By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 08:27 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
Oh dear, far too woolly. If you believe that the existence of God is unknowable then you have a belief and a position, you are not dithering and you are not an agnostic - you are either waiting for more evidence to arise or you believe that no conclusive evidence will ever arise. Those are both firm positions that do not preclude a faith - there is a branch of Quakerism that allows for no belief in God and Zen Buddhism all but says that those who grasp cannot know, they will always be pushing away what they seek (and there you have it, a belief that requires no belief).
But you have called me out, I am chasing down those who claim to be agnostic because I regard them as not having thought the problem through enough or who just want to blind side the issue with declamitare lingua...
It's not woolly, it's just what the word means:
Agnostic (noun): A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
0
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 14:55 - Jun 18 with 3910 views
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 14:57 - Jun 18 by gordon
The first sentence of your wikipedia page is the same:
"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."
It isn't being undecided etc...
It is not my Wikipedia page actually, part of the 'commons' (sorry, have to be pedantic). There is a variance in the dictionary definition you posted which asserted that agnoticism is a belief (a very loaded word) and Wikipedia's opening sentence which gives the opinion that it is a view, a more open and difficult to define term but one which allows for empathy with the collection of data and the processing of that with reasoning.
However, as you read through the Wikipedia page things become less straightforward (despite, or perhaps because of, the involvement of 'Darwin's Bulldog' Thomas Huxley) and by the time the end of the entry is reached the question of whether agnostic is just another word for atheist and whether ignosticism should be considered as well arises. No doubt there are other positions that did not even make the entry.
Also, on the way you may notice a mention of Pascal's Wager - but if you click through on the link you will find a whole new can of worms. I can see why Bertrand Russell felt that Pascal wasted his life on theology when he could have used his time more productively in mathematics but still prefer to regard the Wager as a greater contribution to human understanding (although it has no effect upon the resolution of the existence of God).
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 15:36 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
It is not my Wikipedia page actually, part of the 'commons' (sorry, have to be pedantic). There is a variance in the dictionary definition you posted which asserted that agnoticism is a belief (a very loaded word) and Wikipedia's opening sentence which gives the opinion that it is a view, a more open and difficult to define term but one which allows for empathy with the collection of data and the processing of that with reasoning.
However, as you read through the Wikipedia page things become less straightforward (despite, or perhaps because of, the involvement of 'Darwin's Bulldog' Thomas Huxley) and by the time the end of the entry is reached the question of whether agnostic is just another word for atheist and whether ignosticism should be considered as well arises. No doubt there are other positions that did not even make the entry.
Also, on the way you may notice a mention of Pascal's Wager - but if you click through on the link you will find a whole new can of worms. I can see why Bertrand Russell felt that Pascal wasted his life on theology when he could have used his time more productively in mathematics but still prefer to regard the Wager as a greater contribution to human understanding (although it has no effect upon the resolution of the existence of God).
If you're agnostic, you are without knowledge of any God and claim no knowledge of any God. Not sure why the need for obfuscation. From the perspective of logic, 'view' or 'belief' is the same.
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 15:59 - Jun 18 by gordon
If you're agnostic, you are without knowledge of any God and claim no knowledge of any God. Not sure why the need for obfuscation. From the perspective of logic, 'view' or 'belief' is the same.
A rock or a bicycle can be described as without knowledge of any God and it could be claimed on their behalf that they have no knowledge of any God. Human beings, however, are being disingenuous if they claim the same, a conscious decision to doubt what they have heard about God is almost certain to be involved.
As for the difference between a view and a belief - professionally you can 'take a view' when you have imperfect information but need to make a decision. In hindsight it may be the wrong decision but you made it without committing to certainty. However, if you have a belief you may not have perfect information, or any information, but that is less relevant as you will hold that belief until there is overwhelming reason to change it.
I think we do this watching football all the time, if we are not watching our team we pick out players and have the opinion that they will be game changers or weak links. As the game goes on we reassess those opinions and appreciate strengths and weaknesses that become apparent as the game progresses to form a view by full time. When we are watching our team and, to go back a few years, Pablo comes on as sub for example, he can be atrocious but as our favourite we believe he will pull a rabbit out of the hat to restore our faith in him.
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 16:18 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
A rock or a bicycle can be described as without knowledge of any God and it could be claimed on their behalf that they have no knowledge of any God. Human beings, however, are being disingenuous if they claim the same, a conscious decision to doubt what they have heard about God is almost certain to be involved.
As for the difference between a view and a belief - professionally you can 'take a view' when you have imperfect information but need to make a decision. In hindsight it may be the wrong decision but you made it without committing to certainty. However, if you have a belief you may not have perfect information, or any information, but that is less relevant as you will hold that belief until there is overwhelming reason to change it.
I think we do this watching football all the time, if we are not watching our team we pick out players and have the opinion that they will be game changers or weak links. As the game goes on we reassess those opinions and appreciate strengths and weaknesses that become apparent as the game progresses to form a view by full time. When we are watching our team and, to go back a few years, Pablo comes on as sub for example, he can be atrocious but as our favourite we believe he will pull a rabbit out of the hat to restore our faith in him.
So many muddled ideas in there. I wouldn't know where to start.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:08 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
Have a go, it might improve your understanding of the issues.
i'll do the first para for you...
"A rock or a bicycle can be described as without knowledge of any God and it could be claimed on their behalf that they have no knowledge of any God." They are inanimate- making it a pointless analogy.
"Human beings, however, are being disingenuous if they claim the same" Nonsense, because (1) knowledge of the myriad of god claims is not knowledge of "god" (2) there are tribes who have never had a god concept. (3) this is a silly semantic swerve in any event and adds nothing to any discussion. It doesnt matter what label you apply. The point being made is simply the distinction between people who believe something (btu dont profess to KNOW it" and those who "KNOW" something. You are simply muddying waters with all sorts of superfluous semantics.
"a conscious decision to doubt what they have heard about God is almost certain to be involved." Nonsense- people do not choose or decide what they believe.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2019 21:24]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Haven't trawled through the thread so apologies if it has already been mentioned, but it does bother me that the OP (along with a significant number of upvoters) thinks that anyone who has any open belief in God should be shut out of the role of PM.
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:13 - Jun 18 by sparks
i'll do the first para for you...
"A rock or a bicycle can be described as without knowledge of any God and it could be claimed on their behalf that they have no knowledge of any God." They are inanimate- making it a pointless analogy.
"Human beings, however, are being disingenuous if they claim the same" Nonsense, because (1) knowledge of the myriad of god claims is not knowledge of "god" (2) there are tribes who have never had a god concept. (3) this is a silly semantic swerve in any event and adds nothing to any discussion. It doesnt matter what label you apply. The point being made is simply the distinction between people who believe something (btu dont profess to KNOW it" and those who "KNOW" something. You are simply muddying waters with all sorts of superfluous semantics.
"a conscious decision to doubt what they have heard about God is almost certain to be involved." Nonsense- people do not choose or decide what they believe.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2019 21:24]
Inanimate objects do not have knowledge. You may regard it as a pointless analogy but you are wrong. It is a truism, it is definitely not an analogy.
This is relevant to the next point, once sentience is established and discourse takes place then concepts receive consideration. If we go back to Plato we probably have the commencement of epistemology with a definition of 'justified true belief':
By the time we get to your final paragraph you are arguing with yourself, I had used my 'Pablo' example to illustrate the difference between 'taking a view' and having belief so you are in fact agreeing with me. The conscious decision to doubt phrase described declared agnostics, not believers.
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:30 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
Inanimate objects do not have knowledge. You may regard it as a pointless analogy but you are wrong. It is a truism, it is definitely not an analogy.
This is relevant to the next point, once sentience is established and discourse takes place then concepts receive consideration. If we go back to Plato we probably have the commencement of epistemology with a definition of 'justified true belief':
By the time we get to your final paragraph you are arguing with yourself, I had used my 'Pablo' example to illustrate the difference between 'taking a view' and having belief so you are in fact agreeing with me. The conscious decision to doubt phrase described declared agnostics, not believers.
What a load of bobbins.
You draw a direct comparison between objects and people and say its not an analogy. Its a comparison, at the v ery least, and meaningless for the reasons set out.
Your middle para is a word salad with no discernible meaning.
Your final para is a bare assertion. Do explain the manner in which I am "arguing with myself" The point was that you described belief as involving conscious choice- which is nonsense.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2019 21:40]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:38 - Jun 18 by sparks
What a load of bobbins.
You draw a direct comparison between objects and people and say its not an analogy. Its a comparison, at the v ery least, and meaningless for the reasons set out.
Your middle para is a word salad with no discernible meaning.
Your final para is a bare assertion. Do explain the manner in which I am "arguing with myself" The point was that you described belief as involving conscious choice- which is nonsense.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2019 21:40]
Go back and read everything again, once you have caught up with the debate it might all become clearer.
And yes, I do know that you understand it all really and are just trying to see if you can upset someone but I am off to the Tory leadership thread, it is all a bit more convivial and coherent there.
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:53 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
Go back and read everything again, once you have caught up with the debate it might all become clearer.
And yes, I do know that you understand it all really and are just trying to see if you can upset someone but I am off to the Tory leadership thread, it is all a bit more convivial and coherent there.
Nope- that is about as disingenous reply as you could have come up with. Especially where you invited me to elaborate, and then make assertions you don't back up.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:58 - Jun 18 by sparks
Nope- that is about as disingenous reply as you could have come up with. Especially where you invited me to elaborate, and then make assertions you don't back up.
But I did, and for some stupid reason I came back to check. And of course all I saw was the same mime of a refusal to comprehend. Unless you want to go off and do a course in theology or philosophy this subject is done.
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 22:09 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
But I did, and for some stupid reason I came back to check. And of course all I saw was the same mime of a refusal to comprehend. Unless you want to go off and do a course in theology or philosophy this subject is done.
Oh dear.
Please explain where I am arguing with myself.
Please confirm whether you agree comparing rocks with people is a pointless exercise.
Please confirm whether you accept that belief is not a conscious choice.
You seem unwilling to address any actual concepts or points made, in preference for woolly word salad nonsense.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 16:18 - Jun 18 by WeWereZombies
A rock or a bicycle can be described as without knowledge of any God and it could be claimed on their behalf that they have no knowledge of any God. Human beings, however, are being disingenuous if they claim the same, a conscious decision to doubt what they have heard about God is almost certain to be involved.
As for the difference between a view and a belief - professionally you can 'take a view' when you have imperfect information but need to make a decision. In hindsight it may be the wrong decision but you made it without committing to certainty. However, if you have a belief you may not have perfect information, or any information, but that is less relevant as you will hold that belief until there is overwhelming reason to change it.
I think we do this watching football all the time, if we are not watching our team we pick out players and have the opinion that they will be game changers or weak links. As the game goes on we reassess those opinions and appreciate strengths and weaknesses that become apparent as the game progresses to form a view by full time. When we are watching our team and, to go back a few years, Pablo comes on as sub for example, he can be atrocious but as our favourite we believe he will pull a rabbit out of the hat to restore our faith in him.
I'm definitely a rock or a bicycle then, rather than a human. Can categorically say no one's ever shared any knowledge on the nature of any gods with me.
0
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 09:52 - Jun 19 with 3653 views
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 14:28 - Jun 17 by SpruceMoose
I'm sorry if it offends you, I'm sure many religious folk are decent. Until you do something they disapprove of.
Irrational beliefs should have no place in public policy debate.
Come on Sprucey, thats the same as you. As soon as someone has a different opinion to yours, you know how you react. Personally, live and let live. If a belief makes people happy; where is the problem?.
0
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 10:19 - Jun 19 with 3637 views
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 09:52 - Jun 19 by gazzer1999
Come on Sprucey, thats the same as you. As soon as someone has a different opinion to yours, you know how you react. Personally, live and let live. If a belief makes people happy; where is the problem?.
Google "US abortion laws" for a clear example of the harm that dogmatic beliefs can cause.
A religous belief can colour and inform a persons actions and interactions with others.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Would it bother you to have a PM who openly believed in God? on 21:26 - Jun 18 by Nthsuffolkblue
Haven't trawled through the thread so apologies if it has already been mentioned, but it does bother me that the OP (along with a significant number of upvoters) thinks that anyone who has any open belief in God should be shut out of the role of PM.
Just think about that for a moment.
Not about shutting anyone out - it bothers me that we're about to have an idiot as PM, but we should have the right to elect him as PM if that's what we're into. Same applies to the pious.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
