Weak Teg...weak...
Originally posted by Teg
1 reuired negative response. Theists were the ones who defined us as atheists. In reality we exist in a state neutral to belief structure. We have not accepted a positive hypothesis. We do not sway based on heresay. We are the base state.
I grow tired of this, you are the ad hocism master
Teg.
Atheism and Agnosticism
If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then,
atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]
Atheism relates to negativism
Ask any other well-known and respectable atheist here.
- Cris
[*]Raithere
[*]Adam
[*]Tyler
[*]Xev
[*]Tinker683
Why are you saying atheism is not related to at least some negativism at all? What hinders your logic here? Look at the website I linked, it is probably the most popular atheist website.
The truth remains that without the invention of theism we would be in a state of athiesm. It is the most natural state. "Beittleing" are we? Don't hold back...
The agnostic position is the same as the "weak-atheist" position. I consider any weak-atheist an agnostic.
There is no need for the term weak-atheist. Agnostic is not negative, it does not reject, it is a lack of belief. You suffocate the definition greatly, give agnosticism some room to breath. Atheism is
not neutral.
Most atheists are atheist because of dislike and negativity towards religions. They would not want to be called agnostics, they literally
hate what religions have done to the world. So they want to become the anti-identifiers and refuters against theism.
Check this thread out:
Atheism in Australia
Notice how negative the atheist organizations are, I mean:
mortal enemies?
It has been my experience that theists like to paint atheists as a bunch of criminals, anarchists. Those are the children. Adults can be explained as intellectuals whose god complex requires them to refute theism. And then there are the contraries. Where are these indicative of the word atheism? These are a bunch of stereotypes invented by theists to excuse us misguided atheists. The problem is that people rarely fit into little niches that can be grouped and paired by personality traits. And most of us have more in common theists than these stereotypes. What needs be understood is that people do not vary much in motivation. Most theists are a greedy lot pursuing only dollar signs. Churches are multimillion dollar making industries exploiting faith fora buck. But there is no money in atheism. So we tend to attract a better, albeit smaller lot. This sort of assertion is ussually seen as egotistical when in truth it is a simple observation.
I agree with you here, churches are multimillion dollar industries, but what do they use the money for?
Theism is not the sole problem, more of the problem rests on the varying individuals. Humans are the ultimate problem.
You are developing into Tony1 with every breath. Pursue the dark side, you know you want to.
Oh really?
A baseless claim. Where's your evidence?
"Pursue the dark side"? What are you smoking
Teg?
You assume a creator. There is no indication of one. How so does it deductively beg for a deity? Every phenomena we know of can be explained as a naturally occuring state of the universe. Show me something that does not fall under this heading.
- I believe that the universe is finite.
- If the universe is finite, there *must* be a beginning.
- If there is a beginning, there *must* be a creator who caused such a beginning.
Your god is an unidentifiable thing that you are sure exists because you think so. It might explain something that can already be explained without it. Because it gives your life meaning it must be true.
Once again, you miss what I have said, very becoming of you
Teg. I
BELIEVE God exists. I never said I was sure that God exists. What have you
Teg? Your premises in this argument are extremely pathetic.
You don't really have much grounds against me...pathetic really.
Assumption:
Teg:
"Because it gives your life meaning it must be true."
Have I said that since it gives my
life meaning it must be true? Or did you
ASS-U-ME? You are becoming more and more baseless in this argument, it's because you have nothing to
actually point out against me. You resort to
ad hocism claims and
baseless assumptions.
I have seen this tactic employed. It is the surest indicator that the person in question has run out of ideas. It is the purest form of pandering to the lowest common denominator. It is just lazy.
Don't even go there "
Mister I'm not capable of being wrong here."
This is really laughable. Tactic? You are attacking *just* my sarcasm, the sarcasm has a
very valid point.
Once again, you are baseless. Nothing left to argue so you resort to this?
In arguments, you have a valid premise, then you continue to support it with valid
points, I made a point and you ignored it and attacked the delivery of that point. Sad really.
As for that second statement, did I not show my work? You haven't yet disputed what I said. That tends to be how arguments are won and loss. You are employing Tony1 like tactics. Sarcasm: check, Ignoring statements: check. now just argue that the lack of crap in the world is proof for creationism and we will have our new Tony1.
