|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 7, 2017 0:09:00 GMT
I don't believe that gods exist, but I do not know whether they do or not.
Therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. This isn't complicated.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 7, 2017 0:20:37 GMT
A person can't be both atheist and agnostic at the same time.
The fact that there are so many posters claiming otherwise is proof of something else very supernatural, since it can only be from a desire to cause confusion.
Atheists are positive no God exists.
Agnostics are definitely not positive about the existence of a god. They don't know.
You can't be both at the very same instant. It can't be done.
This is by definition.
So when people try to claim otherwise, they're seriously trying to confuse others. It's that simple. They are proving that there is a prince of confusion. Communication should be easy. The two terms are defined. Since some people have such a strong desire to confuse communication, there can be no natural reason. They may think they get a reward, but they don't. The prince of confusion doesn't give brownie points, doesn't give rewards, and doesn't honor contracts.
In fact, these individuals just proved there is a supernatural force at work which we can either call "devil" or "demon".
Fact. Proven by the fools who want to clutter clear communication, for no possible reason in Nature.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 0:24:38 GMT
lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/ Really, this entire forum would benefit tremendously by reading Yudkowsky's entire sequence on language. It would really prevent so many of these pointless semantics debates.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 0:28:43 GMT
I don't believe that gods exist, but I do not know whether they do or not. Therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. This isn't complicated. That's only how you identify yourself. It is not how others identify you. I would identify you as an atheist. You may not claim to be an agnostic by my definition of that word because an agnostic takes no position on the existence of god, which you have. I think it's important for you to understand the your self identification is tedious and inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 0:31:29 GMT
I don't believe that gods exist, but I do not know whether they do or not. Therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. This isn't complicated. I think it's important for you to understand the your self identification is tedious and inaccurate. Why does nobody around here ever learn anything?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 7, 2017 1:09:13 GMT
I don't believe that gods exist, but I do not know whether they do or not. Therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. This isn't complicated. That's only how you identify yourself. It is not how others identify you. I would identify you as an atheist. You may not claim to be an agnostic by my definition of that word because an agnostic takes no position on the existence of god, which you have. I think it's important for you to understand the your self identification is tedious and inaccurate. I identify you as a racist sex donkey. Oh wait, you're not actually bothered what I identify you as? How odd.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 1:09:50 GMT
I think it's important for you to understand the your self identification is tedious and inaccurate. Why does nobody around here ever learn anything? Are you looking at me? If there is going to be a debate the first thing is to define terms. Both sides of the debate have to use the same definition of each term or there is no point. If the debate is about the efficacy of police procedures it is essential that both sides of the debate have the same definition of "police." Does George Zimmerman count as a policeman? Actually he was a neighborhood watch volunteer, which is not the same thing as a policeman. He might have had a higher opinion of himself. His self identification might have been different than others' identification. Many debates require the reduction of the multitude of definitions out there to a practical set. That means that self identification is not relevant. If I'm going to have a debate with you we would have to agree beforehand what George Zimmerman counts as. Regarding the existence of a god there are three possibilities; the belief in deity, the belief there is no deity. and having neither belief. That reality is not negotiable. It does not however matter which labels you use, but there must be one for each category that is only for that category. There is no category for "knowledge" of god or "gnostic." Of course lots of people feel very strongly that they in fact "know" god, however that is only their personal experience. To the rest of the world they only think they know a god. In the categories kept by the rest of the world and used in debates they believe in a god, just like others do. How they identify themselves is not relevant. This does not mean that individuals cannot write long and elaborate biographies describing the intricacies of their experiences however they might. It does mean that the wide world cannot possibly use those all.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 7, 2017 1:10:10 GMT
I think it's important for you to understand the your self identification is tedious and inaccurate. Why does nobody around here ever learn anything? This place is only weeks old. Give it time, man!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 1:18:57 GMT
That's only how you identify yourself. It is not how others identify you. I would identify you as an atheist. You may not claim to be an agnostic by my definition of that word because an agnostic takes no position on the existence of god, which you have. I think it's important for you to understand the your self identification is tedious and inaccurate. I identify you as a racist sex donkey. Oh wait, you're not actually bothered what I identify you as? How odd. How you identify yourself or anyone else doesn't carry much weight. You have no authority.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 1:30:01 GMT
Why does nobody around here ever learn anything? Are you looking at me? I'm looking at everyone in this thread and everyone who's been involved in these same discussions in the past who don't seem to learn from their mistakes. Of course if it's just two people having a formal (or even informal) debate then it's extremely useful to define terms beforehand... but in the real world and even on informal public boards like this that simply isn't how it works. You have to accept that many different people will post here with different beliefs and different ideas about what prevalent and ambiguous words mean. The goal should not be to fight over words like battlegrounds, or declare "one definitive definition to rule them all," or to denounce all others as wrong; the goal should be to try and understand what an individual wishes to communicate when they use a word. I mean, that's assuming the goal is meaningful discussion to begin with rather than petty bickering. That's like saying there's black, white, and everything in the middle. True in a sense, but it ignores the fact that the "everything in the middle" ranges from "as close as white/black as possible without being white/black" to "50/50 mixture." That is to say it ignores the fact that most people belong somewhere in the middle, and the real "reality" is whatever confidence level they'd put on their level of belief.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 7, 2017 1:35:22 GMT
I identify you as a racist sex donkey. Oh wait, you're not actually bothered what I identify you as? How odd. How you identify yourself or anyone else doesn't carry much weight. You have no authority. Neither do you, so whats your point?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 1:47:10 GMT
that the "everything in the middle" ranges from "as close as white/black as possible without being white/black" to "50/50 mixture." That is to say it ignores the fact that most people belong somewhere in the middle, and the real "reality" is whatever confidence level they'd put on their level of belief. I did not ignore anything. I agree that there is a continuum certainty. I explained that it is simply not sensible to allow the multitude of definitions into any discussion for the general public. It would make no sense. "We" can readily identify only three categories. The expression "agnostic atheist" fails to pick one of the three. Whatever it means it might mean the same thing to his close circle of friends, but I honestly don't think even he knows what it means outside that circle. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 1:50:38 GMT
How you identify yourself or anyone else doesn't carry much weight. You have no authority. Neither do you, so whats your point? While you recognize no authority whatever except your own opinion, I recognize rules and logic, which by the way would still be the rules and logic even if I didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 2:04:48 GMT
that the "everything in the middle" ranges from "as close as white/black as possible without being white/black" to "50/50 mixture." That is to say it ignores the fact that most people belong somewhere in the middle, and the real "reality" is whatever confidence level they'd put on their level of belief. I explained that it is simply not sensible to allow the multitude of definitions into any discussion for the general public. It would make no sense. "We" can readily identify only three categories. The expression "agnostic atheist" fails to pick one of the three. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.Whether it's "sensible" or not it's going to happen, and nobody is going to vote you (or anyone) guardian of definitions. "We" can identify and give names to as many categories as we wish to. Agnostic atheist picks out a category that isn't certain but is leaning towards atheism. There are no "facts" when it comes to defining words beyond what people think they mean and wish to communicate when using them.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 7, 2017 2:17:24 GMT
Neither do you, so whats your point? While you recognize no authority whatever except your own opinion, I recognize rules and logic, which by the way would still be the rules and logic even if I didn't exist. So on what logical basis are you rejecting my claim to be an agnostic atheist?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 2:32:21 GMT
Anything goes here. That's no doubt why many of you are here. One day you will find that just anything does not go. Using Wikipedia as a reference won't work in the college classroom. When it does you're wasting college tuition. Yet reality is limited. That makes better sense than what thorshairspray said. It is however still not useful for the reason I described. The wider world is going to have to put all the atheists into one category whether they're 90%, 75%, 40% or 10% sure there is no god. That is of course unless some standard is developed that defines those various levels. Without such a standard, there is no definition. "Agnostic atheist" is the same as "atheist" by the standard existing. What you wish to communicate and what you are capable of communicating don't always line up.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 2:40:53 GMT
Anything goes here. That's no doubt why many of you are here. One day you will find that just anything does not go. Using Wikipedia as a reference won't work in the college classroom. When it does you're wasting college tuition. It's comforting to know that you've brought your trademark non sequiturs with you in the migration to IMDb2. Who cares about world-wide standards? As long as you know what people mean when they use the term on here that's all that matters. There are niche terms that develop in all kinds of subcultures and small communities that are unknown or mean something entirely different outside them. Obviously the communities find them "useful" or they wouldn't invent/use them. You're not the sole arbiter of what's "useful." Literally the only thing that's preventing the communication are stubborn hard-heads like yourself that insist on fighting over the words rather than understanding what's meant by them.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 2:45:19 GMT
While you recognize no authority whatever except your own opinion, I recognize rules and logic, which by the way would still be the rules and logic even if I didn't exist. So on what logical basis are you rejecting my claim to be an agnostic atheist? I'm only going to repeat this 50 times. There are three possible stances regarding the existence of god; believing in deity, believing there is no deity, and lacking any belief either way. "Agnostic atheist" fails to identify which of these categories is yours. It might make sense to claim an intermediate point between two categories. That was what Eva Yojimbo took as the meaning, however even that still fails because there are no standards that describe which is a 6% atheist and which is a 44% percent atheist, therefore to the rest of us you are just an atheist whether it's 6%, 60% or 99%. There are also no standards of "gnosis" as I have repeated almost 50 times already.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 2:53:54 GMT
Polite people, and people who wish to communicate well.But you don't know what you mean. You and thorshairspray have different meanings for agnostic atheist.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 3:00:52 GMT
Polite people, and people who wish to communicate well. Nonsense. Sometimes world-wide standards are extremely superficial; such is the case on this subject. Three broad categories are hopelessly ineffective for communicating the nuance and range of people's actual beliefs. I merely gave one example of what it can mean. I already said that different people will mean slightly different things. All you have to do is ask anyone who uses the term what, exactly, they mean by it. That's what a polite person who cares about what someone else means would do, rather than acting like an ass and declaring their definitions wrong.
|
|