Gisteron

Jestor wrote: Why do you and Gisteron often questions others beliefs, but put not theories of your own out for inspection...

Do you have your own theories?

Or just science?

Everything we say and every claim we make is subject to inspection and inquiry. When asked, we will respond and explain where we are coming from. We will never say that this is a personal thing or that anyone ought come to our conclusion on their own. We will explain ourselves or admit faults in our reasoning and not insist on the correctness of our conclusions from that point onwards. Now, you may be asking why it is that there is only so little about what we say that can be criticized. We try and not co claim things we cannot back up. We don't have a lot of expertise in a lot of areas, so at the risk of being publicly humiliated for making absolutely asinine claims, we try and make as few as we can. This can seem like cowardice or like humility, or a combination of both.

Since you are using the word theory in the colloquial sense when I usually wouldn't, I will replace it with speculation instead and answer your question like this: Yes, we do have our own speculations, I'm sure. And we will voice them every now and again, emphasizing that this is but our own perspective that may be incorrect and based on false data. When we make positive claims however, we will at least have reference to some source we trust or try and have evidence of our own to show that would back those claims up. Again, on the one hand that renders our claims more resistant to negation, but on the other hand it also renders their number slim in comparison. But they are there.

And indeed, even if they weren't, that wouldn't exactly protect anyone else's claims from questioning by us. By that reasoning everybody who ever made a movie review must be a producer, scene designer, director, writer, effects artist and actor at the same time. My though on this is (see, there is one of my thoughts incoming), that this is an unreasonable standard.

scott777ab wrote: Ok that was quite an interesting read.

This was a google search on the word agnostic.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

So my next question is:
2nd Question: Do you consider yourself agnostic under that definition?

I ask because I no longer want to assume you believe this or that anymore. Plus the way you have always come off to me is as an atheist, but your last reply makes me question that.

Thank you for taking time with me to answer my question, and answering any in the future, if you do.

I can't really say that I qualify as an agnostic by that definition. I don't claim faith in any god, I do claim disbelief (those two are equivalent), but I don't claim belief in the opposite proposition. If one proposition is there is one or multiple gods, and the other is that there are no gods, to me this is equivalent to an even and odd amount of marbles in a jar. I don't claim either.

I do identify as both agnostic and an atheist, for the two are not mutually exclusive. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, an atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".
So, basically, to qualify as an atheist all one has to be is not be a theist. In order to qualify as an agnostic, one must not claim knowledge.
So technically I am both. For theism and atheism adress belief and lack of belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism adress knowledge and lack thereof. Thusly, one can be any combination of the two. Gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and agnostic atheist, and I know people from each category. I am an agnostic atheist.

Who is the "we" you repeateadly mention?

Khaos and myself since this is who Jestor meant. Should my impression of Khaos be incorrect or my response be not an appropriate or accurate enough estimate of his views, Khaos will surely correct me and I shall be more cautious when speaking on his behalf in the future.

I'd like to explor our differences. I think we have more in common than it appears.

I believe you said your're not here for spirituality as I am?

Gisteron (and Khaos, for this matter) - you are certainly well versed in the rules of argument and debate, and I respect that you strive to be accurate in your claims. When debating any topic, the material claims should always be supported with evidence and the evidence should always be sourced. It makes the entire discussion easier to follow for all involved and allows for a more specific line of questioning. In the end, we should all be able to agree on the most logical conclusion presented.

That being said, a debate of this nature only works when both sides respect and follow these guidelines. I believe some of the misunderstandings or animosity toward your posts and replies comes from the fact that not everyone here is interested in a formal debate. Others may have no idea they are in one. Some of us understand we are debating, but go about it all wrong.

As a debater, the goal is always to present the stronger argument based on sound logic and factual evidence while refuting the claims of your opponent, thus becoming the "winner". There is very little room for emotion Most conversations in this forum would not qualify as debates, and not everyone is interested in winning or losing. As a result, it seems that some get very defensive at any line of questioning.

I personally appreciate that you challenge certain statements as it makes me take a second look at the line of reasoning and whether I agree with you or not, I usually end up learning something along the way.

Just my two cents.

I do identify as both agnostic and an atheist, for the two are not mutually exclusive. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, an atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".
So, basically, to qualify as an atheist all one has to be is not be a theist. In order to qualify as an agnostic, one must not claim knowledge.
So technically I am both. For theism and atheism adress belief and lack of belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism adress knowledge and lack thereof. Thusly, one can be any combination of the two. Gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and agnostic atheist, and I know people from each category. I am an agnostic atheist.

Not many people understand this. It is refreshing to see someone who does.

Most conversations in this forum would not qualify as debates, and not everyone is interested in winning or losing.

Most conversations in this forum are popularity contests where the goal is to sound more appropriate, politically correct, mystical, spiritual, wise and whatnot. Rare are those who dare explore crazy ideas just or the sake of it.

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote: Why do you and Gisteron often questions others beliefs, but put not theories of your own out for inspection...

Do you have your own theories?

Or just science?

Everything we say and every claim we make is subject to inspection and inquiry. When asked, we will respond and explain where we are coming from. We will never say that this is a personal thing or that anyone ought come to our conclusion on their own. We will explain ourselves or admit faults in our reasoning and not insist on the correctness of our conclusions from that point onwards. Now, you may be asking why it is that there is only so little about what we say that can be criticized. We try and not co claim things we cannot back up. We don't have a lot of expertise in a lot of areas, so at the risk of being publicly humiliated for making absolutely asinine claims, we try and make as few as we can. This can seem like cowardice or like humility, or a combination of both.

Since you are using the word theory in the colloquial sense when I usually wouldn't, I will replace it with speculation instead and answer your question like this: Yes, we do have our own speculations, I'm sure. And we will voice them every now and again, emphasizing that this is but our own perspective that may be incorrect and based on false data. When we make positive claims however, we will at least have reference to some source we trust or try and have evidence of our own to show that would back those claims up. Again, on the one hand that renders our claims more resistant to negation, but on the other hand it also renders their number slim in comparison. But they are there.

And indeed, even if they weren't, that wouldn't exactly protect anyone else's claims from questioning by us. By that reasoning everybody who ever made a movie review must be a producer, scene designer, director, writer, effects artist and actor at the same time. My though on this is (see, there is one of my thoughts incoming), that this is an unreasonable standard.

So, instead of testing your own speculations (are you too good to speak like a commoner? :lol:, another reason you come off as difficult... Next you will check my spelling, lol...) you just seek to tear down the speculation of others?

But cornering them with their thoughts? By asking the 'whys', and 'how comes' like a child trying to understand, instead of understanding that you probably wont get it?

I just compare it to an inquesitive child, your strict call for sound reason, and verifiable evidence prove youare anything but a child...

My cat is a good kitty...

I cant tell you why... I have more evidence that she is a mean little thing than a good kitty... lol...

But, trust me when I say that she is a good kitty....

I is just a feeling I have toward her....

I can cite examples up and down the gamut that show she is not...

But, in the end, it comes up to my personal beliefs, and I cant show them to you...

Sometimes, this is how life goes...

And those of you, who are so strict with it, are really missing out...

Ok, well, thank you for your answer....

ren wrote: Most conversations in this forum are popularity contests where the goal is to sound more appropriate, politically correct, mystical, spiritual, wise and whatnot. Rare are those who dare explore crazy ideas just or the sake of it.

No, lol....

But, knowing you like I do, I understand why you might say so, lol....

People are here to talk about their ideas, and not have them chewed up by logic...

While logic certainly has its place in the world, their is also place for wierdness... Illogical stuff haas their place too...

And manners... Dont forget those, lol...

If people want to rude, or just pick apart other peoples thoughts and feelings, there is a whole wide internet for them to do so...

Gisteron wrote:

scott777ab wrote: Ok that was quite an interesting read.

This was a google search on the word agnostic.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

So my next question is:
2nd Question: Do you consider yourself agnostic under that definition?

I ask because I no longer want to assume you believe this or that anymore. Plus the way you have always come off to me is as an atheist, but your last reply makes me question that.

Thank you for taking time with me to answer my question, and answering any in the future, if you do.

I can't really say that I qualify as an agnostic by that definition. I don't claim faith in any god, I do claim disbelief (those two are equivalent), but I don't claim belief in the opposite proposition. If one proposition is there is one or multiple gods, and the other is that there are no gods, to me this is equivalent to an even and odd amount of marbles in a jar. I don't claim either.

I do identify as both agnostic and an atheist, for the two are not mutually exclusive. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, an atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".
So, basically, to qualify as an atheist all one has to be is not be a theist. In order to qualify as an agnostic, one must not claim knowledge.
So technically I am both. For theism and atheism adress belief and lack of belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism adress knowledge and lack thereof. Thusly, one can be any combination of the two. Gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and agnostic atheist, and I know people from each category. I am an agnostic atheist.

Follow up question for clarity.

So you are not saying then that there is no possibility for a god or gods to exist, you just simply do not believe a god or gods exist?

[/quote]

Follow up question for clarity.

So you are not saying then that there is no possibility for a god or gods to exist, you just simply do not believe a god or gods exist?[/quote]

OMG

4th question, Gisteron.

How do you determine what is right vs wrong, or good vs evil; what is your basis for this?

Why do you and Gisteron often questions others beliefs, but put not theories of your own out for inspection...

Do you have your own theories?

Or just science?

Gisteron pretty much nailed it on the head, however...

Perhaps whats really more interesting is why we are asking questions others do not.

