A Thread Not About Something

Originally posted by @sonship
Ask me if I sit around waiting for you to pronounce a Christian's argument as a "credible" and "coherent" moral argument.

You don't have a credible or coherent argument to waver between two definitions of yourself as an "agnostic atheist".

Sounds like your trying to leave some escape route of ambiguity to avoid having weak arguments exposed.

Like I said, you've never made any moral argument to back your torturer god ideology. Just an assertion.

Originally posted by @fmf
Like I said, you've never made any moral argument to back your torturer god ideology. Just an assertion.

Like I said, ask me if I wait for you an "agnostic atheist" (whatever that could possibly be ) to pronounce a Christian's belief as a coherent and credible moral argument.

You say you don't recognize sin. You say that you have never sinned. You say that "sinning" doesn't apply to you because, well, you're an "agnostic atheist".

You don't live that way.
And you don't live that way if a transgression is committed AGAINST you. You'd recognize "sin" or something like it real quick if you were mugged in a dark alley from your wallet.

You have a set of keys on you to lock up your car, your dwelling place, and your belongings because you recognize something like sin or transgression against morality.

You chase posters around after feeling slighted because you feel sinned against or something close to being "sinned" against.

Originally posted by @sonship
Like I said, ask me if I wait for you an "agnostic atheist" (whatever that could possibly be ) to pronounce a Christian's belief as a coherent and credible moral argument.

You say you don't recognize sin. You say that you have never sinned. You say that "sinning" doesn't apply to you because, well, you're an "agnostic atheist".

You don't li ...[text shortened]... r feeling slighted because you feel sinned against or something close to being "sinned" against.

FMF makes a spot on comment and this is how you respond.

There really isn’t much to your Christianity, to your theology is there sonship. You just regurgitate the stuff other people have written, much of it cultish error originating from your religious organisation, much of it a hopelessly ridiculous parody of Christianity.

Classic posts by you:
“The lost will be hung in chains of punishment as a warning to those on other worlds”

The lost will glorify him (Jesus) in their endless woe”

I mean seriously!! Wtf... are you on about? What on Earth is in your head?

Then there is this gem:

“Knowing that (there is eternal suffering) helps me forgive those who mistreat me”

What a grisly, squalid, mean-spirited theology you have. How unappealing, no actually, how completely repellent it is,

Originally posted by @sonship
Like I said, ask me if I wait for you an "agnostic atheist" (whatever that could possibly be ) to pronounce a Christian's belief as a coherent and credible moral argument.

You say you don't recognize sin. You say that you have never sinned. You say that "sinning" doesn't apply to you because, well, you're an "agnostic atheist".

You don't li ...[text shortened]... r feeling slighted because you feel sinned against or something close to being "sinned" against.

...ask me if I wait for you an "agnostic atheist" (whatever that could possibly be )...

Look it up. Don't brandish wilful ignorance as if it's a debating point.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]...ask me if I wait for you an "agnostic atheist" (whatever that could possibly be )...

Look it up. Don't brandish wilful ignorance as if it's a debating point.[/b]

It is willful disagreement with your right to manipulate two well defined philosophical terms which are distinctly two different things.

Atheism - believes no gods or God exists.

Agnoticism - doesn't know if he, or she or they do or not.

And I don't care if it originated with someone else.
Trends and fads come and go.

I know full well that Atheists are attempting to re-define their position to place themselves in as much of an impervious posture as possible.

The easiest position to defend is to hold no position.
I am not ignorant of that tactic or a strategy to create such a moving target as to be impenetrable to disagreement.

Originally posted by @sonship
It is willful disagreement with your right to manipulate two well defined philosophical terms which are distinctly two different things.

Just look it up and stop being silly.

Originally posted by @fmf
Just look it up and stop being silly.

Just stop being silly and forget about me being impressed with the faddish, trendy new atheism.

The old was clear enough.

Originally posted by @sonship
Just stop being silly and forget about me being impressed with the faddish, trendy new atheism.

The old was clear enough.

Google it and stop pretending that you don't know exactly what it means and prerending that it does not very clearly describe a specific stance.

Originally posted by @fmf
Google it and stop pretending that you don't know exactly what it means and prerending that it does not very clearly describe a specific stance.

Your wiki article:

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -

The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.

I did learn that a theologian seems to have coined your phrase.

One of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of theologian and philosopher Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

Do you want a 19th century theologian who was a missionary and preacher defining your philosophy for you?

Flint's home at 3 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh

The grave of Prof Robert Flint, Liberton Cemetery, Edinburgh
Flint was born in Applegarth in Dumfriesshire on 14 March 1838.[1]

He was the son of Robert Flint, at that time a farm overseer, and his wife, Grace Johnston. His first school was at Moffat. In 1852, he entered Glasgow University, where he distinguished himself (without graduating) in arts and divinity.[2]

Having been employed as a lay missionary by the 'Elders' Association' of Glasgow, Flint was licensed to preach in 1858, and for a short time acted as assistant to Norman Macleod (1812–1872), at the Barony Church, Glasgow. He was minister of the East Church, Aberdeen from 1859 to 1862) and of Kilconquhar church in Fife from 1862 to 1864, a small country village parish, which gave him leisure for study, improved by visits to Germany.[2]

That's interesting I guess. That a Scottish Calvinist and Reform theologian Wiki says is the earliest instance of the term. Do you give him credit for the definition?

[My bolding and spacing below]
From the same article as the Standford Definition I read:

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. While this might seem etymologically bizarre, perhaps a case can be made for the claim that something like (metaphysical) naturalism was originally labeled “atheism” only because of the cultural dominance of non-naturalist forms of theism, not because the view being labeled was nothing more than the denial of theism. On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”. (Baggini [2003] suggests this line of thought, though his “official” definition is the standard metaphysical one.)

Although this definition of “atheism” is a legitimate one, it is often accompanied by fallacious inferences from the (alleged) falsity or probable falsity of atheism (= naturalism) to the truth or probable truth of theism.

That is all the time to read this I am doing right now.

So you want to call yourself an Agnostic Atheist.
So that means to me that you are an Atheist.
Fine. And you want to be an Atheist who is difficult to pen down. Fine. I accept that too.

Originally posted by @sonship
Your wiki article:

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Good. Then you know what an agnostic atheist is.

I do not believe that god or gods don't exist.

I am an implicit atheist and not an explicit one.

There was a thread about it: Thread 175901

Originally posted by @fmf
Good. Then you know what an agnostic atheist is.

I do not believe that god or gods don't exist.

I am an implicit atheist and not an explicit one.

There was a thread about it: Thread 175901

I'm more impressed with this:
[My bolding]

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.

Originally posted by @sonship
I'm more impressed with this... [copy paste]

So?

Originally posted by @sonship
I'm more impressed with this:
[My bolding]

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” [b] There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers ...[text shortened]... established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.

[/b]

You of all people teaching another poster about “yes or no” responses has to be the comical piece of choking hypocrisy I have seen in my 10 years here.

Originally posted by @divegeester
You of all people teaching another poster about “yes or no” responses has to be the comical piece of choking hypocrisy I have seen in my 10 years here.

When it comes to very broad matters like whether or not Jesus is Lord I have certainly been Yes or No.

Same with if theism or atheism, which is true ? Yes to theism.

When you launch onto one of your billions of innocent, screams, burning flesh, Torturer, diatribe like "questions" on God, I have not walked into your traps to always give a simple "Yes" or "No."

Originally posted by @fmf
Like I said, you've never made any moral argument to back your torturer god ideology. Just an assertion.

What on earth is my "torturer god ideology" ?

Do you have textural evidence that, let's say these words (Luke 12:4,5), were inserted into the Greek new testament AFTER the gospels had been written by the original authors and fictitiously inserted into the mouth of Jesus ? - Go look up Luke 12:4,5.

If you cannot make a persuasive case that those words were fictitiously concocted and artificially made to be those of Jesus Christ then there is no - my pet "torturer god ideology".

There IS the teaching of Christ - (not ALL but an important PORTION of it).