it allows those that actually don't believe to pretend.
See...in my mind this is a huge INSULT to categories 3,4,5 and also to 2's and 6's.. It's just as bad as calling Catholics DELUDED or Muslims DELUDED, or any other theist group. I dismiss this.
Unless, perhaps you are just categorically insulting all believers, full or partial?
See...in my mind this is a huge INSULT to categories 3,4,5 and also to 2's and 6's.. It's just as bad as calling Catholics DELUDED or Muslims DELUDED, or any other theist group. I dismiss this.
er, I'm an atheist, what do you think that means? Of course I think all those that believe in god(s) are deluded.
Unless, perhaps you are just categorically insulting all believers, full or partial?
I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just stating my position.
people needed a way out a way out of what?
The whole of the Western world has been moving steadily away from belief towards the rational since the enlightenment. It's handy to have a stepping stone midstream.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
You're agnostic because you don't know. Your belief is irrelevant. Your two sentences are unrelated. You claim to understand that belief and knowledge are unrelated and yet you ask me how they are related.
It isn't about misunderstanding. You're flat-out contradicting yourself. In Message 392 you said: quote: "I do not believe in god, gods, God, Gods" Now explain how I'm agnostic about god.
You're agnostic because you don't know. Your belief is irrelevant. Your two sentences are unrelated. You claim to understand that belief and knowledge are unrelated and yet you ask me how they are related.
Jesus H Christ - are you trolling again?
By that cack-arsed logic it is impossible to be an atheist - as I've said a thousand times here, no-one can prove the non-existence of God and we all agree. That's logic 101.
As I've also said a thousand times, I'm an atheist because, despite that lack of proof/knowledge, I believe that there is no god. Belief and knowledge are different and unrelated. People believe and disbelieve reagrdless of perfect - or even any - knowledge.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It is fascinating (and a little amusing) to watch a fundamentalist atheist (you) go through the same mental train wreck that fundamentalist theists go through when shown their belief is not valid.
And you still have not answered:
Message 441: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that there is NO gray area between sure and not-sure, where information is incomplete and possibly contradictory?
According to your position on belief/s I expect you to say that there is none, that any amount of unsureness means you are unsure ... if you are consistent in your logic ... am I right?
fascinating (and a little amusing) to watch a fundamentalist atheist (you) go through the same mental train wreck that fundamentalist theists go through when shown their belief is not valid.
There's no such beast as a fundamental atheist. You have completly misunderstood, either deliberately or more likely because of your blessed confirmation bias - which you ironically demonstrate with almost every post - what an atheist is. Speaking for myself, I'm a rationalist and would switch my beliefs in a moment given adequate evidence. Try to understand that atheists can't be fundamental because all they have is a LACK of belief. It's amusing - to use your word - to see you trying to turn that into something more than it is.
It's not so amusing having to say over and over, very simple things and have them deliberately twisted to conform to your own beliefs. Try to get your head around this.
I KNOW MY BELIEFS ARE NOT VALID. That is my entire point. That's because all beliefs are not valid - scientifically speaking. Your Deism is not valid, Ringo's Bigfootism is not valid. But so what? You, Ringo and I have those beliefs anyway. Try to get your head around that.
Stop being so damn patronising and you might get yourself out of the mental rut you're stuck in.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
There's no such beast as a fundamental atheist. ...
Says the one who dogmatically insists on his version of definitions, who quotes Huxley as THE one and only source for the definition of agnostic ...
... Try to understand that atheists can't be fundamental because all they have is a LACK of belief. It's amusing - to use your word - to see you trying to turn that into something more than it is.
And yet you say you don't believe god/s exist -- and say that it is a belief, rather than a lack of belief. Let's go back to the question flowchart where you requested that I redo it to ask do gods exist?:
Message 448: Well I was not the one that introduced the axe murderer behind the door meme, it was in your post that I replied to. Glad to see you back away from a silly argument. So:
Now I trust you will agree that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence to know that god/s exist nor to know that they don't exist, so we can eliminate (A) from the list, leaving us with:
people who feel that it is necessary to make a decision, it is a life threatening condition ... I would put fundamentalist believers in this category ...
people who feel no compulsion to decide based on insufficient evidence, that they can afford to wait for further information ... even if it means waiting for death to find out ... and
people who feel compelled to decide even with insufficient evidence, that they can NOT afford to wait for further information ... and I would put moderate believers and atheists in this category.
The (C) category are the agnosticson belief in my book: they don't disbelieve god/s exist and they don't disbelieve god/s don't exist -- they see no reason to form an opinion at this time.
Now I find the (D) category fascinating: there is no rational need to form an opinion\belief, but some people do anyway ... as if they have a pathological compulsion\drive that pushes them to make irrational and baseless decisions\opinions\beliefs.
Note that I edited the message to change from a tan background coded text version to an image version of the flowchart (the tan one got squirrelly on reply quoting)
So do you feel that people MUST decide? It certainly seems so with your adamant insistence that everyone but fundamental theists are actually atheists in disguise, hiding from (your idea of) reality ...
Or are you someone that just believes god/s don't exist, based on no objective empirical evidence for that position, just on personal opinion and beliefs?
... Speaking for myself, I'm a rationalist and would switch my beliefs in a moment given adequate evidence. ...
So you are not sure of your position?
And you still have not answered:
Message 441: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that there is NO gray area between sure and not-sure, where information is incomplete and possibly contradictory?
According to your position on belief/s I expect you to say that there is none, that any amount of unsureness means you are unsure ... if you are consistent in your logic ... am I right?
Are you a little unsure? a lot unsure? or is it just binary not-sure unsure? Or are you absolutely sure of your position?
Says the one who dogmatically insists on his version of definitions, who quotes Huxley as THE one and only source for the definition of agnostic ...
Huxley invented and defined the term. It's THE definition of an agnostic.
And yet you say you don't believe god/s exist -- and say that it is a belief, rather than a lack of belief.
We're forced to put it that way so that believers can at least begin to understand us. In fact it's a lack of belief and outside EVC that's all it is - a nothing. It's exactly the same as a lack of belief in fairies - inconsequential. It's only when asked to go further in one of these conversations that it turns positive and has to be presented that way.
So do you feel that people MUST decide?
No
It certainly seems so with your adamant insistence that everyone but fundamental theists are actually atheists in disguise, hiding from (your idea of) reality ...
People who do not believe in god are atheists. They're just passive or default atheists. It's no big deal, they just don't positively believe in god.
Or are you someone that just believes god/s don't exist, based on no objective empirical evidence for that position, just on personal opinion and beliefs?
My belief is an opinion, but it's informed by the lack of evedince.
The (C) category are the agnosticson belief in my book: they don't disbelieve god/s exist and they don't disbelieve god/s don't exist -- they see no reason to form an opinion at this time.
Then they do not believe and are therefore default/passive atheists.
Now I find the (D) category fascinating: there is no rational need to form an opinion\belief, but some people do anyway ... as if they have a pathological compulsion\drive that pushes them to make irrational and baseless decisions\opinions\beliefs.
Well maybe you're beginning to see the light. Can you accept that this is because people are not robots? They are emotionally driven far more than they are rationally driven. There is an undeniable need in people to believe in some form of god - that's why they've been invented by every society on the planet, over and over again.
Are you a little unsure? a lot unsure? or is it just binary not-sure unsure? Or are you absolutely sure of your position.
I'm absolutely sure. But I know that there is some probablity that I'm wrong. That's because I'm human and beliefs and knowledge are distinct and seperate and I am capable of holding both those postions without damaging anything inside my head.
Now, how do you claim to be a Deist?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I have demonstrated that you are contradicting yourself. The honest approach would be for you to explain why what you say is not a contradiction.
Lets try again:
You know what you had for breakfast; you are gnostic about that. You do not know if there is a god; you are agnostic about that.
You don't believe there is a god; you are an atheist. BUT, since belief and knowledge are not related, as you seem to understand, you are also still agnostic; you still don't know. So you need to explain how you can rationalize that with your claim that there is no such thing as an agnostic.
You are a professing atheist; you self-identify as an atheist. I am a professing agnostic; I self-identify as not knowing. To you, it's more important to say that you don't believe. To me, it's more important to say that I don't know.
We have the same lack of belief in gods. We have the same lack of knowledge about gods. We are both atheist and we are both agnostic.
We have the same lack of belief in gods. We have the same lack of knowledge about gods. We are both atheist and we are both agnostic.
Well hurrah, we're both atheists.
The lack of knowledge of god is common to everyone and is not worth mentioning. Before Huxley came along that distinction didn't matter and since we're all now accustomed to thinking in scientific terms, it no longer matters again.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Not worth mentioning is not the same as not existing. Is that the only weasel-out that you have? As far as I'm concerned, knowledge and/or lack of knowledge is far more worth mentioning than mere belief.
Read back over my posts and count the number of times I've said that we are all absent of knowledge of god. It was worth mentioning in Huxley's day - in fact it was an enormous relevation is seems. But now? The position of agnostism on knowledge of god is simply taken for granted in any sane conversation. We know that anyone saying that they know god are either deluded or simply expressing their personal belief that they do - they can not provide the knowledge to a third party and have it tested.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
