It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Of course you don't provide proof of your claim...as always...but who cares about facts, right?
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
according to my customs, feelings, theory, logic, and yes belief... you never kick a man when he is down, I hope I am not asked to show proof and evidence of this backing my claim as your little brother would request of me
therefore I have no further questions for you in this particular topic.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
It's not semantics, it's actually being accurate about a statement. The OP basically puts out a form of the excluded middle fallacy. It's either epistemological certainty one way or the other, or no decision at all. Instead of going for this logically fallacious excluded middle fallacy, we're saying that there is a sort of disk of choices rather than one of three. They don't even go towards theism vs atheism. There's pantheism and deism as well.
Epistemological certainty isn't necessary for a position. Again, atheism is the skeptical position regarding all theistic claims. We are skeptical, even though we admit that there is no way to be epistemologically certain.
Skeptical positions, like so-called "weak" atheism are perfectly valid and in no way disingenuous.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Madness this is blatantly false as I explicitly said there are 3 options.
I suppose I should qualify my argument that I am arguing for the monotheistic God of the Bible (but everyone knows that). Sure there are panthiesm and polythiesitic options but that is really a side issue. They are still theistic.
In the debate in which you are in engaged and what you spend most of your time here attempting to discredit (in your pseudo-atheist persona) is the monotheistic God.
In that discussion, there are 3 positions, God exists, God does not exist, or I don't know.
There is no excluded middle.
You are just obfuscating as you usually do. It really reveals the bankruptcy of the modern atheist worldview.
Thanks for sharing it, please continue.
Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by MrXYZ
Will all due respect from "us lot", so far the responses seem to have been:
"Your definition is wrong, mine is better"
...when both definitions are sourced
"I hereby discredit the the man you use to make your argument"
...an ad hominem attack
"You are attacking logic/rationality/science!"
...which is interesting, how you are trying to give yourself the higher ground, but it doesn't work, sorry.
The most that you can claim for yourself is that you are empiricists (you don't believe in the existence of anything outside of what you can sense with your sight, touch, smell, hearing, taste and other senses) .
Empiricism is just one small portion of rationality & science, and unfortunately for you, doesn't encompass it as a whole.
and "Epistemology is not necessary for forming an opinion"
...which is absolutely true, but then, as proponents of the oh-so-great ideals of science, logic and rationality, just because you believe something (in this case whether god does not does not exist), doesn't make it true, and having holding such a belief when you do not have all the information is contrary to the position of science, logic and rationality! If one wanted to be scientific and logical about it (which again, just in case you missed it, doesn't mean to be empirical about it), if you don't have knowledge of the existence of God(s) (you are agnostic), you can't have an opinion one way or another for something you do not have the complete knowledge about! Until further information is available, you HAVE to say "I don't know".
Otherwise the entire foundation of science and rationality might as well be guesswork!
So with "you lot" giving nothing more than opinions, or counter-sources to sources, I don't think "us lot" are any worse off.
PS: Madness, the false dichotomy, or fallacy of the excluded middle would only work if BigWhammy had given an either/or option. He DID provide a third one (in this case, "I don't know"), so isn't a false dichotomy.
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
science is but a philosophy, logic is based in philosophy and established by majority...
It's still an excluded middle fallacy as you're limiting the number of options.
And again, you're ignoring that there are agnostic atheism, agnostic theism, gnostic atheism, and gnostic theism.
Please, show me where I attempt to discredit the monotheistic God. I have claimed that omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory, but that is a philosophical issue.
I'll keep showing how ignorant of the most basic precepts of philosophy you are until the cows come home, don't worry. I've dealt with far more ignorant and stubborn users before.
Originally posted by babloyi
Someone earlier in this thread went through the various combinations of "a/gnostic" and "a/theistic", but they missed out a few, because including them would show how weird such a position is:
Where is the gnostic-atheist who knows that god/s exists, but does not believe?
Can a person logically say "God exists, but I do not believe God exists"?
atheist – noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
a person who does not believe in God or gods
agnostic - noun
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
belief in the existence of a god or gods
belief in a deity
deism - noun
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it
belief in the existence of God based solely on natural reason, without reference to revelation
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.