Atheism IS theism

froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheism IS theism

To me, atheism/theism is the purvue of the childish.  It's just a weaksauce, childish claim that you can't prove.  Learn to dance the Dao, you fricking brat, or   If you want equally strong arguments on both sides, I'll go there all day.  I think everyone on this forum needs to get laid and/or try shrooms (but no hard drugs, you intellectually-lazy mofos).

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:As I

froodley wrote:

As I mentioned, that's not what that page is.  That page is a position paper.  It's a set of statements, by you, that someone could legitimately agree or disagree with.

What I am asking for is an actual dictionary page.

1. It wasn't written by me.  It was written by a Doctor of Philosophy and Psychology.

2. I guess this is par for the course but the dictionary definitions are smack dab in the middle of the page.  Scroll below the video.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Atheism (strong OR

Quote:
Atheism (strong OR weak) is not the correct term for what agnostics believe.

You're wrong.  YOU STILL ARE NOT COMPREHENDING.

Atheism and theism are the ONLY terms for what agnostics BELIEVE.  Agnostic is the term for what agnostics claim to KNOW.

 

I'm not sure why my original response got truncated.

 

Agnosticism can be used as a belief statement as well.  I'm not saying I believe there is no god or I believe there is.  I'm saying I believe I don't know the answer to that question.  I believe I should limit my statements, at least around most left-brained people, to what I can specifically prove and have specific knowledge of.  Those are things I believe.  That there is no god is not something that I specifically believe or disbelieve.

Quote:

You still are not understanding the very simply etymology. Agnostic is not the correct term for what you BELIEVE it's the correct term for what you claim to KNOW.  

 

 

I have repeated your position back to you several times.  I understand it _just fine_.  I am disagreeing with you.  I am disagreeing that I am making a belief statement that would be correctly classified as a-theism any more than it would be correctly classified as theism.

 

Quote:
You're as stubborn and brainwashed as the fundy Christians.  Ironic that you started this thread with the same insult flung at us, and it happens to pertain to you.

Just bow out.  I don't need to hear it, but you should at least start being honest with yourself.

All I hear from this is that you're frustrated because I won't accept your position.

 

I don't care that you disagree with me; we can argue about it.  But the page you keep pointing me to is your position, not a statement of fact.  It would just be one paper out of many handed in on the subject.  A dictionary would be a more appropriate starting point than a one-sided opinion paper.

 

Also, based on this thread, your 90-99% figure is way off even for this board.  At least half of the people in this room are using atheism to describe strong atheism.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:1. It wasn't

Sapient wrote:

1. It wasn't written by me.  It was written by a Doctor of Philosophy and Psychology.

2. I guess this is par for the course but the dictionary definitions are smack dab in the middle of the page.  Scroll below the video.

 

I did see that.  That's not my point.  I don't care about dictionary definitions used as support of an argument.  That's a polemic.  I am well within my rights to disagree with it, even if you think that makes me stupid.  I think it makes you closed-minded.

 

I would rather see "a set of definitions in use on this board" that explains what weak and strong atheism and agnosticism, and other words like deism, panentheism, pantheism, polytheism and so on, are used to refer to.  And if you want to put in there that atheism technically refers to weak atheism, I say go for it; that is correct.  It's just not common knowledge, but if you want to educate people before they start posting about the correct terminology for this field, I think that's laudible.

 

On the reverse hand, demanding that I accept your contention - which is not at all widely held in philosophical circles, so much so that I've never even heard it before - that agnosticism is best described as weak atheism strikes me as authoritarian.  I don't accept that contention; I believe you're incorrect.  "So sue me."  I have that right.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Can someone else take their

Can someone else take their turn talking to the wall now?

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Saying that I'm a/n [weak]

Saying that I'm a/n [weak] a-theist would imply that I am without knowledge of God.  "I don't believe in God because there is no compelling proof."  Saying that I'm a strong atheist would imply that I assert there is no God.  "I definitely believe there is not a God." Saying I'm a theist would imply that I assert that there is a God.  "I definitely believe in God."  I believe a deist is something like a weak atheist, but in reverse.  "I don't believe there is no God because there is no compelling proof."  These are all statements of belief about what evidence is available.

 

Saying that I'm an agnostic does not imply any of those things.  I am not claiming I am with or without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I have an ambiguous, undecided and even "undecidable" relationship to the question of whether I am with or without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I believe the question cannot be answered, at least by any rational means, and that I am not going to try.  "I don't believe anything in particular except that I am too small and stupid in the grand scheme of things to answer such lofty questions."

 

I am not claiming "just" what weak atheists claim, which is that I am without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I am without knowledge as to whether I am with or without knowledge of God.  Do you see the distinction?  I am also claiming a more general disinterest in answering fanciful questions that exceed the realm of human knowledge using my reason.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Can someone

Sapient wrote:

Can someone else take their turn talking to the wall now?

 

 

I feel the same way Laughing out loud


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:  

Sapient wrote:

 

jimmy.williamson wrote:
What will our take on drugs be? Legal ones used in a strictly supervised setting of course. "wink wink"

 

You mean like the way Michael Jackson died?

 

Well, I kinda had Elvis or Curt Cobain in mind but yah, MJ works as well.

 

So would you mind if we all got wasted in stickcam some time?

 

The only functional issue that I see is that atheistextremeist lives on the other side of the world. So we probably have to do this on a Sunday morning. But let's not pretend that we have to go to church or something.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:I feel the

froodley wrote:

I feel the same way Laughing out loud


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I would literally argue with

I would literally argue with a wall if it could talk back to me but this one idk about. It's making me wish I had a percoset.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Fine if nobody else is

 

Fine if nobody else is doing it, I'll do it again but I'm only taking a little snip...

 

wall wrote:

Agnosticism can be used as a belief statement as well.  I'm not saying I believe there is no god or I believe there is.  I'm saying I believe I don't know the answer to that question. 

Noticed where you used the word "know?"   That's because agnosticism deals with knowledge.  It's an epistemological stance about your knowledge of god. 

Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   Agnosticism knowledge.   Atheism belief.   

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Did you notice I also used

Did you notice I also used the word belief?  Can you imagine that everything I said was carefully worded and thought out, and that what you're saying is something I've understood for at least 15 years?  That this is all "basic" to me?  Is it possible for you to imagine that?

 

Do YOU not understand that there is an overlap between the things you know and the things you believe?  Do you believe the things you know?

 

This really isn't as complicated as you're making it.  My belief about the existence of God is agnostic.  I don't know.  I am not saying that I believe there is a God, or that there's not.  I'm not saying I disbelieve in God, or that I don't.  I am not making any kind of claim, at all.  I am saying that I believe that I don't know.  I don't believe anything else beyond that.

 

So why would it make more sense to say I'm an atheist?  I would have to say I'm an a-atheist at the same time.  And so on!  It's not my position that I don't believe in God.  It's not my position that there is or isn't enough evidence.  My position, what I believe, is that I haven't got any idea.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
froodley,Is it the

froodley,

Is it the adjectives that hang you up? (i.e. strong, weak, etc.)

Other than that I can think of only one reason why you would not be able to look at the dictionary definitions and logically derive the same position. You are incapable, not different or unique, just wholly incapable.

belief = positive position

disbelief = neutral position

The negative position would be a different belief.

And that is where this conversation ends because anything else covers what we KNOW or DO NOT KNOW and as such carries an entirely different label for the discussion.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Saying that

froodley wrote:

Saying that I'm a/n [weak] a-theist would imply that I am without knowledge of God.  "I don't believe in God because there is no compelling proof."  Saying that I'm a strong atheist would imply that I assert there is no God.  "I definitely believe there is not a God." Saying I'm a theist would imply that I assert that there is a God.  "I definitely believe in God."  I believe a deist is something like a weak atheist, but in reverse.  "I don't believe there is no God because there is no compelling proof."  These are all statements of belief about what evidence is available.

 

Saying that I'm an agnostic does not imply any of those things.  I am not claiming I am with or without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I have an ambiguous, undecided and even "undecidable" relationship to the question of whether I am with or without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I believe the question cannot be answered, at least by any rational means, and that I am not going to try.  "I don't believe anything in particular except that I am too small and stupid in the grand scheme of things to answer such lofty questions."

 

I am not claiming "just" what weak atheists claim, which is that I am without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I am without knowledge as to whether I am with or without knowledge of God.  Do you see the distinction?  I am also claiming a more general disinterest in answering fanciful questions that exceed the realm of human knowledge using my reason.

 

You sound like my husband two years ago.  And for the 24 years before that.  Then we read - we share library books very often - 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison.  When my husband finished it, he said he was no longer an agnostic in the exact sense "I am without knowledge as to whether I am with or without knowledge of God" to "I am an atheist". 

If you have already read it and it didn't impress you, -- 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=50+reasons+people+give+for+believing+in+a+...

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:froodley,Is

darth_josh wrote:

froodley,

Is it the adjectives that hang you up? (i.e. strong, weak, etc.)

Other than that I can think of only one reason why you would not be able to look at the dictionary definitions and logically derive the same position. You are incapable, not different or unique, just wholly incapable.

belief = positive position

disbelief = neutral position

The negative position would be a different belief.

And that is where this conversation ends because anything else covers what we KNOW or DO NOT KNOW and as such carries an entirely different label for the discussion.

 

 

And you are insulting and closed-minded.  I understand what you're saying _JUST FINE_.  This is _NOT NEW MATERIAL TO ME_.  And I DISAGREE.

 

Agnosticism is not just the disbelief that there is enough evidence to support the claim that god exists.  It is a much larger position.  It covers any number of similar positions.  Describing it as atheism is incorrect.  It is also a-atheism.  You are not correct.  It is disbelief that there isn't enough evidence as well.  It is a position of ignorance, a claim that disbelief is too strong of a statement as well.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Soooo, a neutral position

Soooo, a neutral position [atheism=without belief in god(s)] is too strong of a statement.

Yes, I am insulting. This conversation is insulting. Your entire viewpoint is insulting and yet I have decided to engage you, to respond to you in as rational a manner as possible.

Why?

Because I BELIEVE you have the capability to comprehend. I don't KNOW that you will. If I did not BELIEVE you had the capability to comprehend then I would still NOT KNOW if you will.

Et voila!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
cj -  I haven't read it,

cj - 

 

I haven't read it, and unfortunately won't have time for several years at least.  I doubt it would do much.  It's just logic.  I don't find it particularly compelling with regard to this subject.  There are always going to be left-brains who think that's how other people are finding their answer.  "Big mouth, small ears."

 

I really am sort of surprised that no one has been incensed by being called exclusively left-brained; it's probably the most insulting thing I've said.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote: cj -    I

froodley wrote:

cj - 

 

I haven't read it, and unfortunately won't have time for several years at least.  I doubt it would do much.  It's just logic.  I don't find it particularly compelling with regard to this subject.  There are always going to be left-brains who think that's how other people are finding their answer.  "Big mouth, small ears."

 

I really am sort of surprised that no one has been incensed by being called exclusively left-brained; it's probably the most insulting thing I've said.

 

It's quick, short chapters that are not connected to each other.  Something easy to relax with for 1/2 hour if you need a little down time.  I guess you could say it was logical - but not in the sense of philosophical argumentation.  More in the sense of practicality.  And the author interviewed a lot of believing people before he wrote the book, so he isn't guessing what other people think.  They told him what they think.

I don't think "left-brained" is an insult.  I don't think "right-brained" is a complement.  Do you know the genetics and implications of handedness?  You can guess I'm going to tell you what I know.

Someone researched African Grey parrots.  They had noticed that many animals showed a distinct preference for handedness.  African Greys are predominately left-handed, the opposite of humans.  If the parrot has the gene for left-handedness, they are obligate left-handers.  If they do not have that gene, they may be left, right, or ambidextrous.

It is the same for humans but opposite hand.  If you have the right-handed gene, you are obligate right-handed.  If you don't have that gene, you may be left, right, or ambidextrous.  If you have the right-handed gene, your brain is obligate left brain dominant.  If you don't have the gene, your brain could be left, right, or dominant across both hemispheres.  Cool, huh?

I'm left-handed.  And as near as I can tell without the fancy fMRI and other imaging techniques, I share dominance across both hemispheres.  My dad started left handed, but when in the third grade, he was forced to use his right hand to write with.  My dad is truly ambidextrous.  When he signed his name, there was only a very slight difference in slant.  If you hadn't compared the right signature with the left signature side by side, you couldn't tell the difference.  He could use any implement with either hand, eat with either hand and had won Rifle and Pistol sharpshooter medals in the Army for both right and left hands.  I am strongly left-handed.  I can't do but one or two things with my right hand - fortunately typing is one thing I have managed to train myself to be two-handed.  But, I have always excelled at reading and comprehension - definitely a left brain function.

Oh, you thought right brain was artistic and left brain was anal retentive?  Sometimes.  It's an over simplified concept.  You can be right handed and artistic, left handed and an accountant.  You train your neurons all the time by the activities you choose.  Just like stoke victims can retrain their brain so they can walk or talk or read even if the original section of the brain associated with that activity becomes injured.  Call me left-brained?  meh.  Call me right-brained?  meh.  I'm both, I'm neither, and there are more important things in the world.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Soooo, a

darth_josh wrote:

Soooo, a neutral position [atheism=without belief in god(s)] is too strong of a statement.

Yes, it is.  Are you so closed-minded that you cannot imagine that possibility?  Specifically rejecting a position is not that neutral of a position, on the one hand.

 

On the other, what happened to all the other information I was relating by saying I'm an agnostic? That I was a-unicornist?  A-polytheist?  A-panentheist?

 

Are you even reading this thread?

 

 


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
cj -  I'm not using being

cj -

 

I'm not using being left-brained as an insult.  I'm using being exclusively left-brained as a criticism.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:cj - I'm not

froodley wrote:

cj -

 

I'm not using being left-brained as an insult.  I'm using being exclusively left-brained as a criticism.

 

I see no need to get upset about it.  I don't think it is a criticism.  I can tell you think so - but I think you are operating under concepts formed from over simplified brain mappings pre-1990.  As I attempted to explain in more detail in my previous post. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:froodley wrote:cj

cj wrote:

froodley wrote:

cj -

 

I'm not using being left-brained as an insult.  I'm using being exclusively left-brained as a criticism.

 

I see no need to get upset about it.  I don't think it is a criticism.  I can tell you think so - but I think you are operating under concepts formed from over simplified brain mappings pre-1990.  As I attempted to explain in more detail in my previous post. 

 

I'm using it as a short-hand.  Again, I'm sorry, but you weren't providing me with any new information.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:darth_josh

froodley wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Soooo, a neutral position [atheism=without belief in god(s)] is too strong of a statement.

Yes, it is.  Are you so closed-minded that you cannot imagine that possibility?  Specifically rejecting a position is not that neutral of a position, on the one hand.

 

On the other, what happened to all the other information I was relating by saying I'm an agnostic? That I was a-unicornist?  A-polytheist?  A-panentheist?

 

Are you even reading this thread?

 

 

Yes. Against my better judgment, I have read this thread. More specifically, I have read your posts and I am still aghast.

You post the obnoxious original statement, admit its fallacy, and proceed to hold a position counter to all logical process, and then you writhe in fury at the thought that you may be just as batshit nuts as all of the other 'militant' self-proclaimed agnostics we have encountered in five years of arguing on this site.

If you're so fucking concerned with whether or not you have this one thing in your personal ideology correct then I think you should spend more time on introspection rather than looking for affirmation from others.

Responding to you, and others of your same ilk, has already been a subject of contention for the mods. Many things have been tried, including a video from Jake, the thread 'am I agnostic or atheist', and many other times of discussing it with individuals of various levels of intellect.

Trust me, if there is one thing you have proven in this thread it is that you are certainly the most 'agnostic' individual I have encountered this week.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.



froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  The arrogance on this

Wow.  The arrogance on this guy. You can't even imagine that someone else might have a point and you might someday be wrong about something, can you?

 

This is getting worse.  I've never encountered such closed-minded people as I'm encountering here (not without exception), and I've argued with loads of Christians and whatnot.  I think you're all used to easy prey and don't know what to do except get petty and smart-mouthed when you can't beat someone outright.

 

I really don't think I've encountered much here that even falls under the category of discussion.  I've encountered plenty of childish name-calling and flustered, dismissive one-liners, but really most of you aren't even showing the core capability to question your own point of view, or even spell my point of view back to me to show that you understand it, and I'm pretty bored.  I'm only replying because I think you're trying to emotionally bully me off the thread so you can feel like you've won.  Otherwise, engage me on some kind of meaningful level beyond an insult, or sit on your hands until someone else does.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
I never admitted any sort of

I never admitted any sort of fallacy.  I admitted I was using the common definition of atheism, which I don't at all think was inappropriate as there only seem to be about three people in this room who even know what we're talking about.  And I admitted I was being a jerk, but that was on purpose, although I really wish I hadn't bothered.

 

You have tried many, many things.  Have you tried reconsidering your point of view?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:  I think

froodley wrote:

  I think you're all used to easy prey and don't know what to do except get petty and smart-mouthed when you can't beat someone outright.

 

Talk about arrogance.  YOU ARE the easy prey.  We've had much brighter Christians than you.  

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient -  I have to be

Sapient -

 

I have to be honest; I feel like we've already covered the whole thing and everything there really is to say about it, and I understand your position but I think you're incorrect.  I don't have time to read all of those posts; they're very long.  I read a good bit of the first one, and it didn't cover anything new.

 

The central point I'm trying to make, which no one has addressed, is that agnosis is a larger perspective than merely a response to theism and strong atheism.  It expresses a general inability to answer metaphysical questions.  It is at least as much "a-strong atheism" and "a-panentheism" and so on as it is "a-theism."  It would not be sensible to describe myself as an atheist; it would obscure an enormous amount of information that I could easily relate by calling myself an agnostic.  Why would I choose an inferior, restricted concept over one that is more useful to me?


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:froodley

Sapient wrote:

froodley wrote:

  I think you're all used to easy prey and don't know what to do except get petty and smart-mouthed when you can't beat someone outright.

 

Talk about arrogance.  YOU ARE the easy prey.  We've had much brighter Christians than you.  

 

Fair enough.  I think you're easy prey, myself, but I'm trying not to be rude.  And I'm sure I am arrogant, but at least I'm trying to be polite and engage in the discussion.

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote: It would

froodley wrote:

 It would not be sensible to describe myself as an atheist; it would obscure an enormous amount of information that I could easily relate by calling myself an agnostic.  Why would I choose an inferior, restricted concept over one that is more useful to me?

Call yourself agnostic, I don't care, that was never in question.  What was at issue was you acting like a jerk as you proclaimed to know what people who call themselves both atheist and agnostic believe or know.  Furthermore to answer your question more specifically, if I ask you do you believe in god and you say you're agnostic, you haven't answered the question.  Answering agnostic would answer a question I didn't ask, not that I'd ask you.  I figured out a long while back that you were projecting in your first post when you called us "weaksauce."  You are the weaksauce.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
I also want to try to

I also want to try to explain why the predicate logic that is referenced repeatedly here, the double negation of the belief statement of God's existence translating into a statement of belief in God's existence, is in error.

 

Someone else already tried, but the original author of that piece was too closed-minded to pay him much attention.

 

These two statements are not equivalant: "I don't believe the statement "God doesn't exist" is true" and "I do believe God exists"

 

But you are trying to assert that they are.  You are claiming that the first statement, when rephrased as "I don't believe God doesn't exist," is the same as the second.  You are reducing the meaning of the sentence because you find it inconvenient.

 

Do you see your error?  Or do I have to find a logician and make Venn diagrams and stuff to force you to ever, ever, ever, ever reconsider even one thing?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Sapient - I

froodley wrote:

Sapient -

 

I have to be honest; I feel like we've already covered the whole thing and everything there really is to say about it, and I understand your position but I think you're incorrect.  I don't have time to read all of those posts; they're very long.  I read a good bit of the first one, and it didn't cover anything new.

 

That was the point, wasn't it?  This conversation is old - and repetitive.

 

froodley wrote:

The central point I'm trying to make, which no one has addressed, is that agnosis is a larger perspective than merely a response to theism and strong atheism.  It expresses a general inability to answer metaphysical questions.  It is at least as much "a-strong atheism" and "a-panentheism" and so on as it is "a-theism."  It would not be sensible to describe myself as an atheist; it would obscure an enormous amount of information that I could easily relate by calling myself an agnostic.  Why would I choose an inferior, restricted concept over one that is more useful to me?

 

You think there is any information in metaphysics to be lost? 

 

Quote:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:froodley

Sapient wrote:

froodley wrote:

 It would not be sensible to describe myself as an atheist; it would obscure an enormous amount of information that I could easily relate by calling myself an agnostic.  Why would I choose an inferior, restricted concept over one that is more useful to me?

Call yourself agnostic, I don't care, that was never in question.  What was at issue was you acting like a jerk as you proclaimed to know what people who call themselves both atheist and agnostic believe or know.  Furthermore to answer your question more specifically, if I ask you do you believe in god and you say you're agnostic, you haven't answered the question.  Answering agnostic would answer a question I didn't ask, not that I'd ask you.  I figured out a long while back that you were projecting in your first post when you called us "weaksauce."  You are the weaksauce.

 

 

I can see why you'd say that.  I imagine to you, atheism is a stronger position, and agnosticism is a cop out.  But look how much of my time and energy it's taken up just this week.  It's actually an extremely annoying position to hold, because it means you disagree with practically everyone.  I'm not a particularly "weak" agnostic; it's a position I hold quite firmly.

 

I do think "I'm an agnostic" answers the question "do I believe in God."  It answers it "how the fuck should I know if there's a god or not."  This is weak atheism, but it's also the opposite.  It's not a "just" claim that I solely lack a specific belief in god.  It at least includes the answer that I lack a specific belief that there is not a god.  And it also includes the answers "or maybe there's 5, or maybe there's a space mutant, or an evil scientist."  It's not a cop out.  It's literally a belief statement.  I literally believe that I don't know one way or another.

 

I know you think I'm just saying that I don't know.  But I'm saying that my belief is that I don't know, and also that my belief is that the question cannot be answered in the affirmative or the negative.  I cannot answer your question "I don't believe in God" or "I do believe in God" or "I believe there is no God" or anything else.  I can't answer your question.  I don't have any belief beyond my own inability to acquire any relevant facts.

 

I really don't know how many more ways I can say this.  The fact is that agnosticism is a recognized religious belief in philosophical and common circles, and asserts a specific position, the position that the question itself stinks.  I don't want to have to answer that I don't believe in God.  I don't want to have to answer that I do.  I don't want to have to answer that there isn't one.  I will only answer that it's not something I can answer.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:I can see why

froodley wrote:

I can see why you'd say that.  I imagine to you, atheism is a stronger position, and agnosticism is a cop out.  

This far in and you still have no idea. 

I AM AGNOSTIC!

I'm not even gonna explain why you are weak, you won't get it.

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:That was the point,

cj wrote:


That was the point, wasn't it?  This conversation is old - and repetitive.

 

Trust me, it's a complete retread for me, too.  I was hoping to go somewhere substantially more interesting to me than this.

 

froodley wrote:


You think there is any information in metaphysics to be lost? 

 

Quote:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

 

No, you misunderstand; I'm saying that there is information about my position on metaphysics that is lost.

 

And about Hume - this is a very old debate in philosophy.  Socrates vs. Aristotle.  Wine vs Science.  It's not getting any younger or less well-trodden.  And in all that time, I will guess that no one from either side has ever convinced any of the die-hards of the other.  It's not getting more interesting to me at this point.

 

Materialists will never understand poetry, and poets will never abide by the critique of their method.  It's all sophistry if you ask me.  Big-headed nerds like me with nothing better to do than flap our gums about something nobody can prove for doodly-squat.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:froodley

Sapient wrote:

froodley wrote:

I can see why you'd say that.  I imagine to you, atheism is a stronger position, and agnosticism is a cop out.  

This far in and you still have no idea. 

I AM AGNOSTIC!

I'm not even gonna explain why you are weak, you won't get it.

 

 

I heard you the first time, on the first page.

 

I'm going to assert that again we are coming up against the same issue: there is a conflation of two meanings of the word agnostic going on here.  Big A and little a agnosticism.  Big A Agnosticism is a belief statement; littlle a agnosticism is an epistemological caveat.

 

Yay, finally something new out of all this crap.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"You're using agnostic as an

"You're using agnostic as an adjective, I'm using it as a noun."


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:I really

froodley wrote:

I really don't know how many more ways I can say this.  The fact is that agnosticism is a recognized religious belief in philosophical and common circles, and asserts a specific position, the position that the question itself stinks.  I don't want to have to answer that I don't believe in God.  I don't want to have to answer that I do.  I don't want to have to answer that there isn't one.  I will only answer that it's not something I can answer.

By not answering the question... you have answered the question.

Belief is assertion. If you do not assert then you are without belief ergo a-whatever-ism

I think I understand where you are coming from, but if you want me to be your kind of open-minded then you're going to have to step toward it with me.

Neither of us knows ergo agnostic. All that we have asserted is that we do not know. In other words, we believe we do not know, which is fallacious. Why? Because the two are disparate nouns. Belief is nothing more than assertion, while knowledge is evidenced. That is why they can't logically be in the same inference as above (i.e. belief that we do not know)

It is simply nonsensical to answer the question : "Do you believe in god?" with "I believe I don't know." If you answer "I don't know if I believe or not." then you are an atheist because you lack(i.e. without) a positive position of belief. Of course, you are still agnostic, but in this instance it is designated an adjective to describe atheist.

e.g. I believe in god = theist

I don't know if I believe in god or not = agnostic atheist

I don't believe in god = atheist

What the fuck is the question? = agnostic atheist

The only logically tenable instance of using the word 'agnostic' is someone who is ignorant of the definition of belief. i.e. What is belief? And lo and be-fucking-hold answers.com says:

belief

n.

  1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
  2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
  3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

All of which contain positive statements or assertions. placing confidence, conviction in, accepted are all base assertions. Once someone lacks the input of belief it is a-whatever-ism.

Do you see this? Or are you just going to scream that we just 'don't get you' some more?

Well shit. Pastor Gwinn is just going to have to wait a day for my response to the mosque argument. After a day of this bullshit, I couldn't be nice to him in an e-mail and I don't feel like editing anything I write tonight. Satisfied?

froodley - keeping theism safe with cries for attention since August

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote: Materialists

froodley wrote:

Materialists will never understand poetry, and poets will never abide by the critique of their method.  It's all sophistry if you ask me.  Big-headed nerds like me with nothing better to do than flap our gums about something nobody can prove for doodly-squat.

 

Sweeping generalizations do not further intelligent conversation.  On the contrary.

Quote:

Résumé

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:"You're using

froodley wrote:

"You're using agnostic as an adjective, I'm using it as a noun."

I'm also following the etymology of the words:

agnostic - comes from Greek a (no) + gnosis (knowledge)

atheism - also from Greek a(no) + theos (god) +i sm (belief)

As I said, I know you have no knowledge of God. Neither do I.

What do you believe? Or are you saying you believe in not having knowledge?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Froodley, I feel like you're

Froodley, I feel like you're being inconsistent with your claims, so I'm going to ask you this for clarification. Do you think that our definitions are technically correct and/or more logical and/or match the etymology, but you use your definitions because they are popular? Or, do you think our definitions are technically incorrect, etc.?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Froodley,

butterbattle wrote:

Froodley, I feel like you're being inconsistent with your claims, so I'm going to ask you this for clarification. Do you think that our definitions are technically correct and/or more logical and/or match the etymology, but you use your definitions because they are popular? Or, do you think our definitions are technically incorrect, etc.?

He's argued both.

FWIW: I didn't respond last time because I had nothing nice to say.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:He's argued

Sapient wrote:
He's argued both.

Yes, I got the impression that he's leapfrogging back and forth to protect his ***, so I had to ask.

I'd like it if you answered some of these questions as well, froodley, so I can decide whether or not to abandon this thread. Are you a scientific naturalist? Yes or no. Do you believe in the Holy Ghost? Yes or no. Is evolution only a theory? Yes or no.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Tadgh
atheist
Tadgh's picture
Posts: 125
Joined: 2010-08-29
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:...but it

froodley wrote:
...but it doesn't prove there is no God, zo I Win.

That's nice, dear. Now take your prize nd go home.


Tadgh
atheist
Tadgh's picture
Posts: 125
Joined: 2010-08-29
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Yeah.  Just

froodley wrote:
Yeah.  Just forget the whole thing.  You think you're freethinkers; I find your world small.
 

Wait until you reach high school. It gets bigger.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Tadgh wrote:froodley

Tadgh wrote:

froodley wrote:
Yeah.  Just forget the whole thing.  You think you're freethinkers; I find your world small.
 

Wait until you reach high school. It gets bigger.

Oooh. That's funny..

I like this one. We gotta keep you around, Tadgh.

In a way, I'm glad this thread was created and active while some new members such as yourself joined the site.

It illustrates the form and functionality of the site while allowing us to display a perfect anecdote of the type of individuals to whom we respond.

Welcome to our 'small' world.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
*unsubscribe*

*unsubscribe*


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley

froodley wrote:

*unsubscribe*

*froodley's position can't stand scrutiny so he wants the atheists to remove him so he can claim "persecution"*

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:froodley

jcgadfly wrote:

froodley wrote:

*unsubscribe*

*froodley's position can't stand scrutiny so he wants the atheists to remove him so he can claim "persecution"*

Perhaps he felt sleighted because we (Tadgh and I) were talking about him rather than directly to him.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:jcgadfly

darth_josh wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

froodley wrote:

*unsubscribe*

*froodley's position can't stand scrutiny so he wants the atheists to remove him so he can claim "persecution"*

Perhaps he felt sleighted because we (Tadgh and I) were talking about him rather than directly to him.

When one avenue is ineffective...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
How many times to several

How many times to several people here have to explain to you?

"Knowledge" and "belief" are two different issues.

I have no knowledge of the game of kricket, but my position(belief)is that it exists and people play that game. I couldn't tell you the rules or team names or leagues around the world, but I can tell you the game exists.

I have no knowledge of a god(other than the claims people make about one existing), and my position(belief) is that those claims are not credible claims.

Trying to treat knowledge and position the same are STUPID! They are NOT the same thing.

Since I have never seen a magical invisible super brain with magical super powers, by any name, I have no knowledge of one. My position is that people simply make them up because they like the idea of having a super hero save them.

TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES

1. Knowledge

2. Position

Please get this.


 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37