, and utterly bewildered by the idiocy of 'religion'. Not so, now. Evidence, you see. Or, rather, you don't see. I see. Just not the sort I can put on Youtube, or under a microscope.

My current inclination (subject to change without notice - in spite of my continuing to post here in this thread I am, genuinely, rather a busy boy) to obtain his latest work is a far better indication that I offer the dear fellow the benefit of the doubt that he might, in spite of my suspicions of its fundamental impossibility, have had an original thought. I remain ever in hope. I'm an optimist, you see. It's also an indication that I was totally brazen in my assertion at 3 am that 'Then, and only then, might they be interesting enough to be worth reading about. To me, anyway.' I can't take it under advisement that he's had an original thought, can I? I'd have to check for myself. Which would involve reading his book. And being interested. So I was talking poo.

Re: U G and your question - find out for yourself. You're a scientist. Spirit of enquiry, zeteticism, all that.

I've read your hero. U G isn't mine by any definition of the word. But he has a grat deal to say about the nature of 'thought' and 'mind', and the 'value' of 'ground breaking' notions like The Selfish Gene / The Smiting God / whatever horseshit is the flavour of the month right now.

No, you're not knocking him at all. No sir. Wow, that's completely changed my view on the world.

Isn't this what I'm banging on about several posts up? I don't give a flying fart what you do with your 'view'. Keep it, change it, substantiate it, base it on whatever you like. It clearly matters. Go on tour with it. Start a show. Defend it. Build a philosophy around it. Find correspondence. Don't let it go, whatever it is and whatever you do. Where would 'you' be then?

How could I have even thought of choosing atheism? Silly me for requiring something more than faith in order to choose my spiritual path.

Ooh, assumptions assumptions. Careful now. Not even a teensy, weensy bit of faith? Just a smidgen?

I applaud you in your choice. Well done. You seem to think I am judging you for choosing atheism, or trying to change 'your mind'. I'm not. I popped in here, saw the post about Dawkins book, had just read that review, decided to post it, and commented on how tedious the thousands-of-years-old assumption of a useful answer leading to a debate is, nicely summarised by the thread following McGrath's review.

If you don't understand my analogy, then I leave it at that. Neither would Dawkins, probably. And since you are both cleverer than me, it's probably just me being a pain in the ass.

A cup of tea? Rooibos, honey?
 
 
Unconditional Love
11:21 / 21.11.06
The immaterial universe

Have either of you read this guy, i caught a documentary by him recently, very fascinating stuff, basically hes an advocate of adaptive mutation as opposed to random mutation, and the importance of protein in interaction as opposed to dna, treating dna as more of a blue print than anything else.

well worth looking at, especially figureing in his ideas on how perception and belief effect biology.

(my idea) for example how belief in a all loving god that creates a loving environment is good for creating what could be termed positive adaptive mutation, where as an organism constantly being told that it is under attack or lives in a hostile environment, becomes rooted in protection which stops growth. Its not so much wether god is there or not, but wether belief in a god supports and maintians positive adaptive mutations, self love or a loving relationship could obviously provide the same responses from an organism. (this last paragraph is me running with the idea, so its not part of the blokes theory)
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:18 / 21.11.06
Evidence, you see. Just not the sort I can put on Youtube, or under a microscope.

What sort of evidence is it then? Are you talking about something that provided you personally with, what you consider to be, sufficient evidence of a spiritual force? I genuinely feel it might help if you explain what you mean by evidence.

I don't want to speak for other atheists, but personally I don't believe that personal "Road to Damascus" moments really constitute evidence that can be applied to anyone other than the person who experienced them. However that's not to say they aren't powerful and convincing events for that person. For myself I would like to think that I would question the how and the why of the experience rather than assuming it to be of supernatural origin.

Re: U G and your question - find out for yourself. You're a scientist. Spirit of enquiry, zeteticism, all that.

I've read your hero. U G isn't mine by any definition of the word. But he has a grat deal to say about the nature of 'thought' and 'mind', and the 'value' of 'ground breaking' notions like The Selfish Gene / The Smiting God / whatever horseshit is the flavour of the month right now.

Well it's good that U.G. doesn't produce horseshit then isn't it? However, you answering the question:

How relevant are the works of U G Krishnamurti to your challenge to Richard Dawkins to write something original?

Doesn't require me to have read the books to be answered by you. Rather than pulling the (fairly old-hat by now) question avoidance tactic of "You're a scientist. Go do some research. Why should I explain it to you?" how's about you demonstrate that you've actually read his (UG's) books and answer the question?

You're welcome to continue to refer to Dawkins as my hero (with and without exclamation marks, as you like). Although I do feel that it's use in this argument could be mis-construed as you suggesting that, as he's "my hero", I accept even the crumbs that fall from his mouth as words of wisdom graven in stone. Which is not, as far as I am concerned, the case.

Ooh, assumptions assumptions. Careful now. Not even a teensy, weensy bit of faith? Just a smidgen?

What do you feel I am making an assumption about, or indeed what is it that I should be careful about? As far as I am concerned I don't have faith as we're talking about it in the context of this conversation no.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:38 / 21.11.06
Hero

I did actually link to it in the first post where I used the term - yours, not mine - though admittedly it was an Edit, the Reason for which I gave, funny enough, was that it looked too sarcastic without it.

As for U G and your question - I can't be arsed.

His works are all free and available online. In his own words : "My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody." Some people, rather cheekily, actually have. But for those of us with a computer, no need to shell out the shekels.

Quite unlike Dawkins, who is making a small celebrity of himself with his tirades. The New Carl Sagan.

So it requires only an investment of time on your behalf. For me to cut 'n' paste, never mind misinterpret, distort and garble it, would take mine, which as I already said, is at something of a premium at the moment. I'm doing my best to not employ the Sn00p Gambit here, and have clearly said U G is in no way my hero, so his horseshit is as smelly as Dawkins in my equally worthless and pointless view (to you). They complement each other beautifully, in fact. As is the Way of these things.

But if you can't be arsed either I quite understand. Why bother?

Re : Not speaking for other atheists, and evidence of God. Well done, you've cracked the first Mystery as I understand it. Now that you're looking in the right direction (as antithetical to your identity on the board / IRL (?) as it may be), good luck with the rest.

I think that just about wraps it up, then.

Mmm. Rooibos.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:40 / 21.11.06
Oh, and if you go back to the 'Evidence' paragraph of my post upthread, you'll see another edit that you obviously cross-posted with. Sorry about that.

L'esprit d'escalier.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:53 / 21.11.06
Oh, and:

how's about you demonstrate that you've actually read his (UG's) books and answer the question?

The question being

How relevant are the works of U G Krishnamurti to your challenge to Richard Dawkins to write something original?

To which I believe this, from me, is the answer:

I've read your hero. U G isn't mine by any definition of the word. But he has a grat deal to say about the nature of 'thought' and 'mind', and the 'value' of 'ground breaking' notions like The Selfish Gene / The Smiting God / whatever horseshit is the flavour of the month right now.

Or, if you like better : Relevant enough to be mentioned here in the thread.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:23 / 21.11.06
I did actually link to it in the first post where I used the term - yours, not mine - though admittedly it was an Edit, the Reason for which I gave, funny enough, was that it looked too sarcastic without it.

Fair enough.

As for U G and your question - I can't be arsed.

His works are all free and available online. In his own words : "My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody." Some people, rather cheekily, actually have. But for those of us with a computer, no need to shell out the shekels.

Again, fair enough. I'll have a search around and see if any of it answers my question at all.

Quite unlike Dawkins, who is making a small celebrity of himself with his tirades. The New Carl Sagan.

You can (for instance) get bibles for free. That doesn't necessarily make the message they contain any more or less valid than Dawkins/UG.

So it requires only an investment of time on your behalf. For me to cut 'n' paste, never mind misinterpret, distort and garble it, would take mine, which as I already said, is at something of a premium at the moment. I'm doing my best to not employ the Sn00p Gambit here, and have clearly said U G is in no way my hero, so his horseshit is as smelly as Dawkins in my equally worthless and pointless view (to you). They complement each other beautifully, in fact. As is the Way of these things.

But if you can't be arsed either I quite understand. Why bother?

As I say I'll have a scan through and see (although, as you've read him it would undoubtably take you less time to answer one question than it will for me to trawl through the whole of his works in search of an answer to the same). I would suggest though that, as you were the one who brought him up in the first place, there is more of an onus on you to explain. But I understand that time is an issue. We'll let it drop shall we?

Please don't assume that your opinion is worthless to me, it isn't. I may not agree with you, and may take issue with some of your views, but that isn't necessarily the same thing.

Re : Not speaking for other atheists, and evidence of God. Well done, you've cracked the first Mystery as I understand it. Now that you're looking in the right direction (as antithetical to your identity on the board / IRL (?) as it may be), good luck with the rest.

Thanks, I guess. Being an atheist (for me anyway) isn't necessarily about completely rejecting other worldviews.

To bring this back on track slightly, I am curious about the concepts of belief, religion, and magic. As an atheist though I don't believe in, what could be termed as, supernatural forces (that being for eg: spirits, God, or magic). However that lack of belief doesn't prevent me from examining the possibility that such things do exist. Agnosticism is still, to me, a religious belief of sorts in that it accepts that there are supernatural forces but doesn't pretend to know what they are necessarily.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:24 / 21.11.06
Cross-posted with your second post.
 
 
EvskiG
14:14 / 21.11.06
Dear Decay,

You may not realize this, but you are being rude. It's possible (even preferable) to argue your position without being sarcastic or nasty.

I see that the Krishnamurti you're discussing is not THE Krishnamurti (Jiddu Krishnamurti), but merely A Krishnamurti. From the same town in India, or just trying to benefit from the reputation of the master?

In any case, I presume you know that it's a weak rhetorical gambit to say: "person X refutes your position. However, it's not my obligation to summarize what person X said on the subject -- do it yourself. If you don't, you stand refuted."
 
  

Page: (1)23456... 14

 
  
Add Your Reply