14
   

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

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 07:12 am
@reasoning logic,
Oh well, we all need a hobby I suppose.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 07:33 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I do see your point Frank but I do think you are obsessed with all of this.

I am delighted that you see my point, but I am perplexed that you think I am obsessed by this.

You keep asking me questions about it and I give you answers.

You insist that I am an atheist…by using a definition that requires it—when a perfectly good definition that would not require it exists and has been used much, much longer than the absurd definition you are insisting on using.

The “obsession” (if there is one), RL, is not mine. It is yours.

In any case, my question still holds…and still has not been answered: Why stick with the absurd definition instead of going with the one that makes more sense?

Quote:
What do you think about its origins?


Not a lot.

Quote:
Can you be agnostic in you thinking about its origins?


What does that mean? Ask what you are asking without using the word “agnostic”…so that I know for sure what you are asking. Remember, my personal agnosticism is: I do not know if there is a god; I do not know if there are no gods; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on the issue. That always holds…whether I am considering the word “agnostic”, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters.

But I am willing to consider that you may be asking something else. So...just ask it.

Quote:
I hear that it meant "godless" What does this empirically mean?


I suspect "godless" means godless. That seems to be what the word meant when it came into English, from the Greek through the French. "a" = without + "theos" meaning "god"...means without a god.

Quote:
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?


This particular agnostic has no idea other than what I said earlier.

So, RL…why are you sticking with that absurd definition of atheist rather than just accepting the definition that will allow babies and toddlers and people with mental inability to comprehend “belief” or “god” no be something other than atheists?

Why not accept the older, more generally popular definition of atheist…and allow agnostics to be non-theists and non-atheists.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 08:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Why stick with the absurd definition instead of going with the one that makes more sense?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  0  
Sat 19 May, 2012 09:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

The atheist state of mind, Art...is that there are no gods.

Well, that was anti-climatic. What of substance did you actually say here?

Frank Apisa wrote:

When all is said and done...almost every atheist I have ever known is convinced that there are no gods.

Yeah, so what. Oh, and oops! you couldn't bring yourself to omit the "almost." So you acknowledge that this isn't really a requirement by your own words. So much for that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

On the Internet, they seldom actually acknowledge that...

I think the case for zero gods is very convincing and I have no problem saying this in person or on the internet. I think atheists express this very frequently.

Frank Apisa wrote:

...and I suspect some truly are not of that mind. But my guess is that most are.

Cool. So that "state of mind" isn't even universal among atheists, so you'll admit this is a false criteria now right?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not of that state of mind.

Swell.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I truly do not know if gods exist or not...

Fair enough.

Frank Apisa wrote:

and I see no reason to suspect one way in preference to the other.

Well, that is pretty stupid. You give equal merit to the possibility of zero or infinite gods? Have you no capability for critical thinking? In your mind, the word of a theist saying we must be created, is just as possible as the efforts of evolutionary biologists that say no such designer was necessarily.

Frank Apisa wrote:

That is the atheist state of mind.

Because you say so.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Also...the atheist state of mind includes a desire to be known primarily as an atheist.

Oh, there's more?

This is spoken from the ass. How can you dictate the desires of a group? Further, atheists that don't desire to be known as such you'd be completely unaware of. Come on Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If the word agnostic comes into the picture, it is almost an afterthought in a discussion with an agnostic in a debate.

Hardly. It comes up a lot when I'm talking to many religious people.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I also am not of that atheist state of mind.

I'm not even sure what statement this is in reference to. If you're talking about the use of the word agnostic, I'm willing to bet that you use it plenty when talking to religious people too, not just atheists. Plenty of people use the word.

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

I was referring to your tendency to jump on any post that validates you. Usually, a "thank you" or whatever. Meanwhile, when others disagree, and point out your illogical conclusions, you can't have it. You like to say atheists want you in the club or some nonsense. Meanwhile, Finn or snood (theists) will stop by and tell you your conclusion doesn't make sense either.

Frank on Richard Dawkins: "Why do you think I care what he says!?"
Frank on Hawking, Einstein, and Sagan: "These guys aren't dumb!"

Never mind that only one of them seemed to fit your position.

Frank, you're after some sort of validation that you aren't going to find here.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 09:29 am
@failures art,
Art...I see you are now at the "I'm gonna call him names and insult him" stage.

Fine. I hope you enjoy it.

When you get back to where you can play well with others, just let me know and I will resume discussion with you if you want.

Until then, I wish you nothing but the best.
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 09:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
Give it s rest, Frank. Skin as thick as steel? Not even close. More like a glass jaw. You were making stuff up, and I called you on it. You were talking out of your ass about the "state of mind" crap.

I've asked you direct questions, and you are either unable or unwilling to answer them. It took forever for you to finally address the "state of mind" crap you put out pages and pages ago. When you finally do so--big surprise--it's not even something you can apply to all atheists. Your concession on that matter is noted.

Quit with the phony indignity and the above-it-all self-righteousness. Don't give me the credit for your intellectual withdrawal.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:12 am
@failures art,
Quote:

Give it s rest, Frank. Skin as thick as steel? Not even close. More like a glass jaw. You were making stuff up, and I called you on it. You were talking out of your ass about the "state of mind" crap.

I've asked you direct questions, and you are either unable or unwilling to answer them. It took forever for you to finally address the "state of mind" crap you put out pages and pages ago. When you finally do so--big surprise--it's not even something you can apply to all atheists. Your concession on that matter is noted.

Quit with the phony indignity and the above-it-all self-righteousness. Don't give me the credit for your intellectual withdrawal.



Nope...not ready to play well with others yet.

Laughing
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, playing with others implies a game of give an take. You're unwilling to play by anyone's rules but your own. Stop lecturing.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:25 am
@failures art,
Quote:
Frank, playing with others implies a game of give an take. You're unwilling to play by anyone's rules but your own. Stop lecturing.


Are you ready to start playing nicely with others, Art?

We can start the discussion again any time if you are. I have been reasonable and courteous. Are you ready?
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
We can start when ever, Frank. The ball has been in your court. The queue of questions continues to grow.

We can start when you're ready.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:37 am
@failures art,
You are able to play well with others, then, Art?

Okay, I will take your word for that.

Give me your first question.
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
Begin here. Since you intend to use the definitions you posted,

1) Are they sufficient definitions if they only address monotheism? i.e. - "God, deity, or supreme being" versus "gods, deities, or supreme beings"

2) If a definition identifies that an atheist "denies" or "disbelieves" can you offer what the difference s between the two words are so we can explore the two ways in which a person can be an atheist?

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Sat 19 May, 2012 10:57 am
@failures art,
Two questions...choose one.
failures art
 
  0  
Sat 19 May, 2012 11:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
I'm uninterested in negotiating sessions on when you'll be ready to answer.

You can answer both. If you can only devote yourself to one at a time, pick either, as long as you get around to answering both.

Enough discussion about the discussion. Just answer the questions, Frank.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 11:10 am
@failures art,
Quote:
I'm uninterested in negotiating sessions on when you'll be ready to answer.

You can answer both. If you can only devote yourself to one at a time, pick either, as long as you get around to answering both.

Enough discussion about the discussion. Just answer the questions, Frank.

A


Choose one.
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 11:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Get over your power trip. I am not jumping threw more hoops to beg you to participate. Answer them both, Frank. I don't care which one you start with.

I'm waiting on you. You know my questions, so the only thing stopping you is your insistence that I comply with an unnecessary request.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Sat 19 May, 2012 11:23 am
@failures art,
I will answer one...and then ask one of my own.

You choose your first question.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 11:37 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
You know my questions, so the only thing stopping you is your insistence that I comply with an unnecessary request.


A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Sat 19 May, 2012 11:41 am
@failures art,
I have been inundated with questions from almost a dozen people here, Art...and I have tried to answer each fully. I have had precious little in the way of support and have pretty much handled the load myself. I've asked some questions...but almost none compared with the number coming my way.

I will answer your questions...one at a time.

You choose which is your first question...I will respond and more than likely ask one of my own.

I asked for your first question. Not sure why you chose to ask two before I got a chance to ask one, but it was a mistake.

Choose one.

Choose your question
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Sat 19 May, 2012 05:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank I am cool with you not wanting to be called an atheist and if it means that much to you I will start considering you to be a non-theist. Wink

Quote:
The “obsession” (if there is one), RL, is not mine. It is yours.


I am not the one who has started a polemic style thread to express my view about the word "atheist" with others Frank. 2 Cents
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 07:59:56