3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 01:52 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 06:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am not claiming that the 'riddle of existence' is knowable or not knowable. But you are now making a claim that it is, in fact, unknowable.

Yes that is what agnosticism is. If you think this separates you from agnosticism it will also misrepresent your position of it just being unknown.

If I'm wrong and are proven to be so, I will change my position on the riddle of existence being known What makes you think it's just unknown, what piece of evidence do you have which gives you the slightest inkling that it's just unknown and we're possibly just round the corner from discovering this secret.

We are a byproduct of a system, somehow we believe we transcend this and can assess the system itself. This approach constantly fails to consider that we are a byproduct of the system we're looking to find the answer for.

All you're doing is saying why all the time, but at the same time being anti-theist I don't have respect for it as a viable position.


Quote:That is the root of the problem. You have made two assumptions all along:
  • That the 'riddle of existence' or the existence of a deity is unknowable, and
  • that atheists claim that it is knowable.

I disagree with both of your assumptions. On the first, I am agnostic; on the second, you are simply incorrect.

You're asking me for proof that something is unknowable, you realise the ridiculous contradiction in this don't you? We have no evidence for any form of explanation, materialists will commonly assert evolution, the singularity etc. This just pushes us back one in a potentially infinite regress.

Show me something which gives you a reason to believe it can be knowable. This is as much of an assertion as anything.

You did not understand a thing I wrote. I have not asked you for proof of anything, and I did not say it was knowable.

We are done here. You are too attached to a century-old definition that no one else uses. Piss off.

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
09-01-2014, 02:13 PM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 01:52 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Yes that is what agnosticism is. If you think this separates you from agnosticism it will also misrepresent your position of it just being unknown.

If I'm wrong and are proven to be so, I will change my position on the riddle of existence being known What makes you think it's just unknown, what piece of evidence do you have which gives you the slightest inkling that it's just unknown and we're possibly just round the corner from discovering this secret.

We are a byproduct of a system, somehow we believe we transcend this and can assess the system itself. This approach constantly fails to consider that we are a byproduct of the system we're looking to find the answer for.

All you're doing is saying why all the time, but at the same time being anti-theist I don't have respect for it as a viable position.



You're asking me for proof that something is unknowable, you realise the ridiculous contradiction in this don't you? We have no evidence for any form of explanation, materialists will commonly assert evolution, the singularity etc. This just pushes us back one in a potentially infinite regress.

Show me something which gives you a reason to believe it can be knowable. This is as much of an assertion as anything.

You did not understand a thing I wrote. I have not asked you for proof of anything, and I did not say it was knowable.

We are done here. You are too attached to a century-old definition that no one else uses. Piss off.

I've made the same point in 3 posts now.

He can't get beyond his concept of claiming atheists think "knowledge" is knowable.

It's a skeptical position of default Brownshirt. Many "new atheists" come from that position and they don't take a position until sufficient evidence supports it. Yes, it does involve asking why a lot, because we don't presume to have the answer.

"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
09-01-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 01:52 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Yes that is what agnosticism is. If you think this separates you from agnosticism it will also misrepresent your position of it just being unknown.

If I'm wrong and are proven to be so, I will change my position on the riddle of existence being known What makes you think it's just unknown, what piece of evidence do you have which gives you the slightest inkling that it's just unknown and we're possibly just round the corner from discovering this secret.

We are a byproduct of a system, somehow we believe we transcend this and can assess the system itself. This approach constantly fails to consider that we are a byproduct of the system we're looking to find the answer for.

All you're doing is saying why all the time, but at the same time being anti-theist I don't have respect for it as a viable position.



You're asking me for proof that something is unknowable, you realise the ridiculous contradiction in this don't you? We have no evidence for any form of explanation, materialists will commonly assert evolution, the singularity etc. This just pushes us back one in a potentially infinite regress.

Show me something which gives you a reason to believe it can be knowable. This is as much of an assertion as anything.

You did not understand a thing I wrote. I have not asked you for proof of anything, and I did not say it was knowable.

We are done here. You are too attached to a century-old definition that no one else uses. Piss off.

I'm not missing out on anything, all you ever said was an incredibly basic claims and thought them to be truth which did not require any explanation at all.

You will always fall over here. Many people identify as agnostics as I said. I noticed you never even addressed my post which showed what "the dictionary" definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  You did not understand a thing I wrote. I have not asked you for proof of anything, and I did not say it was knowable.

We are done here. You are too attached to a century-old definition that no one else uses. Piss off.

I've made the same point in 3 posts now.

He can't get beyond his concept of claiming atheists think "knowledge" is knowable.

It's a skeptical position of default Brownshirt. Many "new atheists" come from that position and they don't take a position until sufficient evidence supports it. Yes, it does involve asking why a lot, because we don't presume to have the answer.

You're asking me to provide proof of that it's unknowable, if it exists, That you don't get that is your limitation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:38 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  You did not understand a thing I wrote. I have not asked you for proof of anything, and I did not say it was knowable.

We are done here. You are too attached to a century-old definition that no one else uses. Piss off.

I'm not missing out on anything, all you ever said was an incredibly basic claims and thought them to be truth which did not require any explanation at all.

You will always fall over here. Many people identify as agnostics as I said. I noticed you never even addressed my post which showed what "the dictionary" definition.

I did address it, twice. Definition 5.

You are simply going [Image: lalala.gif]

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
09-01-2014, 02:50 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2014 02:53 PM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:41 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 02:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I've made the same point in 3 posts now.

He can't get beyond his concept of claiming atheists think "knowledge" is knowable.

It's a skeptical position of default Brownshirt. Many "new atheists" come from that position and they don't take a position until sufficient evidence supports it. Yes, it does involve asking why a lot, because we don't presume to have the answer.

You're asking me to provide proof of that it's unknowable, if it exists, That you don't get that is your limitation.

I've not asked you to provide proof of anything. Is not asserting false things difficult for you?

I don't care about your position. Id rather you just stop caring that a word.can be used tell ways, and not ignore that both have been used for over a century. The fact that Huxley coined the term does not mean only his point by the term is valid.

"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
09-01-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 02:38 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I'm not missing out on anything, all you ever said was an incredibly basic claims and thought them to be truth which did not require any explanation at all.

You will always fall over here. Many people identify as agnostics as I said. I noticed you never even addressed my post which showed what "the dictionary" definition.

I did address it, twice. Definition 5.

You are simply going [Image: lalala.gif]

Are you purposely vague, or do you have some difficulty in writing beyond several lines?

ag·nos·tic
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.

1. is the only relevant area here as I'm talking specifically about being agnostic towards a deity, not anything else.

How does your position relate to this? i really hope you don't think "I don't know" equates to "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown".

If you are asserting 5 in relation to a god (not knowledge) it would make more sense to use the definition in 1 wouldn't it? You're attempting to use the word with regard to knowledge including a god, which is in direct contradiction to point 1.

If you're claiming you're agnostic towards 1+1=2 then that's something else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 02:41 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You're asking me to provide proof of that it's unknowable, if it exists, That you don't get that is your limitation.

I've not asked you to provide proof of anything. Is not asserting false things difficult for you?

I don't care about your position. Id rather you just stop caring that a word.can be used tell ways, and not ignore that both have been used for over a century. The fact that Huxley coined the term does not mean only his point by the term is valid.

Sorry Chas said I needed to justify why I made the claim that something was unknowable, i thought you did as well.

Unsurprisingly he hasn't addressed it.

Do you think the term agnostic atheist is a old one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 02:02 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 09:39 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  I don't, I'm agnostic. My beliefs don't come into it. I can't believe or disbelieve without having something to go on. We have nothing.

Your response to my rhetorical question answers your original question: Because I simply haven't encountered any evidence of God or a god and, given the proponderence of the data against God's existence I have simply concluded that God or a god(s), in all probability don't exist and the probablity that He/She/It does exist is so slim it doesn't warrant any further investment of my time, labor or money into further investigating the possibility.


In its purest form, Atheism is a response to an assertion. Theists, believers and the religious are making a claim that God exists; we are simply evaluating the evidence and the current conclusion is that there is simply no evidence which has been presented to convince me there is a God.

I can understand the logic behind the label of atheist, but why would you bother to identify as it? You're basing a label on someone else's position.


Because 1) that is the process of science and 2) science, unlike religion, delivers accurate, repeatable, demonstrable results. Tetracycline saves the life of a person dying from cholera based of the process of medical science. Airplanes can fly because their design is based on thousands of scientific theories. Broomsticks and magic carpets, which are claimed by folklore to fly, cannot do so in reality. To quote Richard Dawkins "Gravity isn't but one version of the truth, it is THE truth. And anyone who doesn't believe in it is welcome to throw themselves off a ten story building."

So you believe science can account for existence. Why?

Define what you mean by existence? That's a pretty vague statement. If you talking about consciousness or self awareness, then yes, we can comfortably say that it is nothing more than a complex symphony of myoelectric and chemical interactions in the brain and central nervous system, though all interactions are not fully understood.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 03:16 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 02:02 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  So you believe science can account for existence. Why?

Define what you mean by existence? That's a pretty vague statement. If you talking about consciousness or self awareness, then yes, we can comfortably say that it is nothing more than a complex symphony of myoelectric and chemical interactions in the brain and central nervous system, though all interactions are not fully understood.

By existence I mean, beyond the cause of a big bang. Existence has manifested with us as time, space and matter.

Why can you "comfortably say that it is nothing more..."? What have you observed which allows you to qualify it in this way. We have observed the processes in the brain, and somehow this allows you to emphatically state "it is nothing more than".
How do you know this? How do you know it's not your own interactions causing you to take this view? Your statement is self-refuting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: