What Am I?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 09:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have no issue with the definition. It is simply inapplicable as a label until you define God.
A theist could just as easily be labeled an atheist until you define God.
It is not a universal definition because we do not have a universal meaning to the word God.
A universal definition requires universally accepted terms (or at least undisputed).

It can never be a fact that you are an Atheist.

You seem to have your own quirky definitions.

An atheist holds no belief in any gods. It is that simple. An atheist does not have to know or consider every possible definition of a god, just the generic one.

It really is that simple.

And the simple fact is that I really am an atheist, and so are you. Drinking Beverage

I have no issue with the definition. It is simply inapplicable as a label until you define God.
A theist could just as easily be labeled an atheist until you define God.
It is not a universal definition because we do not have a universal meaning to the word God.
A universal definition requires universally accepted terms (or at least undisputed).

It can never be a fact that you are an Atheist.

Eg.
Me: If you do not believe in grbhtg you are an Agrbhtg.
You: What is a grbhtg?
Me: I'm not quite sure but that's what the label says.
You: Then I'm not quite sure if I'm an Agrbthg.
Me: Why?
You: Because the definition is too vague.
Me: "And the simple fact is that I really am an Agrbhtg, and so are you. " Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 09:45 AM
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 09:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is simply inapplicable as a label until you define God.

Easy peasy. I AM God. A meist if you prefer. Job done.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-01-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 09:38 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to have your own quirky definitions.

An atheist holds no belief in any gods. It is that simple. An atheist does not have to know or consider every possible definition of a god, just the generic one.

It really is that simple.

And the simple fact is that I really am an atheist, and so are you. Drinking Beverage

I have no issue with the definition. It is simply inapplicable as a label until you define God.

You don't understand the definition. I have no belief in anything remotely definable as a god.

Quote:A theist could just as easily be labeled an atheist until you define God.

That is patently absurd. It is not up to me to define a theist's definition of god.

Quote:It is not a universal definition because we do not have a universal meaning to the word God.

There need be no universal meaning, generic will do.

Quote:A universal definition requires universally accepted terms (or at least undisputed).

There need be no universal meaning, generic will do.

Quote:It can never be a fact that you are an Atheist.

It is a fact that I am an atheist, as are you.

Quote:Eg.
Me: If you do not believe in grbhtg you are an Agrbhtg.
You: What is a grbhtg?
Me: I'm not quite sure but that's what the label says.
You: Then I'm not quite sure if I'm an Agrbthg.
Me: Why?
You: Because the definition is too vague.
Me: "And the simple fact is that I really am an Agrbhtg, and so are you. " Drinking Beverage

I do not hold a belief in grbhtg, therefore I am agrbhtg.

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
18-01-2016, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2016 10:43 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 10:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 09:38 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have no issue with the definition. It is simply inapplicable as a label until you define God.

You don't understand the definition. I have no belief in anything remotely definable as a god.

Quote:A theist could just as easily be labeled an atheist until you define God.

That is patently absurd. It is not up to me to define a theist's definition of god.

Quote:It is not a universal definition because we do not have a universal meaning to the word God.

There need be no universal meaning, generic will do.

Quote:A universal definition requires universally accepted terms (or at least undisputed).

There need be no universal meaning, generic will do.

Quote:It can never be a fact that you are an Atheist.

It is a fact that I am an atheist, as are you.

Quote:Eg.
Me: If you do not believe in grbhtg you are an Agrbhtg.
You: What is a grbhtg?
Me: I'm not quite sure but that's what the label says.
You: Then I'm not quite sure if I'm an Agrbthg.
Me: Why?
You: Because the definition is too vague.
Me: "And the simple fact is that I really am an Agrbhtg, and so are you. " Drinking Beverage

I do not hold a belief in grbhtg, therefore I am agrbhtg.
Since the meaning of God for all intents and purposes is "undefined" in this situation.
Then it is not God that you do not believe in.
You do not believe in the undefined.

The definition of Atheism is not a lack of belief in the undefined.
It is a lack of belief in God(s).
Therefore it is interchangeable dependent on the definition.
The instant I define God it is no longer undefined.
Should the world & science suddenly find an encryption on every atom in the Universe that states "every atom is a God of Creation". After which the dictionaries all defined the God of Creation as an atom because of indisputable evidence found as to the Universal meaning of the word God of creation.
Would you state that you still do not believe in the existence of Atoms (oops I mean God of creation)?
A more accurate statement would be I do not believe the dictionary is absolutely correct about atoms being a God.
Of course you would have to state why , and failure to dispute the theory that atoms are God would deem it a fact, since facts are anything that is indisputable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 11:15 PM
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 10:31 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 10:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  You don't understand the definition. I have no belief in anything remotely definable as a god.


That is patently absurd. It is not up to me to define a theist's definition of god.


There need be no universal meaning, generic will do.


There need be no universal meaning, generic will do.


It is a fact that I am an atheist, as are you.


I do not hold a belief in grbhtg, therefore I am agrbhtg.
Since the meaning of God for all intents and purposes is "undefined" in this situation.
Then it is not God that you do not believe in.
You do not believe in the undefined.

The definition of Atheism is not a lack of belief in the undefined.
It is a lack of belief in God(s).
Therefore it is interchangeable dependent on the definition.
The instant I define God it is no longer undefined.
Should the world & science suddenly find an encryption on every atom in the Universe that states "every atom is a God of Creation". After which the dictionaries all defined the God of Creation as an atom because of indisputable evidence found as to the Universal meaning of the word God of creation.
Would you state that you still do not believe in the existence of Atoms (oops I mean God of creation)?
A more accurate statement would be I do not believe the dictionary is absolutely correct about atoms being a God.
Of course you would have to state why , and failure to dispute the theory that atoms are God would deem it a fact, since facts are anything that is indisputable.

Then if there is no concept even of a God and no defined meaning of a God, so it's not even a word... yes one isn't any point an Atheist to any meaningful point. Okay, so what? Good, that's an idealized world some folks would love to see in the future. A world where the label atheism is nonsensical in purpose; Like the label non-stampcollector is today.

You have hangups that go unchallenged by yourself constantly, which is glaringly flawed for a person wanting to label themselves skeptic.

Why even state a concept of "Universal meaning" who thinks there is one? Why is there one, how is there one, and what is one? These are flawed concepts you're proposing and stating.

What word or label at all has a universal meaning?

"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
19-01-2016, 01:11 AM
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 11:04 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 10:36 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  At which point do I accept the claim that Niagara exists?
1. When you said it exists?
2. When you presented the evidence for me to review?
3. After I reviewed all the evidence?
4. After I experienced Niagara with my 5 senses?
You don't need to review ALL the evidence just enough evidence as to make the belief rational. You can still be wrong, but being wrong about something doesn't make you irrational. Holding views and opinions not supported by ANY evidence, or even worse AGAINST the evidence is what makes a belief irrational.

Also if the claim is demonstrably true your acceptance of it is not really relevant to the claim being actually true. People willingly believe things that aren't factually accurate all the time. Reality always wins though.
That rules out 1 & 2 then.
So I am supposed to believe your claim that Niagara exists once I feel comfortable with the amount of evidence I find?
I could claim it exists after just 1 try if I felt comfortable with that then?
It's up to me to decide if it exists or not then.
I thought you once said reality exists regardless of perception.
Niagara is supposed to exist regardless of my perception.
So which is it?
1. Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
2. Niagara exists based on my perception?

If 1. Why should I believe that? How can I prove that? Oh right I'm supposed to use the scientific method of proving something exists.
But
I'm not supposed to believe it exists at the point when you tell me
I'm not supposed to believe it just because you provided the evidence
I'm only allowed to believe it after perceiving the falsifiable evidence and feeling COMFORTABLE with it.
But
Isn't Niagara supposed to exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what I was trying to prove? That Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
How did I end up at a point where I can only prove Niagara exists based on my perception.

Why can't I prove how Niagara can exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what you told me?
Niagara exists regardless of my perception?

oh wait didn't you say if a claim cannot be tested, it is useless and should not even be entertained let alone believed in?

Well guess what.

I cannot test if Niagara exists outside of my perception.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists regardless of what I believe needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists regardless of how I perceive it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists regardless of my perception? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

Does Niagara exists before my awareness of it?
How do I prove this?
Is there any way of going back in time to see if Niagara existed before my awareness? No.
Is there any way for me to collect the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to read the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to change the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to touch the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to predict the outcome without & before me being aware of the outcome? No

It is undemonstrable, untestable, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, unpredictable.

Guess what

I cannot test if Niagara exists before my awareness of it.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists before my awareness of it needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists before my awareness of it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists before my awareness of it? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 01:13 AM
RE: What Am I?
lskjljknsdg vlnvnlnleergt sdfgasdl;jkflkjsdg !!! Shocking

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
19-01-2016, 02:00 AM
RE: What Am I?
(18-01-2016 10:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...
I do not hold a belief in grbhtg, therefore I am agrbhtg.

Damnit!

Does this mean we have to get the website banner changed?

And new business cards and shit?

Weeping

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
19-01-2016, 03:07 AM
RE: What Am I?
I believe I am a jellyfish with a big imagination.

So it must be true, right?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 05:28 AM
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 03:07 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I believe I am a jellyfish with a big imagination.

So it must be true, right?
We could test it and prove it untrue?
So no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: