3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2014, 09:03 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 07:22 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 06:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Of course naturalistic mechanisms explain what we observe. How this all stacks up into some grand picture of solely naturalistic origin (and by this I presume you mean non-deity) of existence is still not justified.

[Image: the-Wicker-Man-6.jpg]

Laughat You still don't know what they are do you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 09:21 PM by Brownshirt.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 07:23 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Of course, if you still don't understand what nearly EVERYBODY here has been telling you, perhaps you need to let go of your pride, or consider the possibility that you are mentally deficient in some ways.

You can go to a theist forum and EVERYBODY there will tell you why they're right, maybe you could consider yourself mentally deficient? Just saying. Get my point?



Quote:Now as far as making the term "agnostic" useless, I don't see that at all.

The usage of "agnostic" has been popularized as you mentioned, to be a person who claims "Nothing can be known about the existence or non-existence of dieties" (paraphrased)

However, the popularization of the word does NOT invalidate the use of the word as translated from its origin in "gnosis".
Gnosis - knowledge of spiritual mysteries
Gnostic - of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

Through perfectly acceptable use of language, a person who is "WITHOUT knowledge of spiritual mysteries", can be said to be agnostic. The literal implications do NOT require that we deny the ability to know, only that we currently do not make claims from gnosis.

In fact, it could be argued that the popularized view of agnosticism (that we CANNOT know), is in itself making a claim of knowledge about spiritual matters, and is actually not truly an agnostic stance.
Only atheists use the popularised 'version' of the word and attempt to use the difference between 'know' and 'belief' to justify your own views. No one else claims this, only atheists.

What is the difference between know and belief. And could you believe but not know? and what evidence would you require to believe but not know?By what means do you propose that we could know?

i hope you don't set off down that naturalism path, you could be stripped bare.

If you look at the etymology of the word, gnosis is knowledge. So why do you claim that agnostic or without knowledge cannot mean "cannot know". Given your incorrect use of the word (i.e what you know) you're still attempting to hijack the word, and by your own admission popularisation (by atheists) it's not based on what Huxley intended.

The claim of knowledge or no knowledge of god is redundant one, so you're making the labekl agnostic pointless. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 09:32 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Only atheists use the popularised 'version' of the word and attempt to use the difference between 'know' and 'belief' to justify your own views.

Only those who understand what the definition of the word is use it appropriately. You keep bastardizing the word and telling us that we are wrong. The "popularised" version seems to be the one that you want to adhere to, not the actual definition of the word.

Are you going to respond to my critique of your video?

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
07-01-2014, 09:35 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:03 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 07:22 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  [Image: the-Wicker-Man-6.jpg]

Laughat You still don't know what they are do you?

"...some grand picture of solely naturalistic origin (and by this I presume you mean non-deity) of existence..."


Can I see a show of hands of all atheists here who have declared their belief in the above in this thread?


If not, the Strawman.

Drinking Beverage

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 09:42 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 07:48 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 01:43 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  


Okay, so I watched the video. In short, it is a gross overgeneralization of what it means to be an atheist. I get it. You are against militant atheism. You are against the fanatical atheists. What you don't get is that most atheists are not that.
Seriously do think Tourettes Boy (aka Harper Lee wannabe) is not fanatical?

Quote:Towards the end of the video, he says that "agnosticism is the only way to search for the scientific truth". This is wrong. Skepticism is the only way to search for the scientific truth.

Ok, I really don't care about scientific truth, I don't hold any hope for scientific truth to answer a question it's not looking to address. I'm agnostic by Huxley's definition

Quote:Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest response to "do you know whether or not there is a god?". Sure. That is why most of us will claim agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism.

No that's not agnosticism. Agnosticism is against the pretense of certainty. There's no such thing as an agnostic theist either. If you pretend that you can rationalise the existence of a god, or no god, then you're not an agnostic. What you claim to know, or not know is irrelevant and frankly childlike. It's like they've broken down agnosticism into a soundbite, some things are a little deeper than what you do or don't know. Given the subject matter and variations between what people have thought, that's simplifying the word a lot.

Quote:If you are asked "do you hold a positive belief in a god?", and cannot answer yes, then by definition of the word you are an atheist.

Your definition, you're selling me atheist definitions. I don't believe and I don't disbelieve. Sure, from a Christian perspective I'm going to hell, I don't care I'm not an atheist.

Quote:Your video creates a big strawman about atheists by only talking about atheists like Dawkins (he's the first one mentioned, surprise, surprise). It only talks about those who are actively outspoken against religion, but you have to realize that the majority of people out there who identify with atheism don't publicly decry religion, don't ridicule those with beliefs, and generally don't even get on the internet and try to push their view.

Are you serious? The only people I know who are atheists take the piss all the time. If you think agnostics are atheist then yes that's true. Those who identify as atheists are pain in the arse.

Quote:As I said before, this is the only place I come to to even talk about atheism. It's the only forum I belong to and I don't really use the internet for much anything else but entertainment and education.

Come to discuss a lack of belief? No wonder you all jump up and down when a chew toy arrives.

Quote:I don't fit your categorization of what an atheist is (you still won't acknowledge that it's because what you categorize an atheist as is an overgeneralization and is inherently, definitionally, and categorically wrong).
No primarily because those people who you claim are atheists, agnostics, aren't active in their atheism. If you're not anti-religion what's the point?


Quote:You need to back the fuck up, take a really good look at the world and start to take it in for what it is, not for whatever view of it makes you feel better about yourself.

Don't identify with a label which historically has a connotation of a certain viewpoint.
It's like saying I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but we only lack belief in treating blacks equally. Your attempts to change definitions are bollocks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 09:43 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:35 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 09:03 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Laughat You still don't know what they are do you?

"...some grand picture of solely naturalistic origin (and by this I presume you mean non-deity) of existence..."


Can I see a show of hands of all atheists here who have declared their belief in the above in this thread?


If not, the Strawman.

Drinking Beverage

You mean natural can mean a deity? Thumbsup Your atheists and your commitment phobias. You get so caught up in your own retarded logic you want to imply much but refuse to say anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 09:47 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:32 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 09:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Only atheists use the popularised 'version' of the word and attempt to use the difference between 'know' and 'belief' to justify your own views.

Only those who understand what the definition of the word is use it appropriately. You keep bastardizing the word and telling us that we are wrong. The "popularised" version seems to be the one that you want to adhere to, not the actual definition of the word.

Are you going to respond to my critique of your video?
Are you kidding me? Huxley coined it, look it up.

Your version of "what you know" is heavily popularised. i'm not bastardising it all, got any non-atheist base link which proves your claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 10:03 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 10:08 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Wow -- your BS is really unravelling.


(07-01-2014 09:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 07:23 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Of course, if you still don't understand what nearly EVERYBODY here has been telling you, perhaps you need to let go of your pride, or consider the possibility that you are mentally deficient in some ways.

You can go to a theist forum and EVERYBODY there will tell you why they're right, maybe you could consider yourself mentally deficient? Just saying. Get my point?


WATC isn't saying that we are right by virtue of numbers. That would be mere argumentum ad populum. We have all called you on your bullshit, but the point is that if one person calls you a duck you can tell him to fuck off, but if twenty tell you, you might want to check for webbing between your toes.


Quote:
Quote:Now as far as making the term "agnostic" useless, I don't see that at all.

The usage of "agnostic" has been popularized as you mentioned, to be a person who claims "Nothing can be known about the existence or non-existence of dieties" (paraphrased)

However, the popularization of the word does NOT invalidate the use of the word as translated from its origin in "gnosis".
Gnosis - knowledge of spiritual mysteries
Gnostic - of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

Through perfectly acceptable use of language, a person who is "WITHOUT knowledge of spiritual mysteries", can be said to be agnostic. The literal implications do NOT require that we deny the ability to know, only that we currently do not make claims from gnosis.

In fact, it could be argued that the popularized view of agnosticism (that we CANNOT know), is in itself making a claim of knowledge about spiritual matters, and is actually not truly an agnostic stance.
Only atheists use the popularised 'version' of the word and attempt to use the difference between 'know' and 'belief' to justify your own views. No one else claims this, only atheists.


Um Black Swan Fallacy.

Quote:What is the difference between know and belief.

YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW?????? FUCK, but you are an idiot.


Quote: And could you believe but not know?

You x-tards do it all the time.

Quote: and what evidence would you require to believe but not know?

Straw man. The folks here will readily admit what we don't know. We do not conflate belief with knowledge. We might give great weight to theories or hypotheses based on overwhelming evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, but to the man (or woman) we do not conflate belief and knowledge.

Quote:By what means do you propose that we could know?

By adequately convincing evidence.

Quote:i hope you don't set off down that naturalism path, you could be stripped bare.

Looks like you are setting up another straw man, but bring it, bitch.

Quote:If you look at the etymology of the word, gnosis is knowledge. So why do you claim that agnostic or without knowledge cannot mean "cannot know".

The question is why you claim that it must mean only that..


Quote: Given your incorrect use of the word (i.e what you know)

You have failed to show that.

Quote: you're still attempting to hijack the word, and by your own admission popularisation (by atheists) it's not based on what Huxley intended.


Oh, you finally got around to Huxley. How do you claim that your bullshit is in line with Huxley's definition?

Quote:The claim of knowledge or no knowledge of god is redundant one, so you're making the labekl agnostic pointless. Thanks.

Grammatik Macht Frei.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 10:05 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Seriously do think Tourettes Boy (aka Harper Lee wannabe) is not fanatical?

That's confusing, but I assume you're talking about Taq? I've already given him/her a piece of my mind about his/her approach and it wasn't pretty. Good try though.

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Ok, I really don't care about scientific truth, I don't hold any hope for scientific truth to answer a question it's not looking to address. I'm agnostic by Huxley's definition

Well that's part of your problem. If you aren't looking for the truth about what we can know, what business do you have telling others that they are wrong about their worldview? I've already addressed what I think about Huxley's definition.

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Agnosticism is against the pretense of certainty.

So you admit that your definition of agnosticism claims a position. How militant of you.

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your definition, you're selling me atheist definitions.

I have since the beginning of the thread used the only standard definition of the word atheism that I know. It comes from the dictionary. It is you who has attempted to distort and misrepresent what the word means.

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Are you serious? The only people I know who are atheists take the piss all the time. If you think agnostics are atheist then yes that's true. Those who identify as atheists are pain in the arse.

Then you need to get out more. Tongue

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Come to discuss a lack of belief?

Yes, atheism. I believe we've covered that.

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you're not anti-religion what's the point?

I'm tired of being surrounded by people who are religious. I can't discuss how I actually view the world or even ask serious questions without risk of being ostracized in my day to day activities. This place gives me a bit of reprieve.

(07-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Don't identify with a label which historically has a connotation of a certain viewpoint.

Nope. A label which has historically been unfairly given a disingenuous connotation and historically has been unfairly persecuted and condemned, if only because most people aren't honest or genuine enough with themselves to be able to extend any empathy to someone else who's view might differ.

That is the "religious" attitude. The same one you have come here to espouse. You mischaracterize and condemn without the courtesy of examining things from another's point of view. You misrepresent words and meanings, and because you do so, you misrepresent people and attitudes.

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
07-01-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:43 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 09:35 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  "...some grand picture of solely naturalistic origin (and by this I presume you mean non-deity) of existence..."


Can I see a show of hands of all atheists here who have declared their belief in the above in this thread?


If not, the Strawman.

Drinking Beverage

You mean natural can mean a deity?

What on earth makes you think that? Hobo


Quote: Your atheists and your commitment phobias.


Um, I don't own any atheists. Of course, being an American Citizen, I may yet be able to claim rights to own at least a few Canadians (according to biblical law), but that is beside the point.

Quote: You get so caught up in your own retarded logic you want to imply much but refuse to say anything.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: