14
   

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

 
 
failures art
 
  0  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
What definition did I change.


You didn't change any...and I didn't say you changed any.

I said you wanted to change them...

Learn to communicate, Frank. You're terrible at it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

and if you read your own writing, you will see you wanted in several cases to change the word god to gods.

I pointed out that the sources you provided used insufficient definitions because they only address monotheism. My desire to change it is second to the need for it to actually reflect what the word means. I also directed you to another very respectable dictionary that did not make this mistake and guess what? Oxford, took some time to evaluate the word.

You were also directed to the entry from Wikipedia.

Your own weak v strong atheist reasoning cut and paste several pages back backfired on you as well.

Frank Apisa wrote:

C'mon, give this up, Art. You will never make me an atheist...no matter how much you want me to be one of you.

It takes no effort for me to "make" an atheist out of you. It also requires zero desire. You are one. You're a red head, with your hat off, standing in front of the mirror, with your eyes shut tight.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  0  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Your definition, but you can be an agnostic by the proper definition and by a false definition.


My "definition" was of my personal agnosticism. I assure you...it is my personal agnosticism. And it is well within the definition most agnostics use.

You don't get to have your own meaning for words, Frank.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  0  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I wanted to show that the weak atheist position coincides with what I was saying from an agnostic perspective. Weak atheists assert that all they are doing is to indicate an absence of belief that there are gods.

I indicate that also.

I then go on to indicate that for me, there also is an absence of belief that there are no gods.

Yes. Weak atheist reasoning does seem to describe your reasoning.

Frank Apisa wrote:

No irony, except in your mind.

Oh I'm quite convinced that the irony is nowhere near your mind.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some weak atheists indicate the same for them; some do not.

Spoken from the ass.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Trying to make something of that in favor of your argument is silly.

Silly as using weak atheist reasoning to describe your beliefs in effort to prove you aren't one.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Ahhh…in another thread, Thomas, wrote: “If atheists are in fact right and there exist no gods…”

So, at least this one atheist is of the opinion that atheists assert that there exist no gods.

That certainly does not mean all do, but it does mean some do…and considering the wording, I suspect Thomas thinks MOST do.



http://able2know.org/topic/190724-2#post-4986675



Yep and you know what. I also actually believe there are no gods. Yep, read it again if you need to, to make sure I said what I said. Yep, I believe there are no gods. But guess what? I can also still be agnostic even with holding this belief. How? Because I have no knowledge that a god exists. If I had knowledge a god existed then I would be a "gnostic" (not to be confused with agnostic, which I actually am.)

So I both believe there are no gods and also have no knowledge of any gods existing.

Postive (strong) agnostic-atheist.

Soon as I get some evidence that supports the existence to be true then I will have to re-evalutate my position as an atheist, and perhaps even my gnosticism.

Maybe when I die Ill become an gnostic theist? Wouldn't that just be funny? I think so, but I highly doubt it will happen.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:46 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
So I both believe there are no gods and also have no knowledge of any gods existing.

Postive (strong) agnostic-atheist.

Soon as I get some evidence that supports the existence to be true then I will have to re-evalutate my position as an atheist, and perhaps even my gnosticism.

Maybe when I die Ill become an gnostic theist? Wouldn't that just be funny? I think so, but I highly doubt it will happen.


Ahhh...I get it now. You are both an atheist...AND an agnostic.

Wow!

Well, me...I am just an agnostic. I am not an atheist.

But that is very interesting information about you.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:53 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Learn to communicate, Frank. You're terrible at it.


Actually, I am very good at it, Art.

I do it well enough to have had an op ed sized piece in the New York Times...and a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine.

And as for small snippets...when the debate between Quayle and Bentsen took place, Newsweek and Time magazines each received over 800 letters on the event...and I got a letter on the debate published in both.

I do real well 'splaining things, Art.

But I understand at this point in the discussion, folks like you and Krumple will start with harsher and harsher digs...and probably get to the point of actual insults and name-calling. Hey, if it makes you guys feel better, go for it. I have skin thicker than steel. I'm not going to return fire, but don't think that means I do not love ya both, because I do. You are making my day.
Krumple
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 02:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
So frank. If someone asks you one question and only one question.

Do you believe a god exists.

yes or no?

You wouldn't be able to answer, you would have to go into your double negatives and non-positive assertion routine?

So you wouldn't be able to say yes or no to that one question?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:03 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
So frank. If someone asks you one question and only one question.

Do you believe a god exists.

yes or no?


I would say "no."


Quote:
You wouldn't be able to answer, you would have to go into your double negatives and non-positive assertion routine?


What are you talking about? Why would I not be able to answer it?

Quote:
So you wouldn't be able to say yes or no to that one question?


For time number three...why would I not be able to answer it?

Where does this "reasoning" come from?
Krumple
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Krumple wrote:
So frank. If someone asks you one question and only one question.

Do you believe a god exists.

yes or no?


Frank Apisa wrote:

I would say "no."


Ahh well this makes you an atheist then. The question doesn't imply or request any additional information. It can determine what you are with this simple yes or no choice. Yes means you are a theist, no means you are an atheist.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:18 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Ahh well this makes you an atheist then. The question doesn't imply or request any additional information. It can determine what you are with this simple yes or no choice. Yes means you are a theist, no means you are an atheist.


Only in the odd world of the Internet atheist.

The world, Krumple, is not divided into theists and atheists only.

There are people who think, suppose, believe there are gods. There are people who think, suppose, believe there are no gods. There are some people who simply say they do not know...and are not willing to think, suppose, or believe in either direction.

That is not the way this works, Krumple...no matter how much you want it to.

I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic. I also am not an agnostic atheist...I am just an agnostic.

And the way I answer that question does not change things at all.
Krumple
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The world, Krumple, is not divided into theists and atheists only.


Never said it was only divided that way. In fact I said it was divided 4 ways where these 4 ways could also be combinations of each other.

Frank Apisa wrote:

There are some people who simply say they do not know...


Yep and a person who says they don't know, well that makes them agnostic.

Frank Apisa wrote:

and are not willing to think, suppose, or believe in either direction.


Yep well if you talk about belief and or knowledge, you will get two different results because believe and knowledge are two different things not the same.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic. I also am not an agnostic atheist...I am just an agnostic.

And the way I answer that question does not change things at all.


From that one question I asked you, it doesn't gather what you know. It only asked what you believe. I could have asked if you know a god exists, but asking if you believe or if you know, well they mean two different things. Not sure why you can't figure this out.

I think its because you believe atheism is a positive assertion that no gods exist. Which it actually doesn't. The sources you want to site are not accurate to the actual definition of atheism. At least not the source that I use.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:30 pm
@Krumple,
Yo Krumple...lemme mention something that might change your mind about all this.

Krum...I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. I also am not an agnostic atheist.

I am an agnostic.

If you insist your count is four...then I gotta tell you the real number is at least five...and more than likely, it is more.

But I admire your tenacity. Keep at it, man. I am right here for you so that you do not have to stop.
Krumple
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Yo Krumple...lemme mention something that might change your mind about all this.

Krum...I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. I also am not an agnostic atheist.

I am an agnostic.

If you insist your count is four...then I gotta tell you the real number is at least five...and more than likely, it is more.

But I admire your tenacity. Keep at it, man. I am right here for you so that you do not have to stop.


Thats the funny thing about the human condition, even when it is one thing, it can refuse to acknowledge that it is that one thing. Simply saying otherwise I guess constitutes that it is not the thing that it is.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  0  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Learn to communicate, Frank. You're terrible at it.


Actually, I am very good at it, Art.

I do it well enough to have had an op ed sized piece in the New York Times...and a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine.

And as for small snippets...when the debate between Quayle and Bentsen took place, Newsweek and Time magazines each received over 800 letters on the event...and I got a letter on the debate published in both.

I'd be careful who you tell that to. You might not like what you find out about the lucky few who get published. At best, this means for sure you're interesting, and will keep a person reading (which is great for a publication). It does not mean that you're great at communication.

Consider thinking about all the Op Eds you've read and thought: "What a dumb ****."

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do real well 'splaining things, Art.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff32/evildrew81/scary%20stuff/Joker.gif
Frank Apisa wrote:

But I understand at this point in the discussion, folks like you and Krumple will start with harsher and harsher digs...and probably get to the point of actual insults and name-calling.

Factual horse before the self-righteous cart, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hey, if it makes you guys feel better, go for it.

Not all of us can feel better after a good ole caps lock post, Frank. I appreciate your permission to seek other forms of relief. Although, my preferred method is sarcasm.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have skin thicker than steel.

Literally or figuratively? What are you trying to say?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm not going to return fire, but don't think that means I do not love ya both, because I do. You are making my day.

You're welcome. I know you love the attention.

A
R
T
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:41 pm
@failures art,
Frank is correct in his use of the term agnostic. Not sure why the classic definitions are causing such angst for folks.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:44 pm
@failures art,
Hey, guys…I gotta make dinner soon. If I am not around to tell you why you are wrong…or to remind you that I am not an atheist, it doesn’t mean I have given up on you. But Nancy works all day (while I play golf or talk on the Internet), so I really have to tend to dinner when she gets home. I’ll stick as long as I can, but if I have to cut out, I will be back…even if it is tomorrow morning.

Regards, f.


PS...about this last post, Art. You gotta be able to do better than this! C'mon!

Anyway, you wrote:

Quote:
Consider thinking about all the Op Eds you've read and thought: "What a dumb ****."


Awww, I know just what you mean. In fact, I don't even have to go to the op ed pages these days.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:46 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

If someone asks you one question and only one question.

Do you believe a god exists.

yes or no?



Frank appears to be able to answer this.

I wouldn't be able to give a yes or no answer. I've moved from a position of belief toward the Bertrand Russell side, but I still can't provide a true yes or no.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:


PS...about this last post, Art. You gotta be able to do better than this! C'mon!



gotta giggle. it was precisely what you predicted
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:49 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Frank is correct in his use of the term agnostic. Not sure why the classic definitions are causing such angst for folks.



I’m not all that sure either, Beth, although I suspect it has less to do with the “agnostic” part, but rather that I will not submit to their demands that I be an atheist.

Some definitions of “atheist” are “someone who lacks a belief in gods.” Other definitions are like the ones I submitted from reputable dictionaries that require more.

These two guys want to discard the definitions that will allow me to be just an agnostic.

It ain’t gonna happen.

I appreciate your comments very much.
failures art
 
  0  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Other definitions are like the ones I submitted from reputable dictionaries that require more.

So you believe the reputable nature of the dictionaries accounts for the monotheistic bias in their wording? You still haven't explained:

1) the atheist "state of mind" which wasn't a part of any definition that either of us have posted. Ready to let that one go?

2) "denial" verse "disbelief"

Frank Apisa wrote:

I appreciate your comments very much.

I'm very sure you do.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.29 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:37:56