Essay talk:Agnosticism

I'd like to go on record and say that this was very much a devil's-advocate piece. 17:14, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Religion does not make us less objective.
I don't quite know where to start with this, so I'll go with the first assertion. (Which I note, in passing, is made without evidence) "Religion does not make us less objective." Doesn't it? Surely something which is based on faith rather then evidence is self-evidently not objective?--Bobbing up 16:51, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't bother Bob, you can't reason with unreason. Sorry Lyra. 16:55, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * No Susan, it is you who aren't being reasonable. Not all religion is based on faith. You generalize about religion whereas you only have a problem with Abrahamic ones. 17:16, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * You could probably insert the word "nutter" in there a couple of times. 16:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Radio edit
Religion can not be a "disease afflicting [most of] humanity." This is the definition of a disease: "a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"

Therefore, religion can not be considered a disease upon humanity, because it does not impair a mind or body’s normal functioning.

Not trying to be a cunt, but that's all the actual substance there is. Sorry. :( --Robledo 17:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, what about the parts about rationality? 17:12, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Pretty bad, to be honest. You're making trivial logical points about possibility that have scant bearing on the real (rational) questions of probability. --Robledo 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Since when does probability have anything to do with rationality? 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * The point is that a skeptical approach to both strong atheism and strong theism is the most rational, not either one. 17:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)


 * You hid it well, then. Perhaps you should strip out all the replying to "religion is a disease" gubbins and try again along that line. Peace. --Robledo 17:54, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * [[Image:Peacesign.jpg|100px]] 18:00, 29 May 2008 (EDT)


 * What's CND got to do with it? 18:10, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * No, no, peace be with you. 18:15, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Must be my age. To me that's the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament symbol (composed of the semaphore positions for the letters - but that was so many years ago) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought it was, too. Good peeps, of course.  ħ uman  23:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Something else

 * "The existence (and influence) of a deity is also a definite possibility." Sez Who? 17:07, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * ooooooooh, controversy!
 * Sez Logic. One item, do you know what the Q Continuum is? wp:Q (Star Trek) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Bringing STAR TREK into a discussion about religion - you gotta be hard up for arguments.:)  17:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, there are a surprising amounts of parallels between the character and God [[Image:Shifty.gif]] 17:23, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * it's FICTION - isn't it? 17:27, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * It's the idea that a Q could interfere with our affairs and remain unseen that matters. 17:29, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * But his interference is detectable and he does put in appearance. 17:31, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I mean, in the fictional future world, but when he, say, goes back in time and prevents the human race from evolving (incidentally, to teach Picard a lesson), nobody knows. 17:37, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

And
Self after the death of one’s body

This is also problematic. When an organism dies, where do his thoughts go? We do not know. Science has no explanations at all. Philosophy and [experimental] theology must take this up. There’s no evidence for a limited span of consciousness. However, a rational person should take the position that where there is no evidence for any side of this, one should not pass arbitrary judgment.

Oh come on. 17:10, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Really, where is the evidence for or against this? 17:14, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * There is NO evidence for ANY persistence of thought or soul or any thing after death. I could go on but it's all too too silly. 17:20, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * There isn't evidence for a limited span of thought either. 17:23, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * What is that supposed to mean? [[Image:Wtf.gif]] 17:25, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * When people take a side in the "soul" argument they are equivalent, meaning that there is no evidence to support an immortal or limited soul. 17:26, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Snark
Agreed -- the objective approach is agnosticism. But can we go one day without arguing about religion? Please?? 17:28, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I've always wondered about this particular topic since I read about this. 17:31, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I was lurking then. It was epic. But I hope we can debate in the future without ending up worse off. 17:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * OK let's agree to differ :-) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well of course we can agree to disagree but I would like to debate :) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * You'll not get me to debate on something I think is .... STOP IT... not going any further. 17:37, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * You're not sensitive to devil's advocate?????? I thought at least this would spark a controversy... :) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Off Topic
Your essay had absolutely NOTHING to do with agnosticism. —Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 10:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)