8 ms·

No, I’m an agnostic software engineer in formal verification. Why?

by teakettle42 4y ago

lisper 4y ago
Because you are employing the same rhetoric that YECs often do.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? That seems unlikely to me, but I’m totally unfamiliar with their rhetoric and will have to take your word for it.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? Yes. And the irony is lost on them.
XorNot 4y ago
Which Gods are you agnostic about?
- teakettle42 4y ago
  agnostic, n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena All of them. None of them. What answer were you hoping for?
  - XorNot 4y ago
    No I'm belittling the entire concept of agnosticism as though it's meaningfully distinct from atheism. Either you dilute the definition of God so much as to be meaningless (and thus you are an atheist who "well actually's" every conversation since you clearly make a number of claims about what God isn't) or you implicitly are being quite religious about which God you believe is the only option (in which case Pascal's wager does in fact apply very strongly to you). Which is to say your ongoing position in this thread that "sciencism" is a real belief structure speaks to the fact that what you claim to believe is completely inconsistent to start with: you've just hunted around for a middle ground which you felt existed for the company you keep.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      Agnosticism means I get to say “I literally don’t care” to your entire argument, and that’s why it’s superior to your brand of atheism. I have zero interest in arguing about or considering god, or gods, and the existence or non-existence thereof, until such time as you can propose and carry out a repeatable experiment that demonstrates some observable fact within this realm of inquiry. That’s all “agnostic” means to me: leave me out of your pointless arguments; they’re not science.

No, I’m an agnostic software engineer in formal verification. Why?

lisper 4y ago

Because you are employing the same rhetoric that YECs often do.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
teakettle42 4y ago
Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? That seems unlikely to me, but I’m totally unfamiliar with their rhetoric and will have to take your word for it.
- lisper 4y ago
  > Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? Yes. And the irony is lost on them.

XorNot 4y ago

Which Gods are you agnostic about?

teakettle42 4y ago
agnostic, n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena All of them. None of them. What answer were you hoping for?
- XorNot 4y ago
  No I'm belittling the entire concept of agnosticism as though it's meaningfully distinct from atheism. Either you dilute the definition of God so much as to be meaningless (and thus you are an atheist who "well actually's" every conversation since you clearly make a number of claims about what God isn't) or you implicitly are being quite religious about which God you believe is the only option (in which case Pascal's wager does in fact apply very strongly to you). Which is to say your ongoing position in this thread that "sciencism" is a real belief structure speaks to the fact that what you claim to believe is completely inconsistent to start with: you've just hunted around for a middle ground which you felt existed for the company you keep.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Agnosticism means I get to say “I literally don’t care” to your entire argument, and that’s why it’s superior to your brand of atheism. I have zero interest in arguing about or considering god, or gods, and the existence or non-existence thereof, until such time as you can propose and carry out a repeatable experiment that demonstrates some observable fact within this realm of inquiry. That’s all “agnostic” means to me: leave me out of your pointless arguments; they’re not science.