Do you believe in ESP?

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Blah
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable. It is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive.

If I may add this link without derailing the topic too much of a work by Bertrand Russell a well known agnostic and a big influence in my life....

[shaad]

Blah, no major disagreement on my part. I think the distinction between strong and weak atheism was worth making in this context, because many, if not most, self-professed atheists are weak atheists (agnostics by your labelling schema). And, while I understand the point you were trying to make about open-mindedness, I think your original post might have encouraged the "assertion that deities do not exist" definition over the "lack of belief in deities" definition for atheism -- yes, I know I am being nitpicky, but I consider these two definitions to be subtly different ideas.

ObSmiley is implicit in the post, wouldn't you say?

[Rifat]

I don't think Beamer bro is agnostic...


I wonder: which is more logically sound:

being safe than sorry or being absolutely certain or a combo of both??

[Zunaid]

I would like to contribute another ism to the mix.

Not atheism.
Not agnosticism.

Simple apatheism - being simply apathetic to the existence or lack thereof deity/deities.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
If I may add this link without derailing the topic too much of a work by Bertrand Russell a well known agnostic and a big influence in my life....

Wasn't Russell more of an atheist than agnostic, at least later on in his life? That's the impression I got from reading his bio, anyways.

And that's a heck of an article, by the way. Perhaps you've also read this?

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Rifat
I don't think Beamer bro is agnostic...


I wonder: which is more logically sound:

being safe than sorry or being absolutely certain or a combo of both??

Reminiscent of Pascal's wager.

What's logically sound? None of them. I want to both eat and have my munchies.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
Reminiscent of Pascal's wager.

What's logically sound? None of them. I want to both eat and have my munchies.

I always considered Pascal's wager as a bit ... futile. If I walk and talk like a Muslim (without Iman) just so that I can avoid hell (IF there is one) ... aren't I hellbound for being a "fox" IF God exists? And if he doesn't ... well, I didn't enjoy my stay here on Earth

[Blah]

Originally Posted by Beamer
I know what it means Blah. I am possibly one. Just making pun at my own expense.

Then you are right. You are possibly an atheist without balls.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Blah
Then you are right. You are possibly an atheist without balls.

Zing!

[Blah]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
If I may add this link without derailing the topic too much of a work by Bertrand Russell a well known agnostic and a big influence in my life....

Bookmarked for later reading.

[Blah]

Originally Posted by shaad

ObSmiley is implicit in the post, wouldn't you say?

I think Obsmiley should be a permanent fixture when discussing anything related to religion. There is always the possibility that someone who is overly sensitive to religion discussions might get offended.

In this context, "obsmiley" is a synonym to "chill out dude".

[Blah]

Originally Posted by Rifat
I don't think Beamer bro is agnostic...


I wonder: which is more logically sound:

being safe than sorry or being absolutely certain or a combo of both??

The only thing you can be absolutely certain about is the fact that one day you will die. Even an atheist will admit to the existence of god, if you can provide absolute proof without any reasonable doubt that god exists.

When it comes to religion, the concept of "more logical" doesn't apply. Being religious means believing in an idea that doesn't follow the rule of conventional logic. (ie, walking on water). You just have to "believe" it.

[Purbasha T]

Originally Posted by Blah
The only thing you can be absolutely certain about is the fact that one day you will die. Even an atheist will admit to the existence of god, if you can provide absolute proof without any reasonable doubt that god exists.

When it comes to religion, the concept of "more logical" doesn't apply. Being religious means believing in an idea that doesn't follow the rule of conventional logic. (ie, walking on water). You just have to "believe" it.

Not really.

[Blah]

Originally Posted by Purbasha T
Not really.

Please, do logically (or scientifically) explain how a man walks on water (one of many extraordinary claims).

[Purbasha T]

Originally Posted by Blah
Please, do logically (or scientifically) explain how a man walks on water (one of many extraordinary claims).

Oh well, I was opposing the generalised sentence in which you said all beliefs are merely just beliefs without sound logics or reasons behind it. Well, some people do have logics bhind their belief and some people don't. And among the people who do have, I agree that logics of some are invalid; BUT there are also ones, who have logics and they're valid as well....Talking about walking on water, I haven't come across anything like that. What group of people have claimed that thing?

[Purbasha T]

Originally Posted by Blah
Please, do logically (or scientifically) explain how a man walks on water (one of many extraordinary claims).

Ok, I've found it. It's a miracle attributed to Jesus (pbuh). Well, to be honest; that's not an important thing to discuss about. Bcoz just the mere view of an incident related to a religion (whether it looks realistic or not) isn't good enough to judge the whole religion. You always start from ABC....As a muslim, I also believe there were some incidents which our prophets did (not sure what the Islamic viewpoint for this walking on water thing is but anyway). Even though not all the belief have a direct reason behind them, but they do have indirect ones. And just because the reasons are indirect, it doesn't invalidate the statement that is being talked about.......Now I can't explain scientifically how some of those incidents happened. But I'd say, scientically, if 80% (just for an assumption) of the predictions or claims that a book has made are found to be exactly accurate, then the rest 20% (whether claims about the past or predictions about the future) are bound to be true. So if a book has stated many many years ago there is a separation between river water and sea water and etc., and all these are found to be true ages afterwards; then I would take the other claims it made to be true as well (even though I can't prove it literally, I can prove it indirectly).

[Purbasha T]

Thread opener miah! You should've had a third option available to vote on...coz I'm agnostic (lol, feels funny to use this word) about ESP.

[Akib]

Yes I believe in Email Service Providers. That's why I use them.

[Blah]

Originally Posted by Purbasha T
Oh well, I was opposing the generalised sentence in which you said all beliefs are merely just beliefs without sound logics or reasons behind it. Well, some people do have logics bhind their belief and some people don't. And among the people who do have, I agree that logics of some are invalid; BUT there are also ones, who have logics and they're valid as well....Talking about walking on water, I haven't come across anything like that. What group of people have claimed that thing?

At the expense of trying to generalize, I think very few (if any) people will disagree that most mainstream organized religions (I don't know all religions) is built upon a foundation of a belief system.

Some even walks on water. Things that you can't logically explain or provide any factual evidence (note: I am not claiming whether its right or wrong). You just have to believe that (and all other) incident happened - based on what the religious book claims happened. Books that has been passed around over hundreds of years.

So yes, "organized" religions doesn't require logic or factual evidence to practice it. It only requires you to believe it as it is - with unconditional faith.

[Zeeshan]

@Blah

What is logic?

[Blah]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
@Blah

What is logic?

Logic concerns the structure of statements and arguments, in formal systems of inference and natural language. Topics include validity, fallacies and paradoxes, reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality and time. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.

[Zeeshan]

I had this strange premonition that you'd just link me up to wikipedia. Sad age indeed when you have to take this site as the ultimate authority in everything instead of explaining in your own words.

The definition hardly does anything justice. Hate to be an positive linguistic atomist, but that mouthful of definition from wikipedia only begs further inquiries of definitions of each and every words.

For instance you mention causality. Such thing can also be very subjective and a posteori and not a priori.

If a causes b infinite times it does not guarantee that a will cause b the next time. Ever since I embraced the genius of eastern philosophy I've learned best to forsake logic because of the perversity of it. Our mileages varies because I strongly believe logic is clearly a man made thing.

Logic is not absolute....logic that exist in planet earth can be totally different in Planert Muon. Thus, I don't bother to torture myself before the altar of Reason.

Keith Devlin also showed the triviality of logic in his book ...Descartes: End of Reason... where he said that it may be "logical" for you to say smoking is "bad" as it is detrimental to health, whilst to a teenager it may be perfectly logically sound to smoke as it helps him to be accepted by his peer. Hence the relativity of "logic."

So there...blah. Excuse my bad pun. :p

Just my penurious 2 cents.

[Orpheus]

Am I the only one in this forum who is thinking:

What are these two idiots talking about?

[Orpheus]

Acchcha ami shob post thik moto pori nai, kintu amago munshi moshai ki claim korche kothao unar sixth sense ache?

Bhalo bhalo!! Allah tomader aro sense dek, ami etai doa kori..

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Orpheus

What are these two idiots talking about?

I'd rather be a smart idiot, than a stupid genius on any given day.... And no I don't claim to have ESP, Orifice.