Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

[SkinWalker]

Skilz, you are truly a dumb-ass. Even you should be able to understand what I've said. What this shows, however, is that you have some sort of pathological phobia about atheists. Rather than acknowledge that an atheist may have demonstrated intellectual ability that rivals your own (not a very hard feat, apparently), you resort to juvenile retorts.

You make yourself look more and more like an ass with each post.

 

[SkinWalker]

Your sad. He gave you the definition yet you say its "kindergarten terminology".
Now if you wanna try and prove a point why dont you give a reason as to why it is "Kindergarten Terminology"?

You're wasting your breath. That would require kewl skilz to think. A talent that doesn't come naturally to him.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Well, the simply answer SW is yes; I do not want to use the word because of the stigma attached to it. That's why it is limiting. When you identify yourself as an atheist, whomever you are talking to assumes a whole serious of beliefs associated with you. I don't like being categorized in such a manner. Since you've defined the term "atheist" as one without gods, then yes, I am an atheist.

However... I do not consider myself agnostic, either. But I don't believe in God. I suppose I would use the term "gnostic atheist"? I don't know. I'm not exactly sure how I would define myself, but that is the term I have used in the past when trying to describe myself to theists who assert my agnosticism/atheism. I suppose the term "gnostic atheist" would mean that I do not have any God/gods, do not believe in the supernatural, but I believe that such things can be known (not known as in I believe they are out there but unknown, but that the things which are usually plopped under the term "supernatural" can be understood, if not in an objective manner. I suppose it's a bit confusing, but that's a good summation of what I believe.)

 

[leopold]

what really gets me about this whole deal is that science cannot explain how life came to be on this planet.

now about that, if i come along and say "it was a supernatural force" what is going to be the response of the scientific community?
the first thing i would ask for is proof. then i could say something like the emergence of conciousness, emotions, and of course life itself.

now, what if i said that life arose naturally? uh where is all the proof?
there is none

but yet i am refered to as a nutter, ignorant, uneducated.

scientists indeed

like i said in other threads i have a great deal of trouble in believing in ghosts and spirits but the fact remains that science is hardly any closer to explaining our presence here than when they performed the miller-urey experiment of '53.

now the real question is where do i fit in? what do i believe?
to be honest i am more than what molecules and valence bonds can explain.

i have stated elsewhere that i believe that both scenarios could be wrong.
we didn't evolve from the elements nor were we created by a 'god'.
in fact its a possibility that life has always been here, in essence there was no beginning to the universe or to life.

are there any other possibilities?

 

[SkinWalker]

To continue from the Original Post:

5) If you think you have the "faith of Daniel" in the lions' den, perhaps you might be best off not testing it in an actual lions' den!

From the article: "The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

Dumbass. Ironically, the man's act put yet another notch in the belt of Darwin (he'll likely be the receipient of a Darwin Award!) as natural selection removes yet another dumbass from the gene pool.

 

[oxypunk101]

As far as I am aware our understanding of life stems from ourselves. When we recognize traits in humans in something else we come to understand it as life.

In fact it’s a possibility that life has always been here, in essence there was no beginning to the universe or to life.

Perhaps life has always existed, but in an entirely different form at first. If this is so, then could we ever recognize life that has not evolved into the form we understand it as now? Just curious what others think

I have been curious for sometime why we are able to think. I find this ties in with the orgins of life. But an understanding of of the why we are able to think might make us seem more like machines.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

(verifiability theory of meaning) Oh that's a good one!

Nothing but nonsequirtus bull shit....

Thanks for the reference to Blanshard's book Godless. I take it from this that you DON'T think of yourself as a logical positivist ...and DON'T believe in the "verifiability theory of meaning"?

So... what is a statement of your position?

Sometimes I think we (as a species) enjoy tangling ourselves in semantic/philosophical/logical knots almost as much as we enjoy eating or sex. Philosophy in general has never seemed to me to be about simplifying anything or really coming to reliable truths. I think I once called it "mental masturbation"...
...If two people can't agree on simple things like reality vs fantasy, objective phenomena vs subjective, or the essential parity of the FSM vs any god ever postulated, then what is the point of uttering word number 1?

Bah. Blathery, blithery, blugcrump.

Ho hum... sounds like you don't like Philosophy much superluminal? Are you now saying that analytical thought is "mental masturbation", or only when it challenges your own view?

I'm also curious - do you agree with the "verifiability theory of meaning" or is that classed as another product of a pensive solitary vice?

P.S. I like the Lear/Carroll like imaginative word coinage. I'd say your views might be oxigrumtitious, but you have a danstibly eliquafictious vocabulatory spleem.

 

[lixluke]

Your sad. He gave you the definition yet you say its "kindergarten terminology".

I don't see anything sad about providing information about definitions.
Perhaps you believe, goo goo ga ga, should be taken seriously in academia as well.
"I'm an atheist agnostic."
Can anybody be anymore idiotic?

 

[lixluke]

Rather than acknowledge that an atheist may have demonstrated intellectual ability

You mean using terms such as 'agnostic atheist'?
Sorry. That is way too moronic to be considered a demonstration of intellectual ability.

 

[spiritual_spy]

I have yet to see you explain why it is idiotic.

 

[lixluke]

Agnostic Atheist.
If you cannot see how absurdly idiotic this is, then perhaps you need to do kindergarten over.
Unless of course you intend to consider the term to be so very intellectual made by super genius atheists. What a refined and sophistic term indeed.
Agnostic Atheist.
Gold!

 

[spiritual_spy]

....You wont even explain why you think it is idiotic. So im just gonna label this one as unfounded.

 

[lixluke]

I know one thing that is unfounded.

 

[leopold]

agnostic atheist?
if i understand the meanigs of the words then the following is my opinion:
an agnostic atheist is someone that is undecided about god and beleives there are no gods

or

an ignoramus that believes there is no god

so it could or could not be an idiotic statement.

 

[oxypunk101]

by skinwalker

If you reply with "agnostic," you're being intellectually dishonest or ignorant, since "agnostic" is a description. I'm agnostic, but I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm without god(s) but acknowledge that knowing for sure whether or not a god exists is beyond the ability of human knowledge since a "god" is a paranormal/supernatural concept and one an always use the "it's magic" argument to defy human objectivity.

I identify with that quote a lot. Who cares about the wording, you are just trying to convey an idea, and I think your quote conveys where you stand quite clearly.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Quote from Wikipedia on Agnostic Atheism. However, it should be added that there is a disclaimer above it which says:

"Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources."

Here goes...

Agnostic atheism is the philosophy that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Due to definitional variance, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods and by extension holds true one or more of these statements:

1) The existence and nonexistence of deities is currently unknown and perhaps unknowable.
2) Knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant or unimportant.[citation needed]
3) Abstention from claims of knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is optimal.
4) While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also identify as an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):

The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one. (p.49)

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other... (p.50-51)

I liked the "Sarkus clarification" that agnosticism is an epistemological stance (whether we can know what exists), whereas atheism or theism is an ontological stance (what we believe exists). I haven't seen this difference stated in any published source, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Godless]

Consider what it would take to try to prove that there is no such thing as a supernatural realm. What evidence would you cite to prove that proposition? Which pieces of data are necessary to establish such proof?

Actually, such data does not exist and cannot exist. If there is no such thing as a supernatural realm, there will be no evidence of its existence. So to establish the nonexistence of the supernatural, the only thing we can point to is a lack of evidence in its favor.

This means, in a sense, that one cannot prove a negative like “there is no God” in the same way that one can prove an affirmative statement like “this apple is red.” But this inability to establish a proof arises from the nature of the claim being tested, not from some defect in our perceptual or rational faculties. An affirmative proof of a negative is impossible, and demands for such proof require that one entertain any claim, no matter how fantastic or ridiculous, simply because there is no evidence against it.

There is not a “lack of information” when it comes to the existence of God or the supernatural. What we face is a complete and total lack of evidence in favor of these propositions. This absence of evidence is one kind of information, and it suggests that these fantastic notions are just that: fantasy.* Andrew Bissel Agnosticism and Proof *

My position is; that I don't condone, nor adhire to any variant of mysiticism.

Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any mental or physical attempt to recreate, evade, or alter reality through dishonesty, rationalizations, non sequiturs, emotions, deceptions, or force. 2. Any attempt to use the mind to create reality rather than to identify and integrate reality.Neo-Tech Orientation & Defenitions.

Godless

 

[leopold]

i am unsure of what you are driving at godless.
while i agree that believing in ghosts and spirits is next to impossible there are things that cannot be explained by current physical laws.
the two that readily come to mind is life on this planet and quasars.
so, what is the reality concerning these two?

 

[lixluke]

I haven't seen this difference stated in any published source, but it makes sense to me.

Terms are great. Any person can take a word or set of words, and make it mean anything they want.

I have a definition that makes much better sense:
Agnostic Atheist: A joke of a term made up by dolts. No matter how much they, their classmates, and the entire kindergarten student body love it, it will never be taken seriously by anybody over the age of 3.

 

[(Q)]

Terms are great. Any person can take a word or set of words, and make it mean anything they want.

Perhaps, but those people are widely ignored as idiots.

I have a definition that makes much better sense:
Agnostic Atheist: A joke of a term made up by dolts. No matter how much they, their classmates, and the entire kindergarten student body love it, it will never be taken seriously by anybody over the age of 3.

There, you see, widely ignored.