Intrepid wrote:It is almost refreshing to see the atheists and agnostics duking it out without involving Christians.
Don't go away.
This has got a long way to go....and it is almost impossible to discuss the belief system of atheists without involving the belief system of Christians.
They have so much in common.
Skip-a-loop. . . Skip-a-loop.
It has a nice ring, don't you think?
yeh, sure does...
what the hell are you talking about, Neo?
Frank Apisa wrote:They have so much in common.
I think I referred to this last night, I do believe that theists and atheists belong in the same boat of stubbornness, only difference is what door they walked into first, the lab or the church (That is a generalised term)...
I know it's hard to follow my train of thought, since I often derail in a senior moment. I was merely enjoying a term I learned from Ossobuco and trying to use it in proximity to its appropriate application.
Frank,
I use the word 'atheist' rather than 'agnostic' for several reasons.
First, the definition of atheist, when broken down and stripped of christian placed stigma, means simply 'without gods', which I am, in regards to all traditional external deity beliefs. Secondly, and more importantly to me, I find the word 'agnostic' and it's contemporary definition to be intellectually dishonest, as it ascribes legitimate weight to concepts I have realized to be both extraneous and erroneous. Sure, there may be 'something', but if 'something' is 'god/s' as thusfar defined by man I find the whole idea to be ludicrous. How exactly did these people that invented these gods arrive at their conclusions? Barring some sort of 'divine revelation', which I find to be unlikely to the point of negligability, these 'god/s' are nothing more than creatures born of imagination. This is where my references to the FSM, pink unicorns, purple **** monsters, and whatever else i can dream up correlate to established theistic ideas. I really see nothing to distinguish the two short of the popularity of the ideas. Ad Populum and Ad Numerum are hardly the avenues to truth.
To be 'agnostic', to me, means to lend credibility to these ideas I don't think is due.
Do I know the nature of reality? No. Do I find theistic mumbo-jumbo to be worth intellectual consideration? No.
As I said before, before I can even consider the possibility of a 'higher power', one must first offer a definition of such. Contemporary accepted definitions, both mono and polytheistic, up to this point give no foundation on which to accept them as anything more than the myths and legends they seem to be.
Ah....an inside joke.
Part of the enduring charm of A2K.....
An inside joke? just a word-coining by me.
Doktor S wrote:Frank,
I use the word 'atheist' rather than 'agnostic' for several reasons.
First, the definition of atheist, when broken down and stripped of christian placed stigma, means simply 'without gods', which I am, in regards to all traditional external deity beliefs. Secondly, and more importantly to me, I find the word 'agnostic' and it's contemporary definition to be intellectually dishonest, as it ascribes legitimate weight to concepts I have realized to be both extraneous and erroneous. Sure, there may be 'something', but if 'something' is 'god/s' as thusfar defined by man I find the whole idea to be ludicrous. How exactly did these people that invented these gods arrive at their conclusions? Barring some sort of 'divine revelation', which I find to be unlikely to the point of negligability, these 'god/s' are nothing more than creatures born of imagination. This is where my references to the FSM, pink unicorns, purple **** monsters, and whatever else i can dream up correlate to established theistic ideas. I really see nothing to distinguish the two short of the popularity of the ideas. Ad Populum and Ad Numerum are hardly the avenues to truth.
To be 'agnostic', to me, means to lend credibility to these ideas I don't think is due.
Do I know the nature of reality? No. Do I find theistic mumbo-jumbo to be worth intellectual consideration? No.
As I said before, before I can even consider the possibility of a 'higher power', one must first offer a definition of such. Contemporary accepted definitions, both mono and polytheistic, up to this point give no foundation on which to accept them as anything more than the myths and legends they seem to be.
Whatever floats yer boat, Doc. Be at peace with it.
I think identifying yourself as an atheist lends much more credibility to theistic arguments...but we obviously disagree on this point...and so be it.
As for you comment that "agnosticism" is somehow "intellectually dishonest"...I can only say: Wow! It is amazing what a belief system can do to one's ability to be objective.
Quote:
As for you comment that "agnosticism" is somehow "intellectually dishonest"...I can only say: Wow! It is amazing what a belief system can do to one's ability to be objective.
Do you
really think there is a man alive that is truly
objective in his beliefs/opinions?
I don't.
Doktor S wrote:Quote:
As for you comment that "agnosticism" is somehow "intellectually dishonest"...I can only say: Wow! It is amazing what a belief system can do to one's ability to be objective.
Do you
really think there is a man alive that is truly
objective in his beliefs/opinions?
I don't.
No. I don't. Which is why I do not engage in "beliefs."
I am trying to suggest you do the same.
snood wrote:Ah....an inside joke.
Part of the enduring charm of A2K.....
Now it seems to be just between you and me. . .
ossobuco wrote:An inside joke? just a word-coining by me.
And, of course, the neologists's neologist.
Frank Apisa wrote:Doktor S wrote:Quote:
As for you comment that "agnosticism" is somehow "intellectually dishonest"...I can only say: Wow! It is amazing what a belief system can do to one's ability to be objective.
Do you
really think there is a man alive that is truly
objective in his beliefs/opinions?
I don't.
No. I don't. Which is why I do not engage in "beliefs."
I am trying to suggest you do the same.
My sig sums up my opinion on 'belief'
Doktor S wrote:With people of limited ability modesty is merely honesty. But with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy.
-Arthur Schopenhauer
When approached by Steven Spielberg to compose the music for Schinldlers list John Williams said, "I am not great enough to compose music for this film". Spielberg replied, "I agree. But all the better ones are dead".
Doktor S wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Doktor S wrote:Quote:
As for you comment that "agnosticism" is somehow "intellectually dishonest"...I can only say: Wow! It is amazing what a belief system can do to one's ability to be objective.
Do you
really think there is a man alive that is truly
objective in his beliefs/opinions?
I don't.
No. I don't. Which is why I do not engage in "beliefs."
I am trying to suggest you do the same.
My sig sums up my opinion on 'belief'
I just do not do "beliefs."
If I make a guess about an unknown...I call it a guess.
If I make an estimate about an unknown...I call it an estimate.
If I make a supposition about an unknown...I call it a supposition.
I do not do beliefs.
I like your sig.
I have yet to see agnosticism and atheism properly defined in this debate. Without a proper definition of both the debate cannot continue in any rational manner. The current state of the debate is truly no different than if one were to have a debate titled Jabbelocky vs Wubberwocky. It is completely pointless. However, as I shall demonstrate, once both are properly defined the debate still cannot continue.
If one believes in the existence of gods or supernatural deities then one is a theist. The opposite, lack of belief, makes one an atheist. An atheist need not specifically claim that gods or supernatural deities do not exist though some do. The reason is because there are two forms of atheism: positive and negative. A positive atheist is one who believes gods do not exist (there is a "positive" assertion.) A negative atheist is one who simply hasn't been convinced gods do exist (no assertion is made.) Both definitions show the person lacks belief though one is more extreme than the other. Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic. As such, I shall use his own words to define it. "The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence... Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
When one understands the correct definition of atheism, of how it encompasses all that do not fit in the category of theism, is becomes clear that Huxley was bamboozled and used the wrong definition of it. He restricted atheism to its positive side and neglected the negative. When he coined the term "agnostic" he merely slapped a different label on negative atheism. Thus, those who call themselves "agnostics" have been bamboozled the same way Huxley was. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism because it is atheism.
So, now that both have been properly defined and put into perspective, the debate is now Atheism vs Atheism. One cannot help but chuckle and give a small joke about who the victor will be. You may as well try telling yourself to not tell you what to do.
First, welcome to A2K.
OK- that's outta the way, now on to business.
You've demonstrated what you believe relevant to the matter at discussion, but apart from a bit of sophistry (rather facile, btw; decent job) and some semantical wiggling, you've demonstrated nothing else beyond arrogant supposition.
megamanXplosion wrote: Atheism vs Atheism.
So what type of atheist is someone who deny's the existence of any other God but their own ? Does this mean everyone is an atheist except for Pantheists ?
