An agnostic is like a colorblind person who proclaims that there is no such thing as a rainbow, never having seen one.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

An agnostic is like a colorblind person who proclaims that there is no such thing as a rainbow, never having seen one.

Or, an agnostic is like someone who says there is no such thing as flying saucers, never having seen one. Right?

No disrespect intended. I like alot of the shit you say here.

But colorblind people can see rainbows. The colors are just different, or a few stripes may be missing.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

An agnostic is like a colorblind person who proclaims that there is no such thing as a rainbow, never having seen one.

So what's the problem? Is not each person allowed to seek their own path? Is it better to remain uncommitted to the existence of something without proof than to have blind faith?

I don't get the point of your post AM???

Peace be with you http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Maybe I don't know the correct definition of agnostic, but wouldn't it be more like a "colorblind" (here meaning they see in black and white) person who proclaims that there may or may not be a rainbow, never having seen one?

quote:Originally posted by Jaimie:

Maybe I don't know the correct definition of agnostic, but wouldn't it be more like a "colorblind" (here meaning they see in black and white) person who proclaims that there may or may not be a rainbow, never having seen one?

This is a better example than the Op gave, but it;s still not a very good one. As an agnostic, I dont believe that there is a god but I wont go around telling people that there isnt a god because I dont know and I have accepted that I will never know.

Exactly.

An agnostic would be like someone who's never seen a rainbow, doesn't think anyone can see rainbows, and never really argues for the existence/non-existence of rainbows.

People on TOTSE seem to confuse agnosticism with being unsure of your faith. An agnostic simply believes that the existence of a higher meaning/power, i.e. God, is inherently unknowable, and thus is of no real consequence/concern.

[This message has been edited by Fquar (edited 09-19-2006).]

But there is the ability to see a rainbow or the visual representation of what a rainbow would be like through the eyes of the world. A colorblind person can look and see something, and say it's a rainbow.

I would more or less compare it to a deaf person who claims there's no sound due to their lack of experience with it.

Still, there really isn't a comparison for something like comparing the belief in god to the lack thereof.

Agnostics are like people who have bad vision, maybe if you find the right glasses for them they will see what the need to see.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



An agnostic is like a colorblind person who proclaims that there is no such thing as a rainbow, never having seen one.

Failed analogy. People have varying definitions for "agnostic", but I like the one from ReligiousTolerance.org. (if you like a different one, please provide it):

quote: Agnosticism is not a religion or complete ethical system. It is simply a belief that we cannot prove either the existence or the non-existence of deity; (i.e. of one or more gods, one or more goddesses, or combinations of the above). Many Agnostics believe that we can never know about the existence of a deity. Others suggest that we cannot know anything about deity or deities at this time with the currently available evidence, but that this could conceivably change in the future.

I would bet that plenty of agnostics have never seen Venus or any part of China, but still beieve that both exist. Analogy fails.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

An agnostic is like a colorblind person who proclaims that there is no such thing as a rainbow, never having seen one.

Sounds nice. Too bad it, like most of what you write, lacks any substance. You're not a psychic, get over it.

This post lacked your usual ramblings that normally lead me to believe you've finally gone insane from years of drug use.

"God is in all of us, man. He totally is... get me another hit of 'cid, man."

What you're saying here is implying a false definition of agnostic, take your strawman bullshit elsewhere.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

*fails at logic*

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

But colorblind people can see rainbows. The colors are just different, or a few stripes may be missing.



Point taken--okay, the analogy sucked. Sue me.

Let me try again--the point I was trying to make is that just because one does not know someone does not mean that the "something" cannot be known.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



the point I was trying to make is that just because one does not know someone does not mean that the "something" cannot be known.

Are you claiming that agnostics believe that anything that is not known now will never be known?

I'm not saying that that's what you're claiming; I'm just trying to understand what your claim about agnostics is.



[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 09-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



Point taken--okay, the analogy sucked. Sue me.

Let me try again--the point I was trying to make is that just because one does not know someone does not mean that the "something" cannot be known.

It's not just any "something" that agnostics claim cannot be known. It is a particular *something*. That *something* being the existance of God. Honestly speaking, they are 100% correct. While you may believe that God manifests Himself through all of creation, you can never know it to be a fact. Likewise, you cannot know it to be false.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

It's not just any "something" that agnostics claim cannot be known. It is a particular *something*. That *something* being the existance of God. Honestly speaking, they are 100% correct. While you may believe that God manifests Himself through all of creation, you can never know it to be a fact. Likewise, you cannot know it to be false.



maybe you could, if you reached the level of god.

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

maybe you could, if you reached the level of god.

And exactly how, pray tell, does one reach the same level as god?

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

An agnostic is like a colorblind person who proclaims that there is no such thing as a rainbow, never having seen one.

That doesn't even make sense unless you are confusing agnostics with athiests. An agnostic person would be someone with regular sight who has never seen a rainbow, but acknowledges that they could exist if only because other people claim to have seen them, and may or may not be actively trying to sight one themselves.

On another note, you suck.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

That doesn't even make sense unless you are confusing agnostics with athiests.

It doesn't make sense for atheists either.

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

maybe you could, if you reached the level of god.

I think part of the position of an agnostic (or any rational human) is that no human will ever reach the level of omniscience.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

And exactly how, pray tell, does one reach the same level as god?



what are you asking me for? im only imagining that if you were god, you would know everything. Some people consider 'god' a reachable state, after raising our awarness and such things many times. maybe that helps your lack of imagination?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I think part of the position of an agnostic (or any rational human) is that no human will ever reach the level of omniscience.



who said i was?

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

who said i was?



I'm not talking about you. Don't worry; I wasn't accusing you of being rational.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



I'm not talking about you. Don't worry; I wasn't accusing you of being rational.

lol, you're so negative. all over one little tiff? hahaha

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

lol, you're so negative. all over one little tiff? hahaha



Jumping on the bandwagon are you? I'm not being negative. I'm telling you that my post was in response to agnostics, not you.

The accusing you of being rational comment was tongue and cheek. It wasn't said in regard to any experiences I've had with you in the past.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



Jumping on the bandwagon are you? I'm not being negative. I'm telling you that my post was in response to agnostics, not you.

The accusing you of being rational comment was tongue and cheek. It wasn't said in regard to any experiences I've had with you in the past.

okay, i guess you could say im a little parinoid. because my post wasnt anything to do with it at all...which leaves me wondering why im here...

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



Point taken--okay, the analogy sucked. Sue me.

Let me try again--the point I was trying to make is that just because one does not know someone does not mean that the "something" cannot be known.

That's where the evidence and proof that you hate so much come into the picture. I'll save you some time you crazy old cook, do trying using logic to disprove critical thinking, it cannot be done (by definition).

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Sounds nice. Too bad it, like most of what you write, lacks any substance. You're not a psychic, get over it.

"Most"? Really? Have you really read all of my 8,550 or so posts in totse, plus the 5,009 or so in paradox, plus a few hundred on other boards, plus thousands of blogs?

Gee, you must be one of my mnost loyal and devoted readers.

I will assume you are not familiar with any of the other stuff I have written, like speeches for various governors, the newsletter on shamanism I published for ten years, hundreds of news releases and PSAs I wrote for the Pa Department of Health, or my prize-winning poetry.

ArmsMerchant, sinse you 're still responding to this thread, would you mind answering the question that I asked you?:

Are you claiming that agnostics believe that anything that is not known now will never be known?

I'm not saying that that's what you're claiming; I'm just trying to understand what your claim about agnostics is.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



Point taken--okay, the analogy sucked. Sue me.

Let me try again--the point I was trying to make is that just because one does not know someone does not mean that the "something" cannot be known.

What exactly are you saying about agnostics now? Is Martini correct in his assumption? Are you saying that agnostics beieve that which is not known will never be known?

If you're going to make claims about agnostics, will you please clarify what it is you're saying since at least two of us need clarification? Thanks.