| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1097.1 | | GRIM::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Thu Jun 08 1995 15:24 | 4 |
| Since no one has proved that God exists and no one has proved that God
doesn't exist, I see no basis for holding either belief.
-- Bob
|
| 1097.2 | Faith Is Perceptual | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Thu Jun 08 1995 15:38 | 7 |
| Faith is perceptual though!
There is a sight to faith that unbelief lacks. Which makes
that first conversion experience unfathomable to me, but doesn't
negate the fact that someone that is blind simply cannot see.
Tony
|
| 1097.3 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jun 08 1995 15:46 | 8 |
| No offense intended here but I've always seen agnosticism as a reason
for sitting on the fence and not being accountable to ones self for a
position.
Example: I abhor abortion, it is a vile act but it should be legal.
I find this an agnostic position on abortion.
-Jack
|
| 1097.4 | this is great | DECALP::GUTZWILLER | happiness- U want what U have | Thu Jun 08 1995 16:11 | 11 |
| this is a rathole-----if there was a rathole note i'd post it there:
i think it is TERRIFIC that agnosticism/atheism/theism can be argued in here!
this is just what folks like me, ie. 'borderline christians', 'neo-christians',
'ex-christians' or whatever are looking for!
thanks jeff, for opening the topics.
andreas.
|
| 1097.5 | y | POWDML::FLANAGAN | I feel therefore I am | Thu Jun 08 1995 16:13 | 5 |
| neo-Christians.
I like it.
Can I join that church!
|
| 1097.6 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Thu Jun 08 1995 16:41 | 6 |
| >Since no one has proved that God exists and no one has proved that God
>doesn't exist, I see no basis for holding either belief.
> -- Bob
That's quite an argument, Bob!
|
| 1097.7 | | GRIM::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Thu Jun 08 1995 22:31 | 7 |
| Re: .6 Jeff
> That's quite an argument, Bob!
Works for me.
-- Bob
|
| 1097.8 | Re: Argument for Agnosticism | QUABBI::"devries@r2me2.zk3.dec.com" | | Fri Jun 23 1995 19:46 | 23 |
| >
>Since no one has proved that God exists and no one has proved that God
>doesn't exist, I see no basis for holding either belief.
>
This statement is without meaning. My dictionary says:
belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not
immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Therefore, if it's provable then it's not a matter of belief, and if it's not
provable it's only a matter of belief. The implication that proof one way or
another is necessary for "belief" is fallacious.
Not that this settles any arguments -- it just makes the discussion a little
more philosophically honest.
Given that, I ask this out of curiosity, not accusation: are there really
people who have absolutely no leaning toward "God exists" or "God doesn't
exist" as the prevailing (unprovable) truth? It doesn't have to be absolute.
Confidence is continuum, not a point.
-Mark
[posted by Notes-News gateway]
|
| 1097.9 | | GRIM::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Fri Jun 23 1995 20:13 | 46 |
| >>Since no one has proved that God exists and no one has proved that God
>>doesn't exist, I see no basis for holding either belief.
>>
>This statement is without meaning. My dictionary says:
>
> belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not
> immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
>
>Therefore, if it's provable then it's not a matter of belief, and if it's not
>provable it's only a matter of belief.
I don't think your dictionary's definition of "belief" is a very good one.
The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "belief" is:
1. Trust or confidence. 2. A conviction or opinion. 3. A tenet or
a body of tenets.
Since no one has proved that God exists and no one has proved that God
doesn't exist, I have no trust or confidence that God exists and I have no
trust or confidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not convinced that God
exists and I'm not convinced that God doesn't exist. It's not my opinion
that God exists, and it's not my opinion that God doesn't exist. I don't
hold to the tenet that God exists, and I don't hold to the tenet that God
doesn't exist. Do these statements have any meaning for you?
> The implication that proof one way or
>another is necessary for "belief" is fallacious.
Certainly I don't believe that proof is necessary for belief - for other
people. For me it would be necessary.
>Not that this settles any arguments -- it just makes the discussion a little
>more philosophically honest.
"You callin' me a liar, boy?" :-)
>Given that, I ask this out of curiosity, not accusation: are there really
>people who have absolutely no leaning toward "God exists" or "God doesn't
>exist" as the prevailing (unprovable) truth?
I'd say I'm on the atheistic side of the theistic-agnotistic continuum.
Other people might say that I'm an atheist. To me, though, being an
atheist would imply that I *know* that God doesn't exist, which isn't the
case; I merely see no reason for thinking that God exists.
-- Bob
|