Sheldon

I don't agree with that definition of agnostic. Let's just leave it at that.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jeff Pitblado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My point was that atheists and agnostics have differing points of view.

By

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

definition atheists firmly believe there is no god while agnostics just don't care either way
(theological fence sitters).

The term "agnostic" is often used to mean "weak atheist", someone who does not believe in a god.
This is opposed to a "strong atheist", who believes that there is not a god. An agnostic is
therefore a type of atheist when this definition is used. A detailed explanation is available at:

infidels.orgintro.htmlOpen ↗

--Josh

andres muro said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Descartes argued that through cognition/thinking, he was aware that he was a being, even though he
could not be sure of anything else. That is were the famous phrase "i think therefore I am " came
from. Descartes continued to argue that the only way to know anything else beyond that he "was" is
through god. Since god is perfect, and therefore, he cannot lie,

Of course the flaw in this is that Descartes had to dispell the concept of God as a benevolent
deceiver, or "evil genius." Unfortunately those in rbt can not make this leap of faith. How does one
dispell Jobst?

Quoted message said:

everything that we experience must be true.

Experiences may not be true, since even with the existence of a perfect god the senses of man "lie"
or can be decieved.

Quoted message said:

Extrapolating form Descartes' thought, we know that the only way we can be sure of anything beyond
mere existence is through god. God is sheldon. the only way to be sure of things is through
sheldon. Either you believe in Sheldon, or in nothingness. jobst may start the reform.

Descartes uses the ‘cognito ergo sum’ argument to corroborate the idea that the mind (or thought)can
exist without the body. With the help of his "perfect god," he makes the leap to existence beyond
thought. If one accepts 'cognito ergo sum’ argument, but does not have Descartes' perfect god, then
it is an impossible feat to prove that our reality is the real one and no benevolent deceiver nor
evil genius is controlling
it. Jobst may already be in control.

"Jeff Pitblado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

How can one be both an atheist and an agnostic?

insecurity,

andres

Quoted message said:

Jeff

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

andres muro wrote

Quoted message said:

... Sheldon is god...

Thanks, but, being an agnostic/atheist, it puts me in a quirky position...do I actually
exist...? ;-)

Sheldon "At Least 'g' Wasn't Capitalized" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The secrets of flight will not be mastered within our lifetime? | ?not within a thousand
| years ?Wilbur Wright, 1901 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West
Newton, Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 harriscyclery.comharriscyclery.comOpen ↗ Hard-to-find
parts shipped Worldwide captainbike.comcaptainbike.comOpen ↗ sheldonbrown.comsheldonbrown.comOpen ↗

"Karl Frisch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

andres muro said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Descartes argued that through cognition/thinking, he was aware that he was a being, even though
he could not be sure of anything else. That is were the famous phrase "i think therefore I am "
came from. Descartes continued to argue that the only way to know anything else beyond that he
"was" is through god. Since god is perfect, and therefore, he cannot lie,

Of course the flaw in this is that Descartes had to dispell the concept of God as a benevolent
deceiver, or "evil genius." Unfortunately those in rbt can not make this leap of faith. How does
one dispell Jobst?

Killfile.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

everything that we experience must be true.

Experiences may not be true, since even with the existence of a perfect god the senses of man
"lie" or can be decieved.

Quoted message said:

Extrapolating form Descartes' thought, we know that the only way we can be sure of anything
beyond mere existence is through god. God is sheldon. the only way to be sure of things is
through sheldon. Either you believe in Sheldon, or in nothingness. jobst may start the reform.

Descartes uses the 'cognito ergo sum' argument to corroborate the idea that the mind (or
thought)can exist without the body. With the help of his "perfect god," he makes the leap to
existence beyond thought. If one accepts 'cognito ergo sum' argument, but does not have Descartes'
perfect god, then it is an impossible feat to prove that our reality is the real one and no
benevolent deceiver nor evil genius is controlling
it. Jobst may already be in control.

andres muro said:

how about this: "a" means no; "gnosis" means knowledge. agnosis means no knowledge. An atheist
claims that god does not exist. An agnostic claims that he has no knowledge of weather god exists
or not. Hence, agnostics are wimps, they do not completely deny god, just in case. You can make
the claim that all Christians are agnostic.

I doubt you could reasonably claim that the Gnostics were agnostic.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
- Mark Twain

how about this: "a" means no; "gnosis" means knowledge. agnosis means no knowledge. An atheist
claims that god does not exist. An agnostic claims that he has no knowledge of weather god exists or
not. Hence, agnostics are wimps, they do not completely deny god, just in case. You can make the
claim that all Christians are agnostic. They cannot know if god exists. knowledge of god is not
permited to humans. All they can do is have faith. I, of course am a gnostic. I know that god
exists. his name is sheldon.

Andres

"Jeff Pitblado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I don't agree with that definition of agnostic. Let's just leave it at that.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jeff Pitblado" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My point was that atheists and agnostics have differing points of view.

By

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

definition atheists firmly believe there is no god while agnostics just don't care either way
(theological fence sitters).

The term "agnostic" is often used to mean "weak atheist", someone who does not believe in a
god. This is opposed to a "strong atheist", who believes that there is not a god. An agnostic
is therefore a type of atheist when this definition is used. A detailed explanation is
available at:

infidels.orgintro.htmlOpen ↗

--Josh

Sheldon Brown said:

Voltaire wrote the funniest book in history, but he didn't write that.

Quoted message said:

You're putting Descartes before de horse.

Thank you Sheldon for your 'Candide' correction of my unforgivable if indeliberate lapse of memory.
<blush -> self-deprecating smile>

I shall exact due penitence from myself for being so remiss as to post prior to morning's
ritualistic ingestion of caffeine.

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "Cogito Cogito, Ergo Cogito Sum...Cogito" Brown

"The demand for certainty is one that is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice."

Iguana "Bertrand Russell" Bwana

Benjamin Lewis <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I doubt you could reasonably claim that the Gnostics were agnostic.

well, this is all find and dandy. now tell me what 'anagnostic' means

anthony anagnostou

(ant) said:

Benjamin Lewis <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I doubt you could reasonably claim that the Gnostics were agnostic.

well, this is all find and dandy. now tell me what 'anagnostic' means

anthony anagnostou

That's a non-practicing agnostic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗ John Dacey Business Cycles Miami,
Florida 305-273-4440
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now in our twentieth year. Our catalogue of track equipment: seventh
year online

In article UWwsa.177$2R.161@fed1read07 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Killfile.

(followed by a whole, um, pile of stuff.)

wait, don't kill it now! it's just now getting good! oh, no wait. it's just now turning into the
kind of intellectual masturbation you'd see at a MENSA meeting. on the simpsons. in one of the
later seasons.

fc

Karl Frisch said:

Descartes uses the ‘cognito ergo sum’ argument to corroborate the idea that the mind (or
thought)can exist without the body. With the help of his "perfect god," he makes the leap to
existence beyond thought. If one accepts 'cognito ergo sum’ argument, but does not have Descartes'
perfect god, then it is an impossible feat to prove that our reality is the real one and no
benevolent deceiver nor evil genius is controlling
it. Jobst may already be in control.

I can ease your mind. Jobst is NOT "already in control". If he was, Mavic would still be
manufacturing the MA2 rim.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

...and the term "anodized" would be vaporized!!!

Quoted message said:

I can ease your mind. Jobst is NOT "already in control". If he was, Mavic would still be
manufacturing the MA2 rim.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

andres muro said:

how about this: "a" means no; "gnosis" means knowledge. agnosis means no knowledge. An atheist
claims that god does not exist. An agnostic claims that he has no knowledge of weather god exists
or not. Hence, agnostics are wimps, they do not completely deny god, just in case. You can make
the claim that all Christians are agnostic. They cannot know if god exists. knowledge of god is
not permited to humans. All they can do is have faith. I, of course am a gnostic. I know that god
exists. his name is sheldon.

You just made me spit my last Grolsch all over my keyboard! Thanks for that.

Scott "it's OK, I'm not riding tomorrow" Marsh

andres muro said:

An atheist claims that god does not exist. An agnostic claims that he has no knowledge of weather
god exists or not.

Are weather gods the ones people call upon for tailwinds and sunshine?

--
Mark Janeba remove antispam phrase in address to reply

Hey man, after 22 years of living in the USA, I am still an ignorant foreigner who cannot
distinguish between wheather, weather, wether, weather. I can't even tell you how to spell any one
of them correctly. I don't know when to use brake vs break, since both words mean similar things.

Andres

Mark Janeba <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

andres muro said:

An atheist claims that god does not exist. An agnostic claims that he has no knowledge of
weather god exists or not.

Are weather gods the ones people call upon for tailwinds and sunshine?

(andres muro) said:

I don't know when to use brake vs break, since both words mean similar things.

No, they don't mean the same thing at all. A dictionary would be helpful if you are interested in
learning the difference.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

Actually with your car and bicycle you brake, which means to stop. However, when you stop working or
excercising you take a break. so in both cases you use the same sounding word to stop something, but
you spell them differently. when you damage something or you split something you break it, I think.
Hence my confusion. You should go on brake, instead of break, or take a brake, instead of break,
which in escence would to stop from doing something, the same way as you stop from moving by
braking. Anyways, I do actually know the differencies, but sometimes I get confused. As I said
before, thats the trouble of being a dumb foreigner.

Andres

Ted Bennett <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(andres muro) said:

I don't know when to use brake vs break, since both words mean similar things.

No, they don't mean the same thing at all. A dictionary would be helpful if you are interested in
learning the difference.