Where have I ignored
ANY relevant and valid statements from you
Teg?
You are the one making
assumptions here. Scroll up in the argument will you?
List of Assumptions by
Teg:
- Assuming that I had fondness of James R when I had not mentioned that.
- Assumption: "Because it gives your life meaning it must be true."
- Telling me I am wrong: "As defined earlier negativity percludes logic. All my ideas are based on logic. In a way I am the opposite of negativists. I am one of those atheists and thus you are wrong. I am certain that even if your statement were ammended to most, you would still be wrong. Perhaps you missed the definition earlier in this post."
- Not accepting the fact that matter can be destroyed, from this argument you start to fall back on "everything is relative" and ad hocism claims. Just digging a pitiful hole for yourself.
- Failing to answer my questions: "Wow, laughable? Why don't you quote and cite? You asserted and now I'm asking you to prove, don't make another claim saying, "it's apparent" Prove it to me beyond a doubt, quote and cite. So where did I "fail to find" your opposing assertions?" Avoiding statements in arguments means something is wrong.
Gee,
Teg, I could list a lot more, you are the
ad hocism master. I applaud you for such skill.
There is my
evidence, now where the hell is yours? I quote
word for word so I don't miss anything and settle everything, you, on the other hand, like to run and hide. I admit and accept where I am wrong, if valid proof/reasons are shown to me.
As for judging whether you might be wrong, that occurs in everyone's mind.
So you could be wrong in this argument then?
Do you think you are the only one who has doubt? The problem is that for some reason we have reached an impasse. Perhaps it has something to do with life experiences. You mentioned that you were a Catholic before being just plain theist. I was a Christian, but only in the fact that I was dragged as a child. But my parents inheriting some of those looser hippie values encouraged my independent development. Perhaps we could make a psychological study of this.
Yes, my life is nothing easy. I am glad for the forcing of religion on me, the discrimination I have faced, the unjust actions done against me - it has all made me so much stronger and open-minded person than you could possibly imagine.
Atheism is the state lacking a belief in a deity. In that theism is belief in a god, atheism is the opposite in that it has no deity.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a deity also.
Agnosticism may sound a bit like a neutral stae at first glance. You must remember that a deity is very much a part of this belief. It grants equal validity to a god. How can a group grant equal validity to something that has not yet been invented? The neutral state holds no belief. Agnostics are undecided. You are making the argument that without the ear a sound is not made when the tree falls in the forest. Yet you add that somehow agnostics would usurp our neutrality.
How does it grant
"equal validity to God"? Elaborate.
Atheist are defined by you as requiring theists yet agnostics somehow do not?
Atheism is
without theism, everyone should agree to that. Theists brought the notion of God in, then atheists refute,
it never happens the other way around.
I approach you with the almighty Zoafromalbizan the one true god. I ask you to disprove that this deity exists. Tell me how this being should receive any less creedance than your god. What if I go further and have more support for Zoafromalbizan than you for your god? I define this being as the force that pushes the universe toward expansion. Zoafromalbizan is what your kind has explained as dark energy. You must now believe in Zoafromalbizan because of my superior evidence. I also add a corollary that Zoafromalbizan has the ability to create instantons.
*Must* now believe? *Superior* evidence? You can believe whatever you want.
Either science explains everything or nothing. That is the nature of the beast. Any unexplainable phenomena is a hurdle for science. Therefore you must sometimes be willing to follow even the shakiest of theories. But science also benefits from adaptability. In science any deity is superfluous. Hawkings said as much as would any free thinking scientist. Agnostics would even shy away from the use of neccessary to describe a god.
Strictly in science, God is superfluous so far. Agreed.
Teg, I'm curious, how did you get from the subject of
answering to
explaining? You are clearly going tangent and being awry in your arguments. No need to add-in to prolong the debate, debate what is debated.
When you say we are ignorant relative to the whole body of knowledge you are making assumptions about something you say you know nothing about. Don't you see the error there? Ignorance is really just a sugar-coated copout. Our laws explain the patterns we observe. It is only wishful thinking that alows you to state that more knowledge exists.
Yes, more knowledge
does exist. Can you prove otherwise? Humans are in a constant learning.
Answer these two
simple questions:
- What is the total knowledge you possess in the entire history of mankind?
- What is the total knowledge you possess in the entire universe?
Answer in percentages out of 100%.
You stae that we and by extension you, are ignorant. Explain how this allows the certainty to assert a positive hypothesis as your belief.
We are all ignorant. We know alot about the earth, but the universe? All we can do is observe.
There is no certainty, stating I am ignorant is not a negative outlook.
Assuming you mean negativism and not atheism, I can conclude that you are still not fully understanding what it is that I am saying. To know is one thing to understand is another matter. It all depends upon their use. If they used absolutes I would disagree with their generalization. We are capable of disagreeing regardless of any similarity of belief structure. Where did I put words in peoples mouths?
Refer to the list of points I made earlier. You assumed things of me.
So are you saying atheism relates to negativism at least in some way? Changing your position?
You missed my block of proof so here goes.
negativism :an attitude of skepticism and denial of nearly everything affirmed or suggested by others
That is the only meaning I can find that pretty much fits all dictionaries. New ideas are those occurring recently. That seems intuitive enough. Also for atheism to have negativism you must make a showing that nearly everything suggested by others is regarding theistic arguments. That is you must prove that theists are obsessed with being in a state of theism that they will make it nearly everything they talk about. There are some theists, but they are in the minority.
I'm curious, where did you get that definition?
Negativism: A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
"pretty much fits all dictionaries"?
Prove it, link at least 5 dictionaries for me. LINK THEM, don't give me *your* little definition.
The majority of ideas that fall under the status of reject or hold are new. You don't frequently make analysis of old ideas. These are often much clearer matters.
Negativism has
*nothing* to do with new ideas. Look at the definition for crying out loud.
Of course my opinion of your hypocracy is mine alone. A hypocrite would never admit to falling under this category anyway. This will go nowhere.
Whatever, you have not shown me any reasonable proofs and evidences to prove my hyprocrisy.
Quote and cite. You can't, can you?
The intelligent person lets his/her position clear. Then they let you decide. Cris does this. Manipulation? I haven't seen any indications. He goes through a proof and defends it against any abberant, unjust claims. The sneaky person makes up for a lack of argument with sarcasm. Tony1 was the best at that. The Scopes monkey trial was the victory of such deceptive tactics. Jokes hide lies. It is that simple.
I don't care about
Tony1, he just likes to stir up waters.
Cris on the other hand, loopholes many things. He links certainty, must, sure, all with believe. He believed I was an atheist when I first came here. Also claiming that since I admit to being illogical in my belief, that this illogicality transfers over to a blanket over every other aspect of me.
He surely loves his blankets alright
I think I've made that clear. To even register on the probability scale, you need some proof. If I had some proof I would change my status to agnosticism. As of now I have to remain atheist.
So you disbelieve? Or do you lack a belief?
But what about about Zoafromalbizan? What about time-travelling monkies with enhanced brain power. Why stop at god? I have an infinite number of ideas that lack just as much proof. Perhaps if 90% of all people accepted all these ideas the definition of agnosticism would change to encompass them all. That way they can continue to be cowards. They never have to make any decisions whatsoever.
God to me = the one/thing that started it all. And if the universe is finite, it is a reasonable conclusion. Whatever started everything, the one that is ultimately responsible for creation, I call God.
There goes your narrow definition of agnosticism again...
You are saying that because you cannot prove a thing, you wil choose to believe it. That makes no sense. That is only positive in the face of hypothetical terminology. I would argue that your belief causes more harm. You pick the position of ignorance; it does not pick you.
How does it cause more harm? Amuse me
Teg. We are already ignorant.
Either I lack a belief in God and have an empty answer for the true beginning of the universe. Or I believe and *at least* have some sort of answer there that I believe. And you get nothing from taking the negative view.
You can't be both. Theism is a resolved belief in god, no doubt.
I see the possibility of God existing and I
accept it. The accepting part makes me the theist. I am more towards an agnostic-theist version.
