I'll pray for you...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2012, 12:58 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(07-08-2012 02:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  The evidence that there are no gods as defined by current religions includes the fact that prayer does not work, the fact that explanations of the observed workings of the universe at every scale do not require the supernatural, the fact that the world looks exactly as it should without the existence of gods, the continued success of the scientific method, the continued failure of faith-healing, the continued complete lack of evidence that should be there if gods exist.

Absence of evidence that should be there is evidence of absence.

Oi, at the risk of being heckled, but what does religion have to with God. You "say" prayer doesnt work, others say it does as your presenting as much evidence they are are treat bth your claims with skeptism. As we dont yet fully understand the workings of the universe we cant make concrete claims as to what it requires, also just because its not nessecary does not definatively mean it doesnt exist. Cake is not required, yet it exists. Your knowledge of how things should be, is remarkable. The continued success of the scientific method also does not prove the non existence of a God, nor does the failure of faith healing. The continued lack of evidence that should be there? what exactly is this evidence that should exist?

In a word ineffable, also the religious gets to not care a whit about evidence posative or negative there teaching/world view clearly states that faith trumps evidence, theyre as entitled to believe that as you are to demand evidence for your beliefs and think that trumps evidence. However, your attempt to prove a negative through a use of a lack of evidence is as misguided and laughable as there attempts to prove he does, neither are possable this is why science doesnt bother with it and leaves it to theologians and philosophers. At the end of the day if god exists, a state of affairs I think is highly improbable but if for the the sake of arguement he does confounding any attempt to prove he does is well within his power to do and well within his modus operandi.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 01:33 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(07-08-2012 04:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 12:29 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. If you present me no evidence I'll be as moved by the weight of the evidence as it justifies ie not at all. Not gonna waste my breathe further on ths nonsense.
Congratulations on commiting the strawman fallacy by misrepresenting my argument. I suggest you to reread what I wrote, because I was not talking about evidence, let alone about lack of evidence being equal to evidence of absence, but about the available facts we have about belief systems such as Christianity (for further information, refer to Chas' post).

Quote:Not sure what your point is, is a philosphical posistion a part of a belief system, I quickly define Agnostic atheism in a later a post and broadly speaking say much the same thing. although the formal difference between agnostic athiest/thiest is new to me, but you may not have read further on in the thread before aswering which is coolio.
I couldn't care less about your definition of agnostic atheism. The fact remains that it's solely a philosophical position that has nothing to do with believing. I referred you to a source to back this up while you offered nothing but hot air.


Ok Ive reread your statement, perhaps I am misreading your comment. Perhaps you could explain "One does not need to be confronted with positive evidence for the contrary position to be delusional. As the quoted definition states, one needs to be confronted only with the available facts." maybe you could explain how the available facts are different from posative evidence? Also while Im at it the definition of agnostic athethism, the part you dont bold, states "agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact" this is exactly what Im saying, just because you only put in bold the part you feel supports your belief, does not mean that the defintion includes what you say is a strawman. You demonstrate in your arguementation that you dont care for my or indeed any definition that differs from yours, and although you are generous to attribute the defintion to I certainly dont claim authorship of it, I claim only to understand what it means. If you also wish to continue to conflate belief with faith or proof, your welcome to, or is it your contention that a philosophical position can not be beliefed. As an agnostic I believe the exististence of a God is improbable, improbable enough that Im happy enough to say I believe there is no God, but I stop short of atheism because I can not substatiate this view into a concrete fact. If you can present your proof for peer review.

If you check back through the posts, the first person to start presenting the definitions of things was me, I havent repeated myself by reposting them in every post because I find that doing so becomes quite tiresome, Ive presented my sources for review just because youve jumped on the band wagon now, doesnt mean you get to ride the moral high horse and accuse me of not citing my arguements.

So whereas its not that I dont care what you have to say, on the contary the basis of your arguement is not beyond the bounds of resonable. I have to say I have little concern for your arguement, which is intellectually dishonest at best you cite "evidence" whilst ignoring parts of your presented evidence that state exactly what you say it doesnt, you make false accusations and claim credit where it is not due. This may make you feel clever and superior, but it does nothing for me, but undermine your position.

Either way your as at liberty to blindly believe your version of reality as the religious are, if your happy believing that large amounts of no evidence proof stuff go ahead, if you dont believe you can have belief in a philosophy knock yourself out.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 05:24 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 05:37 AM by Vosur.)
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Ok Ive reread your statement, perhaps I am misreading your comment. Perhaps you could explain "One does not need to be confronted with positive evidence for the contrary position to be delusional. As the quoted definition states, one needs to be confronted only with the available facts." maybe you could explain how the available facts are different from posative evidence?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146353

In order to be delusional, you have to either hold unrealistic/false beliefs (i.e. a belief without a single shred of evidence) and/or maintain said beliefs when confronted with facts. As I've already mentioned, one of these facts is the absence of any evidence supporting any kind of religious beliefs. If one continues to hold on to his beliefs after being confronted with such a fact, he is, per definition, delusional.

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Also while Im at it the definition of agnostic athethism, the part you dont bold, states "agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact" this is exactly what Im saying, just because you only put in bold the part you feel supports your belief, does not mean that the defintion includes what you say is a strawman. You demonstrate in your arguementation that you dont care for my or indeed any definition that differs from yours, and although you are generous to attribute the defintion to I certainly dont claim authorship of it, I claim only to understand what it means. If you also wish to continue to conflate belief with faith or proof, your welcome to, or is it your contention that a philosophical position can not be beliefed. As an agnostic I believe the exististence of a God is improbable, improbable enough that Im happy enough to say I believe there is no God, but I stop short of atheism because I can not substatiate this view into a concrete fact. If you can present your proof for peer review.
Congratulations, yet another strawman. I did not claim that philosophical positions and systems of beliefs are mutually exclusive. There are philosophical positions that are also belief systems, but as the definition I quoted states, Agnostic Atheism is not one of them. Furthermore, you claim that I dismiss any definition that differs from mine. Actually, I dismiss definitions that you made up, those for which you can't provide any evidence.

"agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact"

It's time for you to make some coherent arguments. In none of your posts have you offered a source to support your assertion that Agnostic Atheism is a system of belief [believe]. The quoted part of the definition I referred you to above does not support your argument at all. I can you give you another one, can you do the same?

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Humakt Wrote:  If you check back through the posts, the first person to start presenting the definitions of things was me, I havent repeated myself by reposting them in every post because I find that doing so becomes quite tiresome, Ive presented my sources for review just because youve jumped on the band wagon now, doesnt mean you get to ride the moral high horse and accuse me of not citing my arguements.
What's your point? You have yet to present a source for your definition of Agnostic Atheism. Furthermore, the definition of delusional that I quoted is from the same source as yours for "delusion", which means you can't discredit it without falsifying your own.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 05:24 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Ok Ive reread your statement, perhaps I am misreading your comment. Perhaps you could explain "One does not need to be confronted with positive evidence for the contrary position to be delusional. As the quoted definition states, one needs to be confronted only with the available facts." maybe you could explain how the available facts are different from posative evidence?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146353

In order to be delusional, you have to either hold unrealistic/false beliefs (i.e. a belief without a single shred of evidence) and/or maintain said beliefs when confronted with facts. As I've already mentioned, one of these facts is the absence of any evidence supporting any kind of religious beliefs. If one continues to hold on to his beliefs after being confronted with such a fact, he is, per definition, delusional.

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Also while Im at it the definition of agnostic athethism, the part you dont bold, states "agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact" this is exactly what Im saying, just because you only put in bold the part you feel supports your belief, does not mean that the defintion includes what you say is a strawman. You demonstrate in your arguementation that you dont care for my or indeed any definition that differs from yours, and although you are generous to attribute the defintion to I certainly dont claim authorship of it, I claim only to understand what it means. If you also wish to continue to conflate belief with faith or proof, your welcome to, or is it your contention that a philosophical position can not be beliefed. As an agnostic I believe the exististence of a God is improbable, improbable enough that Im happy enough to say I believe there is no God, but I stop short of atheism because I can not substatiate this view into a concrete fact. If you can present your proof for peer review.
Congratulations, yet another strawman. I did not claim that philosophical positions and systems of beliefs are mutually exclusive. There are philosophical positions that are also belief systems, but as the definition I quoted states, Agnostic Atheism is not one of them. Furthermore, you claim that I dismiss any definition that differs from mine. Actually, I dismiss definitions that you made up, those for which you can't provide any evidence.

"agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact"

It's time for you to make some coherent arguments. In none of your posts have you offered a source to support your assertion that Agnostic Atheism is a system of belief [believe]. The quoted part of the definition I referred you to above does not support your argument at all. I can you give you another one, can you do the same?

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Humakt Wrote:  If you check back through the posts, the first person to start presenting the definitions of things was me, I havent repeated myself by reposting them in every post because I find that doing so becomes quite tiresome, Ive presented my sources for review just because youve jumped on the band wagon now, doesnt mean you get to ride the moral high horse and accuse me of not citing my arguements.
What's your point? You have yet to present a source for your definition of Agnostic Atheism. Furthermore, the definition of delusional that I quoted is from the same source as yours for "delusion", which means you can't discredit it without falsifying your own.

OK, the wiki states:

"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception."

It is distinct from a dogma is perhaps the most relevant part here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma which wiki define as

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2] The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[3] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[4] Dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century. The plural is either dogmas or dogmata, from Greek δόγματα. The term "dogmatics" is used as a synonym for systematic theology, as in Karl Barth's defining textbook of neo-orthodoxy, the 14-volume Church Dogmatics."

The wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusionwas ) the first source I post here ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146275 ), despite your claim that I you use the same source as you use. I do indeed cite that here ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146323 ) iin rebuttal of Rahn's claims, that you then go on to use it is fair game, that you only draw on it partially and ignore the sections that are contary to your view are what I point out, I do not attempt to discredit it, I question your pick and choose approach to its use.

So by defintion, a delusion is distinct from a dogma, a dogma being an assertion from authority. There to use your phrase per definition not a delusion.

Having re read the definition of Agnostic atheism ( http://www.reference.com/browse/Agnostic...m?o=100074 ) I see no statement in there that states its not a system, in fact it states that it is a philosophical doctrine, perhaps we mean different things we say system of belief, but a philosophical doctrine pretty much hit the nail on the head for a belief system for me. My original definition, however was simply the definition of both word agnostic meaning without knowledge, atheism mean non belief in the divine. That you went on to produce an actual philosphical doctrine rather than just using the two words does more to the concept has been systemtised into a belief structure, than my assertion that I systemitise my thoughts and beliefs and thus have a belief system that encopasses that, thank for propping up my assertion.

As for providing evidence, I generally dont cite evidence for the defintion of individual words unless its absolutly nessecary, but ok:

Agnostic - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...h/agnostic

>

Email
Cite

agnostic Pronunciation: /agˈnɒstɪk/
Translate agnostic into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of agnostic
noun

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

adjective

relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something: until now I’ve been fairly agnostic about electoral reform
[usually in combination] Computing denoting or relating to hardware or software that is compatible with many types of platform or operating system: many common file formats (JPEG, MP3, etc.) are platform-agnostic

Atheist - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/m...tions.html



atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Here is the OED's definition of "agnostic":

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

It is interesting to compare this to Huxley's definition.
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.

As to why I have to cite what these words mean is beyond me, given the forum in which we debate this should really be common knowledge, but as you insist I'll oblige.

As to coherant arguements, if you dont see that the common thread in my posts Im at a loss, you say I offer no source when you later say I provide the source you use and miss or ignore the primary source I cited. Perhaps, it is the fact, at least from the observable data Ive thus seen that you cant follow your own train of thought, for more than a sentence thats the stumbling block here. As you say the section of the definition you quote, doesnt support what I say, but as Ive already stated the section of the definion you dont quote does, further more the wiki giving fuller definition also does, a source you either missed or ignored and the definition of agnostic atheism, dispite your claims that it doesnt is also in line with my assertions.

So to sum up delusion excludes dogma, religion gets a free ticket out of your dismissal. Agnostic atheism as per the defintion you provide, not only does not as you assert exclude itself from being a belief system it on the contary identifies itself as philosphical doctrine.

While we're at it fact - ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact )

fact
[fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

I suggest you suck on definition 4 for a while, the religious in the context can correctly talk about scripture as fact they say its true, they belief or suppose that the events happened. So even if the defintion of delusion did not specifically exclude doctrine, they can happily cite there bible as a fact at you all day long. This is on top of the fact that believe system does not rely on facts, in fact it specifacally states that faith trumps facts something they also hold to be true.

Believe - ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe )

be·lieve
[bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
Relevant Questions
Who Sings I Believe?
What Did The Puritans Be...
What Do Democrats Believ...
What Do Muslims Believe ...
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

Definition 1, excludes the need for definitive proof as does 2 and 3 and 4 and 5.

In fact in none of the defintions is absolute proof or indeed any proof or suporting evidence required. Thus if you defintion of delusion were correct all beliefs would be delusional, which they obviously arent and why your wrong.

I had assumed you were at a disadvantage being american and thus at a disadvantage using english to communicate in, but before stating I check my facts and see your German. That being the case I'll extend to you the benefit of the doubt, even if it is against my better judgement, but its only polite, that your not being willfully ignorant and rather are not grasping fully how english works, its tricky enough for people who have it as a native language.

Anyway I got stuff to do in RL, so I end this wall o text here.

PS dont have time to proof read before posting, so I hope you'll be somewhat forgiving on grammar, spelling and what have you which I suspect will be rife. I'll edit later if theres a pressng need.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 08:24 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 08:14 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 05:24 AM)Vosur Wrote:  http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146353

In order to be delusional, you have to either hold unrealistic/false beliefs (i.e. a belief without a single shred of evidence) and/or maintain said beliefs when confronted with facts. As I've already mentioned, one of these facts is the absence of any evidence supporting any kind of religious beliefs. If one continues to hold on to his beliefs after being confronted with such a fact, he is, per definition, delusional.

Congratulations, yet another strawman. I did not claim that philosophical positions and systems of beliefs are mutually exclusive. There are philosophical positions that are also belief systems, but as the definition I quoted states, Agnostic Atheism is not one of them. Furthermore, you claim that I dismiss any definition that differs from mine. Actually, I dismiss definitions that you made up, those for which you can't provide any evidence.

"agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact"

It's time for you to make some coherent arguments. In none of your posts have you offered a source to support your assertion that Agnostic Atheism is a system of belief [believe]. The quoted part of the definition I referred you to above does not support your argument at all. I can you give you another one, can you do the same?

What's your point? You have yet to present a source for your definition of Agnostic Atheism. Furthermore, the definition of delusional that I quoted is from the same source as yours for "delusion", which means you can't discredit it without falsifying your own.

OK, the wiki states:

"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception."

It is distinct from a dogma is perhaps the most relevant part here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma which wiki define as

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2] The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[3] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[4] Dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century. The plural is either dogmas or dogmata, from Greek δόγματα. The term "dogmatics" is used as a synonym for systematic theology, as in Karl Barth's defining textbook of neo-orthodoxy, the 14-volume Church Dogmatics."

The wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusionwas ) the first source I post here ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146275 ), despite your claim that I you use the same source as you use. I do indeed cite that here ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid146323 ) iin rebuttal of Rahn's claims, that you then go on to use it is fair game, that you only draw on it partially and ignore the sections that are contary to your view are what I point out, I do not attempt to discredit it, I question your pick and choose approach to its use.

So by defintion, a delusion is distinct from a dogma, a dogma being an assertion from authority. There to use your phrase per definition not a delusion.

Having re read the definition of Agnostic atheism ( http://www.reference.com/browse/Agnostic...m?o=100074 ) I see no statement in there that states its not a system, in fact it states that it is a philosophical doctrine, perhaps we mean different things we say system of belief, but a philosophical doctrine pretty much hit the nail on the head for a belief system for me. My original definition, however was simply the definition of both word agnostic meaning without knowledge, atheism mean non belief in the divine. That you went on to produce an actual philosphical doctrine rather than just using the two words does more to the concept has been systemtised into a belief structure, than my assertion that I systemitise my thoughts and beliefs and thus have a belief system that encopasses that, thank for propping up my assertion.

As for providing evidence, I generally dont cite evidence for the defintion of individual words unless its absolutly nessecary, but ok:

Agnostic - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...h/agnostic

>

Email
Cite

agnostic Pronunciation: /agˈnɒstɪk/
Translate agnostic into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of agnostic
noun

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

adjective

relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something: until now I’ve been fairly agnostic about electoral reform
[usually in combination] Computing denoting or relating to hardware or software that is compatible with many types of platform or operating system: many common file formats (JPEG, MP3, etc.) are platform-agnostic

Atheist - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/m...tions.html



atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Here is the OED's definition of "agnostic":

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

It is interesting to compare this to Huxley's definition.
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.

As to why I have to cite what these words mean is beyond me, given the forum in which we debate this should really be common knowledge, but as you insist I'll oblige.

As to coherant arguements, if you dont see that the common thread in my posts Im at a loss, you say I offer no source when you later say I provide the source you use and miss or ignore the primary source I cited. Perhaps, it is the fact, at least from the observable data Ive thus seen that you cant follow your own train of thought, for more than a sentence thats the stumbling block here. As you say the section of the definition you quote, doesnt support what I say, but as Ive already stated the section of the definion you dont quote does, further more the wiki giving fuller definition also does, a source you either missed or ignored and the definition of agnostic atheism, dispite your claims that it doesnt is also in line with my assertions.

So to sum up delusion excludes dogma, religion gets a free ticket out of your dismissal. Agnostic atheism as per the defintion you provide, not only does not as you assert exclude itself from being a belief system it on the contary identifies itself as philosphical doctrine.

While we're at it fact - ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact )

fact
[fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

I suggest you suck on definition 4 for a while, the religious in the context can correctly talk about scripture as fact they say its true, they belief or suppose that the events happened. So even if the defintion of delusion did not specifically exclude doctrine, they can happily cite there bible as a fact at you all day long. This is on top of the fact that believe system does not rely on facts, in fact it specifacally states that faith trumps facts something they also hold to be true.

Believe - ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe )

be·lieve
[bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
Relevant Questions
Who Sings I Believe?
What Did The Puritans Be...
What Do Democrats Believ...
What Do Muslims Believe ...
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

Definition 1, excludes the need for definitive proof as does 2 and 3 and 4 and 5.

In fact in none of the defintions is absolute proof or indeed any proof or suporting evidence required. Thus if you defintion of delusion were correct all beliefs would be delusional, which they obviously arent and why your wrong.

I had assumed you were at a disadvantage being american and thus at a disadvantage using english to communicate in, but before stating I check my facts and see your German. That being the case I'll extend to you the benefit of the doubt, even if it is against my better judgement, but its only polite, that your not being willfully ignorant and rather are not grasping fully how english works, its tricky enough for people who have it as a native language.

Anyway I got stuff to do in RL, so I end this wall o text here.

PS dont have time to proof read before posting, so I hope you'll be somewhat forgiving on grammar, spelling and what have you which I suspect will be rife. I'll edit later if theres a pressng need.
A clear sign of delusion is denial. I rest my case. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
08-08-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
[/quote]
A clear sign of delusion is denial. I rest my case. Drinking Beverage
[/quote]

How erudite, witty and clever of you. I denigh nothing I on the contary assert and doing so in refute your claims case by case, if you wish to abandon your arguement and claim victory, I'll waste no time on you. Good day to you.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 09:43 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 08:14 AM)Humakt Wrote:  So to sum up delusion excludes dogma, religion gets a free ticket out of your dismissal. Agnostic atheism as per the definition you provide, not only does not as you assert exclude itself from being a belief system it on the contrary identifies itself as philosophical doctrine.

Sorry sir but you are in error.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system
A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.

Agnostic atheism is a position on gods existence, not a belief system, but can be a part of one.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 12:58 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 02:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  The evidence that there are no gods as defined by current religions includes the fact that prayer does not work, the fact that explanations of the observed workings of the universe at every scale do not require the supernatural, the fact that the world looks exactly as it should without the existence of gods, the continued success of the scientific method, the continued failure of faith-healing, the continued complete lack of evidence that should be there if gods exist.

Absence of evidence that should be there is evidence of absence.

Oi, at the risk of being heckled, but what does religion have to with God. You "say" prayer doesnt work, others say it does as your presenting as much evidence they are are treat bth your claims with skeptism. As we dont yet fully understand the workings of the universe we cant make concrete claims as to what it requires, also just because its not nessecary does not definatively mean it doesnt exist. Cake is not required, yet it exists. Your knowledge of how things should be, is remarkable. The continued success of the scientific method also does not prove the non existence of a God, nor does the failure of faith healing. The continued lack of evidence that should be there? what exactly is this evidence that should exist?

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)
Mayo Clinic 2001

(Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it
(Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers
(Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers.

It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: 'performance anxiety'

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 09:53 AM
RE: I'll pray for you...
Thanks for the down rep, from you I'll take that as compliment. Before down repping you I checked my liked posts and found an authority that counters one of your many bogus claims here. Not being a the sort to rub peoples faces in their failings, I wasnt gonna post it, but in light of your unfounded accusations I will.

Amongst the assertions you have made here you stated that you can disprove god because of lack of evidence. I paraphrase, but Im through really dignifing your waffle with a proper response. Here ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid140804 ) you clearly and definativly state the opposite.

I'll take this as evidence, that you are as Ive said making shit up as you go along, you clearly have no real idea what you believe and as such any attempt at debating with you is pointless.

You can now carry on the debate with yourself as your clearly on both sides, please feel free to down rep me again having people like you disagree with me is compelling evidence Im on the right track.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 10:09 AM by Vosur.)
RE: I'll pray for you...
(08-08-2012 09:53 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Thanks for the down rep, from you I'll take that as compliment. Before down repping you I checked my liked posts and found an authority that counters one of your many bogus claims here. Not being a the sort to rub peoples faces in their failings, I wasnt gonna post it, but in light of your unfounded accusations I will.

Amongst the assertions you have made here you stated that you can disprove god because of lack of evidence. I paraphrase, but Im through really dignifing your waffle with a proper response. Here ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid140804 ) you clearly and definativly state the opposite.

I'll take this as evidence, that you are as Ive said making shit up as you go along, you clearly have no real idea what you believe and as such any attempt at debating with you is pointless.

You can now carry on the debate with yourself as your clearly on both sides, please feel free to down rep me again having people like you disagree with me is compelling evidence Im on the right track.

[Image: ezhON.jpg?2724]

You continue proving that you are most definetly deluded. In this entire thread I have never claimed that it is possible to disprove god using the absence of evidence for his existence as proof (http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...id146568). Furthermore, dismissing the content of the negative reputation entry while using it as confirmation for your childish and absurd beliefs looks a lot like denial of reality. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to admit that you are blantantly wrong and support your arguments using plenty of logical fallacies (the strawman fallacy and ad hominem fallacy seem to be your favourites) is evidence indicating that you're not ready to have a discussion on this level quite yet.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: