- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWhile the silly ones come out on both sides to mock the other, there is a worthy point in the OP. There are those of us non-theists who do not mock or make fun of theists. I wish there were a filter so that those of us who do not mock, or do not intend to, anyway, could conduct a flak-free conversation. But clearly, this forum is not the place for that. I guess we just have to look for the posts that are worthy of consideration, knowing they will be rare. This is true on all sides.
I doubt it.
All that's happening over there is a bunch of atheists making fun of theists.
What concepts do you expect us to learn about that?
I don't consider my faith to be a laughing matter. That you do, tells me just about all I need to know.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by JS357Nonsense.
Science seeks naturalistic explanations and keeps its nose out of the supernatural because of what happened to Galileo. That nothing other than the natural has ever been shown to exist is only due to the politically limited methodology of science, lest it not compete with religion, which has all kinds of ways to show that all sorts of things other than the nat ...[text shortened]... ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
I know I'm obtuse at times, but that's the situation.
Science is the investigation of the reality we live in. Whatever that reality may be.
The idea that science would be incapable of detecting the supernatural if it did exist
is total bunk.
23 Jan 14
1 edit
Hi Suzianne,
I've posted the following a couple of times now in this thread, but so far you've not responded to it (if you have and I missed it, I apologize). Could you tell me if you are purposely not responding to it and if so why? If you just missed it, would you mind responding to it now? Here it is again, for reference the first time I posted it was on page 2 of this thread:
I wasn't asking about rabid wolves. I was asking about werewolves.
Why do you have faith that the FSM does not exist but can you not say the same thing about werewolves?
There are also tales about the FSM.
How about Dracula? Plenty of tales about that undead dude.
One of the things that I'm trying to understand is your use of the word faith.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakGood question.
According to an earlier post by you, we should use Wikipedia to define agnostic, and Wikipedia says: "A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is literally stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against." Clearly then, you cannot call someone who answers 6.9 an agnostic, because they have an opini ...[text shortened]... istence of god(s). So if not atheist, what word should we use to define someone who answers 6.9?
I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist (and the wiggle room therein), the person described is pretty much agnostic... just an obstinate one.
Originally posted by LemonJelloLet's take it even slower still, since super-slo-mo looks so damn cool.
Let's go through this slowly...it's hard to believe someone of your intellect could not understand this. One who answers 6.9 is indeed an atheist. In fact, he or she would be a strong atheist by any reasonable measure. He or she believes that God does not exist on the basis of what he or she takes to be strong evidence; evidence strong enough to ...[text shortened]... the evidence is overwhelming. Not sure why this is sooooooooooo hard for you to understand....
The various categories and sub-categories do more to obfuscate the matter than clarify. When it comes to the issue of the claims of the divine--- or anything, really--- one either believes or not; one accepts or rejects a thing as true.
Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to claim it has no belief regarding God.
Doesn't want to say God doesn't exist; won't say He does.
Just doesn't have a belief.
That's like an ostrich planting its head in the sand and thinking he's found a strategy which avoids confrontation by presenting his ass to his enemy.
Strong atheism is weak atheism with balls.
It says (emphatically) their disbelief is based on their belief that God doesn't exist.
It's the indefensible position you speak about when you invoke epistemic probability: apparently you labor under the misconception that nothing can be known with certainty.
That being said, there is one aspect which is true in some of what you wrote.
Namely, the weakness of the strong atheistic position is its inability to pass the burden of proof test.
But let's get back to that part about knowing things.
According to the idea that you represent, we know nothing can be known with certainty.
In fact, you know with certainty that nothing can really be known with certainty.
Well, crap. That's kind of a problem, isn't it?
But it gets worse.
You're also committed to the idea that anything thought up might have a chance at being true.
Talk about your open-mindedness!
However, the objective/reasonable person actually possesses a standard against which they can measure their beliefs.
For instance, the Easter Bunny.
With just a few questions and a little bit of research, the thoughtful person will find the EB's origin in Germany, circa 13th century, and then developed from there to its current iteration.
The researcher will also find other clues which point to the fantasy nature of EB, thereby eliminating it from the realm of reality other than as a teaching tool.
One thing the researcher will not find: any corroborating testimony relative to the actual existence of EB which is not in jest dating back from its first appearance up to and including modern day.
Juxtaposed with the Easter Bunny, we have God--- or even the idea of the divine.
Unlike the EB, the idea of the divine does not appear out of nowhere, is not developed from one stage to the next.
The idea of the divine has been in the mind of man since man first appeared on the scene.
There are non-anecdotal speculations as to the reasons man has the idea of the divine, but none of the guesses can satisfy the first obstacle: how is it that the idea of God has always been in the mind of man?
Further, the Christian has very specific, very delineated accounts of people, places and events which (in most cases) can be reasonably ascertained with respect to plausibility of occurrence.
Checkmate, weak/strong atheists-agnostics-nincompoops.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou clearly have severe reading comprehension issues or intelligence issues if you think that someone who answers a 6.9 has no opinion on the existence of god(s), which is what an agnostic is defined as. It is getting difficult to take you seriously.
Good question.
I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist (and the wiggle room therein), the person described is pretty much agnostic... just an obstinate one.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakAs bad as my reading comprehension might be, it simply makes yours look worse in comparison.
You clearly have severe reading comprehension issues or intelligence issues if you think that someone who answers a 6.9 has no opinion on the existence of god(s), which is what an agnostic is defined as. It is getting difficult to take you seriously.
Did you miss the part where I said
"I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist..."
I can see how you might have missed those seven words, since they were so close to the very beginning of my way-way-way too long 25 word response.
Hard to keep it all straight, huh?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakWhat do you mean 'getting difficult'.
You clearly have severe reading comprehension issues or intelligence issues if you think that someone who answers a 6.9 has no opinion on the existence of god(s), which is what an agnostic is defined as. It is getting difficult to take you seriously.
I've long since stopped believing that it's possible that he can be that dense
without being so on purpose just to annoy us.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou specifically referred me to the definition used by Wikipedia, which I quoted again in my last post. This is the definition that you insisted we use. Please explain how a 6.9 has no opinion on the existence of god.
As bad as my reading comprehension might be, it simply makes yours look worse in comparison.
Did you miss the part where I said
"I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist..."
I can see how you might have missed those seven words, since they were so close to the very beginning of my way-way-way too long 25 word response.
Hard to keep it all straight, huh?
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou're right. I'm fairly new here so I guess my first reaction is to take people seriously and take them at their word. He berated me for not knowing what agnostic meant, and told me I should have been smart enough to check out Wikipedia before I posted such a bad definition. Then I go to Wikipedia, and their definition is almost an exact word for word match to the definition I used. His behavior isn't the behavior of a serious person.
What do you mean 'getting difficult'.
I've long since stopped believing that it's possible that he can be that dense
without being so on purpose just to annoy us.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI know how hard it is for you, but try to keep the conversations straight and moving linearly, will you?
You specifically referred me to the definition used by Wikipedia, which I quoted again in my last post. This is the definition that you insisted we use. Please explain how a 6.9 has no opinion on the existence of god.
If you want to discuss something I said, then quote that exact conversation and not one which, although somewhat related, doesn't have anything to do with the topic you want to cover.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatI answered you once.
Hi Suzianne,
I've posted the following a couple of times now in this thread, but so far you've not responded to it (if you have and I missed it, I apologize). Could you tell me if you are purposely not responding to it and if so why? If you just missed it, would you mind responding to it now? Here it is again, for reference the first time I posted ...[text shortened]... ead dude.
One of the things that I'm trying to understand is your use of the word faith.[/b]
And then you answered in this way, which I thought seemed rather rude from the first sentences.
It simply struck me that you were (how do they say?) 'taking the piss' with my post. So I decided it probably wasn't worth answering (again), since you completely and absolutely blew off my answer when I did answer the first time.
Originally posted by PatNovakAre you expecting people to take you seriously when you claim the Wikipedia definition is "almost an exact word for word match?"
You're right. I'm fairly new here so I guess my first reaction is to take people seriously and take them at their word. He berated me for not knowing what agnostic meant, and told me I should have been smart enough to check out Wikipedia before I posted such a bad definition. Then I go to Wikipedia, and their definition is almost an exact word for word match to the definition I used. His behavior isn't the behavior of a serious person.
The concept conveyed in the definition is anything but what you first stated.
To wit:
"An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic."
Compare that banality with the first sentence of the Wiki definition:
"Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown."
Does that sound like someone who has no opinion on a topic?
And you wish to be taken seriously?
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you kidding me?
Actually that is not what is going on over there.
And we don't think that faith is a laughing matter either...
Well I don't at any rate.
If you want to know what the point is, then come join in and find out.
And perhaps you could have fun too, without mocking your faith.
Almost every post over there has some sort of dig at religion, specifically Christianity.
And I'm just not finding it very funny.