Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer

Volker Hetzer wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"One either believes or disbelieves. There is no 'I
don't know', thus, 'no such animal as an agnostic'."

If you define "disbelieving" as "not believing", then
he's an unbeliever, i.e. neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

He's not an atheist because the word is often used to describe
people who believe in the nonexistence of gods.

He's not an agnostic because sometimes that word is used to
include people who believe that it's impossible to decide
the question of the existence of god.
(He probably made an error in that posting, by going by
the common meaning of that word.)

He's simply one who doesn't execute the mental process
of "believing", regardless of whether the topic is the
existence of a god or the colour of the sky.

What's your name for people like him?

Lets cut through the semantics. There are two possible
positions: i. there is God. 2. there is no God. Period.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

We live with many terms that are falsely defined, i.e.,
"evolution".

There's glory for you.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Lets cut through the semantics. There are two possible
positions: i. there is God. 2. there is no God. Period.

Leaving aside Schroedinger for the moment, there are two possible
*states* for the existence of god. However, there are most certainly is
a valid third position, which refuses either to assert or deny that god
exists.

There are two possible states of a switch: the switch is on, or the
switch is off. But it is perfectly reasonable for any given person to
simply NOT KNOW whether the switch is on. This is especially true when
the switch is invisible, has no experimentally verifiable effects, and
any effects anecdotally attributed to the switch have alternate testable
explanations.

Alan Anderson wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:


No matter what we claim, what we know is either believed or
disbelieved.


Ah, but agnosticism deals with what we do *not* know. In this
particular case, I do know know whether or not god exists; I neither
believe nor disbelieve in god's existence.

You can not have an opinion about a concept you do not know.



One can have no knowledge of a concept but once that concept
is known there are only two ways of responding to it:
belief or disbelief.


Once a concept is known, you might have a point. However, merely
*proposing* a concept does not reach that point.

Once a concept is proposed and acknowledged its to late to
say: I have no opinion of it one way or the other'.



You can claim honestly, 'I don't
know', after hearing two musicians and being asked which one
you like better. But the claim is a cop out because your
body and mind have made a choice of preference between the
two, whether you acknowledge it or not.


Assuming you have never experienced both weightlessness in orbit and
scuba diving, you can honestly claim not to know which you like better,
and such a claim is no copout. No amount of listening to other people
describe their experience will change that.

Listening to experiences of others is a prime instigator of
personal choice between those experiences. The experience
of others ring certain bells in one's own store of
experiences, triggering conscious or unconscious choice
between experience one hasn't had except through being told
about them. No way around it.


Similarly, I have no direct experience with god. I know of many
descriptions of what god is and what god does. Some of them are
contradictory. Some of them are mutually exclusive. I do not know
which, if any, are correct. I do not know.

I do not know.

I DO NOT KNOW.

That makes me agnostic.

You know the concept with two heads: God is or isn't.
There are no other choices. You won't admit to making a
choice but your mind and body have made it for you whether
or not you acknowledge the fact. There is no such thing as
an agnostic.

Alan Anderson wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:


Lets cut through the semantics. There are two possible
positions: i. there is God. 2. there is no God. Period.


Leaving aside Schroedinger for the moment, there are two possible
*states* for the existence of god. However, there are most certainly is
a valid third position, which refuses either to assert or deny that god
exists.

There are two possible states of a switch: the switch is on, or the
switch is off. But it is perfectly reasonable for any given person to
simply NOT KNOW whether the switch is on. This is especially true when
the switch is invisible, has no experimentally verifiable effects, and
any effects anecdotally attributed to the switch have alternate testable
explanations.

Once experience tells you the likely position of switches
regarding their function, your mind and body, rightly or
wrongly, automatically predicts one of two options: either
on or off. A known switch cannot be invisible to the mind
and body. If that were not so then abstract ideas would
never appear and cognizance would be a vacant phenomenon.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Alan Anderson wrote:

Ah, but agnosticism deals with what we do *not* know. In this
particular case, I do know know whether or not god exists; I neither
believe nor disbelieve in god's existence.

You can not have an opinion about a concept you do not know.

I almost agree with this, but I can't agree completely. Even though I
do not know whether or not god exists, I do have an opinion about the
concept: I think it is much more likely that there is no god, because a
supernatural god seems not to be necessary for the world to appear as it
does. However, because I have no way of measuring the supernatural, I
still do not *know* whether god exists.

Once a concept is proposed and acknowledged its to late to
say: I have no opinion of it one way or the other'.

Fine. I do have an opinion on the concept of the existence of god. My
opinion is this: within the framework I have for answering questions
about the nature of the universe, the question of the existence of god
is not well-formed and cannot be answered one way or the other.

You know the concept with two heads: God is or isn't.
There are no other choices. You won't admit to making a
choice but your mind and body have made it for you whether
or not you acknowledge the fact. There is no such thing as
an agnostic.

Since you say I do not exist, I will instruct my newsreader to act as if
you do not exist either. I do not know whether or not that choice will
make you happy; I remain agnostic on the subject. But I do believe that
it will make *me* happier, and that's the important thing at the moment.

Alan Anderson wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:


We live with many terms that are falsely defined, i.e.,
"evolution".


There's glory for you.

Fraid I don't know what you mean.

Alan Anderson wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:


Alan Anderson wrote:


Ah, but agnosticism deals with what we do *not* know. In this
particular case, I do know know whether or not god exists; I neither
believe nor disbelieve in god's existence.

You can not have an opinion about a concept you do not know.


I almost agree with this, but I can't agree completely. Even though I
do not know whether or not god exists, I do have an opinion about the
concept: I think it is much more likely that there is no god, because a
supernatural god seems not to be necessary for the world to appear as it
does. However, because I have no way of measuring the supernatural, I
still do not *know* whether god exists.

You have made a choice between yes and no. You're not
completely satisfied with it, possibly not even aware of it
but you chose "no" nevertheless.



Once a concept is proposed and acknowledged its to late to
say: I have no opinion of it one way or the other'.


Fine. I do have an opinion on the concept of the existence of god. My
opinion is this: within the framework I have for answering questions
about the nature of the universe, the question of the existence of god
is not well-formed and cannot be answered one way or the other.

That is the usual cop out.



You know the concept with two heads: God is or isn't.
There are no other choices. You won't admit to making a
choice but your mind and body have made it for you whether
or not you acknowledge the fact. There is no such thing as
an agnostic.


Since you say I do not exist, I will instruct my newsreader to act as if
you do not exist either. I do not know whether or not that choice will
make you happy; I remain agnostic on the subject. But I do believe that
it will make *me* happier, and that's the important thing at the moment.

When did I say you do not exist? Directing your anger at me
does nothing to resolve your predicament.