3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 10:11 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 03:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 02:10 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Do you really think that making simple one liner statements says anything beyond what you think?

I manage to put more logic, reason, and fact in one line than you've managed in this entire thread. Drinking Beverage

Because you said so. Fantastic. Keep stroking your pussy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 10:14 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 08:54 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The over dependence on evidence...

Hobo


Quote: ...and comparing any form of god, no matter how conceptual or briefly defined to fairies etc indicates an implied assertion to me.

That's just wishful thinking on your part. There is just as much evidence for fairies and unicorns as there is for any given god-thing. All you are doing is wallowing in fallacious appeals to personal incredulity.

By not dismissing something as I don't believe we have the evidence, nor possess the faculties for it? You have delusions of grandeur. You sure you're not religious, you're such a zealot that no-one will listen to you anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 10:15 PM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 10:10 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 03:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What does religion mean to you? Deism to me is still religious because it is a supernatural hypothesis about origins of our universe.

I dwell on my lack of belief? Once again, an assertion once again you easily could not have made, but choose to. What's your basis for needing to know before believing. I disagree and explained how before, you just wrote that off though.

Here is am example of asking points without being presumptuous.

By Reality, I meant reality in a mere general sense of thought.. But moving on because you just made a bizarre claim to me.

You've said you're agnostic because we can't know (whatever it is we can't know, universal origins or likethings.) is that right? But now you say you don't make absolutes about reality.

That agnostic position sounds like am absolute statement about reality to me. Would you explain how it's not or is that a contradiction?

A religion is a dogma and requires people to believe it to be true, life their life according to the mantra etc. Deism is a single view of a first cause, that's about it.

So in your view I need to justify my assumption that we cannot assess reality as it is, as opposed to how we perceive it? Why should I think the product of a system can assess it as it is. It's safer to assume we cannot, why do you think we can?

The only absolute I make is not considering ourselves capable to obtain/analyse/assess.

Again you add claims not made because somehow you don't understand the concept of being skeptical.

You shouldn't assume anything without merit if you want to be intellectually honest.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 10:19 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 09:57 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 02:17 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Really? Drinking Beverage

What is this coffee thing here?

Anyhoo, yes really. I have asked you many times why you believe that you can obtain the evidence for it. This includes the actual ability to be able to obtain not just if it's avaliable.

And this is why I have repeatedly called you obtuse. I identify as an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I know we don't have the capability for this knowledge (yet), atheist because I can't hold a belief in something I see no evidence for. It's a very simple concept, friend. I have a hard time believing that you can't understand this, I think you are incapable of admitting defeat so you keep up the charade. How many times must we go around this circle?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
16-01-2014, 10:22 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Soup anyone?


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Losty's post
17-01-2014, 12:19 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 10:19 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 09:57 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  What is this coffee thing here?

Anyhoo, yes really. I have asked you many times why you believe that you can obtain the evidence for it. This includes the actual ability to be able to obtain not just if it's avaliable.

And this is why I have repeatedly called you obtuse. I identify as an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I know we don't have the capability for this knowledge (yet), atheist because I can't hold a belief in something I see no evidence for. It's a very simple concept, friend. I have a hard time believing that you can't understand this, I think you are incapable of admitting defeat so you keep up the charade. How many times must we go around this circle?

I understand how you see it and it simply does not compute for me. The concept is too simply and does not appear to be an appropriate conclusion if you have considered it for some time.

Your scepticism appears to stop at a point to reach a point to consider you're able to assess the situation and find a god to be lacking. If you continued further I believe you would be less inclined to accept the label of atheist. It has nothing to do with defeat. I don't believe your rationale to be correct, much as you consider my inability to define myself as an atheist to be incorrect. Is it really that surprising?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 12:26 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 10:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 10:10 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  A religion is a dogma and requires people to believe it to be true, life their life according to the mantra etc. Deism is a single view of a first cause, that's about it.

So in your view I need to justify my assumption that we cannot assess reality as it is, as opposed to how we perceive it? Why should I think the product of a system can assess it as it is. It's safer to assume we cannot, why do you think we can?

The only absolute I make is not considering ourselves capable to obtain/analyse/assess.

Again you add claims not made because somehow you don't understand the concept of being skeptical.

You shouldn't assume anything without merit if you want to be intellectually honest.
Your version of scepticism assumes nothing but your ability to assess the question of a god. If this is not true, tell me why you request evidence? I don't believe this to be a genuine request, simply one to prove your point. What evidence of a god has man ever had throughout history. It seems a concoction to justify atheism. The pretence of rationality is just that. If evidence is presented use it then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 01:18 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I understand how you see it and it simply does not compute for me.

This sentence is going into the facepalm thread. I'm not quite sure how to respond, but it does sum up this conversation quite concisely. Thank you for clarifying. Rolleyes

(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The concept is too simply and does not appear to be an appropriate conclusion if you have considered it for some time.

You have no idea how long I've considered it, so I'd like it if you'd not put me in an a priori box. Thanks.

(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your scepticism appears to stop at a point to reach a point to consider you're able to assess the situation and find a god to be lacking.

No. My claim of knowledge and/or belief stops at a point that I consider that I'm able to assess a god to be true. That is all it is.

(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you continued further I believe you would be less inclined to accept the label of atheist. It has nothing to do with defeat. I don't believe your rationale to be correct, much as you consider my inability to define myself as an atheist to be incorrect. Is it really that surprising?

Surprising? No.

I haven't been around as much as I wish I've been, but I've been around enough to know that it takes all kinds. I also respect all kinds. My motto in life is "you do you, I'll do me, we'll all muddle through".

You misunderstand a word, make sweeping generalizations about an internationally represented forum due to your mischaracterization of a word and expect to be taken seriously?

You don't believe my rationale to be correct, but weren't you the one a couple of post ago about to use the whole "how can we know what is real" argument as something that can be considered a valid point in this debate? How should I feel about your rationale about a simple word?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
17-01-2014, 01:20 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(16-01-2014 07:03 PM)sporehux Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 03:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  I manage to put more logic, reason, and fact in one line than you've managed in this entire thread. Drinking Beverage
I don't know chas, I don't think you or I could have maintained a troll bait thread this successfully, credit where credits due.

Why thank you. I have been a troll for almost 20 years now. I was a troll before there was a name for them. I must admit I find it pretty annoying when generics tried to use troll -like tactic.

The difference is you troll based on what you personally dislike or disagree with.

Troll is a bullshit term. It's as if the whole net sits around a virtual campfire singing kumbaya.Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 01:46 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(17-01-2014 01:18 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I understand how you see it and it simply does not compute for me.

This sentence is going into the facepalm thread. I'm not quite sure how to respond, but it does sum up this conversation quite concisely. Thank you for clarifying. Rolleyes

(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The concept is too simply and does not appear to be an appropriate conclusion if you have considered it for some time.

You have no idea how long I've considered it, so I'd like it if you'd not put me in an a priori box. Thanks.

(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your scepticism appears to stop at a point to reach a point to consider you're able to assess the situation and find a god to be lacking.

No. My claim of knowledge and/or belief stops at a point that I consider that I'm able to assess a god to be true. That is all it is.

(17-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you continued further I believe you would be less inclined to accept the label of atheist. It has nothing to do with defeat. I don't believe your rationale to be correct, much as you consider my inability to define myself as an atheist to be incorrect. Is it really that surprising?

Surprising? No.

I haven't been around as much as I wish I've been, but I've been around enough to know that it takes all kinds. I also respect all kinds. My motto in life is "you do you, I'll do me, we'll all muddle through".

You misunderstand a word, make sweeping generalizations about an internationally represented forum due to your mischaracterization of a word and expect to be taken seriously?

You don't believe my rationale to be correct, but weren't you the one a couple of post ago about to use the whole "how can we know what is real" argument as something that can be considered a valid point in this debate? How should I feel about your rationale about a simple word?

This is nodding in the direction of my thinking. I don't see the issue with the word as that big a deal. ... I think especially on the USA side of the pond there's some cultural baggage attached to the word now that blurs the meaning.

I sort of see myself as an agnostic atheist/anti-theist depending on company but that's based on my understanding of the words. If someone else subscribes to a different interpretation and wish to label me differently, I'm not that bothered. I only really react to it if they imply that the content of my mind is not what I am presenting. ... if I met Brownshirt in a pub, or anyone else who held his view and they were adamant I'm agnostic only and not atheist or vice versa. Truthfully I'd let it go, probably immediately. I think people get hung up on labels too quickly.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: