Atheists... Your life is pointless

@Krumple,

there are no such things as trolls

(of the internet variety anyway, not sure about the creatures)

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

The problem here is that agnosticism and atheism are two different things. You can't just change a definition and expect everyone else to adopt your definition.

There is no problem here. I am not doing what you are suggesting I am doing, but if I were doing it, why not?

Quote:

Agnosticism is about knowledge.

Atheism is about belief.

Okay. But I said that I was not going to talk about the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I did mention that.

Quote:

Two different things entirely. Everyone, absolutely EVERYONE is agnostic. There is not a single person left out of this. Why? Because absolutely NO ONE has knowledge that a god exists. Therefore by the very definition everyone is agnostic, weather they want to admit it or not, they are.

Which is one of the reasons I do not want to get into definitions yet. In any case, apparently you are saying there are two different types of agnostics…those who acknowledge that they are agnostics and those who do not. As long as you understand I am not talking about the difference between the two agnostics yet, we are in agreement.

Quote:

Now with atheism. Do you be believe a god exists? The answer to that question will determine if you are an atheist (non believer) or theist (believer).

Really? I disagree, but I am not talking about the difference…or about atheism and agnosticism at the moment. I am speaking of how I feel about the questions I mentioned above.

Quote:

There is NOT this middle ground between being a theist and an atheist called agnostic. If you think that way then you are getting the definition wrong.

I am not thinking that way at all…but thank you for mentioning it.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Okay, SpadeMaster…let’s just take this slower—one item at a time. Discussions on the Internet tend to get very jumbled...and perhaps taking it step by step will help prevent this one from doing that.

I wrote:

SpadeMaster, rather than explaining “agnosticism” I would prefer to give my personal feelings regarding “the existence of gods” and “life after death.” I prefer to leave the "labeling" for some possible future moment. I think this might help promote this discussion…and I hope it will eliminate the “promotion of agnosticism” objection that comes up often. It also will eliminate the need to discuss differences between agnosticism and atheism.

To this you answered, “OK.” I then wrote:

“As regards “the existence of gods” and “life after death”…my personal position is that I do not know…and have no reasonable evidence upon which to base a guess that "there are gods or there are no gods"…or that "there is life after death or that there is nothing after death."”

To which you responded:

Quote:

Do these opinions go all the way down the middle with every situation or circumstance? Or is it just things pertaining to theists, and atheists??

In other words, if confronted with having an abortion, what position would you take? If confronted with getting a divorce, or giving up parental rights to your children, what would you think, and or do?? As far as Morality, do you believe religious are wrong? As far as science, do you believe it is possible, or impossible to try to "disprove" a god...Or do you think it can be done??

Would you give me some idea of why you want the answers to those questions.? How will it impact on the fact that my personal position on the question of the existence of gods and the reality of life after death—is as I said?

I cannot see how the answers to those questions could impact on my feeling with regard to those two things…and I just want to be sure why we are into abortion, divorce, parental rights at this point in the discussion. If you have a reason why these other items are important at this time, I will answer.

Respectfully, SpadeMaster, the problem with introducing new elements into a discussion this complex is that the complexity of the discussion just overwhelms. I really am not interested in going way off tangent—I think it would be beneficial to the discussion to be more systematic.

So in addition to why you want these answers, if you could, I’d like you to take another look at this particular statement…and tell me if you see anything wrong with it. Anything that you find objectionable or illogical.

Then we can take each of the other elements of my original post and discuss them separately.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Krumple wrote:
. There is no middle between belief and non-belief. There is no half belief.

Of course there is, and you can stamp your feet as much as you like, but it won't change anything. Why do you have to believe in extremes?

Refusing to accept your definitions doesn't make Spademaster a troll. You need to grow up.

To say that I am wrong is one thing. It is completely another to explain how I am wrong. You explain to me how there can be such a thing as half belief. Provide for me some examples of half beliefs. If you can't do that then my argument stands that there are no half beliefs.

Put in or go home.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

In Dylan's song Precious Angel there is the line--

"Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain’t no neutral ground."

I can't see how anybody can get round that.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

In the song Precious Angel there is the line--

"Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain’t no neutral ground."

I can't see how anybody can get round that.

Areas of grey, areas of grey. Very little is completely black and white.
A wavering faith is not a lack of belief, it indicates a sense of doubt.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

And action is paralyzed. This is a debate about principles and not what some dithering inconsequential people might think who are merely exercising a precious dilettantism.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

This is a debate about principles and not what some dithering inconsequential people might think who are merely exercising a precious dilettantism.

You asked, you got an answer. Don't like it, too bad.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

One can choose neither to believe nor disbelieve. You would get so forceful if instead of God being discussed it was Keynsian economics.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

You can't change the fact that millions of people calls themselves agnostic based on their beliefs, not their knowledge. You've set out why you think that can't be the case, but it doesn't stop it being the case.

Where I take issue with what you've said is, where you get in a strop with spademaster for refusing to accept your opinion on the matter.

0 Replies

@spendius,

You're arguing with a man who thought Guy Fawkes was one of the pilgrim fathers.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

One can choose neither to believe nor disbelieve. You would get so forceful if instead of God being discussed it was Keynsian economics.

This is not an example it is just a reiteration of what you have already said. I don't think you can give an example because there are none to give.

Simply saying it, putting the words together doesn't make it true. If there was such a thing as a half belief why isn't there a word for it? You have to use a duality to attempt to point at something that doesn't exist. Because there is no such thing as a half belief.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Quote:

You asked, you got an answer. Don't like it, too bad.

I not in the least "don't like it". I didn't even ask anything. I offered a quote supporting the position Krumple had taken. And I offered a comment about the catatonic tendencies of doubt.

I don't like or dislike contributions to debates. I am dispassionate about such things. They are neither "too bad" nor "too good". They might be incoherent. Or misleading. Or based on insufficient or partial evidence. Or emotional.

I don't know whether someone is seeking validation for their own atheistic beliefs, and the natural actions which flow from them, or bringing a message to the world that the atheist thinks the world needs. The former is as of much interest as any unknown person is but the latter is a political and social question of profound interest.

And the former cannot be allowed to pass from one to the other without there being incoherence.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

It's not half belief, it's a choice to reject both belief and disbelief. You seem to think people should be one way or the other, people can decide to be neither.

At the end of the day the wisest thing to do would be to agree to differ and move on.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius, what I read was you quoting song lyrics "faith and unbelief....no neutral ground" to which you (at least seemed to have) added
"I can't see how anybody can get round that."
I indicated grey areas, you then made a post trying to counteract that with saying this is all " ...about principles and not dithering inconsequential..."

I told you, I'd given you an answer and if you don't like that answer that's too bad.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

By which I take it that accept that you are a "dithering inconsequential person" and that your contributions here are not to be taken seriously because the "grey area" person has nothing to say to either of the two sides. He admits having no clue whether an atheist's life is pointless or not. If he says it is, imagining him being decisive for a moment, then he necessarily has to say that the believer's life is pointless as well. A life couldn't possibly become pointless simply by becoming an atheist. And an atheist inventing a new wonder gizmo couldn't thereby render a point to his life by doing so if all its user's were pointless.

Both Logical Postivism and Existentialists are formal schools exercised with meaninglessness. What I feel is that many people have caught a whiff of the backdraught from the academic gowns of these schools having been attracted to certain types of understandable charms which they exhibit.

They, for example, thought it socially superior to read Sartre rather than watching Laurel and Hardy re-runs or an NFL game. All three being equally pointless activities by the logic of those schools.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

We are discussing Keynesian economics izz. Notice how often, our attention is drawn to some compassionate aspect of a poster's sweet nature. And who they are.

Notice how often an invidious comparison with the evil deeds of the Church is made. On a very sketchy outline of them gleaned from some source of information which they know very little about. And they don't even know whether the evil deeds took place for sure. Documents of those periods are notorious as Setanta will tell you.

And they are not agnostic on the matter either. They believe them. Whether it is because they want to believe them enough to drop their guard on what they consider as evidence I don't know.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I think it's more of a command economy, market by diktat, with people more concerned with controlling what's in the market, than by engaging in meaningful trade. Counterfeit goods are in high demand.

0 Replies

@spendius,

you mean deeds like the crusades?

3 Replies

@Rockhead,

You're quite right, you wouldn't have anything like that happen nowadays would you?

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know