|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 30, 2020 22:30:32 GMT
You are indeed an "agnostic atheist" in that it is how you choose to describe yourself. You are of course free to describe yourself in as much or as little detail as you like using as many or as few details or examples as you might. I never denied anyone the right to describe themselves however they like. I very much do understand the large number of possibilities. There is more to the story and I have tried to point that out. There is the way other people would describe you. You need very much help understanding the various sets of definitions out there since there is no universally accepted set, especially with something so very abstract. Before you can tell us that you "lack" a belief in a god it is necessary to know exactly what you mean by "god." Considering the various definitions of a "god" there are that can remain rather murky. Do you mean what some other person means when that person speaks of a god? Is that person present or not? Is it your own personal concept of some general view of a god? How did you obtain such a concept? ^^ Especially when no theist is present. Can you see yet how meaningless it is to call yourself an "agnostic atheist" without telling us about what you are agnostic atheist? It might be fun if you would try to tell us now exactly what you are agnostic atheist about. I have noticed you have the mind of small child in elementary school whose "definitions" are assumed to have some "universal" quality, have some "authority," or be the "right" definition. Many times I have tried to explain that there are no "right" definitions. Definitions are only useful or they are not useful, and even that can vary with context and circumstances. With concrete objects definitions do tend to be more "universally" accepted. With the abstract forces in nature and society often involved in religion, definitions can vary considerably. Elementary students are generally spared the complexities of such various definitions having validity. The way others describe you can be different especially since their concepts of things are different. I would describe you as an "atheist" meaning you argue (rather strongly) against the existence of any "gods." If you claim to be open to the possibility in however negligible a degree, you may do that too. In fact you can be atheist some days and agnostic others. I said that at the outset. It doesn't change the fact that you are among the strongest voices here against gods, thus "atheist." I find the attitude that you "lack" beliefs and yet so strongly argue against gods to be intellectually dishonest. I don't care how others describe me, especially when they are as stupid and delusional as you. More importantly, and it should be no surprise then, others do not care how you describe yourself. You may now rot, if that is your choice. All people who try to work with others have to reduce the number categories. Isn't possible for reasons I made plain to maintain all the different finer variations in beliefs in various things out there. Others might well respect your finer points, but they can find it practical to categorize you according to what you do rather than what you say. That method ensures that people in the same categories have similar attitudes.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 30, 2020 23:32:42 GMT
teaching creation theology to a tomb full of dehydrated baboons lurking just around the corners of every scrap of concrete evidence lies an unwavering circumstance where someone had a close encounter with a spiritual whiffle ball as it bounced off the well polished halls of a service station complete with stalls where reach arounds are clarion calls for experiences one could just call nice balls but this apparently was an orgasm that said it all. sjw 10/30/2020 inspired at this very moment in time by which light was it you saw again. from the 'beguiled series' of poems Can you NOT bring homosexual sex to my pristine and pure agnostic atheist thread which you somehow conflate with creation theory and dehydrated baboons? I normally support your 'poems' and your right to post on threads in general, butt I would like you to fuck off and delete this particular bit on confused gay porn. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 30, 2020 23:33:41 GMT
someone has a burning bush near her who-haw.
some things never change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honey Drops on Oct 30, 2020 23:56:29 GMT
Covering all your bases "just in case".
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 31, 2020 0:14:58 GMT
Covering all your bases "just in case". In case of what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Honey Drops on Oct 31, 2020 8:00:49 GMT
Covering all your bases "just in case". In case of what? In case you've been 100% wrong all your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 31, 2020 19:41:19 GMT
In case you've been 100% wrong all your life. Ironically, I thing that is way more likely for you as a theist without any validity or evidence for the claim of there being a God than mere belief in what you have ben indoctrinated 100% your whole life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honey Drops on Oct 31, 2020 20:53:52 GMT
In case you've been 100% wrong all your life. Ironically, I thing that is way more likely for you as a theist without any validity or evidence for the claim of there being a God than mere belief in what you have ben indoctrinated 100% your whole life. I could say the same of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 31, 2020 21:04:19 GMT
Ironically, I thing that is way more likely for you as a theist without any validity or evidence for the claim of there being a God than mere belief in what you have ben indoctrinated 100% your whole life. I could say the same of you. Well, in that case you must now that it wouldn't be entirely true as I had every opportunity to be indoctrinated by spending six years in a church secondary school where the vagaries of a fabricated religion were clearly explained to me and rejected for their lack of logic evidence and sense and where I studies non-spiritual factual science.
|
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Oct 31, 2020 22:39:27 GMT
Let's start with what Mr Wiki has to say on the subject: I see you have already fallen victim to our patriarchal society. Why is Wikipedia a "man" in your world? Is that because you see it as a source of knowledge that you must defer to? Perhaps it would be healthier if you referred to in a gender neutral manner such as Dr or Prof which would also allow you to instil some sign of respect for it's academic knowledge? Now perhaps you need to think about the choices you've made in your life a little more, #sister?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 31, 2020 23:08:44 GMT
Let's start with what Mr Wiki has to say on the subject: I see you have already fallen victim to our patriarchal society. Why is Wikipedia a "man" in your world? Is that because you see it as a source of knowledge that you must defer to? Perhaps it would be healthier if you referred to in a gender neutral manner such as Dr or Prof which would also allow you to instil some sign of respect for it's academic knowledge? Now perhaps you need to think about the choices you've made in your life a little more, #sister? ... and yet I not not so insecure in my femininity that I would need to do that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Honey Drops on Nov 1, 2020 0:40:03 GMT
I could say the same of you. Well, in that case you must now that it wouldn't be entirely true as I had every opportunity to be indoctrinated by spending six years in a church secondary school where the vagaries of a fabricated religion were clearly explained to me and rejected for their lack of logic evidence and sense and where I studies non-spiritual factual science. Thanks for making my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 1, 2020 4:25:24 GMT
Well, in that case you must now that it wouldn't be entirely true as I had every opportunity to be indoctrinated by spending six years in a church secondary school where the vagaries of a fabricated religion were clearly explained to me and rejected for their lack of logic evidence and sense and where I studies non-spiritual factual science. Thanks for making my point. You have a point?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 1, 2020 21:09:21 GMT
What it should not include though, realistically, is people who think religion is stupid and that the idea of believing in a God is stupid. Comments like that indicate the already decided nature of the poster and belie any claims they have that they are open minded and willing to debate. in other words, you can claim anything you like, but your comments and actions in the forum that you are engaging with are most likely to inform others of your belief regardless of what you claim those beliefs are. I don't quite agree. You can be agnostic but think religious belief requires knowledge or at least some probabilistic likelihood to be justified. I don't agree with such a stance but I can't really argue it's not technically agnostic atheism. But this is why I find it a near useless term. An agnostic atheist could be barely different for all intents and purposes from a gnostic atheist (like Goz). Or they could be someone who is extremely open to the idea despite not quite believing themselves (like me). That's why I think, while not technically correct, the more common parlance of a theist being someone who believes, an atheist being someone who doesn't and an agnostic not being sure is actually much more useful than all this agnostic atheist talk. Or even better, Richard Dawkins' seven degrees of belief. Hmm ok, Yeah I mean I see Goz using agnostic atheist as a term to suggest that she is open to reasonable debate, but I see in her posts that she shuts down believers and makes comments that clearly disparage belief and religion, that is not the commenting of an agnostic, that is an atheist who thinks religion is stupid. Basically I am saying she can claim to be as open minded and accommodating as she likes, but her written words belie that claim so my impression is that she simply makes that claim to sound more open to debate and not like she actually has no wiggle room in her beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 1, 2020 21:19:39 GMT
I don't quite agree. You can be agnostic but think religious belief requires knowledge or at least some probabilistic likelihood to be justified. I don't agree with such a stance but I can't really argue it's not technically agnostic atheism. But this is why I find it a near useless term. An agnostic atheist could be barely different for all intents and purposes from a gnostic atheist (like Goz). Or they could be someone who is extremely open to the idea despite not quite believing themselves (like me). That's why I think, while not technically correct, the more common parlance of a theist being someone who believes, an atheist being someone who doesn't and an agnostic not being sure is actually much more useful than all this agnostic atheist talk. Or even better, Richard Dawkins' seven degrees of belief. Hmm ok, Yeah I mean I see Goz using agnostic atheist as a term to suggest that she is open to reasonable debate, but I see in her posts that she shuts down believers and makes comments that clearly disparage belief and religion, that is not the commenting of an agnostic, that is an atheist who thinks religion is stupid. Basically I am saying she can claim to be as open minded and accommodating as she likes, but her written words belie that claim so my impression is that she simply makes that claim to sound more open to debate and not like she actually has no wiggle room in her beliefs. I don't see the problem, since ( as Keira pointed out) I am a very high end sceptic agnostic atheist. Is it really necessary for me to post what YOU think I should post? I would really much rather post what I think on subjects....coz you know....they are what I happen to think!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 1, 2020 21:23:44 GMT
Hmm ok, Yeah I mean I see Goz using agnostic atheist as a term to suggest that she is open to reasonable debate, but I see in her posts that she shuts down believers and makes comments that clearly disparage belief and religion, that is not the commenting of an agnostic, that is an atheist who thinks religion is stupid. Basically I am saying she can claim to be as open minded and accommodating as she likes, but her written words belie that claim so my impression is that she simply makes that claim to sound more open to debate and not like she actually has no wiggle room in her beliefs. I don't see the problem, since ( as Keira pointed out) I am a very high end sceptic agnostic atheist. Is it really necessary for me to post what YOU think I should post? I would really much rather post what I think on subjects....coz you know....they are what I happen to think! You can post what ever you want, all I am saying is that your claims to agnosticism are belied by what you post.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 1, 2020 21:39:06 GMT
I don't see the problem, since ( as Keira pointed out) I am a very high end sceptic agnostic atheist. Is it really necessary for me to post what YOU think I should post? I would really much rather post what I think on subjects....coz you know....they are what I happen to think! You can post what ever you want, all I am saying is that your claims to agnosticism are belied by what you post. How can that be when I am not 100% sure there is no supernatural force somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 1, 2020 21:47:42 GMT
You can post what ever you want, all I am saying is that your claims to agnosticism are belied by what you post. How can that be when I am not 100% sure there is no supernatural force somewhere? The first time you and I talked was when I saw you claiming that you know God doesn't exist. I asked you how you knew, and you said, "Logic." Maybe you've changed your mind in the meantime, but that's the way I remember it.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 2, 2020 2:24:11 GMT
How can that be when I am not 100% sure there is no supernatural force somewhere? The first time you and I talked was when I saw you claiming that you know God doesn't exist. I asked you how you knew, and you said, "Logic." Maybe you've changed your mind in the meantime, but that's the way I remember it. I still pretty much know that God doesn't exist through logic.....
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 2, 2020 23:29:41 GMT
You can post what ever you want, all I am saying is that your claims to agnosticism are belied by what you post. How can that be when I am not 100% sure there is no supernatural force somewhere? Supernatural != God. Theism and Atheism are related specifically to God.
|
|
