tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1911681970315362959.post7137038142882013661..comments2023-07-05T01:01:11.152+10:00Comments on five o'clock: The logic of 'agnostic atheism'St Barnabas Broadway (Barneys)http://www.blogger.com/profile/00377845196063126448noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1911681970315362959.post-55153524155541135062008-11-02T21:19:00.000+11:002008-11-02T21:19:00.000+11:00An interesting argument which makes my brain hurt....An interesting argument which makes my brain hurt. I'll re-read it when i don't have so much else to bother me.<BR/><BR/>P.S. When are you coming sailing?Tom Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15432476892267047023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1911681970315362959.post-52482872389407696762008-10-22T22:41:00.000+11:002008-10-22T22:41:00.000+11:00"we don't claim to know there is no god, but we al..."we don't claim to know there is no god, but we also don't believe"<BR/><BR/>I think this says a couple of things:<BR/><BR/>1. We're claiming a secular society as the default position and religion is a construct laid on top of that<BR/><BR/>2. We use the word 'belief' to mean attachment to the irrational. (ie we're normal and you're not). <BR/><BR/>This whole thing is more of a claim to higher moral ground than a logical argument. It's designed to win people over without much thought. <BR/><BR/>So the question is - how do you respond? Some very brief thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1. Secular Society and Government is a recent construct - prior to that many societies were by default non-secular (and perhaps this is the default position). <BR/><BR/>2. (I'm sure my dear friend Bryon can explain this better but..) Secular philosophy exists in a moral vacuum. (You can make a historical argument about leaders who have subscribed to this - but I think the historical argument works both ways). <BR/><BR/>3. (The weakness in their statement). They acknowledge that our understanding of the universe is limited by our own senses and ability to reason. We agree with this - and say that our God exists outside of it and choses to reach in to us. <BR/><BR/>Anyway - just my two cents.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07109386597199085417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1911681970315362959.post-48464580912066645672008-10-22T10:34:00.000+11:002008-10-22T10:34:00.000+11:00Man, this whole word play/logic stuff is doing my ...Man, this whole word play/logic stuff is doing my poor little head in! I'm not sure if I've been following all this correctly (after all, I'm just a lowly biology student), but it seems that the atheist position being argued here is something along the lines of "I'll believe in God when I have indisputable proof of His existence - in the meantime, I will deny His existence in the absence of that proof". Have I summed that up correctly? It seems to me to be a kind of "non-position" in which case I wonder why the atheists are so "strong" in their belief that they have no belief... I think I need to go have a lie down now!Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05580877086541483032noreply@blogger.com