Okay...let's see...where was I...

Thanks, Set, for that first paragraph. Some of us atheists get weary of that misunderstanding of the points of view - of some of us.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Atheists don't argue that there is no god, they assert, quite reasonably, that they do not believe there is a god, because they see no reason to believe as much. Anyone who argues that there is no god is an anti-theist.

You're a glutton for punishment, i swear. What keeps you alive in this alleged debate is your nearly total inability to comprehend what is said to you. I personally attribute that to an addiction to rote answers to all questions.

Hmmmm.....someone who does not believe there is a god vs. someone who argues that there is no god.

Sounds like a distinction without much of a difference. But we'll give you points for trying and allow you the privlege of notifying merriamwebster.com so they can immortalize your efforts on the internet dictionary.

BTW, to the point of the discussion at hand, are either the atheist or the anti-theist omniscient ?

0 Replies

I see the distinction between atheist and anti-theist as stated by Setanta. I just wonder why Webster has not:
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

0 Replies

We've been over this and over this (years of posts on this pass by). Sozobe gave a distinction making, if not perfect, link on it fairly recently.
I don't have the patience to find that tonight.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Can we logically say that anything CANNOT be known? Or does one have to be a god...as Life suggests, to assert such a thing?

My response is.of course we can logically say that certain things "cannot" be known.

I gave an example of one.

If there is nothing to REALITY but what we see and experience here (no god...no spiritual world...no anything besides what is perceived)...we can never KNOW that to be the case.

It is your presumption of the "If there is nothing..." statement as fact rather than opinion (which it is) that kills your argument.

That was a presumption made for the argument at hand. I am not presuming there is nothing...and I am not presuming there is something with regard to gods.

Quote:

When discussing the entire universe, to argue the ABSENCE of anything is to presume omniscience.

No it isn't....and it is silly to presume that it is.

Quote:

A statement such as "There are green cars with purple spots." would require knowledge of the entirety of creation, which no human possesses.

Likewise a statement such as "There is no knowledge of God." or "There is no possibly that God can be known." or some such variation would also require omniscience.

Right...but saying "I do not know if there are or aren't"....isn't!

Quote:

It is same problem the atheist faces when arguing "There is no God." Such a statement would require omniscience as well.

Exactly.

Your arguments are getting sillier and sillier. You really should stay away from these kinds of discussions when you are as frustrated as you are. Your arguments are now making damn near no sense at all.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Atheists don't argue that there is no god, they assert, quite reasonably, that they do not believe there is a god, because they see no reason to believe as much. Anyone who argues that there is no god is an anti-theist.

You're a glutton for punishment, i swear. What keeps you alive in this alleged debate is your nearly total inability to comprehend what is said to you. I personally attribute that to an addiction to rote answers to all questions.

As a matter of fact...most atheists do assert, quite unreasonably, THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Further, most atheists do say I BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS.

Now a few atheists have finally seen that the agnostic position is so infinitely superior to the atheistic position...that they have, in effect, stolen the agnostic position...but have not had the courage to actually designate themselves as agnostics, because they realize that the remainder of their atheistic friends would call them names if they do.

I fail to see why you are just a glutton for punishment on this issue, but perhaps it is your inability to comprehend the obvious.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Thanks, Set, for that first paragraph. Some of us atheists get weary of that misunderstanding of the points of view - of some of us.

There is no misunderstanding....there is merely the rationalizations that athesits make....like their theistic counterparts....when the logic is shown to be absent from their arguments.

0 Replies

Here is an experiment one should try:

Take 1000 reasonably intelligent individuals at large (not in an Internet discussion of the subject) and ask:

What is the word used to describe someone who believes or asserts there are no gods?

What is the word used to describe someone who does not believe in god....but who also does not believe or assert there are no gods?

My guess is that 1000 would answer the first "atheist"....and 1000 would answer the second "agnostic."

The only reason this distinction is made in Internet give and take is because some atheists realize that the atheistic position is absurd. That is the reason, after all, why Thomas Huxley divorced himself from atheism and coined the word "agnostic."

If the atheists who feel as some of the atheists in this forum feel....only had the balls...they would, if they truly need a designation, change that designation to agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the word that more correctly describes the situation Set and Osso are describing than does atheism.

But I am enjoying the arguing between the theists and atheists on this matter!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hmmmm.....someone who does not believe there is a god vs. someone who argues that there is no god.

Sounds like a distinction without much of a difference.

There most assuredly IS a difference....and only someone with a closed mind would not see it.

I am an agnostic. I do not "believe in" a God. I also do not "believe" there are no gods.

Now...someone who "believes" there are no gods....certainly is different from someone who simply does not do any "believing" on the matter.

Try to open your mind, Life. It won't hurt.

0 Replies

Quote:

because they realize that the remainder of their atheistic friends would call them names if they do.

ass wipe!

0 Replies

To me, agnosticism is a soft theism.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hmmmm.....someone who does not believe there is a god vs. someone who argues that there is no god.

Sounds like a distinction without much of a difference. But we'll give you points for trying and allow you the privlege of notifying merriamwebster.com so they can immortalize your efforts on the internet dictionary.

BTW, to the point of the discussion at hand, are either the atheist or the anti-theist omniscient ?

I don't know who you contend that "we" are, it seems pretty damned silly of you to use the royal pejorative. That you cannot understand a valid distinction in no way detracts from the value of the distinction. Atheist literally means those without god. Atheists are without god because no one can demonstrate to them the existence of a god. Any real atheist doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not your fairy-tale god exists, and that is the point--not a denial that said god exists. Your attempt to imply that this is a case of claiming omniscience shows your inability to comprehend the point. As an atheist simply states that he or she has never been presented with any compelling evidence to accept the contention that a god exists, and to that extent, is not claiming to know, omnisicently, that none exists. You obviously just don't get it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Atheists don't argue that there is no god, they assert, quite reasonably, that they do not believe there is a god, because they see no reason to believe as much. Anyone who argues that there is no god is an anti-theist.

You're a glutton for punishment, i swear. What keeps you alive in this alleged debate is your nearly total inability to comprehend what is said to you. I personally attribute that to an addiction to rote answers to all questions.

As a matter of fact...most atheists do assert, quite unreasonably, THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Further, most atheists do say I BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS.

Now a few atheists have finally seen that the agnostic position is so infinitely superior to the atheistic position...that they have, in effect, stolen the agnostic position...but have not had the courage to actually designate themselves as agnostics, because they realize that the remainder of their atheistic friends would call them names if they do.

I fail to see why you are just a glutton for punishment on this issue, but perhaps it is your inability to comprehend the obvious.

Blah, blah, blah Frank . . . do spare us your usual "mine is the morally and intellectually superior position" rant, you've preened yourself on this fairy tale at this site often enough to last us all for a life-time.

0 Replies

If atheists steal the agnostic position, doesn't it make them agnostics? Surely fundamentalism atheism and fundamentalist religion have more in common than either one and agnosticism? Both show believe rather than an open mind.

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

If atheists steal the agnostic position, doesn't it make them agnostics? Surely fundamentalism atheism and fundamentalist religion have more in common than either one and agnosticism? Both show believe rather than an open mind.

That's right, Clary. You'd better have me checked for explosives before our next London meetup.

0 Replies

?! Never!?

And I meant belief, not believe.

I don't know if I'm an agnostic or an atheist - what does that make me?

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

I don't know if I'm an agnostic or an atheist - what does that make me?

A meta-agnostic perhaps?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Blah, blah, blah Frank . . . do spare us your usual "mine is the morally and intellectually superior position" rant, you've preened yourself on this fairy tale at this site often enough to last us all for a life-time.

Well...it is not a fairytale...it is merely a recognition of the truth. Agnosticism IS morally, intellectually, ethically, and philosophically superior to both theism and atheism.

And it would be uncharitable of me not to share the information with you less fortunate friends of mine.

So allow me to do so:

Set...agnosticism is superior in so many ways to atheism....especially the kind of atheism you practice...which is little more than to adopt the agnostic postion and yet continue to use the word atheist inappropriately.

As I said...Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" for the specific purpose of disassociating himself from the atheistic position of "there are no gods"...which with he found to be untenable.

Acknowledge it, Set.

You simply no longer are an atheist. You are an agnostic.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

To me, agnosticism is a soft theism.

Yeah...well, if you have nothing better to offer, I guess you are stuck with stuff like this, Osso.

But the fact is that people who "believe" there is a God....and people who "believe" there are no gods...

...are both doing "believing"...

...and both are "believers."

You folks just "believe" in different things.

Agnostics acknowledge the do not know...and also acknowledge that there is not enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess (or belief).

This is not "soft theism"...any more than your so-called "soft atheism" is actually atheism.

To borrow, and slightly alter, a famous phrase from an atheistic icon, Madelyn O'Hare...."Soft atheism is for people without the guts for true atheism!"

Atheism is about the assertion that there are no gods. It is a guess about the unknown.

Agnosticism is about the truth.

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

If atheists steal the agnostic position, doesn't it make them agnostics? Surely fundamentalism atheism and fundamentalist religion have more in common than either one and agnosticism? Both show believe rather than an open mind.

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know