Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: To boldly go where no MAX has gone before
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
View Poll Results: What do you identify yourself as? | |||
Atheist/Skeptic/Agnostic | 151 | 70.89% | |
Catholic | 21 | 9.86% | |
Protestant | 24 | 11.27% | |
Jewish | 5 | 2.35% | |
Muslim | 2 | 0.94% | |
Philisophy (Such as Buddhism) | 10 | 4.69% | |
Voters: 213. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-06-11, 01:08 PM | [Ignore Me] #706 | |||
Private
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-11, 01:31 PM | [Ignore Me] #707 | |||
Sergeant
|
The term "gnostic" pertains to knowledge, it doesn't technically have anything to do with belief. But this comes back to different peoples interpretations of the terms i guess. But I'm not sure I agree with that definition of agnostic. Agnostics just claim ignorance on the matter. Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-11 at 01:33 PM. |
|||
|
2012-06-11, 02:58 PM | [Ignore Me] #708 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-12, 01:07 AM | [Ignore Me] #711 | ||
Contributor First Sergeant
|
Considering Huxley was the one who coined the term, we should be using his "definition"
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." -Thomas Henry Huxley Simply put, he's saying that you can "believe" whatever the fuck you want, but don't introduce it as fact without proof.
__________________
NivexTR - TR - 30/5 - -=The Black Sheep=- SYNxNivexQ - NC - 26/4 - [:::::SYN:::::] NivexVS - VS - 19/2? - SYNDICATEVS? http://www.twitch.tv/nivexq I don't broadcast much, but you never know |
||
|
2012-06-12, 11:37 PM | [Ignore Me] #713 | ||
Contributor First Sergeant
|
Religious - Believe what I think because... because.
Scientist - Believe what I think because I have facts and logic behind my claim. Duke. Non religious people DO believe in something. We believe exactly what we've been telling you we believe in for the past 56 pages.
__________________
NivexTR - TR - 30/5 - -=The Black Sheep=- SYNxNivexQ - NC - 26/4 - [:::::SYN:::::] NivexVS - VS - 19/2? - SYNDICATEVS? http://www.twitch.tv/nivexq I don't broadcast much, but you never know |
||
|
2012-06-12, 11:54 PM | [Ignore Me] #714 | ||||||||||||
First Lieutenant
|
We don't know everything. That's why we try to find out. We just aren't content with saying "God did it" and leaving the issue alone. |
||||||||||||
|
2012-06-13, 01:15 AM | [Ignore Me] #715 | |||
Contributor First Sergeant
|
http://i.qkme.me/3pos80.jpg
__________________
NivexTR - TR - 30/5 - -=The Black Sheep=- SYNxNivexQ - NC - 26/4 - [:::::SYN:::::] NivexVS - VS - 19/2? - SYNDICATEVS? http://www.twitch.tv/nivexq I don't broadcast much, but you never know |
|||
|
2012-06-13, 03:50 AM | [Ignore Me] #716 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-13, 04:03 AM | [Ignore Me] #717 | ||||
Sergeant
|
However, that was just me amusing you, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, not everything has a designer. Looking at man made objects, seeing they have a designer and concluding that all things (natural and man made) must have a designer is about as logical as the following: "Look at driftwood on the beach. The way its arranged is complex, but we know how it got here, we don't need a designer to explain this complex thing. THEREFORE nothing complex (either natural or man made) needs a designer. Therefore nothing is man made" You cannot extrapolate from man made to natural or vice versa like this. If you do, then you can see it leads one to absurd conclusions. Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-13 at 04:53 AM. |
||||
|
2012-06-13, 10:55 AM | [Ignore Me] #718 | ||
Private
|
First, I appreciate your change of tack here Duke.
You guys need to stop hating on him now that he's stopped trolling and actually evaluate his arguments objectively. For instance,the statement proper application of logic will lead you to the same conclusion independent of time is accurate. But if the facts that your logic evaluates change then your conclusions may be different. This is what he was alluding to. For things outside of the realm of science though, I do have to agree with the others here. People of faith use the cause -> effect necessitates god argument, and then declare by fiat that god exists outside the system and has always existed and always will. If you're going to do that isn't it equally valid to declare by fiat that the universe has always existed and always will? |
||
|
2012-06-13, 11:14 AM | [Ignore Me] #719 | |||
Sergeant
|
This comes back to the point that yes, we cant know anything with 100% certainty, but to then go round claiming that things with heaps and heaps of evidence or logic behind them aren't true... I mean, that just isn't a game I'm willing to play. Of course gravity could be caused by leprechauns, its not outside the realms of possibility, but there's a hell of lot of evidence indicating that it is in fact mass that causes gravitational fields, so that's what i believe. People don't use this reasoning for anything other than God, which demonstrates 1)Intellectual inconsistency on the part of those who do this 2)This is not a line of reasoning that is accepted in regular discourse, i see no reason God should be an exception Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-13 at 11:20 AM. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|