3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(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 ?
Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 08:44 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 01:01 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.
You have nothing to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:36 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  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 ?
Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.

How do you feel about the use of the word gay to refer to homosexuals?

Or the word awful to denote bad? It originally meant 'to inspire awe'.

Or the word egregious to mean something that is remarkably bad or flagrant? Its original meaning was something that was remarkably good.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
08-01-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:36 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  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 ?
Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.


Agnostics are either to stupid to claim the position on the matter of god/gods existing or too afraid to admit to themselves that they are atheists.

Problem?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
08-01-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:36 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  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 ?
Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.

I don't attempt to redefine anything. I use the word in my capacity as a rational human being, with the meaning that I understand it to have. Because meaning of words, much like value of money, is more or less established by collective bargaining I have some influence over how it is used - part of the subconscious collective bargaining process - but mostly I use it in the context of the society I live in.

This is different from scientific terms for which the attempt is made to precisely define them - in the hard sciences one can always refer back to the maths to gain a better understanding of what is meant by, for example, energy. This is more difficult in other sciences because of the nature of what they study.

Much like going into a shop and insisting that your US dollars are worth their 1990 value, you are attempting to go back to an older definition of agnosticism, insisting on using that term. You are free to do that *yourself*, but you are then making the *egregious* assertion that we are *deliberately* trying to obfuscate the meaning of the word agnostic as part of some mysterious atheist agenda. And that is the point where we urge you to fuck 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, 01:17 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:36 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  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 ?
Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.

No, we really shouldn't.

Barring the whole argument of the fact that definitions morph over time or what agnostic really means, why do you give a fuck how we wish to define ourselves? Let me modify that, since I imagine you retorting with "because your definition belittles my position."

I make a dichotomy between belief and knowledge, which leads to the four label (agnostic/gnostic atheist or theist) spectrum rather than the three label one you seem to accept (theist, agnostic, atheist). Yes, from my perspective, to claim pure "agnostic" makes no sense to me. Guess what? I might argue with you on that, but at the end of the day, if that's the way you want to identify yourself, you go ahead and do that, I won't stop you. I'll just have to be content with not understanding your position, but if you don't want to redefine yourself by my definitions, suit yourself.

The question is, why do you refuse to accept for US to define ourselves outside of your own parameters?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:56 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

Of course they matter, otherwise words have no value whatsoever. Why do you identify as an atheist and come to this forum otherwise?

Yes I know language changes. If ideas and stance matters more than a label why does it matter so much to atheists when they get accused of having a "belief" or are part of "religion"? You should just say it doesn't matter, look at the idea behind it.

Can you identify what I haven't understood? I have not accepted your definition of the word agnostic, can that only mean I have not understood?

I don't say they're the bain of my existence at all. Atheists are the vast majority here, and take this wholly than thou bullshit perspective as if their rejection of a deity to be true. It's a conceited and a trite perspective.

Of course words change over time, you're missing my point entirely I'm claiming atheists are attempting to change the word's meaning (primarily contributed by their heavy activism). Most genuine agnostics are too apathetic to care, while I'm sick of it.

Atheists focus on lacking knowledge while assuming that it can be obtained, agnostics don't make the assumption it can be obtained. That's a fundamental difference. You make the word agnostic redundant, as if someone is a gnostic theist/atheist you would claim they're mad and no one would take them serious. Why not use the term "sane" theist/atheist?
I refuse your use of the term as it directly negates my use of the term and Huxely's intention behind it. If he had described your definition many people would not identify as agnostic at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 12:36 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.

How do you feel about the use of the word gay to refer to homosexuals?

Or the word awful to denote bad? It originally meant 'to inspire awe'.

Or the word egregious to mean something that is remarkably bad or flagrant? Its original meaning was something that was remarkably good.

I don't care about of any of these as these terms have changed. As I have said on numerous occasions only atheists use the heavily simplified sound-bite perspective of agnostic to be whether you do or don't know. I mean seriously, this holds no value as a descriptor. If someone claims to know either way, no one would give a shit unless they proved it. It's a pointless tag.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 12:50 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 12:36 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Is that your point? Really?

You should care as atheists attempt to redefine agnosticism to make atheism appear more tational. It's only atheists who attempt to define agnosticism as something as simplistic as you "you don't know". It's so disingenuous but a common tactic.

It's relevant that only atheists attempt to redefine the word for the benefit of making their their position appear more palatable.


Agnostics are either to stupid to claim the position on the matter of god/gods existing or too afraid to admit to themselves that they are atheists.

Problem?

Laughat Sorry you're too late. Tourettes Boy is already here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 01:11 PM)morondog Wrote:  I don't attempt to redefine anything. I use the word in my capacity as a rational human being, with the meaning that I understand it to have. Because meaning of words, much like value of money, is more or less established by collective bargaining I have some influence over how it is used - part of the subconscious collective bargaining process - but mostly I use it in the context of the society I live in.

This is different from scientific terms for which the attempt is made to precisely define them - in the hard sciences one can always refer back to the maths to gain a better understanding of what is meant by, for example, energy. This is more difficult in other sciences because of the nature of what they study.

Much like going into a shop and insisting that your US dollars are worth their 1990 value, you are attempting to go back to an older definition of agnosticism, insisting on using that term. You are free to do that *yourself*, but you are then making the *egregious* assertion that we are *deliberately* trying to obfuscate the meaning of the word agnostic as part of some mysterious atheist agenda. And that is the point where we urge you to fuck yourself.

So can you explain why so many atheists all interpret the term agnostic to be a heavily simplified either "you know' or "don't know? It stinks of dogma to me. Please don't say it's because all atheists are rational and therefore correct. Circular arguments further no perspective.

There is no bargaining at all amongst the atheist collective. You all want to appear to be more rational. The use of the term agnostic appears to push you away from making a claim.

I think belief and knowledge are so heavily intertwined, while you attempt to promote otherwise. Since you claim the atheist and agnostic positions answer separate question how would YOU be a agnostic theist? What would you need to become a theist, but still not know?

It's not an older one at all, it's very current. Many people identify as agnostics and do not identify as an atheist at all. You focus on not believing, yet cannot grasp the not disbelieving position of an agnostic. Do you not disbelieve? If a group of people identified as a theist atheist, then that would probably annoy you. The difference is you have separated the term agnostic to be "what you know", it's not that. It's a position towards what we can know, huge difference.

If evidence comes to light I will admit I'm wrong. Until then, there's no reason to believe we can know. Given atheists common naturalist approach, agnosticism undermines this perspective entirely.

That inflation analogy is terrible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: