Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2010, 07:47 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Unbeliever - I'm getting that feeling of deja vu'. How about you?

Unbeliever - I'm getting that feeling of deja vu'. How about you?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 08:25 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
It's late so I may answer you more thoroughly later Bn.

I think the rub is that theists don't start by questioning the existence of God. That would be a scientific question and your conclusions from that perspective I would support.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 08:28 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Theists don't question the existence of god at all, though. That does not mean he exists, it just means that people who've decided he's real don't question that decision.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 08:42 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-12-2010 06:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The 'truth' of the bible never concerns scientific fact. A lot of it is based on supposed historical event
Which means it concerns scientific fact. Your two sentences are contradictory.
'a lot' is not 'everything' - so it's not contradictory.
Yes, it is. The truth of the Bible requires that the things that it says are true. It says things which can be proven or disproven scientifically. Thus, it concerns scientific fact.
The bible contains nothing that can be dis proven scientifically. What is 'true' isn't scientific. The 'historical elements' are not proof of God, they're human reference to the event.

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I do. See the book: http://tinyurl.com/23d7vya
No, you don't. That book is exactly what I said in my previous posts: it starts from the assumption that the Genesis chapter is allegory. It does not attempt to prove that it is so. It is not evidence that the Bible is true. It relies on the assumption that one already accepts the Bible as true.

That is not evidence.
It is hard backed up evidence on the correct interpretation of Genesis, true or not.

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  EDIT: Expanding further, the book starts by saying that God attempted to explain cosmology to the Israelites in a way that they could understand. That starts from the assumption that this is divine knowledge meant to be interpreted allegorically. It is not actually evidence that this is so.
Of course not. It cannot be, to be consistent with the nature of God.

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even if there can be no explanation, you still need evidence that it happened, or you're doing nothing but asserting with no evidence. We've been over this before.
The bible references actual things.
Yes.
Quote:We don't question those because they are beyond question.
What are you talking about?
Places; Roman rule... etc etc

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Say we take the creation story as a claim (I'm not claiming it, just supposing). We have this reality as evidence of it. So you have the evidence, and suppose its origin. Is that not the same thing?
No. The existence of the universe is not evidence for Genesis' accuracy. It is evidence that, at some point, the universe came into existence. It is not evidence that it was constructed over six days in discrete periods wherein each broad category of life was brought into being.
You're not addressing the subject at all. This reality is evidence that this reality exists. Assuming creation, here's proof.

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:None of my claims meet the burden of proof because they don't invoke it. If you can show me how they do, I will gladly oblige.
You have claimed that the Bible is entirely true, rather than inerrant. You have to prove that.
I claim that the bible is potentially errant. It's truth never concerns science, but theology, and as such is entirely correct. I gladly defend that, although that isn't at all your question (I hope I'm right in assuming?)

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have claimed that the Bible is allegorical, rather than literal. You have to prove that.
I've provided thorough reasoning in that book. Like I said... it's extremely well sourced and currently my best endeavour.

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have claimed that you have evidence for God, rather than illogical abortions of logic. You have to prove that.
My evidence is personal/ subjective. As such it can't be proven/ be objective.

(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you take it as an insult, that's on you, not me. I am simply stating facts as I see them.
You can state facts and you can state facts emotively. I'm asking you to be more accurate. I could call you a liar in retaliation... but how does that help you to think clearly? I know it to have the opposite effect. If you want to discuss reasonably, you can demonstrate that by respecting the other person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2010, 09:19 AM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Hey, Bnw.

Go ahead. Play the wounded martyr. You have been oh so besmirched my the great douchebag that is me.

If you really wanna pretend that you contributed to the question, if you really want to pretend that you didn't undermine it, go ahead.

You had two options. You could have said that you were uncertain how to answer it and tried to understand it better so that you could, so that you could move things forward, or you could rip it apart and grind it into the ground. You chose the second. And I am not at all shocked.

This goes for everyone.

I'm bored to death of people tearing everyone down and thinking that they're being creative while they're doing it. There are a number of very intelligent people on this board; unfortunately, instead of trying to understand the breadth of thought that is being offered and instead of trying to further and deepen understanding for themselves and for others, they use their energy to take a flying projectile shit on everything that other people say. They crush the expansion of dialogue rather than foster its growth. You all want to show what dilligent knights you are, protecting the sanctity of a single worldview that is so perfect that everyone must be denigrated in the defense of it. So great, you all have giant penisis. We all bow down to the size of your wangs. But it gets real boring, real quick.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2010, 12:11 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 08:42 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, it is. The truth of the Bible requires that the things that it says are true. It says things which can be proven or disproven scientifically. Thus, it concerns scientific fact.
The bible contains nothing that can be dis proven scientifically.

Reality to fr0d0, reality to fr0d0. Come in, fr0d0. The Bible speaks of things that took place on Earth.

Quote:What is 'true' isn't scientific.

You haven't offered any evidence for your claim of allegory as of yet. You can't use "the Bible is allegory" as basis for rejecting scientific critique of the Bible until you prove that the Bible is allegory.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I do. See the book: http://tinyurl.com/23d7vya
No, you don't. That book is exactly what I said in my previous posts: it starts from the assumption that the Genesis chapter is allegory. It does not attempt to prove that it is so. It is not evidence that the Bible is true. It relies on the assumption that one already accepts the Bible as true.

That is not evidence.
It is hard backed up evidence on the correct interpretation of Genesis, true or not.

No. No it is not.

Seriously, fr0d0, your argument here is absolutely, utterly, irrevocably pathetic. You say that the Bible is allegory. I ask for evidence. You give me a book which starts from the assumption that the Bible is allegory, not a book which proves that the Bible is allegory. Your "evidence" suffers from the same flaw that your own argument does. It has no basis.

Your response to me pointing this out? "Is so".

Either present some evidence or admit that you have absolutely no basis for believing that the Bible is allegory. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la, I can't heeeeaaar yoooou" is childish and pitiful.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  EDIT: Expanding further, the book starts by saying that God attempted to explain cosmology to the Israelites in a way that they could understand. That starts from the assumption that this is divine knowledge meant to be interpreted allegorically. It is not actually evidence that this is so.
Of course not. It cannot be, to be consistent with the nature of God.

Either there can be evidence that your belief is true or it is false by definition. We've been over this before.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even if there can be no explanation, you still need evidence that it happened, or you're doing nothing but asserting with no evidence. We've been over this before.
The bible references actual things.
Yes.
Quote:We don't question those because they are beyond question.
What are you talking about?
Places; Roman rule... etc etc

They're not "beyond question". They've been questioned. They've just been broadly confirmed. It's the specifics of the Bible which lack confirmation.

No part of the Bible is above scrutiny.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Say we take the creation story as a claim (I'm not claiming it, just supposing). We have this reality as evidence of it. So you have the evidence, and suppose its origin. Is that not the same thing?
No. The existence of the universe is not evidence for Genesis' accuracy. It is evidence that, at some point, the universe came into existence. It is not evidence that it was constructed over six days in discrete periods wherein each broad category of life was brought into being.
You're not addressing the subject at all. This reality is evidence that this reality exists. Assuming creation, here's proof.

No, you're missing the point.

"Assuming creation" is circular logic. It assumes its conclusion. It is invalid reasoning.

But then, we've been over this before, too, and you didn't get it then, either.

Quote:I claim that the bible is potentially errant. It's truth never concerns science, but theology, and as such is entirely correct.

Okay, then, you have to prove that (the bolded bit). Otherwise you're doing nothing but asserting without basis. That's the bare assertion fallacy. It is invalid reasoning.

