egran078 - 14 January 2011 05:37 PM

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

It makes no sense to think with STUPID definitions.

I decided that the definition for agnostic that was in my dictionary as a kid was really dumb.  So by that word I simply mean that I do not know whether or not there is a God not what anybody else does or does not know now or indefinitely into the future.

However recognizing one’s own ignorance is a totally logical state.

psik

Write4U - 22 January 2011 02:38 PM

It is a generic word for a supernatural being or condition (most often with the quality of intelligence and purpose).

God, Deity, metaphysical natural condition, supernatural being, all these are generic terms, to which no provable qualities can be given. They are symbolic terms for unidenfiable and unprovable (subjective) “beings or conditions”.
...It all comes down to wishful thinking, without any compelling motive, necessity, or proof.

Supernatural in what way? Nothing is supernatural. We just do not understand everything.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned “necessity.” Thank you Write4U.  The point I’ve been trying to drive home the whole time is that the agnostic statement “I do not know if a deity exists or not” is unnecessary to even pose.

psikeyhackr - 22 January 2011 05:23 PM

egran078 - 14 January 2011 05:37 PM

I’m atheist, not agnostic. To say that god is unknowable is to say that god is.

It makes no sense to think with STUPID definitions.

I decided that the definition for agnostic that was in my dictionary as a kid was really dumb.  So by that word I simply mean that I do not know whether or not there is a God not what anybody else does or does not know now or indefinitely into the future.

However recognizing one’s own ignorance is a totally logical state.

psik

...and how have you defined god?

egran078 - 22 January 2011 06:42 PM

Write4U - 22 January 2011 02:38 PM

It is a generic word for a supernatural being or condition (most often with the quality of intelligence and purpose).

God, Deity, metaphysical natural condition, supernatural being, all these are generic terms, to which no provable qualities can be given. They are symbolic terms for unidenfiable and unprovable (subjective) “beings or conditions”.
...It all comes down to wishful thinking, without any compelling motive, necessity, or proof.

Supernatural in what way? Nothing is supernatural. We just do not understand everything.

You are right, I was trying to draw a distinction between our universe and possible other universes. But that would still be natural in totality.

egran078 - 22 January 2011 06:44 PM

...and how have you defined god?

The people who say they believe in Him made that definition.

But since they have not supplied adequate evidence then I haven’t joined in that belief.  Of course the atheists haven’t proven the lack of existence either which is almost certainly impossible since the definition can change depending on the religion so it seems agnosticism is the only LOGICAL option.

But people that are into what I call binary thinking and expect everybody to choose sides probably can’t go along with that.

Words and definitions are human creations.  Reality does not have to conform to what people think.  Science is about trying to figure out reality.  There is too much pseudo-intellectual bullshit claiming to be philosophy and logic.  What is logic if it is based on nothing but symbols about unknowns?  If you admit it is unknown then trying to apply “LOGIC” to it doesn’t make much sense.

But it is funny that LOGOS which the Catholic Church says means The Word is obviously related to LOGIC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)

So is logic really symbolism and rational manipulation that CONFORMS TO REALITY?

psik

psikeyhackr - 22 January 2011 08:05 PM

egran078 - 22 January 2011 06:44 PM

...and how have you defined god?

The people who say they believe in Him made that definition.

But since they have not supplied adequate evidence then I haven’t joined in that belief.  Of course the atheists haven’t proven the lack of existence either which is almost certainly impossible since the definition can change depending on the religion so it seems agnosticism is the only LOGICAL option.

But people that are into what I call binary thinking and expect everybody to choose sides probably can’t go along with that.

Words and definitions are human creations.  Reality does not have to conform to what people think.  Science is about trying to figure out reality.  There is too much pseudo-intellectual bullshit claiming to be philosophy and logic.  What is logic if it is based on nothing but symbols about unknowns?  If you admit it is unknown then trying to apply “LOGIC” to it doesn’t make much sense.

But it is funny that LOGOS which the Catholic Church says means The Word is obviously related to LOGIC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)

So is logic really symbolism and rational manipulation that CONFORMS TO REALITY?

psik

There is consensus agreement of reality in many scientific disciplines, because they deal with reality in its physical/energetic forms. But when when you enter a dimension beyond our event horizon, logic fails from lack of information and only symbolisms (such as found in scripture) can be used for speculative arguments about this (these) dimension(s).

Write4U - 22 January 2011 08:17 PM

There is consensus agreement of reality in many scientific disciplines, because they deal with reality in its physical/energetic forms. But when when you enter a dimension beyond our event horizon, logic fails from lack of information and only symbolisms (such as found in scripture) can be used for speculative arguments about this (these) dimension(s).

I think I have linked to this before.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

His research was not based on scripture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg

psik

psikeyhackr - 22 January 2011 09:35 PM

Write4U - 22 January 2011 08:17 PM

There is consensus agreement of reality in many scientific disciplines, because they deal with reality in its physical/energetic forms. But when when you enter a dimension beyond our event horizon, logic fails from lack of information and only symbolisms (such as found in scripture) can be used for speculative arguments about this (these) dimension(s).

I think I have linked to this before.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

His research was not based on scripture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg

psik

It does not convince me. This could also be explained as genetic or cellular memory. Deepak Chopra speaks of this also.
It may not be based on scripture, but it is based on dubious science.

Write4U - 22 January 2011 09:52 PM

It does not convince me. This could also be explained as genetic or cellular memory. Deepak Chopra speaks of this also.
It may not be based on scripture, but it is based on dubious science.

I wasn’t trying to convince you.  You have to evaluate information for yourself and decide what to think.

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO THINK.  THAT IS TO DO IT FOR YOURSELF.

The objective is to know but that can be difficult.  I maintain a category of information that I regard as interesting but unresolved.  That is why I consider being an atheist absurd.

psik

psikeyhackr - 22 January 2011 08:05 PM

egran078 - 22 January 2011 06:44 PM

...and how have you defined god?

The people who say they believe in Him made that definition.

But since they have not supplied adequate evidence then I haven’t joined in that belief.  Of course the atheists haven’t proven the lack of existence either which is almost certainly impossible since the definition can change depending on the religion so it seems agnosticism is the only LOGICAL option.

But people that are into what I call binary thinking and expect everybody to choose sides probably can’t go along with that.

Words and definitions are human creations.  Reality does not have to conform to what people think.  Science is about trying to figure out reality.  There is too much pseudo-intellectual bullshit claiming to be philosophy and logic.  What is logic if it is based on nothing but symbols about unknowns?  If you admit it is unknown then trying to apply “LOGIC” to it doesn’t make much sense.

...So is logic really symbolism and rational manipulation that CONFORMS TO REALITY?

psik

So you are using logic to disprove logic?

But the heart of the matter is unaddressed:
I didn’t ask how other people/religions have defined god.  I asked how have you defined god?  And how can you be so certain of your definition that god is somehow now a viable option?  You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.  Why is the question of god’s existence even postulated on the first place?  On what grounds?

Egran-

So you are using logic to disprove logic?

But the heart of the matter is unaddressed:
I didn’t ask how other people/religions have defined god.  I asked how have you defined god?  And how can you be so certain of your definition that god is somehow now a viable option?  You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.  Why is the question of god’s existence even postulated on the first place?  On what grounds?

Yeah!..on what grounds?
“Uhhhh..cause there’s lots of stuff written about god, and other people believe in god, and uhh…there’s unexplainable phenomena out there…..”
When these individuals can’t even define the “god” they are allowing room for in the realm of possibility, then they are surely admitting(unwittingly) faith.

Can you logically select your axioms to which you apply logic?

egran078 - 23 January 2011 10:15 AM

So you are using logic to disprove logic?

But the heart of the matter is unaddressed:
I didn’t ask how other people/religions have defined god.  I asked how have you defined god?  And how can you be so certain of your definition that god is somehow now a viable option?  You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.  Why is the question of god’s existence even postulated on the first place?  On what grounds?

I didn’t invent the language dude.  Unless I see a reason to reject the common dictionary definition I go with the flow.  However no one has proven any god exists by any definition to my satisfaction.

But atheists have not proven the nonexistence of any god to my satisfaction either.

You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.

It is not my fault that atheists do not regard the I DON’T KNOW STATE as LOGICAL.

Where did you get that him?  Who is defining now?  Atheists use the Euro-Christian paradigm to argue about God.

It is not my fault that atheists presume to tell other people what to think and then CLAIM it is LOGICAL.

I am not responsible for the delusions of atheists.  Many times atheists behave as though the primary purpose of science is to beat on religion.  Look at some atheist sites and see how often they mention Darwin versus Newton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

psik

psikeyhackr - 23 January 2011 08:09 PM

egran078 - 23 January 2011 10:15 AM

So you are using logic to disprove logic?

But the heart of the matter is unaddressed:
I didn’t ask how other people/religions have defined god.  I asked how have you defined god?  And how can you be so certain of your definition that god is somehow now a viable option?  You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.  Why is the question of god’s existence even postulated on the first place?  On what grounds?

I didn’t invent the language dude.  Unless I see a reason to reject the common dictionary definition I go with the flow.  However no one has proven any god exists by any definition to my satisfaction.
But atheists have not proven the nonexistence of any god to my satisfaction either.

You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.

It is no my fault that atheists do not regard the I DON’T KNOW STATE as LOGICAL.
Look at some atheist sites and see how often they mention Darwin versus Newton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

psik

Excellent presentation!

egran078 - 23 January 2011 10:15 AM

But the heart of the matter is unaddressed:
I didn’t ask how other people/religions have defined god.  I asked how have you defined god?  And how can you be so certain of your definition that god is somehow now a viable option?  You have defined him into possible existence based on absolutely nothing.  Why is the question of god’s existence even postulated on the first place?  On what grounds?

While atheists and agnostics can attempt to define “God(s)”, they certainly don’t need to. The theists are the ones making claims for the existence of god(s). The burden falls on them to define what they mean and provide the compelling case and/or evidence if they want others to accept the claims.

That aside, you may have missed my earlier response to your original post, so I’ll quote it:

Kaizen - 16 January 2011 06:21 PM

Not necessarily. One could discuss the limitations of knowledge and say that IF such a being existed beyond what we can justifiably say we can know of, it would be unknowable. Nowhere in that does it suppose such a being in fact exists.