As for "Theories of you own"

I have not seen anything so singular or original in thought put forth here.

Its not as if Star Wars, Alan Watts, Joseph Campbell, etc, are original.

We do not draw from the same sources, but that doesnt make anything put forth "ones own."

You ask why we dont put things up for inspection.

I would ask why you dont inspect what we put forth.

Most conversations here are people stating things, and other people stating things.

Sometimes in agreement, and sometimes not.

However, there are very few questions asked.

Which, in a place where definition and words are used and changed so liberally, I am truly suprised.

But cornering them with their thoughts? By asking the 'whys', and 'how comes' like a child trying to understand, instead of understanding that you probably wont get it?

I just compare it to an inquesitive child, your strict call for sound reason, and verifiable evidence prove youare anything but a child...

Cetainly, it is the nature of a child to question.

I have more resources of my own to draw from than a child when given answers certainly, but the nature of the curiosity is childlike.

Hopefully, I dont lose it, and mores the pit if others were to as well.

I cant understand if I dont get it if I dont ask can I?

However I cant understand it at all if I dont ask either.

When one stops asking questions, for any reason, I a would see that as more of a problem than otherwise.

I seek to understand what I do not understand, and in a place of learning, spiritual or otherwise I think that would be a norm.

As for missing out...LOL.

Missing out on what would be the logical next step.

But past feeling it, you cant quantify it, so it stands as nothing more than a small insult to how I go about my path.

Gisteron wrote: ...like the one version of Zeus that visibly and physically resides on mount Olympus...

This reminds me of the only intelligent thing I ever read on tumblr:

Now, for full disclosure, I have recieved question in PM occasionally.

Still, that doesnt really add to the overall content of the site, but its not as if it has never happened.

scott777ab wrote: 4th question, Gisteron.

How do you determine what is right vs wrong, or good vs evil; what is your basis for this?

Everytime a theist asks this question, I cringe. Every. Time. Because the implication here is that godless people have no basis for morality because they aren't being rewarded or punished by some cosmic hippie. And, quite honestly, if your only motivation for being a decent f***ing human being is because some bloke with a beard will send you to a dark pit full of fire and worms, doesn't that kind of make you the messed up one?

Is something good because God loves it? Or does God love it because it is good?

scott777ab wrote: Follow up question for clarity.

So you are not saying then that there is no possibility for a god or gods to exist, you just simply do not believe a god or gods exist?

Correct. There are some gods I have good reason to believe don't exist, like the versions of Zeus and Aphrodite that visibly and physically reside on mount Olympus (we know they don't) or the one who in the literal first created the earth with plantlife and later the sun (we know that's not what happened). But at the same time, there are ultimately unfalsifiable or even falsifiable but not yet falsified god concepts I cannot exclude entirely.

How do you determine what is right vs wrong, or good vs evil; what is your basis for this?

The same basis everybody else has: Partly intuition, partly cultural conditioning but mostly consideration of the consequences of my actions in regards to myself and things and people I care about and the relation of those consequences to a few general principles that can be assumed axiomatically due to their universal acceptance among just about all types of people and even among other social animals.
This sounds awfully complicated and relative but it really isn't. If you wish, we can explore this in more detail one on one sometime.

steamboat28 wrote:

scott777ab wrote: 4th question, Gisteron.

How do you determine what is right vs wrong, or good vs evil; what is your basis for this?

Everytime a theist asks this question, I cringe. Every. Time. Because the implication here is that godless people have no basis for morality because they aren't being rewarded or punished by some cosmic hippie. And, quite honestly, if your only motivation for being a decent f***ing human being is because some bloke with a beard will send you to a dark pit full of fire and worms, doesn't that kind of make you the messed up one?

Is something good because God loves it? Or does God love it because it is good?

The brother of a friend, a fairly religious muslim, was telling me the other day there are earthly people and heavenly people, that is people who want to do well on earth (drive a ferrarri, etc), or people who are good (please allah) in order to do well in the afterlife (because allah's got a plan and if you act according to it you get rewarded)... All I could think about is how these two categories of people are equally selfish, and how behaving based on what may or may not be is in fact inherently bad.

[/quote] Most conversations in this forum are popularity contests where the goal is to sound more appropriate, politically correct, mystical, spiritual, wise and whatnot. Rare are those who dare explore crazy ideas just or the sake of it.[/quote]

Most? I don't think so. Most are decent enough people they want to learn and understand, though we are an eclectic group. Some people post for: shock, controversy, contrarian, argument, troll, to hear their own voice, to look smart or think their cleaver, some are all about themselves. I'd like to think this is a place for explorers of all types.

Doing well on Earth...
=
driving a ferrarri??
:laugh:
Superficial materialistic success is not doing well on Earth...
Quite the opposite...
The Earth is already in space so....
Heavenly people are also earthly people.