But then, we've been over this before.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 07:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have claimed that the Bible is allegorical, rather than literal. You have to prove that.
I've provided thorough reasoning in that book.

No, you didn't. The book starts from the assumption that the Bible is allegory. It doesn't even try to address the problem that the Bible might not be allegory!

Presenting someone else who assumes the same thing that you do is not evidence. It's the argument ad populum fallacy, it's appeal to false authority, it's bare assertion, and it's circular. It's about as mind-bogglingly self-invalidated and faulty as it is possible to get.

What part of this do you not understand?

Quote:My evidence is personal/ subjective. As such it can't be proven/ be objective.

Then it is not evidence.

Quote:You can state facts and you can state facts emotively. I'm asking you to be more accurate.

I'm being entirely accurate. I have repeatedly presented the posts where you have lied, along with the proof that you have lied.

Quote:I could call you a liar in retaliation...

You could. You would simply be wrong.

Quote:but how does that help you to think clearly?

It doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt, either, because, quite frankly, I know that such an accusation is incorrect. I also don't give a crap about what you think of me.

Accusing me of lying would only affect me if I had actually lied and knew that I was being called out on it.

Quote:I know it to have the opposite effect. If you want to discuss reasonably, you can demonstrate that by respecting the other person.

That's kind of hard to do when said person is a known liar.

Look, fr0d0, seriously. If you want me to stop calling you a liar, stop lying. You have lied about your own actions, you have lied about mine, and you have lied about others'. I will stop calling you a liar when you demonstrate that you are capable of conducting a conversation without lying about what has been going on. Until then, frankly, I don't have any respect for you. If you want my respect, you have to earn it.

(16-12-2010 09:19 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Go ahead. Play the wounded martyr. You have been oh so besmirched my the great douchebag that is me.

BnW wasn't "playing the wounded martyr". What are you talking about?

Quote:If you really wanna pretend that you contributed to the question, if you really want to pretend that you didn't undermine it, go ahead.

He did contribute to it. You asked him what he would think if he met a civilization built entirely on false ideas. He said he didn't think that such a civilization was possible.

You may as well have asked what he thought would happen if an unstoppable force met an immovable object, then thrown a fit when he said that it was impossible.

You asked for an opinion on a hypothetical situation. He gave one. What more do you want?

Quote:You had two options. You could have said that you were uncertain how to answer it and tried to understand it better so that you could, so that you could move things forward, or you could rip it apart and grind it into the ground. You chose the second. And I am not at all shocked.

"Rip it apart and grind it into the ground"? Ghost, this is getting silly. When you ask for an opinion, don't throw a hissy fit when you don't get the opinion you wanted to hear.

Instead, try to explain why such a civilization is possible. Then explain what you think of such a thing, and why. BnW isn't the one holding the conversation back here. You are.

Quote:This goes for everyone.

I'm bored to death of people tearing everyone down and thinking that they're being creative while they're doing it. There are a number of very intelligent people on this board; unfortunately, instead of trying to understand the breadth of thought that is being offered and instead of trying to further and deepen understanding for themselves and for others, they use their energy to take a flying projectile shit on everything that other people say. They crush the expansion of dialogue rather than foster its growth. You all want to show what dilligent knights you are, protecting the sanctity of a single worldview that is so perfect that everyone must be denigrated in the defense of it. So great, you all have giant penisis. We all bow down to the size of your wangs. But it gets real boring, real quick.

We don't "crush" anything, Ghost, and we don't "take flying projectile shits" at any new idea that comes our way. You simply don't like the fact that we don't agree with you on everything, and that we aren't afraid to say so.

Quite frankly, you have demonstrated on multiple threads on this site that it is you who exhibits this behavior, not us. When someone says something that you don't like or didn't expect, you throw a fit and storm off. That's exactly what happened here in this thread when BnW said that he didn't think your hypothetical situation was possible. You're quick to anger and quicker to abandon a thread once it's become clear that no one agrees with you. Rather than actually responding to objections, you insult the person who voiced them. You've done it to me, you've done it to BnW, and you've done it to others.

We're happy to have you here, because your threads are some of the most interesting pieces of discussion on the board. But seriously, dude, tone down the anger a little, and try responding to objections rather than running from them.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2010, 01:00 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Well I'm going to withdraw my attention from you Unbeliever if you refuse to respect me. It's a simple request that anyone must acknowledge in reasonable discourse. You are clearly not willing to enter into reasonable discourse, so there is no point in me addressing you. You are completely wasting my time. You have no intention of listening to anything but your own point of view. I have zero respect for such a stance, as I am proud to be completely open to challenge.

Nice knowing you Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2010, 01:38 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 05:01 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, ThinkingNorseman.

Quote:Ghost Wrote:
Fourth question: If you encountered a people whose beliefs were based entirely on things that you knew were demonstrably false but their society was a model of harmony, within the group, with other groups and with the rest of the planet, what would your opinion of them and or their beliefs be?

I would pity their ignorance and be envious of their society. But where would you find such a community? And what belief system would work like that?

Why the pity?

As for where and what belief system, you could have found such a thing with pretty much every single aboriginal people that the Europeans encountered then promptly enslaved, assimilated, crammed into reservations or wiped out because they felt their way of life was better and that the aboriginals were pitiable and needed to be saved from their ignorance or that they were so lesser that it was fine to enslave and kill them.

Personally, for the record, I have a fundamental issue with anyone that says another people are lesser. I'm not accusing you of that, just sayin.

I know nothing about Aborigines, so I can't go into a discussion about them. I pity ignorance. That's all there is to it. I don't believe people are lesser than me because they are ignorant, but I do count myself lucky for being more informed. How should I feel if I didn't feel pity? Annoyed? Angry? That wouldn't be right. It's not their fault that no one has told them how things really work. I also never said that my way of life was better.

You say your not accusing me, but the rest of your post sure makes it seem like that's what your doing.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2010, 04:05 PM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2010 04:09 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(16-12-2010 01:00 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Well I'm going to withdraw my attention from you Unbeliever if you refuse to respect me.

Your choice.

But I do not refuse to respect you. I simply don't. When you arrived on this site, my opinion of you was actually quite high. As you revealed your willingness to repeatedly lie and insult others when they exposed your position for the farce that it is, though, my opinion of you dropped. Over time, I lost all the respect for you that I once held.

If you stop lying and stop insulting others baselessly, I may come to respect you again. But it won't come easily, and I sincerely doubt that you will stop lying or insulting people in any case.

Quote:It's a simple request that anyone must acknowledge in reasonable discourse.

Not really. I don't need to respect someone to give a sound logical critique of their position. I don't respect Kent Hovind or Peter Popoff, but if they showed up on this forum I would still treat them the same as anyone else.

Quote:You are clearly not willing to enter into reasonable discourse

Another lie. I am entirely willing to enter into reasonable discourse. Indeed, I have entered reasonable discourse with you on several occasions. Each time, it ended when I got fed up with your insults and lies. Until that point, though, I was entirely reasonable in discussion with you.

Quote:You are completely wasting my time.

Only if you consider me giving a completely valid logical critique of your position wasting your time.

Quote:You have no intention of listening to anything but your own point of view.

Another lie. I listen to all points of view. I simply point out illogical foolishness when I see it.

Quote:I have zero respect for such a stance, as I am proud to be completely open to challenge.

As am I. You simply haven't offered any.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2010, 04:20 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Your idea of a logical refute UB is "oh no it isn't". It's pantomime season I guess.

For the record - you started calling me a liar when you didn't understand something I said. It went rapidly downhill from that point on.

I was fully open to anything you said, even tho' you prove yourself to be an arse. I give people a lot of slack. But you proving that you won't discuss with me openly is beyond stupid. There really is no point continuing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: