Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

[lixluke]

Perhaps, but those people are widely ignored as idiots.



There, you see, widely ignored.

Obviously not.
You mean widely ignored such as terms like "Agnostic Atheist"?
Atheists tend to put their faith in the "widely" accepted.
They consider what is "widely" accpeted to be the equivalent of hard evidence.
Except for when it comes to toddler terms such as "Agnostic Atheist" that are anything but widely accepted by anybody that have moved on beyond of potty training.

 

[SkinWalker]

It is common that people believe 'agnosticism' refers to the notion that a god is 'doubted,' but what it actually refers to is not god but knowledge. The intent of the word -from Huxley- was to describe one who accepts that there is certain knowledge that is beyond the ability of man. Supernatural knowledge is such.

Dumbasses like kewl skilz will never give up their ingorant positions because they fear a universe without gods. skilz has a pathological phobia regarding atheists and has never conceded a point to one. To him, this would be like conceding that they are right and he is wrong, and his bigotry towards atheism won't allow such logic.

Instead, he resorts to juvenile retorts that include "kindergarten" accusations, which he believes makes him look good. However, such poisoning the well fallacies, when faced with logic and reason, only make him look more and more like a dumbass with each post.

The most logical position to take with regard to the Christian gods are agnostic-atheism: there is no way to prove/disprove the supernatural as it is beyond the scope of human knowledge whether it exists or not (agnosticism) and, based on the best evidence provided, there is no reason to believe in the Christian god or any other and life is best lived godlessly (atheism).

Proof that kewl skilz is a dumbass: if he can't respond to that logically, with a reasoned refutation based on the true meanings of the concepts of agnoticism and atheism, but chooses instead to continue his "kindergarten" accusation.

 

[lixluke]

What a load of pure agnostic-manure.

true meanings of the concepts of agnoticism and atheism, but chooses instead to continue his "kindergarten" accusation.

Indeed I will.
Sorry, but such "true meanings" of agnosticism, atheism, and pattycake, have no place in adult discussion.

According to Skin Wacko, agnosticism is the belief in the existence of knowledge that has never been perceived by the human mind, and will never be perceived or understood by the human mind because it is beyond human ability to comprehend such knowledge. There is a term for this.

Unfortunately, agnosticism is not it. Hopefully, when Skin Wacktard hits first grade, he will get it correct.

 

[lixluke]

Proof that kewl skilz is a dumbass:

Atheists enjoy carrying debates about their purely speculative ideas coming up with all sorts of fancies that they deem to be "proof". Is there any religion more irrational than atheism?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

It is common that people believe 'agnosticism' refers to the notion that a god is 'doubted,' but what it actually refers to is not god but knowledge. The intent of the word -from Huxley- was to describe one who accepts that there is certain knowledge that is beyond the ability of man. Supernatural knowledge is such.

I'm actually very interested in this subject. I think that someone should start an entirley seperate thread discussing this point. It probably belongs in the General Philosophy section rather than the Religion section, however, since gnosticism/agnosticism are postions taken toward knowledge in general.

 

[SkinWalker]

According to Skin Wacko, agnosticism is the belief in the existence of knowledge that has never been perceived by the human mind, and will never be perceived or understood by the human mind because it is beyond human ability to comprehend such knowledge. There is a term for this.

Unfortunately, agnosticism is not it. Hopefully, when Skin Wacktard hits first grade, he will get it correct.

If you bothered to actually read or tried to comprhend rather than stick to your bigotry toward those with a differing perspective, you might have noticed that I used Huxley's definition of the word. It was Thomas Henry Huxley that came up with the term "agnosticism" in 1869, not me (2001).

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

Indeed, it is Huxley's sentiment that I agree with here (1889):

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

I also agree with Huxley as he acknowledges the criticism of a peer (1889):

The agnostic, according to his view, is a person who says he has no means of attaining a scientific knowledge of the unseen world or of the future [...] I cannot think this description happy, either in form or substance, but for the present it may pass.

Or we could consider Betrand Russell's passage below (1947):

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

Ingersoll was another that exhibited the agnostic-atheist point of view quite well:

Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world -- to which all causes bow? I do not deny. I do not know -- but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man.

Finally, we must consider Robert Flint (1903), who Diogene's Dog quoted in a recent post, but I re-quote here:

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)

and (all emphasis mine):

f 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)

So, there we have it. Kewl Skilz attempts to poison the well are negated by the vaccination of reason and logic; the reasoned positions of well-respected professors and philosophers who are clearly operating on a level beyond "kindergarten."

Cool Skill made himself look like a dumbass by sticking to his poison-the-well-strategy rather than engage in an actual discussion, but I move that we all forgive him as long as he's willing to either acknowledge the validity of agnostic-atheism or at least attempt to provide a reasoned discussion as to why he disagrees with the term that goes beyond "toddler terms." Clearly, the philosophies of Hume, Flint, Ingersoll, and Huxley are beyond "toddler" and to argue such says more about Cool Skill than those with whom he disagrees.

References:

Flint, Robert (1903). Agnosticism. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons

Huxley, Thomas H (1889). Agnosticism. From Collected Essays of T.H. Huxley and found on the web at: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html

Huxley, Thomas H (2001). Collected essays of T.H. Huxley Bristol: Thoemmes

Ingersoll, Robert G. (1896). Why I Am An Agnostic. From The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Dresden Memorial Edition, chp IV, pp 5-67. Found on the web at: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ingag.htm

Russell, Betrand (1947). Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas. Found on the web at: http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html

 

[lixluke]

y sticking to his poison-the-well-strategy rather than engage in an actual discussion

I would very much enjoy seeing you trying to manifest any statement in which Cool Skill is poisoning the well.

Too bad not a single one of your beloved sources have provided any sort of support for what many fanatical nutbags claim to be "agnostic atheist". Those speculations, that no serious individual would deem an actual "definition", do not even agree with one another.

Suffice it to say that there is no such thing as an "agnostic atheist". Or perhaps the boogie man has been haunting you during naptime.
I guess if you can be the agnostic atheist, another kid can be wolverine, and other kid can be spongebob squarepants.
Enjoy your playground fantasy land.

 

[ylooshi]

It would seem he chooses to remain the "dumbass."

Skin very clearly provided definitions for the term "agnostic-atheist."

I had never considered it until now, but it makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that Skinny.

Cool, I suggest you might read over the quotes that Skinny gave, one of them deals directly with "agnostic-atheism." And by "poisining the well" he means that your tryng to make the term seem stupid by using the kindergarden argument. That statement is fallacious because it doesn't logically follow, but its a special kind of non sequitur known as "poisoning the well."

Thanks again, skinny for the links to that fallacy.

 

[lixluke]

Skin very clearly provided definitions for the term "agnostic-atheist."

Too bad such definitions hold no sway for anybody with the ability to tie their own shoes.

by "poisining the well" he means that your tryng to make the term seem stupid by using the kindergarden argument.

There is no doubt, I am using the kindergarten analogy to portray my view on how utterly nonsensical terms such as "agnostic atheism" are.

Skin Wacko and Ylooshit seem to be under the impression that this is the same thing as poisoning the well. I wonder if there is anybody else dumb enough to think this is a fallacy or anybody hypermoronic enough to think this is poisoning the well fallacy.

 

[oxypunk101]

Part of being an atheist is not about proof, its about lack of proof.

Originally by Cool Skill
Atheists enjoy carrying debates about their purely speculative ideas coming up with all sorts of fancies that they deem to be "proof". Is there any religion more irrational than atheism?

 

[lixluke]

Part of being an atheist is not about proof, its about lack of proof.

Atheists are most definitely full of lack of proof. I guess it makes things easy for them.

 

[spiritual_spy]

Atheists are most definitely full of lack of proof. I guess it makes things easy for them.

We have our proof. which you obviously havent done instead you constantly make unfounded statements. Oh and if you want some more proof into agnostic atheism here you go.


Agnostic atheism - allaboutplosophy
Agnostic atheism - objectivethought.com
Agnostic atheism - help.com
Agnostic atheism - allaboutastronomy.com

4 diffrent sources.

 

[KennyJC]

Cool Skill: Atheists are not the ones making claims. If proof arrives that a living intelligent creator of the universe exists, then we will listen.

Atheists do not say that there is proof that God doesn't exist (although there is a mountain of evidence showing many religions to be false), however, you seem to be separating 'God' from all other things. For example there is no evidence against the existence of the tooth fairy, but you must concede that a lack of belief in the tooth fairy is reasonable.

In your dozens of posts here in the last couple of weeks, you have flamed atheists for things which could easily be directed at atheists with regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You really do not have a valid point.

 

[(Q)]

You mean widely ignored such as terms like "Agnostic Atheist"?

What you don't seem to realize is that those terms wouldn't need to exist if it weren't for theists claims of the supernatural.

And it doesn't appear those terms are as ignored as you would lead to believe, what with all the rioting Muslims provoked because of a cartoon and all the back-peddling Christians are doing over a Hollywood movie.

Non-belief is a real thorn in the side, eh skilz?

 

[lixluke]

We have our proof. which you obviously havent done instead you constantly make unfounded statements. Oh and if you want some more proof into agnostic atheism here you go.

4 diffrent sources.

Proof?
Is this some kind of joke?
Even if those sources were the least bit valid and not written by your preschool cheerleading squad, is this some kind of joke?

I grow weary of rewriting, so I might as well quote the same exact thing I posted 4 posts before this one.

Atheists enjoy carrying debates about their purely speculative ideas coming up with all sorts of fancies that they deem to be "proof". Is there any religion more irrational than atheism?

but you must concede that a lack of belief in the tooth fairy is reasonable.

“Lack of belief” in the tooth fairy?
Definitely not. I personally consider anybody yammering on about “lack of belief” in anything when they do not know what “lack of belief” means, to be out of their minds.

which could easily be directed at atheists with regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You really do not have a valid point.

I have yet to see how you could consider my posts about atheism to be anywhere near that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster when Flying Spaghetti Monsters are nowhere near as fanatical.
Who doesn't have a point?

What you don't seem to realize is that those terms wouldn't need to exist if it weren't for theists claims of the supernatural.

Such secondary nonsensical terms would not exist if it weren't for emotionally challenged atheists upset that they are incapable of anything more adnvanced than their coloring book.

 

[spiritual_spy]

Proof?
Is this some kind of joke?
Even if those sources were the least bit valid and not written by your preschool cheerleading squad, is this some kind of joke?

I grow weary of rewriting, so I might as well quote the same exact thing I posted 4 posts before this one.




“Lack of belief” in the tooth fairy?
Definitely not. I personally consider anybody yammering on about “lack of belief” in anything when they do not know what “lack of belief” means, to be out of their minds.



I have yet to see how you could consider my posts about atheism to be anywhere near that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster when Flying Spaghetti Monsters are nowhere near as fanatical.
Who doesn't have a point?



Such secondary nonsensical terms would not exist if it weren't for emotionally challenged atheists upset that they are incapable of anything more adnvanced than their coloring book.

Skill, i really feel sorry for you. You cant even make a decent arguement so you just go into denial.

 

[lixluke]

Who's going into denial for failure to make a decent argument?

 

[leopold]

Atheists are most definitely full of lack of proof. I guess it makes things easy for them.

i haven't seen any theist prove god.
so in essence your statement applies equally to both.

 

[leopold]

Skin Wacko and Ylooshit seem to be under the impression that this is the same thing as poisoning the well. I wonder if there is anybody else dumb enough to think this is a fallacy or anybody hypermoronic enough to think this is poisoning the well fallacy.

you will get only as much respect as you deserve cool skill.
comments like the one above is not helping you or your case one iota.

i can see now why skinwalker is so bitchy.

 

[(Q)]

Such secondary nonsensical terms would not exist if it weren't for emotionally challenged atheists upset that they are incapable of anything more adnvanced than their coloring book.

At the very least, atheists have advanced beyond the bible.