You assume that because we have no intended purpose we cannot intend a purpose for ourselves. Life is the meaning of life. We survive. I cannot deny my own programming. "Came to be" is false. Accidents have an interesting way of introducing spectacular realms of possibilities. Mutation is such a mechanic. We would never have existed if a rock hadn't smashed into the Earth. That accident set about many other chains of events. Random occurences shape our world.
I already stated that I believe in individual responsibility.
Now...once again...
prove your claim Teg...where did I
ASS-U-ME that because we have no intended purpose we cannot intend a purpose for ourselves.
How is "came to be" false? I did come into existence through the universe and earth and my parents. So, give me your reasons.
Define nothing, what is it? You can't. It is an abstract human concept that has no place in discussion of reality. Have you ever encountered nothing. Can you measure it? We aren't talking about the vaccuum of space as that is just another property of the universe. We are talking about no space...nothing. How do you make something from nothing?
I have no clue, and we can only hope to answer such a grand question.
We can only describe what we know. You have not made sufficient eveidence that you comprehend and have examples of an ending.
I have, but you use ad hocism claims. Dinosaurs existence have ended, correct? Or are you still blind?
I too believe in cycles as well. Everything we can observe has a cyclical consistancy. The big bang appears to be just another part of the cycle. Expansion and contraction is a common phenomena.
Yes, cycles, if it were a cycle, then how would it start? At what point in the cycle?
The wish does not make it so. It has no impact either way, but can sometimes convince that person of proof that does not exist. It lets the observer see what he/she wants to see.
True, that is wishing, but the point is, just because it is a wish does not mean it cannot exist.
It has transited in its cycle. Everything that it was is still present, though it may change matrices in the process of contraction and accumulation, that does not remove it from being. It will always have been the Earth and its matter and energy will persist. That is what I meant.
Whatever, this is the worst case of ad hocism I have ever seen. Congratulations, you are the most persistent atheist I have argued with, you won't give up will you?
Answer with a simple yes or no:
Do dinosaurs still exist?
It was a blatant misquote. Tony1 was the best at that and I learned to do it back. Observe:
Blatant misquote? Ok, now I know you errored, but how does that make me related in anyway to
Tony1? REASONS?
Liar what am I sitting on right now!
Kudos, you are absolutely right.
That is called responding to sectional statements. Good debaters will take on the entirety instead of using one sentence.
On the difference between disbelief and lack of belief I can have both as they are just a variance in degree. They both describe a state in which I have no belief in your god.
Tony1 took things out of CONTEXT. I have not, prove to me where I have, can you?
The
good debater analyzes and argues on a point by point basis, trying to not miss any points. He analyzes the argument and breaks it up into pieces to receive a better perspective on the argument, then applying it to remain consistent to the whole argument.
Don't even dare to try to relate me to
Tony1.
Proof must be repeatable and verifiable. Otherwise it is heresay. I can say many things about encounters with Zoafromalbizan, but you would be a fool to believe me without witnessing what I speak of. I have searched for this proof to exhaustion. Mainly what I get is, "the proof comes after you accept god." What a scam!
True, if I have not witnessed then I have no motive to believe in your claims. The truth is contained just within you and it isn't verifiable.
Personal experience has a funny way of entering bias and clouding an otherwise reliable sense of open-mindedness. Eye-witnesses have been proven to be wrong by DNA evidence. How much can you trust your feelings. The true test for a belief is verifiable results. Otherwise you can easily be subject any number of manipulations due to stimuli.
Whatever you personally experience, it will shape your life, it affects your life. I'm also a skeptic if you disregard my belief in God.
Sometimes it is the lack of understanding that frames a position. You still have yet to grasp my transitional argument. The star will always have been a star and its make up will persist in other forms. Just because you cannot immediately recognize something as belonging to a prior matrix does not mean an end has come to it. Only your limited perception has ended. That has nothing to do with reality and more to do with abstract human devices.
I don't want a
transitional argument. You aren't getting to the
point. You are avoiding the argument I am trying to make.
Common sense Teg, that is all it takes really. Why does everyone say dinosaurs do not exist anymore?
You are only performing such a transitional argument for the sake of the argument itself, thus that is ad hocism and weak.
If the universe continues to expand where is the end. We have no signs of such a thing. Perhaps even it will contract back into another big bang. What part of the cycle is the end and beginning. In a cycle these are irrelevant.
It's a dilemma. Chicken and egg scenario.
The grain of sand tells me that it is composed of atoms. Rivers and valleys are made of atoms too. I am not talking about specific features, but a design. Everything follows the same set of rules. The grain of sand has the same basic structure. Of course I cannot extrapolate meangingless details.
The sand is always something. You cannot describe any tangible detail as nothing. That is just a slang usage.
But how would you even know there are rivers and valleys on earth from a grain of sand? Care to explain that?
Thus you can't say much about the universe from the standpoint of earth.
When concerning the rules I can. Physics cannot invent new properties. It can only describe existing phenomena.
Explain to me exactly how an end to knowledge would be like. You avoided.
You used them to make a point. That seems enough to say that you highly prize them. Would you have used an idiot for support?
Still, you assumed that I had fondness of
James R. Also what if I thought
Hawking was an idiot? I don't look at things emotionally, rather intellectually.
That's not sufficient evidence.
Trace it back. You mentioned
"credible"
You overestimate our abilities. All of those things are just chemical reactions. What you shared exists. Life exists still. You may dies but the organism of life continues and you have only been converted into more fuel for the system. Converted not destroyed. We continue by imparting ideas, passing genes, and insuring the continues existance of life. You were a cycle of cells and were also part of a bigger cycle of organisms. When I remove a cell does that organism cease to be recognized as an organism. If you choose the limited view you can see ends. When you widen your scope however you must come to accept that no such thing happens.
Your thoughts are gone. Your emotions are no longer there. People can't talk to you directly any further. Thus you no longer exist.
But
Teg is gone, just like the dinosaurs, therefore he no longer exists, just like the dinosaurs, they are exitinct, what part of that don't you get?
Quit refering to conservation,
I know that.
Dinosaurs have only been converted. They are birds and fuel.
You avoided the question, stop beating around the bush.
Do dinosaurs still exist? Yes or no?
The identity is only relevant for a while. The structure changes but everything that made the structure persists. One solar system begets another ad infinitum. The atom may not remember being a star, but that does not change the fact that it was.
Yes,
it WAS.
I was reffering to "unique something." That is purposefully vague. I was a bit punitive in taking the harshet interpretation, but it sounded like a backdoored statement of relgious experience to me.
Am I to assume the opposite. Is the man better than me because he seriously needs someone to tell him how to live. People who need to be told not to kill are a plague on this society.
A superiority complex is something different than atheism.
When I say belittling things about that reformed peron it is in response to the sum of his actions. He made choices. He is not the duped one though. The theists who believe in forgiving all are the vulnerable ones. They will continue to forgive the actions of this person. This person will continually take advantage of their compassion. The theists that take him back are the ones I call stupid. The man is simply taking advantage of an easy deal. He gets to do whatever he wants and attention when he is reformed. Their pity gives him more or just as many opportunities as the person that would not have committed those acts.
Interesting viewpoint, both of it is valid.
1. A god is not neccessary for absolutes. In fact a god introduces a variable that could equal any amount of inconsistancy, while a system without influence would neccessarily have a pattern.
2. Actually this is the same as #1
3. This is the same. Because all three are based on the need for a god to have absolutes they are all false.
By the way I went to a den of agnostics and called them cowardly. That agnostic forum was only 22 people and it required me to give up too much personal info to join. I instead went to:
http://beliefnet.com/boards/message...cussionID=39085&messages_per_page=4&#lastPost
Ok good, I posted there also.
Are you saying absolutes exist?
Now new argument for you since you passed test 1.
- Relativism and History:
Premise: there are no absolutes,
Conclusion: everything is relative.
Premise: Since everything is relative,
Conclusion: history is relative.
- Relativism and Science:
Premise: there are no absolutes,
Conclusion: everything is relative.
Premise: Since everything is relative,
Conclusion: science is relative.
- Relativism and Logic:
Premise: there are no absolutes,
Conclusion: everything is relative.
Premise: Since everything is relative,
Conclusion: logic is relative.
Now do you agree to all three or no? Goodluck...
