ossobuco
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 01:32 am
@Setanta,
I've no beef with him, I like him.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 01:33 am
I'm going to stop talking to you, you pathetic drunk, on the "don't feed the trolls principle."
ossobuco
 
  2  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 01:41 am
@Setanta,
I don't get where your anger comes from, but it's not my business. Good night.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 02:56 am
@ossobuco,
Actually I am agnostic . Only foolish people claim to be an atheist because it means they can prove God doesnt exist . If they claim they cant prove it, it is just a belief then they are as bad as theists who also rely on belief rather than science .
I am quite convinced the personal God most religions advocate is non-existent, but I am not convinced that a god-like dimension to the universe does not exist, it just does not care about humans anymore than it cares about supernovas .
layman
 
  0  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 03:13 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Actually I am agnostic . Only foolish people claim to be an atheist because it means they can prove God doesnt exist...


In an attempt to improve "public relations," atheists have tried to rewrite the language to eliminate the concept on an "agnostic." A so-called "agnostic" is, if you want to listen to them, in fact an "atheist." The simplistic, all -or-nothing, notion they want to establish is that you are either a theist, or an atheist, with no middle ground.

That is deemed make the hard-core, militant, "I know god-damned well there isn't a god" atheism position more "defensible" and more acceptable to the general public. If you "don't know" if there is a god, then you are just like me--an atheist, see? The only non-atheists are those who claim to know, with certainty, that there IS a god, the chumps.
Ionus
 
  0  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 03:22 am
http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1500000/Atheist-Jokes-atheism-1512056-420-325.jpg

I like this one because there is no biblical proof of a physical resurrection, but theists are welcome to believe in a spiritual resurrection .
0 Replies
 
Neil Griffiths
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 03:24 am
@ossobuco,
I'm not actually a religious fellow, but I take your point. Will politely leave.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 03:32 am
https://agnostichumor.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/19540616.jpg
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 04:17 am
@Setanta,
Sam Harris is also more eloquent and I think, a better debater in general than Dawkins is. So they might do well to avoid him. If past encounters are any example they will continue to lose when they try to debate him.
argome321
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 04:47 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
argome321 wrote:

I talk to myself all the time Embarrassed

Me too. Sometimes I need expert advice.


So do I, but the conundrum is I can't trust my judgement leading me to be unable to trust what others might say.

So any quasi-semblance of sane conversation takes place in my head.
Drunk Laughing
FBM
 
  2  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 04:51 am
@argome321,
Sometimes I tell myself to stop drinking, but then I think, "Don't listen to him. He's drunk."
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 05:59 am
@layman,
Quote:
Quote:
Actually I am agnostic . Only foolish people claim to be an atheist because it means they can prove God doesnt exist...

this was your response to ionus statement from above.

In an attempt to improve "public relations," atheists have tried to rewrite the language to eliminate the concept on an "agnostic." A so-called "agnostic" is, if you want to listen to them, in fact an "atheist." The simplistic, all -or-nothing, notion they want to establish is that you are either a theist, or an atheist, with no middle ground.

That is deemed make the hard-core, militant, "I know god-damned well there isn't a god" atheism position more "defensible" and more acceptable to the general public. If you "don't know" if there is a god, then you are just like me--an atheist, see? The only non-atheists are those who claim to know, with certainty, that there IS a god, the chumps.


Layman I’m surprised at your statement because that is totally in accurate. I’m a former member of NYC Atheist and American Atheist and an avid viewer of the Atheist Experience. Here is the view for many of this atheist, modern day atheist.

Theism has to do with belief and (A) thesis is without belief. Knowledge in and of itself is a subset of belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge; (A) Gnosticism is about without knowledge. So there is two distinct items.
You can be an atheist which means that if you feel that the gods posited don’t make any sense that they could not exist, if you are without belief you are an Atheist, nothing more, nothing less. If you admit you do not know then you are an agnostic atheist.
If you are a theist but don’t know if a god exit but only believe that god(s) exist that would make you an agnostic theist, it is done this way for clarification.

Of course you have some on either side who claim to be Gnostic..to them knowing that god exist or knowing that god doesn’t exist.

I admit there are Atheist who say that theist who take agnostic theist position is nothing more than a cup out. Asking the question how can you believe in something that you can’t know exist?

So if one is asked do you believe in god(s) and replies they are agnostic it doesn’t answer the belief question. One is a question of belief the other is a question of knowledge.

I’m only responding to your post to bring some balance and clarifications of the modern atheist ideology. Past interpretations of agnosticism and atheism are irrelevant if there is ever to be constructive dialogue now in the present and in the future.
FBM
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:14 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

In an attempt to improve "public relations," atheists have tried to rewrite the language to eliminate the concept on an "agnostic." A so-called "agnostic" is, if you want to listen to them, in fact an "atheist." The simplistic, all -or-nothing, notion they want to establish is that you are either a theist, or an atheist, with no middle ground.
...


This, if true, mirrors the situation with skepticism in ancient Greece. There were dogmatists who claimed to know. Then there were "skeptics" who claimed that it was impossible to know anything. But knowing that it's impossible to know? Erm...fail. Then there were the Pyrrhonists, who might best fit the "agnostic" label. Not only did they not claim to know, they didn't even claim to know whether or not it was possible to know. They just kept happily investigating. Agnosticism is a narrow ledge. I agree that a lot of people who call themselves "agnostic" are actually closet dogmatists. Also, a lot of people who call themselves skeptics are actually dogmatic denialists.
argome321
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:18 am
@argome321,
I found these, most only serve to mire the waters further then elucidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic

argome321
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:21 am
@argome321,
From The Telegraph

Pope Francis Reaches out to Atheist and Agnostics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html



Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:36 am
@argome321,
Quote:
I’m only responding to your post to bring some balance and clarifications of the modern atheist ideology. Past interpretations of agnosticism and atheism are irrelevant if there is ever to be constructive dialogue now in the present and in the future.

Past interpretations could be superior to present ones... The idea that agnosticism represents a middle ground between atheism and theism is an old and good idea. I see no reason to dispose of it, certainly none you provided. What purpose does it serve to muddle language? We need a word for that middle ground between belief and lack of, for people who won't commit to one side or the other.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:39 am
@argome321,
Best Pope in decades... I love Francesco.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:42 am
@FBM,
There is no real need for labeling. If the words theist, atheist, agnostic, non-theist are not clear because of varying definitions...perhaps it is better to simply describe a position...and live with that.

Although I AM an agnostic, I've stopped using the term without an explanation of what I mean when I use it.

My explanation would go something like this: .



Quote:

Realizing that different people use the word agnostic in different ways, I want to establish that when I use the word agnostic here, I am speaking only of my interpretation of agnostic...speaking of my agnosticism:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.




layman
 
  -1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:44 am
@argome321,
Quote:
Knowledge in and of itself is a subset of belief....Of course you have some on either side who claim to be Gnostic..to them knowing that god exist or knowing that god doesn’t exist.


Those who claim to "know" that god doesn't exist, cannot, then, by your definition be "atheist." (You said: "Theism has to do with belief and (A) thesis is without belief.") They have a belief, not a lack of belief. You can't claim to "know" something without claiming to "believe" it.

Likewise, someone "knowing that god doesn’t exist," as you put it, cannot be an agnostic. He doesn't claim a lack of knowledge. So, by your definition, he can be neither atheistic nor agnostic.

Does that make him a "theist?" You see the problem with the distinctions you're trying to make here? They cannot be consistently applied.

You say "Knowledge in and of itself is a subset of belief." So, you can believe without knowing, but you can't know without believing. But, that aside, "agnostic," not withstanding it literal meaning, has traditionally been associated with "doubters," i.e., those who lack a belief because they don't know. So the knowledge/belief distinction merges and the distinction is not applicable to those cases.

Quote:
Past interpretations of agnosticism and atheism are irrelevant if there is ever to be constructive dialogue now in the present and in the future.


Not sure what you're getting at here, Arg. Are you saying the matter cannot be discussed unless one accepts a new "interpretation" which obliterates the traditional meaning of a term? Why should that be?

Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:52 am
@argome321,
Only One thing here:

NEW WORLD RELIGION!!!
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 589
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 09:15:56