Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
Atheism is logically untenable. It asserts there is no god or gods, which cannot be known with any certainty. This makes atheism as faith based as theism.
Literal agnosticism is the belief one does not, and cannot know either way, and takes the position of neutrality.
Neither the atheist or the agnostic has any belief in a god. So both are equally non-religious. The difference lies in the belief of absence, which the atheist holds, and the agnostic logically claims ignorance.
Literal agnosticism is the belief one does not, and cannot know either way, and takes the position of neutrality.
Neither the atheist or the agnostic has any belief in a god. So both are equally non-religious. The difference lies in the belief of absence, which the atheist holds, and the agnostic logically claims ignorance.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
I did. You can't, so you simply dismiss them as foolish.
No, not if you're interested in intellectual rigor. It appears, however, that you're not.
And in doing so you only make my point.
I have, almost certianly a great deal more than you have.
You said that there were real probabilities, and I wanted to know what those were. Rather, it appears you were lying about knowing what those were.
Then prove it.
No, I'm simply subjecting your argument to rational scrutiny, and it obviously falls apart when dissected.
At least I've offered something intellectual. I'll let any readers-along decide if I truly appear "dumb" or not.
Seems like I was right about your argument from the beginning.
Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?
That became your problem when you purported to know that it wouldn't.
[snip]
I don't know, and I never purported to know. I'm just not foolish enough to play god-of-the-gaps to avoid admitting it. Is that why you believe in God -- because you're incredulous of naturalistic origins or the lack of origins in general?
What would give you that idea?
Obvisouly false, and your baseless assertions about probabilities above are the case in point.
I don't know, and I've never purported to know.
Right. And some indivduals are equally convinced that they are Napoleon Bonaparte.
-Garth
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
You're still comitting the admittedly subtle but elementary mistake that I've explained to you twice: "I do not believe Rigel has 5 planets" is not the same proposition as "I believe Rigel does not have 5 planets," yet you continue to take my assertion of the former, twist it into the latter, and then draw false conclusions about my real assertion from its caracature. I don't have to even believe that Rigel exists to accurately assert that I do not believe that there are 5 planets orbiting it.
But I did not make that assertion. Whenever you'd like to deal with mt real argument, you are cordially invited to do so, but by all means if it entertains you to engage arguments which are mere figments of your imagination, don't let me stop you.
Yes you are wrong. It is not "a belief in no god." It is rather the lack of a belief *IN* God, and no claim to knowledge about God's existence or non-existence.
-Garth
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Only your misconception of atheism is untenable.
But it does not necessarily make that assertion, so you're battling a strawman.
Believing that one cannot have true and justified belief does not negate the opportunity to hold belief which is not true and justified. In short, it's not inconsistent to hold a belief that God exists while simultaneously believing that your belief is not justifiably true.
Anybody without a belief in God is an atheist, by definition.
See my other discussion in this thread where I dismantle precisely this misconception.
-Garth
Eh, Ive got my own religion. I call it "marksism". 
I dont accept organized religion because its almost without exception thousands of years old and created at a time when we dont know a fraction of what we do now. Plus the original message has surely been warped beyond recognition on top of that. Its a very cute, but very (*dons flame suit*) infantile idea to think that theres a big daddy in the sky watching every little thing you do. Works good as a pedestal for morality and social cohesion, but we dont need such artifacts nowadays.
Eastern religions come closer to the point I believe, but their scope is too limited.
Atheism is too short sighted, and agnosticism is just a cop out.
I guess it all depends on what you believe god actually is. Ive got my ideas, but its different enough to sound crazy to just about everyone, so I keep it to myself. But its not crazy at all, based on almost pure reason.
I dont accept organized religion because its almost without exception thousands of years old and created at a time when we dont know a fraction of what we do now. Plus the original message has surely been warped beyond recognition on top of that. Its a very cute, but very (*dons flame suit*) infantile idea to think that theres a big daddy in the sky watching every little thing you do. Works good as a pedestal for morality and social cohesion, but we dont need such artifacts nowadays.
Eastern religions come closer to the point I believe, but their scope is too limited.
Atheism is too short sighted, and agnosticism is just a cop out.
I guess it all depends on what you believe god actually is. Ive got my ideas, but its different enough to sound crazy to just about everyone, so I keep it to myself. But its not crazy at all, based on almost pure reason.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
But atheism simply is not the denial of God existence, despite the fact that so many people think that it is. Atheism describes any worldview that is not theistic. That is themost consistent interpretation of the word's etymology -- "theism" being "Inclusion of god-belief" and "atheism" being "exclusion of God belief." They form a perfect dichotomy.
That a usage is popular does not mean that it is "true" or even as useful, consistent, and descriptive as the usage I've described.
But that usage is just sloppy.
But agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. A/Theism describes a person's inclusion or lack of belief in God within their worldview, whereas a/gnosticism describes a persons beliefs about those beliefs. As I've said from the beginning, they are orthogonal dichotomies.
What is gnosticism, accoridng to you? If Agnosticism is a stance of neutrality between "God" and "no God," then where does gnosticism go? It must describe a stance that is not neutral, no? So what does gnosticism mean?
-Garth
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
Agnostic means, literally, without knowledge: a (without) and gnosis (knowledge).
Look, you can argue semantics all day long. However, the popular definition is what defines a word. You can go around all day having to define what you are, or you can use the word that, by popular definition, describes you best and move on with life.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Yes... and? How can that be a position with regard to the existence of God, then?
Not really. You can choose to use the popular definition, but no definitions are "true" or "false." I'm simply saying that my usage is more accurate, descriptive and useful, which it is, and which you have not refuted. You are free to choose not to think for yourself, and instead to utilize the obviously sloppy usage, but you are not free to tell me that my atheism is untenable when you haven't accurately described from the beginning.
I am an atheist because I am not a theist. I do not puport to know that God does not exist, nor do I even hold a belief that one does not. I am an agnostic atheist, therefore.
And you didn't answer my question: What is a gnostic, according to you? Where do gnostics go on the spectrum of theistic beliefs? How in the world can agnosticism or gnosticism even belong on a spectrum of theism?
-Garth
Its a cop out in the sense that "If I dont know it all, then I might as well not know anything, so Im not even going to think about what I DO know".
Which I believe is flawed thinking, and although I know that doesnt apply to all agnostics, it certainly applies to most.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
Not at all.
An agnostic simply claims to not know the unknowable. They think about what they have seen and heard on the subject of a god or gods, and have rejected the claims of "proof" either way.
"I don't know" is not a "copout." It's intellectual honesty.
I swear this dude is using cut and paste arguments from a book. I'm talking about you Garth. You totally downplay the idea of Faith. I have faith that this universe didn't just come to be. It is blatently obvious to me that this reality as we experience it has a grand design which of course requires a designer. See the difference between me and you is that I think I am humble enough to admit it, and you my friend are arrogant. To many things have happened to me because of prayer and or odd coincidence to conciously dismiss that their is grand design in my life and how things are playing out. Perhaps you are selfish to think that you control every little aspect of your life. By your rule, perhaps a twister will pull together a 747 using stuff from a garbage dump, including a pilot, and it will randomly fly into your house. What are the chances of that happening?
Its like, I say, I bet I can throw a dime, from a corner in St. Louis into a parking meter in Chicago, and it will land it a parking meter of someone who's time is about to run out. You say, actually, because I know a cool equation in math, it might actually happen. No, no it will not. Never. You do seem to look past the actual argument and argue semantics. Funny shlt, and you probably have a degree in something that makes you feel smart. You of all people seem like a fool to me. haha, bait and hook
if by your internal reason would like to think something like a Leprachuan created the universe, it seems it will be a tough hill to climb to argue you differently. But you are missing my point. I'm suggesting that our existance has grand design and their is a designer, regardless of who or what that designer is. God could be anything, cause it is everything.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,424
- 19,839
- 146
Yes, I did answer your question with the translation.
A gnostic claims to have knowledge of a god or gods. An agnostic claims no knowledge... which is, again, the only logically tenable position.
Your "usage" goes against the popular (and classical) definition. (a - without, theos - god) The minute you say to someone you are an atheist, they will fall back on the popular definition and automatically assume you deny the existence of any gods. If that is not your position, you will have given them a false impression. If they speak out on it, you will then have to waste your time explaining your position. Just as you are in this thread.
Tell someone you're an agnostic atheist, and most will be confused, or assume you are confused.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Where? In the invisible type?
Still wrong. There is nothing intrinsic in gnosticism that it must deal with the question of God. Notice the conspicuous absence of the root for god-belief in the word's construction. That is what theism is about.
There is nothing untenable about "I do not believe in God." That is a fact, knowable a priori.
Your distortion continues. The proper etymological anaysis breaks the term down to "a-" meaning "without" and "-theism" meaning "belief in God." Anyone that does not have a belief in God is an atheist, like I have said from the beginning, and in contradiction to your claims. An hypothetically "neutral" person would still lack a belief in God, and therefore would fulfill the definition of an atheist.
Not at all. It is not my problem that you and intellectual sloths like you haven't throughly analyzed the different conditions pertaining to god-belief.
Forgive me that I am more concerned with accurately describing reality than yourself. It is a vice of mine that apparently you lack. You watch Fox News a lot, too, don't you?
Again, their problems, not mine. The fact is that your claim that atheism is untenable is based on a misunderstanding of what atheism is, despite how widespread that misunderstanding may be. If you're going to make claims about the logical tenability of a particular position, they you should expect that those claims will become subjected to the type of scrutiny that I have conducted in this thread.
-Garth
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,353
- 1,862
- 126
Feel free to believe what you want to believe, however, the idea of life being "designed" is extremely far fetched. It's one thing to say that there is a god that created the universe, created physics, etc. But to go to the extreme and say that this god makes thunderstorms when he's mad, and that he created life, HAHAHAHAHAH. That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Were you going to respond to my last response to you? There were a number of unresolved issues therein that I think deserve resolution.
If you don't know what an undesigned universe would look like, you do not have a basis for the claim that ours is not one.
You do realize that amazingly improbable things happen all the time in reality, too, don't you? What you've done is project incredible significance upon the present state of the universe, and then argued from your own incredulity that there must have been something guiding the universe in order for it to arrive at a place of such significance. In short, it is as though a blind marksman has shot an arrown into the air, and where it stuck into the ground, you've painted a target around it, and are now trying to claim that the odds of the blind marksman hitting the bullseye are so small that the arrow must've been guided by a supernatural force. The reality is that the arrow had to land somewhere, and every possible landing point would be just as improbable as any other. Where it did land isn't as significant as you have made it in your mind.
-Garth
Again, there are individuals equally "faithful" that they themselves are Napoleon Bonaparte. Faith is a notoriously bad method to decide the truth about reality.
What design is that? Where is the evidence for such a design? I'm not talking about your own incredulity to the contrary -- I'm talking about evidence FOR the design. Have you seen the plans? Have you observed the manufacture of a universe? What would an undesigned universe resemble, and how would you know that? How many undesigned universes have you observed?
If you don't know what an undesigned universe would look like, you do not have a basis for the claim that ours is not one.
Physician, heal thyself! If you'll review my last few posts, you'll note several instances where I admitted to my own ignorance. You, on the other hand, have only slung epithets and rhetorical quips. I suggest you examine the plank in your own eye before you attempt speak about the speck you think is in mine.
Says you. There is nothing inconsistent about odd coincidence and the perception of effective prayer with an atheistic universe. Therefore, you believe only because you want to believe, not because any principle compels you.
I asked you when you made the claim that you could meaningfully compare that probability to the probability of the universe existing in it's present state. Will those calculations be forthcoming any time soon?
You do realize that amazingly improbable things happen all the time in reality, too, don't you? What you've done is project incredible significance upon the present state of the universe, and then argued from your own incredulity that there must have been something guiding the universe in order for it to arrive at a place of such significance. In short, it is as though a blind marksman has shot an arrown into the air, and where it stuck into the ground, you've painted a target around it, and are now trying to claim that the odds of the blind marksman hitting the bullseye are so small that the arrow must've been guided by a supernatural force. The reality is that the arrow had to land somewhere, and every possible landing point would be just as improbable as any other. Where it did land isn't as significant as you have made it in your mind.
Prove it. Let's see you back up that claim. You must realize that there is nothing in principle that would preclude such an event from actually happening. You simply need sufficient force to propel the object.
Yeah, and I'm the arrogant one. :disgust:
-Garth
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,353
- 1,862
- 126
If you believe in god, then you are surely not an Atheist, and not really an Agnostic either. So the answer to your question, is No. there is no option for those who believe in god. Though I suppose if you doubt your beliefs, you could say agnostic.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter