14
   

I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

Forums: Religion, Word Salad, Logic, Apisa Match, Not Atheism
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:46 am
@failures art,
Art, I am NOT an atheist. If you have a problem with someone who asserts he is not an atheist...that is YOUR problem, not mine.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:48 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Do you avoid using the word oxygen?


No. And I have no problem whatever with using the word "atheist."

Quote:
I take it that you only have this obsession with the word atheist or do you find yourself not using other words that have similar problems as well, and that are commonly used in the English language?


What are you talking about here? I have no obsession with the word atheist. Do you make this stuff up yourself...or do you have help?


Quote:
No one has ever used the term H20 to describe you have they?


Not that I know of.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:50 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I think I get it. Both you nd Frank need to get laid.


Perhaps RL does. I get all I need.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:52 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
What about adreno-theist? You only believe in God when you're punching someone in the mouth. It's a handy condition to have when the Jehovah's Witnessess come knocking.


We get lots of Jehovah's Witnesses where I live. A few know me by name now. I speak with them and tell them how I feel about the god they are trying to get me to love. Most avoid me after their first encounter, but I try to be as understanding as possible. They are doing what they think ought to be done...being true to their consciences. Not a lot of that going around these days.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  3  
Fri 18 May, 2012 05:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Art, I am NOT an atheist. If you have a problem with someone who asserts he is not an atheist...that is YOUR problem, not mine.


This is the thing that people keep trying to remind you of.

If you answer the question, "Do you believe in gods or a god?"

with a "No..."

Then you are an atheist.

It does not matter if you want to, or don't like the term. You are that by definition. If you don't like the word atheist or don't want to refer to yourself as an atheist is meaningless.

You don't get to redefine a word because of what ever reason.

If you answer the question do you believe in a god with a no then by that very answer, you are an atheist. It is irrelevant if you like or dislike the word.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 05:13 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
If you answer the question, "Do you believe in gods or a god?"

with a "No..."

Then you are an atheist.


That is simply incorrect. If I were to assert "I do NOT believe there are NO gods"...that would not make me a theist.

Atheists do not own all the territory beyond "I believe in gods"...although they like to assert they do.

Babies are not, as some atheists assert, born atheists and do not lose that designation until they are able to assert they "believe" in gods. People who do not have the mental capacity to have a "belief" in a god...are not therefore atheists, as some atheists insist.

I am an agnostic...I am NOT an atheist.

I do appreciate that you atheists want to include me in your ranks...although I suspect it has more to do with artificially inflating your numbers than with any real love for me...but it does give me a warm, fuzzy feeling nonetheless.

(signed) Frank Apisa, Agnostic




Krumple
 
  3  
Fri 18 May, 2012 07:10 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
That is simply incorrect. If I were to assert "I do NOT believe there are NO gods"...that would not make me a theist.


I never said that. So why would the double negative make it a untrue statement? It wouldn't.

A thiest believes there is a god.

An atheist does not believe there is a god.

Doesn't get any more simple than that, but you for some reason want to use double negatives to arrive at a postition that refutes itself.

Setanta wrote:

Atheists do not own all the territory beyond "I believe in gods"...although they like to assert they do.


It is not having or not believing. They are not convinced that there is a god therefore they lack the belief that there is one. You can continue your word play as an attempt to be something else because you don't like the word atheist. I know that is your motivation for this word play attempt or else you wouldn't be having it.

I don't see you claiming that you are a NOT a non believer in flying pink elephants. Because it is silly.

Setanta wrote:

Babies are not, as some atheists assert, born atheists and do not lose that designation until they are able to assert they "believe" in gods. People who do not have the mental capacity to have a "belief" in a god...are not therefore atheists, as some atheists insist.


Sure. But at the same time they are not theists either. You still need to learn the concept of a god before the situation comes up. I assume that you are not a baby so you can't claim to have the same position as a baby like you are suggesting that you can.

Setanta wrote:

I am an agnostic...I am NOT an atheist.


An agnostic is a person who doesn't have knowledge that a god exists.

an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a god or gods existence.

They are two completely different things.

Infact you can be both an agnostic-atheist because I am one.

One deals with having knowledge and the other deals with belief.

I have no knowledge that a god exists, therefore I am agnostic.

I also do not believe a god exists, therefore i am an atheist.

I am both at the same time.

Setanta wrote:

I do appreciate that you atheists want to include me in your ranks...although I suspect it has more to do with artificially inflating your numbers than with any real love for me...but it does give me a warm, fuzzy feeling nonetheless.

(signed) Frank Apisa, Agnostic


Na I just realize that you ignore definitions and want to try and invent your own. It is very common, people like to do it all the time. However; you have to realize by trying to change a defintion you make conversation useless. You are not allowed to change definitions if you expect people to be able to communicate with you. Therefore you must follow the rules of language if you want to have a meaningful conversation.
failures art
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 10:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Art, I am NOT a red head. If you have a problem with someone who asserts he is not a red head... that is YOUR problem, not mine.

Ginger filter turned on.

I want to know why you'd want to assert you are not what you clearly are. I also asked you about the "state of mind" you said atheists have. Would you be so kind as to articulate what that means? I want to see what baggage you've attached to the word.

I'm going to do some research on logical fallacies just to make sure there isn't already one, but maybe you might get one named after you, Frank.

A
R
T
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:13 am
@Krumple,
how are you managing to attribute Frank's comments to Setanta?


(I ask since it seemed, for a minute, that Set and I agreed on this)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:17 am
@failures art,
Quote:
I want to see what baggage you've attached to the word.


I'll get to all that illogical stuff you said earlier in a bit, but for now, I have a question:

Why are you insisting that I have baggage attached to the word "atheist?" Why is your reasoning so distorted?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:20 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
It is not having or not believing. They are not convinced that there is a god therefore they lack the belief that there is one.


it's not that simple
Krumple
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:24 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

how are you managing to attribute Frank's comments to Setanta?


(I ask since it seemed, for a minute, that Set and I agreed on this)


it was an error on my part since his name was in my buffer. I didn't catch the mistake quick enough to make the proper changes. Can't go back and fix them. They will have to be self corrected. Thanks for point it out.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:28 am
@Krumple,
Sorry, Krumple...but I AM NOT an atheist. It takes more than simply not having a belief in a GOD or gods to make an atheist. Babies and toddlers are NOT atheists simply because of a definition that makes no sense to anyone but atheists.

But I am enjoying listening to you try to make me into an atheist. You would have made one hell of a Jehovah's Witness!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:33 am
@failures art,
But the fact is, Art...I am not an atheist. So when you say that I am an atheist...it make all the sense in the world for me to tell you that I am not an atheist.

I am NOT an atheist, Art.

This is becoming hilarious. I hope the people I've invited to read this thread are getting a kick out of it.

TO SOME SPECIAL OTHERS:
I told you they would keep insisting...even if it meant having all babies, toddlers, and mentally disadvantaged people be called atheists in order to preserve this argument.

You thought I was kidding you!

I wasn't!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:34 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
it's not that simple


Indeed it is not, Beth. Thank you for mentioning that.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Sorry, Krumple...but I AM NOT an atheist. It takes more than simply not having a belief in a GOD or gods to make an atheist. Babies and toddlers are NOT atheists simply because of a definition that makes no sense to anyone but atheists.

But I am enjoying listening to you try to make me into an atheist. You would have made one hell of a Jehovah's Witness!


goboligook then. You have no way of even conversing with people because you want to redefine words to your own liking. You can't realize or refuse to realize that you are behaving this way. I know you have motivations for it, they are clearly spelled out and plain to see. Yet if you want to continue insisting that everyone adopt your new definition of agnoticism, well you might have difficulty.

Perhaps you couldn't understand any of that because you have your own definitions of each of those words. Maybe that is what is causing so many problems?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:40 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
goboligook then. You have no way of even conversing with people because you want to redefine words to your own liking. You can't realize or refuse to realize that you are behaving this way. I know you have motivations for it, they are clearly spelled out and plain to see. Yet if you want to continue insisting that everyone adopt your new definition of agnoticism, well you might have difficulty.


You are getting worked up and out of control. Take a deep breath...and start over. Think before posting.

I am not trying to proffer a "new definition of agnosticism"...and in fact, I do not have a new definition of agnosticism.

Calm down. The world does not hinge on the outcome of this conversation.
Krumple
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 11:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You are getting worked up and out of control. Take a deep breath...and start over. Think before posting.

I am not trying to proffer a "new definition of agnosticism"...and in fact, I do not have a new definition of agnosticism.

Calm down. The world does not hinge on the outcome of this conversation.


Funny you think I am worked up? Well I'm not.

Okay well you might not be insisting that you are trying to change the definition. But you don't understand the definition then, because you are not using it properly. Or you are not using it how the rest of society uses it. Not even using it how the dictionary uses it. Perhaps you don't need to?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 12:05 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Funny you think I am worked up? Well I'm not.


Well, it does sound to me as though you are, Krumple. If you tell me you are not, however...I will accept it without question.

Quote:
Okay well you might not be insisting that you are trying to change the definition. But you don't understand the definition then, because you are not using it properly.


Whatever are you talking about????

What have I said about agnosticism that causes you to think I am using it improperly?

Quote:
Or you are not using it how the rest of society uses it.


What are you talking about? How am I using it?

Quote:
Not even using it how the dictionary uses it.


Are you absolutely sure you are not worked up?

Give me a few quotes where I am using agnosticism in the wrong way. Please.


ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 12:27 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Yet if you want to continue insisting that everyone adopt your new definition of agnoticism


Frank's use of the word agnosticism is within the traditional usage. There is nothing new in his use of it.
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Does the Bible's account allow for living things to change over time? - Question by anthony1312002
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 03:41:09
▲ ▼