A question for agnostics

[tomdemaine]

Do unicorns exist?

[kerowo]

Only to test our faith.

[RoundGuy]

I don't know.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Do unicorns exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a unicorn?

[tomdemaine]

it's like a horse but with a horn. Also I think they can fly and shoot rainbows if I remember correctly.

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

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[revots33]

I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Do unicorns exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I know of, or have any reason to suspect.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm convinced that the idea of unicorns exists.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm convinced that the idea of unicorns exists.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it then? Someone mentioned something about a flying horse and 'shooting rainbows'. That doesn't sound like knowledge to me.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Do unicorns exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. I have faith in their existence.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible that unicorns exist, and it is possible they do not exist, but I have seen no evidence to convince me one way or the other.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm convinced that the idea of unicorns exists.

[/ QUOTE ]


Much as I am convinced that the idea of god exists. A lot of these people believe that unicorns themselves actually exist and have a wealth of "evidence" to back up that claim. Where do you stand on that issue?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm convinced that the idea of unicorns exists.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it then? Someone mentioned something about a flying horse and 'shooting rainbows'. That doesn't sound like knowledge to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US government has been hiding the existence of unicorns from us for decades. It's a conspiracy.

Now do you believe in them?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm convinced that the idea of unicorns exists.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it then? Someone mentioned something about a flying horse and 'shooting rainbows'. That doesn't sound like knowledge to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is the idea of unicorns? i dunno, maybe i should get one of those books.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[jogger08152]

No.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me teaching children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok try this. Are you 100% certain that you do not know?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, that isn't what he claimed was unknowable.

EDIT: Also, some of your unwarranted conclusions are a bit shocking coming from someone posting on a poker forum. DS would be ashamed. That is....unless this is some elaborate ploy, and you don't REALLY think that?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agnostics only please.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, that isn't what he claimed was unknowable.

EDIT: Also, some of your unwarranted conclusions are a bit shocking coming from someone posting on a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this please?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, that isn't what he claimed was unknowable.

EDIT: Also, some of your unwarranted conclusions are a bit shocking coming from someone posting on a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probability my man!

[tomdemaine]

Sorry I still don't understand.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me teaching children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How could you possibly come to this conclusion based on the discussion thus far?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean all explanations are equally likely and it is therefore simply a matter of opinion. None of the current laws or theories or explanations that science has to offer can be considered "knowing" in any certain way. They are simply far and away the most probable explanations...they could always prove to be wrong, though. Yet we don't consider Gravity Gnomes an equivalent 'opinion' to gravity.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agnostics only please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Thread too long.

They can. They might not. It's enough that they can. For now. If they do, they do. If they don't, glue a horn on a horse and prosletyize.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean all explanations are equally likely and it is therefore simply a matter of opinion. None of the current laws or theories or explanations that science has to offer can be considered "knowing" in any certain way. They are simply far and away the most probable explanations...they could always prove to be wrong, though. Yet we don't consider Gravity Gnomes an equivalent 'opinion' to gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just an atheist who hasn't been proven wrong yet.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me teaching children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How could you possibly come to this conclusion based on the discussion thus far?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it incorrect to do so?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean all explanations are equally likely and it is therefore simply a matter of opinion. None of the current laws or theories or explanations that science has to offer can be considered "knowing" in any certain way. They are simply far and away the most probable explanations...they could always prove to be wrong, though. Yet we don't consider Gravity Gnomes an equivalent 'opinion' to gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just an atheist who hasn't been proven wrong yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. I understand what the point of this thread is, and I don't disagree with you or your goal. I'm just taking issue with a few of the 'logical' steps you are making. There are non-fallacious ways to show me that I'm really just an atheist (which I wouldn't deny). Also, simple ways to show that I am really just an agnostic (which I also wouldn't deny). Its all fun with definitions.

[Duke]

The unicorn is a poor analogy for religion, and is a lot like Santa. Santa rules. Santa makes kids think that there is magic in the world during the years when it will benefit them to think that way.

And well, nobody over the age of about 10 thinks that unicorns or Santas exist. We don't have public policy determined in part by the acceptance of their existence. Kids won't grow up with a deep set belief that the world operates in a way that it does not because of Santa. They won't think that the world is 6,000 years old because of Santa. Hell, Santa might even get them a toy dinosaur.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean all explanations are equally likely and it is therefore simply a matter of opinion. None of the current laws or theories or explanations that science has to offer can be considered "knowing" in any certain way. They are simply far and away the most probable explanations...they could always prove to be wrong, though. Yet we don't consider Gravity Gnomes an equivalent 'opinion' to gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just an atheist who hasn't been proven wrong yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. I understand what the point of this thread is, and I don't disagree with you or your goal. I'm just taking issue with a few of the 'logical' steps you are making. There are non-fallacious ways to show me that I'm really just an atheist (which I wouldn't deny). Also, simple ways to show that I am really just an agnostic (which I also wouldn't deny). Its all fun with definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so here's where it gets more real. Why do most agnostics only flaunt their agnosticism with regards to god and not to unicorns or jedi or gandalf or something? Why do they not argue that we can't have a system of maths because somewhere out there 2+2 may equal 5?

Why do agnostics seem undermine and attack atheists providing an out for the religious? What is worse? Teaching a child that god doesn't exist or teaching a child that he 100% certainly does exist and is alway watching them and will punish them for certain natural biological functions?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
The unicorn is a poor analogy for religion, and is a lot like Santa. Santa rules. Santa makes kids think that there is magic in the world during the years when it will benefit them to think that way.

And well, nobody over the age of about 10 thinks that unicorns or Santas exist. We don't have public policy determined in part by the acceptance of their existence. Kids won't grow up with a deep set belief that the world operates in a way that it does not because of Santa. They won't think that the world is 6,000 years old because of Santa. Hell, Santa might even get them a toy dinosaur.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you should be more adamant about gods non existence than that of unicorns?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agnostics only please.

[/ QUOTE ]
No crashing the gate? Agnostics don't have to be einhornostics. Unicorns, no.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The unicorn is a poor analogy for religion, and is a lot like Santa. Santa rules. Santa makes kids think that there is magic in the world during the years when it will benefit them to think that way.

And well, nobody over the age of about 10 thinks that unicorns or Santas exist. We don't have public policy determined in part by the acceptance of their existence. Kids won't grow up with a deep set belief that the world operates in a way that it does not because of Santa. They won't think that the world is 6,000 years old because of Santa. Hell, Santa might even get them a toy dinosaur.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you should be more adamant about gods non existence than that of unicorns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. I'm not an agnostic. I'm definitely in the atheist camp, and it's not close. I just wanted to point out why the unicorn thing wasn't nearly as bad as the religion thing in a step-by-step manner for the rest of us.

I could change the first part of the sentence and have it come across as not attacking your point, but I'll leave it as first posted.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agnostics only please.

[/ QUOTE ]
No crashing the gate? Agnostics don't have to be einhornostics. Unicorns, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why might might it be possible that god exists but impossible that unicorns do?

[wiseheart]

My agnostic opinion,

I don't believe in unicorns, but that doesn't mean
that they don't exist in the world of a believer.
If that person believes in them, then they exist for
him or her. For all I know, they could exist in my world,
but I am blind to their appearance.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
My agnostic opinion,

I don't believe rape is good, but that doesn't mean
that it's not good in the world of a believer.
If that person thinks rape is good, then rape is good for him or her.
For all I know, rape could be good in my world, but I am blind to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My agnostic opinion,

I don't believe in unicorns, but that doesn't mean
that they don't exist in the world of a believer.
If that person believes in them, then they exist for
him or her. For all I know, they could exist in my world,
but I am blind to their appearance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he yells, "run, unicorn heading straight for you." Do you run? If you don't, do you get speared? Do you not get speared, yet your friend calls the ambulance, do you get in it?

How do you share your two worlds? Do you pretend to eat the non-pizza he passes you?

a puzzled, luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do unicorns exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. They popped up out of nothing for no reason. The fact we can't find any unicorn fossils is absolute proof they exist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean all explanations are equally likely and it is therefore simply a matter of opinion. None of the current laws or theories or explanations that science has to offer can be considered "knowing" in any certain way. They are simply far and away the most probable explanations...they could always prove to be wrong, though. Yet we don't consider Gravity Gnomes an equivalent 'opinion' to gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just an atheist who hasn't been proven wrong yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. I understand what the point of this thread is, and I don't disagree with you or your goal. I'm just taking issue with a few of the 'logical' steps you are making. There are non-fallacious ways to show me that I'm really just an atheist (which I wouldn't deny). Also, simple ways to show that I am really just an agnostic (which I also wouldn't deny). Its all fun with definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so here's where it gets more real. Why do most agnostics only flaunt their agnosticism with regards to god and not to unicorns or jedi or gandalf or something? Why do they not argue that we can't have a system of maths because somewhere out there 2+2 may equal 5?

Why do agnostics seem undermine and attack atheists providing an out for the religious? What is worse? Teaching a child that god doesn't exist or teaching a child that he 100% certainly does exist and is alway watching them and will punish them for certain natural biological functions?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are wrong. Either that, or no one cares about unicorns. But yes, if you want me to agree they are being inconsistent and are wrong, I will.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do unicorns exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. They popped up out of nothing for no reason. The fact we can't find any unicorn fossils is absolute proof they exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, good vote for worst analogy of the month. You aren't denying life exists, are you?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I still don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean all explanations are equally likely and it is therefore simply a matter of opinion. None of the current laws or theories or explanations that science has to offer can be considered "knowing" in any certain way. They are simply far and away the most probable explanations...they could always prove to be wrong, though. Yet we don't consider Gravity Gnomes an equivalent 'opinion' to gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just an atheist who hasn't been proven wrong yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. I understand what the point of this thread is, and I don't disagree with you or your goal. I'm just taking issue with a few of the 'logical' steps you are making. There are non-fallacious ways to show me that I'm really just an atheist (which I wouldn't deny). Also, simple ways to show that I am really just an agnostic (which I also wouldn't deny). Its all fun with definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so here's where it gets more real. Why do most agnostics only flaunt their agnosticism with regards to god and not to unicorns or jedi or gandalf or something? Why do they not argue that we can't have a system of maths because somewhere out there 2+2 may equal 5?

Why do agnostics seem undermine and attack atheists providing an out for the religious? What is worse? Teaching a child that god doesn't exist or teaching a child that he 100% certainly does exist and is alway watching them and will punish them for certain natural biological functions?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are wrong. Either that, or no one cares about unicorns. But yes, if you want me to agree they are being inconsistent and are wrong, I will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's a start /images/graemlins/smile.gif Would you agree with me that agnosticism as it is most commonly "practiced" is merely intellectual cowardice? (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that)

[vhawk01]

Poker answer? It depends. Words are just words, and I tend to use whichever words will convey the meaning I have in mind to my particular audience. So, sometimes (10%, say) I call myself an agnostic. The rest, an atheist. Why do I call myself an agnostic? I can assure you it isn't because of cowardice. I have gone out on way too many limbs and been wrong far too many times, on these forums alone, to be worried about any possible reaction. I'm just trying to convey the right meaning. If the person is going to hear atheist and think "ZOMG this idiot thinks it is 100% impossible that any God could exist!" I'm not going to call myself an atheist. Because that doesn't describe my position. However, if I think the person I'm talking to is going to think "ZOMG an agnostic, that means he really basically believes in God or some kind of Spirit Power he just doesn't like church!" I'm not going to call myself an agnostic, because that doesn't describe my position.

This is a very frustrating issue for me, though. The shifting definitions in different contexts allow for a LOT of misunderstanding, honest and dishonest alike. I despise that. I don't care WHAT I call myself, I just wish we could all get together and come up with hard and fast definitions for what these words mean (and the dictionary does not suffice: if you asked people to define these terms, they would give a wide range and only sometimes agree with the dictionary, and I'm shooting for understanding) then I will agree to call myself whatever we agree upon, that describes my position.

But sure, some agnostics are probably cowards.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker answer? It depends. Words are just words, and I tend to use whichever words will convey the meaning I have in mind to my particular audience. So, sometimes (10%, say) I call myself an agnostic. The rest, an atheist. Why do I call myself an agnostic? I can assure you it isn't because of cowardice. I have gone out on way too many limbs and been wrong far too many times, on these forums alone, to be worried about any possible reaction. I'm just trying to convey the right meaning. If the person is going to hear atheist and think "ZOMG this idiot thinks it is 100% impossible that any God could exist!" I'm not going to call myself an atheist. Because that doesn't describe my position. However, if I think the person I'm talking to is going to think "ZOMG an agnostic, that means he really basically believes in God or some kind of Spirit Power he just doesn't like church!" I'm not going to call myself an agnostic, because that doesn't describe my position.

This is a very frustrating issue for me, though. The shifting definitions in different contexts allow for a LOT of misunderstanding, honest and dishonest alike. I despise that. I don't care WHAT I call myself, I just wish we could all get together and come up with hard and fast definitions for what these words mean (and the dictionary does not suffice: if you asked people to define these terms, they would give a wide range and only sometimes agree with the dictionary, and I'm shooting for understanding) then I will agree to call myself whatever we agree upon, that describes my position.

But sure, some agnostics are probably cowards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your poker answer and respect your position. It's the "agnostics" who undermine atheists while never confronting the religious that really make me feel angry. Also I think I'd change some to the majority if not most.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker answer? It depends. Words are just words, and I tend to use whichever words will convey the meaning I have in mind to my particular audience. So, sometimes (10%, say) I call myself an agnostic. The rest, an atheist. Why do I call myself an agnostic? I can assure you it isn't because of cowardice. I have gone out on way too many limbs and been wrong far too many times, on these forums alone, to be worried about any possible reaction. I'm just trying to convey the right meaning. If the person is going to hear atheist and think "ZOMG this idiot thinks it is 100% impossible that any God could exist!" I'm not going to call myself an atheist. Because that doesn't describe my position. However, if I think the person I'm talking to is going to think "ZOMG an agnostic, that means he really basically believes in God or some kind of Spirit Power he just doesn't like church!" I'm not going to call myself an agnostic, because that doesn't describe my position.

This is a very frustrating issue for me, though. The shifting definitions in different contexts allow for a LOT of misunderstanding, honest and dishonest alike. I despise that. I don't care WHAT I call myself, I just wish we could all get together and come up with hard and fast definitions for what these words mean (and the dictionary does not suffice: if you asked people to define these terms, they would give a wide range and only sometimes agree with the dictionary, and I'm shooting for understanding) then I will agree to call myself whatever we agree upon, that describes my position.

But sure, some agnostics are probably cowards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your poker answer and respect your position. It's the "agnostics" who undermine atheists while never confronting the religious that really make me feel angry. Also I think I'd change some to the majority if not most.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an optimist. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm an optimist. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maintaining a belief contrary to the evidence, interesting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tomdemaine]

Also your answer to
[ QUOTE ]
What is worse? Teaching a child that god doesn't exist (with 100% certainty) or teaching a child that he 100% certainly does exist and is alway watching them and will punish them for certain natural biological functions?

[/ QUOTE ]

is implied but not explicit. I'd like to press you for a direct answer.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My agnostic opinion,

I don't believe rape is good, but that doesn't mean
that it's not good in the world of a believer.
If that person thinks rape is good, then rape is good for him or her.
For all I know, rape could be good in my world, but I am blind to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes you look retarded and detracts from any kind of point you thought you were making. Do you see why?

[tomdemaine]

No I don't, could you please explain why?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Also your answer to
[ QUOTE ]
What is worse? Teaching a child that god doesn't exist (with 100% certainty) or teaching a child that he 100% certainly does exist and is alway watching them and will punish them for certain natural biological functions?

[/ QUOTE ]

is implied but not explicit. I'd like to press you for a direct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not positive I can answer that question without HEAVILY introducing my own bias, since I find the message of the Christian God (that we are inherently sinful and deserving of Hell) to be really, really abhorrent. I think there are a lot of problems with either one of these extreme positions, though, and I would hesitate to choose which one was 'better'('worse').

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
Do unicorns exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? Or at least I don't unless you force me to worship them.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know you don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you retract your previous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's not knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd have no problem with me teaching children that unicorns exist and will come and save them in times of trouble. Since it's not knowable one way or the other it's clearly a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as the parents consent, sure.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My agnostic opinion,

I don't believe rape is good, but that doesn't mean
that it's not good in the world of a believer.
If that person thinks rape is good, then rape is good for him or her.
For all I know, rape could be good in my world, but I am blind to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt believing in unicorns harms others.

[AncientPC]

I don't know.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker answer? It depends. Words are just words, and I tend to use whichever words will convey the meaning I have in mind to my particular audience. So, sometimes (10%, say) I call myself an agnostic. The rest, an atheist. Why do I call myself an agnostic? I can assure you it isn't because of cowardice. I have gone out on way too many limbs and been wrong far too many times, on these forums alone, to be worried about any possible reaction. I'm just trying to convey the right meaning. If the person is going to hear atheist and think "ZOMG this idiot thinks it is 100% impossible that any God could exist!" I'm not going to call myself an atheist. Because that doesn't describe my position. However, if I think the person I'm talking to is going to think "ZOMG an agnostic, that means he really basically believes in God or some kind of Spirit Power he just doesn't like church!" I'm not going to call myself an agnostic, because that doesn't describe my position.

This is a very frustrating issue for me, though. The shifting definitions in different contexts allow for a LOT of misunderstanding, honest and dishonest alike. I despise that. I don't care WHAT I call myself, I just wish we could all get together and come up with hard and fast definitions for what these words mean (and the dictionary does not suffice: if you asked people to define these terms, they would give a wide range and only sometimes agree with the dictionary, and I'm shooting for understanding) then I will agree to call myself whatever we agree upon, that describes my position.

But sure, some agnostics are probably cowards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your poker answer and respect your position. It's the "agnostics" who undermine atheists while never confronting the religious that really make me feel angry. Also I think I'd change some to the majority if not most.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also like vhawk's answer. In my case, I am either an agnostic or Diest depending on who I'm talking to IRL. I do not consider myself "part-atheist", because I have yet to be convinced 100% that God does not exist.

I do "confront" my very Christian wife all the time.

And, why do you consider it "intellectual cowardice" to not take a firm stand on something which, as of this moment, is essentially unknowable?

[revots33]

I think the line between agnostics and athiests is much blurrier than you think. Yes most agnostics are basically athiests - it's not like we are expecting proof of god's existence to come along any day now.

BUT... let's say evidence presents itself... as in a spirit comes along and starts raising dead bodies out of their graves, etc. Obviously this is almost certainly never going to happen, but if it did even most athiests would change their position. An agnostic is basically saying he's change his position if such (highly unlikely) evidence came along.

And yes if I was presented with proof real unicorns existed I'd be stupid to continue to disbelieve in them. Just as I'd be stupid to believe in them with zero evidence.

I think the 2 words are more semantics than anything else. If anything I'd say most agnostics are basically athiests who don't want to say they 100% know something that can't be proven either way. To an agnostic god is about as likely as a unicorn.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the line between agnostics and athiests is much blurrier than you think. Yes most agnostics are basically athiests - it's not like we are expecting proof of god's existence to come along any day now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. In the simplest terms possible, I think it breaks down like this:

Atheist: God does not exist
Agnostic: God might exist
Theist: God does exist

I don't think the lines are at all blurred. What am I missing?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. In the simplest terms possible, I think it breaks down like this:

Atheist: God does not exist
Agnostic: God might exist
Theist: God does exist

I don't think the lines are at all blurred. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there are variations of agnosticism (wikipedia outlines some of them), but I think the issue is the word "might". Most agnostics who say god "might" exist are simply saying it is impossible to prove definitively that he does not exist. Either it is completely unknowable to humans and therefore not really worth pondering, or else the probability is so tiny that they are for all intents athiests who are unwilling to say they KNOW god doesn't exist, since it is impossible to provide evidence that an unprovable being does not exist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the line between agnostics and athiests is much blurrier than you think. Yes most agnostics are basically athiests - it's not like we are expecting proof of god's existence to come along any day now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. In the simplest terms possible, I think it breaks down like this:

Atheist: God does not exist
Agnostic: God might exist
Theist: God does exist

I don't think the lines are at all blurred. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the common misconception, and what you are 'missing' is that, under this paradigm, atheists don't really exist. Or at least, they are a microscopic subset of those who call themselves atheists. I'd lay good money that 9 out of 10 self-identified atheists would disagree with the following statement:

I am 100% sure no God exists or can exist.

So, does this mean they are unsure if God exists? I guess. They don't believe in Him, but they wouldn't say he "doesn't exist for sure." So, how is this group different from your agnostic group?

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
Do unicorns exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am one

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the line between agnostics and athiests is much blurrier than you think. Yes most agnostics are basically athiests - it's not like we are expecting proof of god's existence to come along any day now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. In the simplest terms possible, I think it breaks down like this:

Atheist: God does not exist
Agnostic: God might exist
Theist: God does exist

I don't think the lines are at all blurred. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the common misconception, and what you are 'missing' is that, under this paradigm, atheists don't really exist. Or at least, they are a microscopic subset of those who call themselves atheists. I'd lay good money that 9 out of 10 self-identified atheists would disagree with the following statement:

I am 100% sure no God exists or can exist.

So, does this mean they are unsure if God exists? I guess. They don't believe in Him, but they wouldn't say he "doesn't exist for sure." So, how is this group different from your agnostic group?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG I LOVE U, UR MY HERO, GODLESS WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd lay good money that 9 out of 10 self-identified atheists would disagree with the following statement:

I am 100% sure no God exists or can exist.

So, does this mean they are unsure if God exists? I guess. They don't believe in Him, but they wouldn't say he "doesn't exist for sure." So, how is this group different from your agnostic group?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't answer your question, because I can't speak for atheists. However, it is my opinion that a true atheist would be nearly as impossible to convince to change their opinion as a true theist. Agnostics seem to be the most open-minded of the bunch.

I believe most atheists "know" there is no God. Even if they say they could be convinced otherwise. Theists "know" there is a God, and believe they have plenty of evidence to prove it. Agnostics, in my opinion, have the right answer -- we don't know s**t, and we never will.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't answer your question, because I can't speak for atheists. However, it is my opinion that a true atheist would be nearly as impossible to convince to change their opinion as a true theist. Agnostics seem to be the most open-minded of the bunch.

I believe most atheists "know" there is no God. Even if they say they could be convinced otherwise. Theists "know" there is a God, and believe they have plenty of evidence to prove it. Agnostics, in my opinion, have the right answer -- we don't know s**t, and we never will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Skipping over the agnostic definition ( that's only one use of it and not a good one), the main issue isn't the existence of a god(s) which is obviously unknowable but in the belief in one. A lot of atheists would be very hard to convert to theism just on parsimony related grounds alone- there will always be simpler explanations for whatever observation that is suggested for a theistic explanation.

luckyme

[Lestat]

I'm not sure, but I have no reason to believe one does. How about you?

[jogger08152]

They might exist. No is just shorthand for the actual probability, which merely approaches no. The cosmos might surprise us with a total (worldwide) solar eclipse tomorrow. If you ask me if that'll happen though, I'll say no there too.

What I'm kinda curious about is: is everybody (besides me, apparently) so uptight about the vanishingly small prospect that they might be wrong, that they can't say "No, unicorns don't exist" for fear one might show up?

Or do you guys just see some sort of parallel I don't between the probability of the existence unicorns and that of God, and are consequently afraid that asserting the nonexistence of unicorns would oblige you to assert the nonexistence of God also?

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm kinda curious about is: is everybody (besides me, apparently) so uptight about the vanishingly small prospect that they might be wrong, that they can't say "No, unicorns don't exist" for fear one might show up?

Or do you guys just see some sort of parallel I don't between the probability of the existence unicorns and that of God, and are consequently afraid that asserting the nonexistence of unicorns would oblige you to assert the nonexistence of God also?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you. We can't know anything for certain if we are philosophic. That doesn't mean that in practical terms we can't say for sure that the chair is in front of me and that pink unicorns don't exist. We would say so in real life in some casual conversation. Here in this forum however I bet people are taking the philosophical route of answering because, after all, this is 'science, math and philosophy".

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
the main issue isn't the existence of a god(s) which is obviously unknowable but in the belief in one.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, it would look like this:

Atheist: I don't believe there is a God
Agnostic 1:I don't believe there is a God, but it is possible there is
Agnostic 2: I believe there is a God, but it is possible there isn't
Theist: I believe there is a God

In which case, revots is correct that there is a very blurry line between atheists and agnostics (and agnostics and theists, for that matter).

I have a problem with this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd lay good money that 9 out of 10 self-identified atheists would disagree with the following statement:

I am 100% sure no God exists or can exist.

So, does this mean they are unsure if God exists? I guess. They don't believe in Him, but they wouldn't say he "doesn't exist for sure." So, how is this group different from your agnostic group?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't answer your question, because I can't speak for atheists. However, it is my opinion that a true atheist would be nearly as impossible to convince to change their opinion as a true theist. Agnostics seem to be the most open-minded of the bunch.

I believe most atheists "know" there is no God. Even if they say they could be convinced otherwise. Theists "know" there is a God, and believe they have plenty of evidence to prove it. Agnostics, in my opinion, have the right answer -- we don't know s**t, and we never will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with your first paragraph, strenuously disagree with your second, but I admit, I don't know how I'd go about proving it to you. I guess we'd have to do some extensive polling, and thats not something I'm interested in doing. Allow me to say, however, that my personal experience has been that very, very few atheists "know" there is no God in the sense that you mean here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
They might exist. No is just shorthand for the actual probability, which merely approaches no. The cosmos might surprise us with a total (worldwide) solar eclipse tomorrow. If you ask me if that'll happen though, I'll say no there too.

What I'm kinda curious about is: is everybody (besides me, apparently) so uptight about the vanishingly small prospect that they might be wrong, that they can't say "No, unicorns don't exist" for fear one might show up?

Or do you guys just see some sort of parallel I don't between the probability of the existence unicorns and that of God, and are consequently afraid that asserting the nonexistence of unicorns would oblige you to assert the nonexistence of God also?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. I'm not worried about the chance I'm wrong at all, I'm worried about the chance that the moron I'm talking to is going to go into a 5 minute speech about how I'm an idiot because no one can really KNOW there aren't unicorns. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I'd just as soon save that time so I try to cut him off.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the main issue isn't the existence of a god(s) which is obviously unknowable but in the belief in one.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, it would look like this:

Atheist: I don't believe there is a God
Agnostic 1:I don't believe there is a God, but it is possible there is
Agnostic 2: I believe there is a God, but it is possible there isn't
Theist: I believe there is a God

In which case, revots is correct that there is a very blurry line between atheists and agnostics (and agnostics and theists, for that matter).

I have a problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Join the club! We have a thread about this once a month or so, and even quibbling amongst the atheists, we never seem to find any common consensus on what we want the words to mean. Now try convincing people who spend 30 minutes of their entire life thinking about religion/atheism/agnosticism to use our definitions.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't work either. How do you know you're seeing the chair? Could you be asleep and dreaming of seeing a chair?

Edit: point being, criticizing my inexact "no" on the basis that this is SMP makes little sense if the critical post itself fails to live up to its own standards.

Also: there are still no unicorns.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't work either. How do you know you're seeing the chair? Could you be asleep and dreaming of seeing a chair?

Edit: point being, criticizing my inexact "no" on the basis that this is SMP makes little sense if the critical post itself fails to live up to its own standards.

Also: there are still no unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't criticize your post for failing to live up to SMP standards, where did you get that? I said that people here are saying "we can't know for sure, I don't know" about unicorns which they probably wouldn't be saying on the streets because in practical terms the answer is 'no' but in philosophical terms people might go further.

I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying here. You say we could be asleep and dreaming the chair infront of us. That's exactly my point, we can't trust our senses and therefore anything that we feel "real" or "true" comes through our senses and if those senses don't depict the reality truthfully then we can never be certain about anything.

Naturally, this is only a philosophical question and has little bearing on practical life. This is ontology and if you want a more eloquent or sophisticated answer read the great philosophers. I certainly don't have the skills or knowledge to explain the fine ontological arguments here in English.

No need to get riled up, "son". I wasn't criticizing you in any way.

[AlexM]

Currently? And on Earth? Almost certainly not.

Now if you're opening the question to the distant past or other planes of existence, I have no frickin clue. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't work either. How do you know you're seeing the chair? Could you be asleep and dreaming of seeing a chair?

Edit: point being, criticizing my inexact "no" on the basis that this is SMP makes little sense if the critical post itself fails to live up to its own standards.

Also: there are still no unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying here. You say we could be asleep and dreaming the chair infront of us. That's exactly my point, we can't trust our senses and therefore anything that we feel "real" or "true" comes through our senses and if those senses don't depict the reality truthfully then we can never be certain about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly my point: yes, we can.

Just as there are no unicorns, there is no evil demon tricking us by feeding us false sensory information.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't work either. How do you know you're seeing the chair? Could you be asleep and dreaming of seeing a chair?

Edit: point being, criticizing my inexact "no" on the basis that this is SMP makes little sense if the critical post itself fails to live up to its own standards.

Also: there are still no unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying here. You say we could be asleep and dreaming the chair infront of us. That's exactly my point, we can't trust our senses and therefore anything that we feel "real" or "true" comes through our senses and if those senses don't depict the reality truthfully then we can never be certain about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly my point: yes, we can.

Just as there are no unicorns, there is no evil demon tricking us by feeding us false sensory information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, I could have sworn the line on the left was longer than the line on the right. Are my senses correct, or is the book telling me the truth, and they are really the same length? I could get out a ruler but why add a THIRD opinion into this already muddled affair?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the "agnostics" who undermine atheists while never confronting the religious that really make me feel angry.

[/ QUOTE ]
For heaven's sake (no pun intended) why? Have you ever met an atheist whose happiness will be in the slightest bit diminished by conversion to theism? Now how about the reverse?

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't work either. How do you know you're seeing the chair? Could you be asleep and dreaming of seeing a chair?

Edit: point being, criticizing my inexact "no" on the basis that this is SMP makes little sense if the critical post itself fails to live up to its own standards.

Also: there are still no unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying here. You say we could be asleep and dreaming the chair infront of us. That's exactly my point, we can't trust our senses and therefore anything that we feel "real" or "true" comes through our senses and if those senses don't depict the reality truthfully then we can never be certain about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly my point: yes, we can.

Just as there are no unicorns, there is no evil demon tricking us by feeding us false sensory information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think you're way too optimistic about our ability to sense the world correctly. What about all the scitsophrenics, do they sense the world "correctly"? Can we really see the world how it is and not be prisoned by our minds? No we can't. In everyday life there's no point questioning everything we touch, feel or see etc. but we can't be hundred percent sure of our senses. If you think we can, then you're basing that assumption on faith. We are just humans. How the hell can we say for sure that there isn't something beyond our abilities?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well basically if we want to be as precise and careful as possible we can't for example say for sure that "I know there's a chair infront of me" if there is one because theoretically your senses might betray you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rephrase please. You're in SMP now, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. I was being lazy.

Replace "if there is one" with "if I see an object which is defined as a chair". There are tons of better ways of saying what I'm trying to say but I don't have the energy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't work either. How do you know you're seeing the chair? Could you be asleep and dreaming of seeing a chair?

Edit: point being, criticizing my inexact "no" on the basis that this is SMP makes little sense if the critical post itself fails to live up to its own standards.

Also: there are still no unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying here. You say we could be asleep and dreaming the chair infront of us. That's exactly my point, we can't trust our senses and therefore anything that we feel "real" or "true" comes through our senses and if those senses don't depict the reality truthfully then we can never be certain about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly my point: yes, we can.

Just as there are no unicorns, there is no evil demon tricking us by feeding us false sensory information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, I could have sworn the line on the left was longer than the line on the right. Are my senses correct, or is the book telling me the truth, and they are really the same length? I could get out a ruler but why add a THIRD opinion into this already muddled affair?

[/ QUOTE ]
You got me: there are unicorns after all.

[jogger08152]

I wonder what you mean by "prisoned by our minds". I find I very much like the view.

As to schizophrenics, I don't know how they perceive the world. Or at least, we don't think so. I do think they imagine some things that are not there. And so do I. And me. Me too. So I guess we all do.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what you mean by "prisoned by our minds". I find I very much like the view.

As to schizophrenics, I don't know how they perceive the world. Or at least, we don't think so. I do think they imagine some things that are not there. And so do I. And me. Me too. So I guess we all do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that we like "our prison" doesn't mean that we aren't in one. It's a nice prison, it has evolved to serve our needs but it's a prison nevertheless. And like you admitted (good joke by the way, I laughed), our view of the world is very subjective after all. That's all I'm saying. To say that we humans with our abilites can for sure competely understand the "real, concrete" world around us is based on faith and nothing else. Therefore we must be agnostics towards everything because we are after all just humans. This has little or no effect to our everyday lives but in a philosophical, ontological sense agnosticism is the way to go if we admit that we can only live and see and think through our human minds and senses. And why wouldn't we admit that?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what you mean by "prisoned by our minds". I find I very much like the view.

As to schizophrenics, I don't know how they perceive the world. Or at least, we don't think so. I do think they imagine some things that are not there. And so do I. And me. Me too. So I guess we all do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that we like "our prison" doesn't mean that we aren't in one. It's a nice prison, it has evolved to serve our needs but it's a prison nevertheless. And like you admitted (good joke by the way, I laughed), our view of the world is very subjective after all. That's all I'm saying. To say that we humans with our abilites can for sure competely understand the "real, concrete" world around us is based on faith and nothing else. Therefore we must be agnostics towards everything because we are after all just humans. This has little or no effect to our everyday lives but in a philosophical, ontological sense agnosticism is the way to go if we admit that we can only live and see and think through our human minds and senses. And why wouldn't we admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a confession to make: my unicorn position stems from my belief that DesCartes' epistemology is worth about four seconds' conversation.

"Can we know anything absolutely?"
"Nope (with a very few exceptions, cogito ergo yadda yadda). Why, does it matter?"
"Nope."
"Okay."

Spending more time than this will have you giving lengthy, non-useful answers to questions like, "Do unicorns exist?". Of course they exist: in statue form. Perhaps they exist in reality too, blending into the deep sylvan woods, allowing their gossamer manes to be touched only by the gentle hands of the most beautiful and innocent of maidens.

Maybe. However, my time is finite (I think; certainly it's possible that I alone among all mortals - assuming you guys exist at all - will live forever (and assuming the term "mortal" would apply if death is not my destiny)), so I prefer to offer the (remarkably accurate) shortcut of saying "nope", and risking the chance that I'll be proven wrong someday, but gaining invaluable seconds of useful life in return.

Why? 'Cause it's +EV.

For those who tend to become entangled in the circumlocutions and embedded parentheses of omni-agnosticism, allow me to refer you to Sklansky's "Google vs. Googleplex" post, and to simply suggest that anything in the B or C range is well worth a "nope".

Throw off the tyrrany of useless epistemiology. Your life will improve if you do.

Best regards,
Jogger

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what you mean by "prisoned by our minds". I find I very much like the view.

As to schizophrenics, I don't know how they perceive the world. Or at least, we don't think so. I do think they imagine some things that are not there. And so do I. And me. Me too. So I guess we all do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that we like "our prison" doesn't mean that we aren't in one. It's a nice prison, it has evolved to serve our needs but it's a prison nevertheless. And like you admitted (good joke by the way, I laughed), our view of the world is very subjective after all. That's all I'm saying. To say that we humans with our abilites can for sure competely understand the "real, concrete" world around us is based on faith and nothing else. Therefore we must be agnostics towards everything because we are after all just humans. This has little or no effect to our everyday lives but in a philosophical, ontological sense agnosticism is the way to go if we admit that we can only live and see and think through our human minds and senses. And why wouldn't we admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a confession to make: my unicorn position stems from my belief that DesCartes' epistemology is worth about four seconds' conversation.

"Can we know anything absolutely?"
"Nope (with a very few exceptions, cogito ergo yadda yadda). Why, does it matter?"
"Nope."
"Okay."

Spending more time than this will have you giving lengthy, non-useful answers to questions like, "Do unicorns exist?". Of course they exist: in statue form. Perhaps they exist in reality too, blending into the deep sylvan woods, allowing their gossamer manes to be touched only by the gentle hands of the most beautiful and innocent of maidens.

Maybe. However, my time is finite (I think; certainly it's possible that I alone among all mortals - assuming you guys exist at all - will live forever (and assuming the term "mortal" would apply if death is not my destiny)), so I prefer to offer the (remarkably accurate) shortcut of saying "nope", and risking the chance that I'll be proven wrong someday, but gaining invaluable seconds of useful life in return.

Why? 'Cause it's +EV.

For those who tend to become entangled in the circumlocutions and embedded parentheses of omni-agnosticism, allow me to refer you to Sklansky's "Google vs. Googleplex" post, and to simply suggest that anything in the B or C range is well worth a "nope".

Throw off the tyrrany of useless epistemiology. Your life will improve if you do.

Best regards,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

So we basically agree about everything. You might say that epistemology/ontology isn't useful at all. Well, I basically agree. Like I've said many times before this has no effect on our everyday lives. I don't spend my time dwelling on this. I'm not "tyrannized" by epistemology.

Just because it's abstract and time consuming and unproductive doesn't mean it's not true. We live our lives the way you mentioned like we should - why be so hostile against few minutes of playing with thoughts?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to think unicorns exist but if presented with evidence to the contrary I'm willing to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.google.com/search?q=books+abo...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=books+about+unicorns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm convinced that the idea of unicorns exists.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it then? Someone mentioned something about a flying horse and 'shooting rainbows'. That doesn't sound like knowledge to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US government has been hiding the existence of unicorns from us for decades. It's a conspiracy.

Now do you believe in them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gold

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what you mean by "prisoned by our minds". I find I very much like the view.

As to schizophrenics, I don't know how they perceive the world. Or at least, we don't think so. I do think they imagine some things that are not there. And so do I. And me. Me too. So I guess we all do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that we like "our prison" doesn't mean that we aren't in one. It's a nice prison, it has evolved to serve our needs but it's a prison nevertheless. And like you admitted (good joke by the way, I laughed), our view of the world is very subjective after all. That's all I'm saying. To say that we humans with our abilites can for sure competely understand the "real, concrete" world around us is based on faith and nothing else. Therefore we must be agnostics towards everything because we are after all just humans. This has little or no effect to our everyday lives but in a philosophical, ontological sense agnosticism is the way to go if we admit that we can only live and see and think through our human minds and senses. And why wouldn't we admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a confession to make: my unicorn position stems from my belief that DesCartes' epistemology is worth about four seconds' conversation.

"Can we know anything absolutely?"
"Nope (with a very few exceptions, cogito ergo yadda yadda). Why, does it matter?"
"Nope."
"Okay."

Spending more time than this will have you giving lengthy, non-useful answers to questions like, "Do unicorns exist?". Of course they exist: in statue form. Perhaps they exist in reality too, blending into the deep sylvan woods, allowing their gossamer manes to be touched only by the gentle hands of the most beautiful and innocent of maidens.

Maybe. However, my time is finite (I think; certainly it's possible that I alone among all mortals - assuming you guys exist at all - will live forever (and assuming the term "mortal" would apply if death is not my destiny)), so I prefer to offer the (remarkably accurate) shortcut of saying "nope", and risking the chance that I'll be proven wrong someday, but gaining invaluable seconds of useful life in return.

Why? 'Cause it's +EV.

For those who tend to become entangled in the circumlocutions and embedded parentheses of omni-agnosticism, allow me to refer you to Sklansky's "Google vs. Googleplex" post, and to simply suggest that anything in the B or C range is well worth a "nope".

Throw off the tyrrany of useless epistemiology. Your life will improve if you do.

Best regards,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

So we basically agree about everything. You might say that epistemology/ontology isn't useful at all. Well, I basically agree. Like I've said many times before this has no effect on our everyday lives. I don't spend my time dwelling on this. I'm not "tyrannized" by epistemology.

Just because it's abstract and time consuming and unproductive doesn't mean it's not true. We live our lives the way you mentioned like we should - why be so hostile against few minutes of playing with thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think epistemology is useless as a discipline; I'm just unthrilled with Cartesian nittiness. (And even that's not totally true; the very first guy to succicinctly write "cogito ergo sum" does deserve at least a few cool points.)

Having said that, I also don't object to a few minutes' thought... as long as you recognize that "no" is a better (not more correct; better) answer than "It is possible that unicorns exist, though I've seen no evidence of it and I believe the likelihood is quite low" to the question of whether unicorns exist.

This discussion, btw, is why I responded to the OP in the first place, so thanks for bringing it up.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think epistemology is useless as a discipline; I'm just unthrilled with Cartesian nittiness. (And even that's not totally true; the very first guy to succicinctly write "cogito ergo sum" does deserve at least a few cool points.)

Having said that, I also don't object to a few minutes' thought... as long as you recognize that "no" is a better (not more correct; better) answer than "It is possible that unicorns exist, though I've seen no evidence of it and I believe the likelihood is quite low" to the question of whether unicorns exist.

This discussion, btw, is why I responded to the OP in the first place, so thanks for bringing it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this was a good topic to bring up so kudos to you.

I get that you're saying that "no" is a better way of answering the question than the longer more nuanced answer. I agree with you again partly. This is what I've been saying all along - if a person came to you on the street I would answer "no". I would first answer "no" everywhere else except in a philosophical discussion.

This is my point. I don't think it's better to say "no" in a philosophical setting. If we don't use epistemologic arguments when in that situation, when do we bring them up? Probably never. You said "cogito ergo sum" deserves at least a few cool points for its insight and I agree and therefore it'd be uncool to abandon using epistemologic nuances in a philosophical discussion.

"Cartesian nittiness" is indeed impractical and I understand your frustration with it. "No" is a more practical and in your words better answer anywhere in the real practical world. This forum is not real world. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jogger08152]

I hear you. I like the pragmatic side of things - I wouldn't have fit in (philosophically) in classical Greece, except maybe with Thales, if the olive press monopoly fable isn't apocryphal - and I think taking a similar approach to philosophy often makes quite a bit of sense. An occasional sanity check can help us avoid getting lost in the shadows of Plato's cave, I think.