Agnosticism

Page 4 of 4 [ 63 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

06 Apr 2009, 8:15 pm

claire333 wrote:

makuranososhi wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I am guessing this wiki link to deism (which I do understand) was provided because, like me, you were also unable to find adeism. But considering deist believe in a 'hands off' god, I would have to agree with solinoure; it is still the same thing. If I ever get the guts to get off the bench and get into the game, I might very well end up a deist. :wink:

*chuckle* The term adiest or adeism is a relatively recent term; have seen it more in collegiate papers than elsewhere, and chose Wiki as it was the more comprehensive explanation vs. several smaller sites. I've explained the difference between the two; if you choose to see them as the same, I cannot change your mind, only be aware myself of the minutiae between them. Theos/Theology/Atheism vs. Dios/Diety/Adeism... the difference between being without belief system and being without a god figure. Deism, in the most known and documented form, was a common religious viewpoint in the 19th century US... and in the scheme of things, it's one of the more reasonable belief systems I've encountered, at least to my POV. But where one might see an architect with a divine plan, I see ants exploring and carving out a chaotic form from the whole of existence.

M.

_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

06 Apr 2009, 8:40 pm

makuranososhi wrote:

I've explained the difference between the two; if you choose to see them as the same, I cannot change your mind, only be aware myself of the minutiae between them.

It is most likely my state of mind lately, which seems to be having trouble with minutiae of any sort. If I get a decent rest tonight, I will read over your posts again tomorrow and see if it sticks then.

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

06 Apr 2009, 9:29 pm

claire333 wrote:

makuranososhi wrote:

I've explained the difference between the two; if you choose to see them as the same, I cannot change your mind, only be aware myself of the minutiae between them.

If I struck a tone of offense, I apologize; admittedly, it is a small distinction. Perhaps this might help... where an atheist would not believe in the whole of Catholicism (just an example), an adeist would not believe in the God character, but could share some of the belief structure or find value in the teachings of catechism... the nuance of personification, as it were, is an essential element. Hope to hear from you tomorrow; if you have questions about what I say, please feel free to ask.

M.

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

06 Apr 2009, 9:55 pm

makuranososhi wrote:

If I struck a tone of offense, I apologize...

Aww...You are fine; no apology needed. I really do think it is just lack of sleep on my part. Nothing seems to be clicking right.

solinoure
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

06 Apr 2009, 10:37 pm

makuranososhi wrote:

Theos/Theology/Atheism vs. Dios/Diety/Adeism... the difference between being without belief system and being without a god figure.

Science is a belief system.
If all that is required of theists is to have a belief system, then all scientists are theists. And, athiests could not be scientists.

_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Apr 2009, 10:50 pm

solinoure wrote:

makuranososhi wrote:

Theos/Theology/Atheism vs. Dios/Diety/Adeism... the difference between being without belief system and being without a god figure.

Science is a belief system.
If all that is required of theists is to have a belief system, then all scientists are theists. And, athiests could not be scientists.

Science is a belief system based on observations that are severely tested and rejected if found wanting. Religion is a belief system based on very doubtful authority whose validity may not be questioned.

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

07 Apr 2009, 12:46 am

For want of an adjective, a horse was lost... I should have said a theological belief system instead of leaving it open, theology being a religious study.

M

886
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,664
Location: SLC, Utah

07 Apr 2009, 8:33 am

I've found alot of agnostics have the "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't care" personally, I don't pick agnostic for myself, because I don't believe in the bible. I feel maybe there was a creator - I mean, a complex organism like humans had to be designed by something or someone, the odds of it being coincedence just seem too low, I just think the bible is BS, and labeling myself agnostic makes people think I might believe in it.

I'm sure the discussion has taken it's turn by far by now, but oh well.

_________________
If Jesus died for my sins, then I should sin as much as possible, so he didn't die for nothing.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Apr 2009, 9:26 am

solinoure wrote:

Science is a belief system.
If all that is required of theists is to have a belief system, then all scientists are theists. And, atheists could not be scientists.

That it is and it is thoroughly tested in an empirical fashion. So the underlying belief, if you will, is that the world is real and not an illusion. Which is the main difference between science and pomo New Age cow diddly.

A good rule to follow: if it is not empirically grounded it is cow diddly.

ruveyn

solinoure
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

07 Apr 2009, 10:40 am

ruveyn wrote:

So the underlying belief, if you will, is that the world is real and not an illusion.

Nonesense! The underlying belief is that if, under given circumstance, you saw it happen before, then you will see it happen again given the same circumstance. This is the empiricists faith. Reality IS an illusion - to think otherwise is to be fooled by it.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Apr 2009, 11:34 am

solinoure wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

So the underlying belief, if you will, is that the world is real and not an illusion.

An illusion is described as something deceptive leading one to a false perception. To determine what is and is not false one must know what is not false. The methods of science approach this better than anything else insofar as I have experienced. Any method not concerned with physical perception is speculation and is not necessarily false but also is not necessarily true. It resides in Limbo.

solinoure
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

07 Apr 2009, 11:42 am

Sand wrote:

An illusion is described as something deceptive leading one to a false perception.

If you look at the history of science and empirisism, you will see that it is no more than a chain of false perceptions, with each new perception invalidating the prevoiuse one as an illusion.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Apr 2009, 11:50 am

solinoure wrote:

Sand wrote:

An illusion is described as something deceptive leading one to a false perception.

If you look at the history of science and empirisism, you will see that it is no more than a chain of false perceptions, with each new perception invalidating the prevoiuse one as an illusion.

If you look at the history of science you will see it is a chain of approximations that continually are modified to become closer to useful applications. The proof of science is the supreme success of using the approximations to control natural forces in more and more elaborate and useful ways. No scientist will ever claim he or she has a hold on absolute truth but the approximate truths that are held are all around you and provide the basis of survival for most of the world.

solinoure
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

07 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm

Sand wrote:

Tomaito - Tomawto...

Control, like reality, is an illusion. You have it untill you don't...

Sand wrote:

No scientist will ever claim he or she has a hold on absolute truth but the approximate truths

Which is to say, that the scientist knows that reality is an illusion...

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Apr 2009, 12:11 pm

solinoure wrote:

Sand wrote:

If you look at the history of science you will see it is a chain of approximations that continually are modified to become closer to useful applications. The proof of science is the supreme success of using the approximations to control natural forces in more and more elaborate and useful ways.
Tomaito - Tomawto...

Control, like reality, is an illusion. You have it untill you don't...

Sand wrote:

No scientist will ever claim he or she has a hold on absolute truth but the approximate truths

Which is to say, that the scientist knows that reality is an illusion...

And with science, when you lose it you re-approximate and regain it. Science is not a finished absolute, it is a continuous process of learning. Reality, as you present it, is a medieval nonsense term like absolute beauty or evil or good or perfection. They are as real as a herd of unicorns.

As you seem to perceive it, yes. Science will probably always be in a state of reperception and reconstruction and each stage will reveal new and fascinating treasures.

Page 4 of 4 [ 63 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:

Agnosticism Post Reply New Topic

Agnosticism