Love and Religion

[Ava Estelle]

You were promoting Huxley's ideas, and he most certainly was saying that both theists and atheists were actually agnostics but do not realise it.

Prove it, show me where he said that.

You also say that agnostics require proof. The combination of those positions is that theists and atheists require proof, even if they don't realise it.

Bullshit.

The analogy shows Huxley's ideas to be total poppycock, hence it is completely relevant. The proposal that ideas don't need to be disproved for them to be disregarded doesn't dissolve just because the word god is introduced into the mix.

Getting desperate here Lynx, you'll be bringing Father Christmas into it next.

In a situation where belief is a factor, it has to be looked at as if the observer were not affected by it otherwise the observer's own preconceptions prevent objective analysis.

If you say so, I've much more interesting things to do than trying to unravel your mind, or continue arguing over what you think people meant whilst totally disregarding what they said.

You and JP might be able to keep this bullshit up ad infinitum, but I can't be bothered, carry on without me.

[lynx]

Prove it, show me where he said that.

You also say that agnostics require proof. The combination of those positions is that theists and atheists require proof, even if they don't realise it.

Bullshit.

The analogy shows Huxley's ideas to be total poppycock, hence it is completely relevant. The proposal that ideas don't need to be disproved for them to be disregarded doesn't dissolve just because the word god is introduced into the mix.

Getting desperate here Lynx, you'll be bringing Father Christmas into it next.

In a situation where belief is a factor, it has to be looked at as if the observer were not affected by it otherwise the observer's own preconceptions prevent objective analysis.

If you say so, I've much more interesting things to do than trying to unravel your mind, or continue arguing over what you think people meant whilst totally disregarding what they said.

You and JP might be able to keep this bullshit up ad infinitum, but I can't be bothered, carry on without me.

Combination of ideas are part of logic, analogy and comparison are part of reasoned argument. If you can't follow those norms then you are probably right to give up, though I completely fail to understand why you have to take it so personally.

[JPaul]

You and JP might be able to keep this bullshit up ad infinitum, but I can't be bothered, carry on without me.

That's actually quite funny, I agreed with you in post 32, that relgious people could be considered agnostic. As could Atheists, because either one doesn't actually know the truth. I won't speak for Atheists, however as I said earlier any religion worth it's salt will accept, nay teach, that faith is at it's core.

Please see my last re the definition being important. See, your original position was that people don't know. Which you then changed to can't know. So you yourself switched definitions, which is nice.

The stomping off was good tho', nice touch.

[Ava Estelle]

That's actually quite funny, I agreed with you in post 32, that relgious people could be considered agnostic.

I'm sorry JP, I didn't mean anything detremental to you, it's just that you and Lynx seem to be able to argue for page after page after page until the original meaning is lost, and I can't be bothered. When someone starts to argue the meaning of what I was thinking, or inferring when my words have, I hope, been quite plain, I just don't see the point of continuing.

As to my position on this, I have tried throughout this thread to represent the original concept as laid down by Huxley, I understand the word has taken on different meanings and I have tried to put the reasons for this into perspective.

I'm not stomping off, I just can't be arsed.



If anyone wants to interpret this for themselves, here are some good places to start.

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...e/part_01.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...e/part_02.html

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

[JPaul]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

With all due respect you haven't maintained the same position. You started by saying that people were agnostic because they "didn't" know. Which changed to "couldn't" know. However as I explained already either is an acceptable use of the word. I also have no problem with either, again as I have made clear I am perfectly comfortable with faith being involved in the deal. Whether it be religion or atheism. That being the case it makes no odds to me whether something is unknown or unknowable.

With regard to whether something is unknowable, how do we know what is unknowable. We can say that something is currrently unknown, however at some time in the future it may become knowable, therefore it isn't unknowable, just unknown. Who knows.

[Ava Estelle]

... but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

With all due respect you haven't maintained the same position. You started by saying that people were agnostic because they "didn't" know. Which changed to "couldn't" know.

I think you're being a little picky there JP, whatever the words I used there my meaning was clear.

With regard to whether something is unknowable, how do we know what is unknowable. We can say that something is currrently unknown, however at some time in the future it may become knowable, therefore it isn't unknowable, just unknown. Who knows.

I can only give you Huxley's own words ...

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

[JPaul]

With all due respect you haven't maintained the same position. You started by saying that people were agnostic because they "didn't" know. Which changed to "couldn't" know.

I think you're being a little picky there JP, whatever the words I used there my meaning was clear.

But that's the difference between the 2 definitions, the pickiness. One means you don't know and one you can't know.

So you moved from one definition to the other. However like I said it doesn't change my position. I still take your point as being a sound one. I can see how one can argue that, in a religious sense, everyone is an agnostic. That means that it all boils down to faith.

Personally I prefer

to

[NeoTheOne]

Well what about 2 other religions like Hindu and Muslim , If one person from one religion falls in love with another person in another religion , and by falls in love i mean falls in love with the person for who he/she is , then should they be stopped from marrying each other

[bigboab]

Well what about 2 other religions like Hindu and Muslim , If one person from one religion falls in love with another person in another religion , and by falls in love i mean falls in love with the person for who he/she is , then should they be stopped from marrying each other

No.

[MagicNakor]

Well what about 2 other religions like Hindu and Muslim , If one person from one religion falls in love with another person in another religion , and by falls in love i mean falls in love with the person for who he/she is , then should they be stopped from marrying each other

I think you'll find that if two people really love each other, spiritual and/or political differences can be overcome, and are part of the reason they fell in love in the first place. "I love you, despite your beliefs" just doesn't sound right.