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
 
 
failures art
 
  0  
Fri 18 May, 2012 03:55 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

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

...or this isn't sarcasm, it's just a speech impediment.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 May, 2012 04:05 pm
@failures art,
The atheist state of mind, Art...is that there are no gods. When all is said and done...almost every atheist I have ever known is convinced that there are no gods. On the Internet, they seldom actually acknowledge that...and I suspect some truly are not of that mind. But my guess is that most are.

I am not of that state of mind.

I truly do not know if gods exist or not...and I see no reason to suspect one way in preference to the other.

That is the atheist state of mind.

Also...the atheist state of mind includes a desire to be known primarily as an atheist. If the word agnostic comes into the picture, it is almost an afterthought in a discussion with an agnostic in a debate.

I also am not of that atheist state of mind.

Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

I appreciate your comments very much.


I'm very sure you do.


Great. I am appreciative of your comments...and you are sure I am appreciative of your comments. At least we have something where our thoughts coincide.
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Fri 18 May, 2012 06:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
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?


Help me out frank. tell me a little more about this position that you so dearly hold.

You have proven over time that you are a devout agnostic and you have shown that you are logically consistent in this position that you hold, by going very far with your position and claiming that not only are you agnostic about gods but you are also agnostic about Spaghetti monsters and so forth.
Are you the only one who holds this position or are there others like you? and if not do you think you could be a little obsessed in your position toward the word atheist?

I too could get a little obsessed with the word oxygen and tell everyone that they have it all wrong because it describes hydrogen, I could even take it a step further and say that I will not use it to describe the element being described and I will go back to using vital air. Frank words are just words and I prefer to be able to to communicate with everyone without all of the hang ups.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 04:09 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Help me out frank. tell me a little more about this position that you so dearly hold.


Sure. Be delighted.

1) I do not know if gods exist.

2) I do not know if there are no gods.

3. I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I refrain from doing so. Honestly, I do not have a guess or belief in either direction on the question.

Tell me what part of that you are not able to understand...and I will try to explain it, although I think that position is fairly clear and straightforward.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 04:17 am
@reasoning logic,
As for this "obsession" you seem to think I have for the word atheist...I can tell you I am not obsessed with it in any way. It is a fine word...and I have absolutely no trouble with people who use it to describe themselves or their personal philosophy. I have defended it against arguments offered by theists on many occasions...and when I hear someone suggest they would never under any circumstances vote for an atheist for the office of president of the United States, I truly think I am talking to a close-minded, ignorant jerk.

But I am an agnostic...and I resent atheists claiming I am an atheist because they want to use a definition of the word atheist (anyone who is not a theist) that came into being because of an error in the etymology of the word.

So I argue against it; I challenge it whenever it comes my way.

Not sure why you are having trouble with that, RL. You most assuredly are not compelled to use that definition...which also requires you to consider babies, toddlers, and adults mentally incapable of understanding concepts like "believe" or "gods" to be atheists also. And you certainly seem intelligent enough to understand my explanation by now.

So what is YOUR hang-up with wanting to make me and all those babies into atheists when it is not really a necessity of definition at all?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 04:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
No offence Frank, but I really don't give a **** what you believe. Preachy people find it hard to accept people who don't believe the same as them. It's some sort of psychological need to always be right, and that's what you seem to be bumping up against.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 05:09 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
1) I do not know if gods exist.

2) I do not know if there are no gods.

3. I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I refrain from doing so. Honestly, I do not have a guess or belief in either direction on the question.


Like I have said
You have proven over time that you are a devout agnostic and you have shown that you are logically consistent in this position that you hold, by going very far with your position and claiming that not only are you agnostic about gods but you are also agnostic about Spaghetti monsters and so forth.
Are you the only one who holds this position or are there others like you?

I am cool with however you are, I'm just curious is all.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 05:29 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Like I have said
You have proven over time that you are a devout agnostic and you have shown that you are logically consistent in this position that you hold, by going very far with your position and claiming that not only are you agnostic about gods but you are also agnostic about Spaghetti monsters and so forth.
Are you the only one who holds this position or are there others like you?

I am cool with however you are, I'm just curious is all
.

I am beginning to suspect you are more than “just curious” on this, JL. I think you are trying to mock the notion. I hope I am wrong, but if that actually is the case, no problem. Mock away if it makes you happy.

Anyway, this detour back to spaghetti monsters seems to be another diversion—something in which you tend to engage.

I've now told you enough for you to understand my position.

Let me ask this (again): Is there some reason why you are insisting on using the one definition of “atheist” that will involve classifying me (and babies and toddlers) as atheists…rather than going with the definition in many dictionaries that would not make that unnecessary absurdity a requirement?

I’m just curious?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 05:30 am
@izzythepush,
Izzy, no offense taken. I am just trying to answer some questions being asked of me.

If I may: Are my answers as unclear to you as they seem to be to these other guys here?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 05:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Is there some reason why you are insisting on using the one definition of “atheist” that will involve classifying me (and babies and toddlers) as atheists…rather than going with the definition in many dictionaries that would not make that unnecessary absurdity a requirement?

I’m just curious?


It is the same reason why we have stuck to using the word oxygen. The reason is that it has been used in that sense for a very long time by theist and atheist alike. Just because I may think that a word should or should not be used in that way has very little effect on what society will do.


you are also agnostic about Spaghetti monsters and so forth.
Are you the only one who holds this position or are there others like you?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 05:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Not at all, I'm quite happy with you being an agnostic. I accept your reasoning, and I have no business trying to change it.

I've just had the Jehovah's Witnesses round. They're going to put me on a do not visit list, because I'm sick of having the same conversation over and over again.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:01 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
It is the same reason why we have stuck to using the word oxygen. The reason is that it has been used in that sense for a very long time by theist and atheist alike. Just because I may think that a word should or should not be used in that way has very little effect on what society will do.


But lots and lots and lots of people use the word in a way that would allow agnostics not to be atheists…and would allow babies and toddlers not to be atheists. In fact, most people would probably think the other position to be an absurdity. So why do you use the absurd definition? In fact, the definition that does not require babies and toddlers to be classified as atheists is much, much older and more generally used than the other…so once again, why are you sticking with it?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:10 am
@Frank Apisa,
You still have not answered my question even though I blew it up larger to get your attention.

Quote:
But lots and lots and lots of people use the word in a way that would allow agnostics not to be atheists…and would allow babies and toddlers not to be atheists.
How do people use the word atheist in a way that does not allow others to be atheist?

Quote:
In fact, the definition that does not require babies and toddlers to be classified as atheists is much, much older and more generally used than the other


You lost me here, What are you talking about?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:28 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

You still have not answered my question even though I blew it up larger to get your attention.


Come on RL, think about it logically. Do you honestly believe Frank is the only person in the whole wide world who believes in his particular type of agnosticism? By the law of averages alone, of course others hold the same views.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:38 am
@izzythepush,
Of course there are others that believe in the possibility of spaghetti monsters existing but I am just curious if Frank has ever met any of them, he is the first that I have ever met. Many theist are creative thinkers but not many them will admit to such possibilities.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:42 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Quote:
But lots and lots and lots of people use the word in a way that would allow agnostics not to be atheists…and would allow babies and toddlers not to be atheists.
Quote:
How do people use the word atheist in a way that does not allow others to be atheist?


C'mon, RL. I did not say "others"...I said "babies and toddlers."

If you are asking how do people use the word atheist in a way that does not require babies and toddlers to be considered atheists...

...by defining it the way the American Heritage Dictionary defines it: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.”

By defining it the way the MacMillian Dictionary defines it: “someone who believes that God does not exist”

By defining it the way the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it: “one who believes that there is no deity”

By defining it the way the Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines it: “one who believes that there is no deity”


And since that is the way it has traditionally be used, why not use that? Why are you insisting on using a tortured definition that requires babies and toddlers to be considered atheists?

Huh…why?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:46 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, the definition that does not require babies and toddlers to be classified as atheists is much, much older and more generally used than the other


Quote:
You lost me here, What are you talking about?


You are using a definition that has atheist being anybody who has not declared a “belief” in a god. That definition requires that agnostics are atheists; new born babies are atheists; toddlers are atheists; mentally defective individuals are atheists.

It is an absurdity.

Use the definition from those dictionaries I just cited…and you will no longer have to think of me as an atheist.

WHICH I AM NOT.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:55 am
@reasoning logic,
What is it with you and spaghetti monsters?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 06:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
I do see your point Frank but I do think you are obsessed with all of this. What do you think about its origins? Can you be agnostic in you thinking about its origins? I hear that it meant "godless" What does this empirically mean? does this mean that theist thought that there where people that Gods did not create or maybe they thought that they did not worship any kind of Gods? What exactly did they mean by this? In an agnostic point of view.
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 07:04 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
What is it with you and spaghetti monsters?
I love spaghetti, I dream of there being spaghetti monsters.
 

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
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.
  3. » Page 17
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:07:23
▲ ▼