3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 01:17 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  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?
I've said it, you're hijacking the term. Given the activism of atheists and apathy of agnostics, the term will change to mean your definition which is patently wrong.
How would you feel if I used the term atheist to define what I deem to be agnostic? If you blatantly disregard what a term means, and how it's used by those who identify as it, expect a backlash.

Agnosticism is a metaphyscial view which promotes that the existence of a deity/non-deity is unknowable. Therefore promoting the lack of belief atheism is bollocks. I also lack belief in the lack of belief position too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(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.

No. I don't say that knowledge can or can't be obtained, just that it hasn't been obtained. Huxley died in 1895, I don't give a shit what his definition was.

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
08-01-2014, 02:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 02:35 PM by Chas.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:19 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

And we have quoted multiple dictionaries to demonstrate that the definition of agnostic has also changed.

agnostic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
adjective
4. of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

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
08-01-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

No. I don't say that knowledge can or can't be obtained, just that it hasn't been obtained. Huxley died in 1895, I don't give a shit what his definition was.

Yes I know it hasn't been obtained. Atheists claim the lack of evidence to justify their view, if you use a lack of evidence to justify your position you've assumed evidence must be available otherwise why do you depend on it? Please refrain from court case analogies as they assume the same thing.

If you don't give a shit don't use his term, create your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:19 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

And we have quoted multiple dictionaries to demonstrate that the definition of agnostic has also changed.

agnostic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
adjective
4. of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

Yes try applying them to your view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  if you use a lack of evidence to justify your position you've assumed evidence must be available

That is some of the most broken logic I've heard.

You're just straight up retarded, aren't you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
08-01-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:38 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  And we have quoted multiple dictionaries to demonstrate that the definition of agnostic has also changed.

agnostic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
adjective
4. of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

Yes try applying them to your view.

I have, that is how I am an agnostic atheist. I don't claim knowledge of (agnostic) or belief in gods (atheist).

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-01-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. I don't say that knowledge can or can't be obtained, just that it hasn't been obtained. Huxley died in 1895, I don't give a shit what his definition was.

Yes I know it hasn't been obtained. Atheists claim the lack of evidence to justify their view, if you use a lack of evidence to justify your position you've assumed evidence must be available otherwise why do you depend on it? Please refrain from court case analogies as they assume the same thing.

If you don't give a shit don't use his term, create your own.

Are you brain-damaged? Atheist means without a belief in gods. I have no belief in gods because there is no evidence for their existence.
I make no assumption about, or claim as to, the availability of evidence.

Lack of evidence simply means lack of evidence.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-01-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:50 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  if you use a lack of evidence to justify your position you've assumed evidence must be available

That is some of the most broken logic I've heard.

You're just straight up retarded, aren't you?

What's your definition of retarded? Hopefully not iq or education? I think we both know it's not believing your rationale to be spot on.

If you depend on something irrelevant to the question then you're depending on the wrong thing. Hopefully you'll understand that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 02:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 02:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Yes I know it hasn't been obtained. Atheists claim the lack of evidence to justify their view, if you use a lack of evidence to justify your position you've assumed evidence must be available otherwise why do you depend on it? Please refrain from court case analogies as they assume the same thing.

If you don't give a shit don't use his term, create your own.

Are you brain-damaged? Atheist means without a belief in gods. I have no belief in gods because there is no evidence for their existence.
I make no assumption about, or claim as to, the availability of evidence.

Lack of evidence simply means lack of evidence.

You don't entertain the notion that it cannot be unknowable, as it lacks proof of being unknowable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: