3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You sound like a thick cunt without a point or understanding of what's being said.
Weeping

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:19 PM)Tartarus Sauce 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 otherwise why do you depend on it?

That is complete and total bullshit.

Lack of evidence is used as a justification to disregard the hypothesis as valid UNTIL that evidence is presented, not that it actually exists. It may never show up because it doesn't exist, it may never show up because we never find it, it may never show up because it exists but we are incapable of comprehending it, but until it shows up, it's just a worthless assertion with no standing and no use and is therefore a waste of time contemplating.

So even if it's true it's still a waste of time? You sound like you need to know the answers and cannot entertain any other possibility, i.e. being unable to know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:21 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You sound like a thick cunt without a point or understanding of what's being said.
Weeping

Thank you, come again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:17 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Obviously I did since I bolded the applicable one. It is used as an adjective. Do you know what an adjective is?

Oh of course it's an adjective for the noun of either theist or atheist. Laughat

Yes, did you understand what this means? "asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge." Does this mean we don't know if something exists, or that we cannot know? If you assert uncertainty it should be fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain.

That reminds me, back to my other question could you be a agnostic theist?

Yes, of course. Many people don't know that any gods exist, but believe in a god.

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, 03:27 PM
Re: 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.

The use does not negate Huxleys agnosticism at all. (that's what you seem to not understand) Both usages of the concept can stand equally, and people in this community and other ones identify as that agnostic. How are they or anyones position negated??

You make am awful lot of assumptions. Atheists isn't something you can really define as doing this or that as a blanket group outside of considering themselves an atheist.

Several atheists I've seen here, myself included, don't assume knowledge can be obtained. I both don't assert knowledge or assume that it can be obtained. Why do you see proclaim hardline differences when they are not all there? It seems like you are generalizing a position based on assumptions or some encounters.

I have a question for you beyond this. What do you think about the concept of strong atheism vs weak atheism? Those are basically used as synonyms for the gnostic/agnostic atheism positions. Does weak atheism negate your view in anyway as you feel agnostic atheism does?

"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
08-01-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:17 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Oh of course it's an adjective for the noun of either theist or atheist. Laughat

Yes, did you understand what this means? "asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge." Does this mean we don't know if something exists, or that we cannot know? If you assert uncertainty it should be fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain.

That reminds me, back to my other question could you be a agnostic theist?

Yes, of course. Many people don't know that any gods exist, but believe in a god.

Ok then, what would you require to be an agnostic theist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
[Image: Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif]

Me this entire thread!

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Crulax's post
08-01-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:29 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Ok then, what would you require to be an agnostic theist?
Is this a real question? If I could honestly say this sentence, "I believe there is a god, but I admit that I don't know for sure." Then I am an agnostic theist.
...
Weeping

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 03:36 PM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:29 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, of course. Many people don't know that any gods exist, but believe in a god.

Ok then, what would you require to be an agnostic theist?

For me, probably a strong whack in the head.

Actually, a strong personal experience of some deity as people say they have. Maybe I'd require multiple, but that would only drive me to believe it. I wouldn't assert I knew it because I am aware that I could be mentally ill or delusional. So I would be an agnostic theist.

"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
08-01-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 03:27 PM)ClydeLee 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.

The use does not negate Huxleys agnosticism at all. (that's what you seem to not understand) Both usages of the concept can stand equally, and people in this community and other ones identify as that agnostic. How are they or anyones position negated??

You make am awful lot of assumptions. Atheists isn't something you can really define as doing this or that as a blanket group outside of considering themselves an atheist.

Several atheists I've seen here, myself included, don't assume knowledge can be obtained. I both don't assert knowledge or assume that it can be obtained. Why do you see proclaim hardline differences when they are not all there? It seems like you are generalizing a position based on assumptions or some encounters.

I have a question for you beyond this. What do you think about the concept of strong atheism vs weak atheism? Those are basically used as synonyms for the gnostic/agnostic atheism positions. Does weak atheism negate your view in anyway as you feel agnostic atheism does?

You can claim to not know whether a god exists or not, that has nothing to do with agnosticism. Agnosticism is claiming we lack the capacity to know, it's a permanent state, and is not caused or dependent on evidence (or lack of) for it.

So if you assume that knowledge cannot be obtained, but you require evidence to know/believe, you've set yourself up to be an atheist. It may make rational sense to you, but it's very dishonest to me.

I think the concept of weak vs strong is a have. Weak atheists use it to dodge a burden of proof, but still claim atheism. I would prefer the terms weak vs strong, as agnosticism is not a synonym for weak.

The lines between belief and knowledge can be highly subjective and blurry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: