If I were the devil...

Quote from trendlover:

Aaaahahaha "Ghost of Cutten", no ET posts from you for a long time. You die?
More...

Lol. I just realized spending more than a trivial amount of time on message boards (and the internet in general) is a bad idea. Come to think of it, maybe even spending trivial amounts of time is a bad idea.
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

Lol. I just realized spending more than a trivial amount of time on message boards (and the internet in general) is a bad idea. Come to think of it, maybe even spending trivial amounts of time is a bad idea.
More...


Sometimes all the opinions is confusing to me on ET, but not a waste of time because it show all the different people and how they think. ET is funny too!
 
Quote from trendlover:

Sometimes all the opinions is confusing to me on ET, but not a waste of time because it show all the different people and how they think. ET is funny too!
More...

Well, I am glad you find it useful, but personally I find other ways to be better for gaining insight into peoples thoughts and natures. I would rather read a good book, listen to some great music, or talk to people face to face in real life. I have found that much more useful and satisfying.

I am just judging ET, and the internet in general, from a trading and life perspective. For trading, I've found the net useful for two things - trading books and trader insights; and factual news on markets. ET and other message boards provide neither. For life, I've found the net useful for meeting people who are difficult to meet in real life (e.g. people with unusual interests, or far away, or who I would not normally meet). But in general I find internet interaction to be superficial and unthinking. Like the telephone, it is best used to facilitate real life meetings and interaction, rather than as a substitute for them - unfortunately most people are doing the latter. There is also something profoundly disquieting about interaction based around two living beings sitting in front of a box and tapping on it with their fingers. When you could be sitting in front of a fire with a good bottle of wine, or walking through a forest under the moonlight, why would you choose to favour online interaction over that? It's a bit like computer games - why not make life a game, where you can achieve things of genuine import and satisfaction, instead of doing so in meaningless pixellated fashion? Life is arbitrary and meaningless enough without making it more so by living online.

I am not just theorizing here - I have substantially quit the internet for a few months, as an experiment, and found it to be a huge improvement to stay mostly offline. That may not be the same for you or others, but if it was such a spectacular success for me, then maybe it's at least worth trying for you too?
 
Quote from stu:

trendlover,

That, at least for the sake of intellectual honesty, there is no middle ground.



[
More...

Why stu, how very....well, dogmatic of you..:)

It almost seems like there is a systematic theology to this atheism non-faith !
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

Well, I am glad you find it useful, but personally I find other ways to be better for gaining insight into peoples thoughts and natures. I would rather read a good book, listen to some great music, or talk to people face to face in real life. I have found that much more useful and satisfying.

I am just judging ET, and the internet in general, from a trading and life perspective. For trading, I've found the net useful for two things - trading books and trader insights; and factual news on markets. ET and other message boards provide neither. For life, I've found the net useful for meeting people who are difficult to meet in real life (e.g. people with unusual interests, or far away, or who I would not normally meet). But in general I find internet interaction to be superficial and unthinking. Like the telephone, it is best used to facilitate real life meetings and interaction, rather than as a substitute for them - unfortunately most people are doing the latter. There is also something profoundly disquieting about interaction based around two living beings sitting in front of a box and tapping on it with their fingers. When you could be sitting in front of a fire with a good bottle of wine, or walking through a forest under the moonlight, why would you choose to favour online interaction over that? It's a bit like computer games - why not make life a game, where you can achieve things of genuine import and satisfaction, instead of doing so in meaningless pixellated fashion? Life is arbitrary and meaningless enough without making it more so by living online.

I am not just theorizing here - I have substantially quit the internet for a few months, as an experiment, and found it to be a huge improvement to stay mostly offline. That may not be the same for you or others, but if it was such a spectacular success for me, then maybe it's at least worth trying for you too?
More...



I am not online too much. Yes, it is not like together with a friend or family. No eyes to see how someone feels. No body language.
With ET I find so many link to articles that I would not know about. And I know now my world was narrow before I saw that article.
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

A sceptic can never be certain about the existence of anything, so under your definition there would be basically no atheists in the world, and people like Hume, Marx, Dawkins etc would not be classified as atheists. Since this is clearly ridiculous, your definition is incorrect. An atheist is just someone who puts the probability of a deity existing at an extremely low level - similar to the probability of leprechauns, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus existing.

An agnostic is someone who is "not sure" e.g. they might put the odds of a deity existing at 50/50, or 25%. In other words, they think there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity that the probability is reasonable and within rational contemplation. Whereas an atheist would put it at 1 in a million or (far) less. But no one with any grasp of reality, common sense, or logic would put the odds at absolutely zero.

Thus for an atheist, agnostics are guilty of the same implausible beliefs as theists - they just aren't quite as inaccurate. The atheist attitude to agnostics is similar to the sceptics attitude to people who think there is a 25% chance of Santa Claus or the Boogie Man existing i.e. they think agnostics are gullible morons, just not quite as gullible or moronic as the religious or Boogie Man believers.
More...
Well, fine, if you wish to define this as a continuous, rather than discrete distribution, be my guest. Like most of the more recent arguments in this thread, it's a matter of semantics/hair-splitting.

I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass whether anyone here defines me as an agnostic or a theist. I'll make one observation, though. In my opinion, the definition, as I have formulated it, is more widely used and thus would be better understood by the majority in any relevant audience in real-life contexts.
 
Quote from Barth Vader:

Why stu, how very....well, dogmatic of you..:)

It almost seems like there is a systematic theology to this atheism non-faith !
More...
Were someone to describe - the bleeding obvious - as something dogmatic, systematic and theological, I think first you have to ask yourself, why would someone make such an absurd description.
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

[...]

An agnostic is someone who is "not sure" e.g. they might put the odds of a deity existing at 50/50, or 25%. In other words, they think there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity that the probability is reasonable and within rational contemplation. Whereas an atheist would put it at 1 in a million or (far) less. But no one with any grasp of reality, common sense, or logic would put the odds at absolutely zero.

[...]
More...
That is the definition of a theist.


"Not made your mind up".Period ..... must be atheist. You are without ('a'-theist) what is defined as theist.

"Not sure of a deity but think there could be one"........ is theist. It's one of the things a theist is.

You aren't a little bit theist and a little bit atheist. You are defining a contradiction not agnostic.

Agnostic as uncertainty of knowledge can be logically defined. Can't be logically defined as uncertainty about knowledge of a deity. Hasn't been to date but one can be agnostic as to whether it ever will.
 
Quote from stu:

That is the definition of a theist.


"Not made your mind up".Period ..... must be atheist. You are without ('a'-theist) what is defined as theist.

"Not sure of a deity but think there could be one"........ is theist. It's one of the things a theist is.

You aren't a little bit theist and a little bit atheist. You are defining a contradiction not agnostic.

Agnostic as uncertainty of knowledge can be logically defined. Can't be logically defined as uncertainty about knowledge of a deity. Hasn't been to date but one can be agnostic as to whether it ever will.
More...

In my personal experience:

The theists I know have very defined opinions as to who god is, what he does with his free time, what his kid(s) may look like, what church to belong to... things like that.

Agnostics I know of aren't sure and are open to possibilities. Common opinions they have: they see organized religion as a method to control people, they more often doubt the existence of god, but don't rule it out either. They just don't know.

Atheists that I have met have a hard on against the idea of god. They were dropped as babies and are very bitter people. Christopher Hitchens comes to mind - but he drinks scotch and smokes, so in my book - he's OK. I think god, if there is one, would forgive him because of his British wit.

Is this esoteric debate settled now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top