I hypothesise, postulate, and strongly suggest, that only genuine agnostics be allowed to discuss God on a philosophy forum, everyone else should do it on a religious forum.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:23 pm
I hypothesise, postulate, and strongly suggest, that only genuine agnostics be allowed to discuss God on a philosophy forum, everyone else should do it on a religious forum.
Good suggestion! Otherwise, it's like (for example) a discussion with drug addicts who can only discuss the benefits/need of drugs, and that's NOT a balanced or truthful over-arching discussion... rather it's skewed and limited for their own fantasy/reality experience.
Last edited by Lacewing on Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:23 pm
I hypothesise, postulate, and strongly suggest, that only genuine agnostics be allowed to discuss God on a philosophy forum, everyone else should do it on a religious forum.
Which version of agnostic? Many agnostics also claim theism. Many agnostics also claim strict anti-theism. Many agnostics don't claim it, or they're just plain ignorant. To allow that something is possible is a good long way from allowing that it's reasonable to believe in. I don't claim certainty whether or not there's an intelligent being of greater scope than we can imagine, like most ("soft") atheists, but i can say with complete certainty that all the evidence available is against it, which is sufficient "for all intents and purposes" except maybe this discussion.
Likewise, there's the problem of igtheism. Agnostic with respect to which definition of which god? Some definitions are so ineffable as to be useless. I would say all. I haven't heard of any definition of agnostic that seems objectionable, but the sort of answers you get will be just as all over the scale with only "genuine agnostics" here as in any other case.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:20 pm
Which version of agnostic?
Well that could be the subject of its own thread. We could sort agnostics into their various sub categories, and then allocate them to one of two main categories: Those allowed to discuss religion, and those not. I can't foresee any problems.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:20 pm
Which version of agnostic?
Well that could be the subject of its own thread. We could sort agnostics into their various sub categories, and then allocate them to one of two main categories: Those allowed to discuss religion, and those not. I can't foresee any problems.
Which category am i in? I am, in order of importance, igtheist, atheist, and agnostic.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:56 pm
Well it's too late to not participate, and i do love rocking the boat but... I'll remain agnostic about this decision for now.
That's okay, but we can't process you until we know which box to put you in. I'll mark you down as pending for the time being.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:23 pm
I hypothesise, postulate, and strongly suggest, that only genuine agnostics be allowed to discuss God on a philosophy forum, everyone else should do it on a religious forum.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:15 pm
Nope. No good. We want all the answers now! Start with the easiest one - What's the meaning of life?
My approach to life is to get through it without believing in anything, but I don't know what it means.
Perhaps this could be the subject of yet another thread. Has it been done before, do you know?
That's a good answer. The other answer is - The meaning of life is that everyone has to choose the answer to that question for themselves. Seems like you've got your head on straight.
I've only dabbled in this forum lately. Haven't browsed the stacks much.
