Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (38312)	11/22/2001 12:25:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Apart from anything else, it is reasonable to infer that those who ridicule people for their belief in an "Imaginary Friend" are atheists........ Neo, I don't think that argument holds up. I think that the "imaginary friend" applies only to that subset of theists whose deity communicates with them and gets involved in their personal lives. Not all theists subscribe to a personal god. Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (38312)	11/22/2001 12:27:42 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This was what you originally said: "I think that someone who says that he cannot be sure, of course, but after all does not believe in God is an atheist, as surely as someone who says that he cannot be sure, but after all does believe in God is a theist. If someone goes so far as to ridicule those with "imaginary friends", I find it hard to credit agnosticism. Only someone who is more or less in equipoise over the issue is an agnostic....... " I thought you were merely explaining your "thoughts". It didn't seem to be an argument, but if it was, and if you think what you just posted to me was, I will treat it as you wish. "Even when admitting lack of knowledge, if someone believes in God, we call him a theist. But if someone simply doesn't KNOW, we call them agnostic. Hence the need for the word. If agnostics actually believed in God and were not skeptical we wouldn't need the word agnostic. Who exactly would the word apply to if not to those skeptical about the existence of God. If you are not skeptical about the existence of God you are likely to believe in the existence of God, and thus be a theist at the very least. Thus, even when admitting lack of knowledge, when someone believes there is no God, he is an atheist. You have jumped from skepticism to belief. Someone can "believe" they lack very much knowledge of the existence of God, and "believe" that the existence of God is doubtful without believing there is no God. Hence, again. the need for the word agnostic. Only someone who is truly non- committal on the question is an agnostic. Only in your world. No one else I have ever met, and no definition I have ever read agrees with you. You can, of course, strike out on your own into a brave new private world where you define words the way you want, even when your definitions conflict with everyone else's. But I don't know if many people will understand you. Apart from anything else, it is reasonable to infer that those who ridicule people for their belief in an "Imaginary Friend" are atheists......... " It is not reasonable to infer that, imo. When one is skeptical of imaginary friends and one sees no proof for them one can ridicule the idea of God without "believing" that there is no God. One might be ridiculing an especially annoying form of believing in God for example, as opposed to ridiculing the actual existence of God. One might be ridiculing the notion that a God would even want to be our imaginary friend, as opposed to something much more remote. You see you said it yourself " ridicule people" you did not say "ridiculing God." I would have put it as ridiculing the IDEA that some people have of God, as opposed to actually ridiculing the people themselves, because that is the way I think of it.