3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 09:47 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 09:32 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  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?

I was referring to atheism in my response, not agnosticism. We're talking past each other, sorry.

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
07-01-2014, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 12:11 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 10:05 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(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.

It's true. I was CHASTENED. [EDIT:] ***HUMBLED***, even...


[Image: so-embarrassed.jpg]

...for about two milliseconds....


Big Grin




Love ya, EH! Thumbsup

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
08-01-2014, 12:37 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(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?



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.

And there it is. Thanks for clearing that up. For a while I was concerned you understood what I was saying, but were stubbornly clinging to your beliefs. Now its obvious that you don't comprehend a word of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
08-01-2014, 12:41 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:37 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 09:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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?



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.

And there it is. Thanks for clearing that up. For a while I was concerned you understood what I was saying, but were stubbornly clinging to your beliefs. Now its obvious that you don't comprehend a word of it.


I understood everything you wrote, just don't remotely agree with your use of agnostic. What makes you think I don't understand it?

Can you cite one non-atheist who uses your definition of agnostic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 12:52 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:37 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  And there it is. Thanks for clearing that up. For a while I was concerned you understood what I was saying, but were stubbornly clinging to your beliefs. Now its obvious that you don't comprehend a word of it.

[Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif][Image: audience.gif]

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
08-01-2014, 12:53 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:41 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 12:37 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  And there it is. Thanks for clearing that up. For a while I was concerned you understood what I was saying, but were stubbornly clinging to your beliefs. Now its obvious that you don't comprehend a word of it.


I understood everything you wrote, just don't remotely agree with your use of agnostic. What makes you think I don't understand it?

Can you cite one non-atheist who uses your definition of agnostic.

That said I do like the fact that you repeat the same regurgitated arguments in a singe waffling thread and think it's impossible to disagree. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 01:01 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(07-01-2014 10:03 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Wow -- your BS is really unravelling.


(07-01-2014 09:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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: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.

Wow you really are quite thick. You don't understand epistemology or what a strawman is.

I asked you a question, and you said it was a strawman. You need to be banned from using that word, as you have no idea what it means. Your accusations of various fallacies and ad hominem attacks are really dull and pretty pointless, but hey that's all you can contribute. Good on you for trying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 01:21 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:41 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Can you cite one non-atheist who uses your definition of agnostic.

Why should I care ? Can you cite one one-legged insurance salesman who uses your definition of revolver ? Well then how dare you define it yourself ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
08-01-2014, 03:56 AM
Re: 3 questions for atheists
To argue set standards of definitions as if they matter is foolish. Be aware terminology in all,languages evolved over time. The idea and stance matters far more than any label.

You keep saying how people calling themselves atheist is the bain of your existence, what have people identifying as atheists done to bother you?

We've had Huxley agnostics debate that point here before, some full time posters like Ghost. They are sensible people and not incredulous debaters who never understood a point.

Huxley coined agnosticism, doesn't mean that definition is the only legitimate use of it, that goes for ANY word coined in the 1800s. They mostly all will have seen alteration through different use through time.

Huxley agnosticism is a stance and agnostic atheism/theism are stances. They can both be valid but I'm still unaware why you refuse that.

"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
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
08-01-2014, 08:44 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 01:01 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 10:03 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Wow -- your BS is really unravelling.




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.




Um Black Swan Fallacy.


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



You x-tards do it all the time.


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.


By adequately convincing evidence.


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


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



You have failed to show that.



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


Grammatik Macht Frei.

Wow you really are quite thick. You don't understand epistemology or what a strawman is.


Quite funny coming from the guy who's filling up the forum with strawmen.


Quote:I asked you a question, and you said it was a strawman. You need to be banned from using that word, as you have no idea what it means.

LOL and I suppose everyone else here "should" be banned from using the words "atheist" and "agnostic" Too bad for you that you don't run the world. You would be able to enforce your equivocations. Laughat


Quote: Your accusations of various fallacies and ad hominem attacks are really dull and pretty pointless, but hey that's all you can contribute. Good on you for trying.
Various fallacies and ad hominem attacks are all you can contribute, yes, and they are quite dull, as are you.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: