It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

page: 13
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Again referring to agnostics with....



so we're definitely not allies


You keep making reaffirming the original point.
Let's use quotes you might be familiar with.


Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you are my enemy.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


edit on 9-5-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
If you're Christian you're also atheist.

If you refer me to a dictionary, or any other source, that's a logical fallacy! You have to prove what the words mean scientifically, to disprove me!



There, looks like a stalemate, OP. That's always the trouble when you reject the commonly-accepted definitions of words, and then you demand to be proven wrong in your rejection of these definitions. I know you think you are different for nonsense reasons x, y and z, ad infinitum per your emotional needs, but actually your argument is exactly as my parody above.



Maybe if you make your response a single huge paragraph of convoluted rhetoric, someone will give you the benefit of a doubt that your argument actually makes more sense than this.


I saw several pages ago that there was no arguing with the OP once he outright rejected a dictionary definition of the word "agnostic" as a logical fallacy. Obviously if the dictionary itself is an argument from authority, then so must be any other authority that can be cited as to what a word means.


Though of course, rather than scientifically proving the dictionary definition wrong (see how stupid this whole non-issue really is?) he demands the burden of proof also be immediately shifted onto others disproving his claim before he has to prove it. Which is classic. Gee, I've never seen that kind of "reasoning" on ATS before. Makes total sense to me, to demand others to prove you wrong in your rejection of a dictionary definition, instead of offering evidence yourself that the definition as stated is wrong.
(sarcasm)


Really this thread shows an atheist rejecting the idea of agnosticism by trying to force it to mean the same thing as atheist. The dictionary disagrees, but of course that just raises the whole retarded can of worms I describe above.


Anyway this thread is good for making someone yawn, or scratch their head at why people must butcher actual scientific reasoning so horribly so as to pretend that languages are defined scientifically, but not much else. It takes a whole half a minute to process the "logic" that is going on here, and it translates to me as a couple people with an emotional need to engage in arguments more than anything else. Any thoughts on that? (Crickets, right?
)
edit on 9-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I give up.

You thibnk you know it all. You don't.

So go ahead, tell me about all my faults. You know what - I am 43, I am sick of spell checking and I don't need to. Accurate spelling does not mean accurate communication. The spelling of the words does not, in this case, hinder my ability to get my meaning acros. You understand me perfectly however I spell. I proof read everyting I type, which menas I read the whole post twoce after having comleted it - I miss errors because I am dyslexic.

All my life I have had to work 3 times harder than those arround me just to keep up - I can't be bothered with all that any more because I realised that I am understood completely either way.

So you sit back and list all the attacks poeple make on you, And ignore all the attacks you make on people. Whay not try and exlain why you are not attacking when you say the things you say. The things I outlined in my last post for example.

You are so wrong on so many levls mate. Grow up and leave some of your arrogance behind you. Learn to see the shades of grey. Learn something about the subtlety of the English language, and learnsome compassion.

I am now going to unsubscribe, so any reply will not be read. Have fun twisting the truth and fabricating your strange reality.

And 1 word of advice I hope you do take. Print out this thread,, or save it to disk. Come back to it in say 10 - 15 years and re-read it. I GARUNTEE you will be embarrased.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Doublemint
 


An atheist is not an individual who believes not, an atheist is a person who does not believe...so there's no stubbornness involved.


an atheist with out any knowledge of god would be able to say I don't believe, but they would not say that because they have no knowledge of what they are not believeing in. so an atheist is an individual who believes not, because an atheist is a person who has knowledge of god.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint
an atheist with out any knowledge of god would be able to say I don't believe, but they would not say that because they have no knowledge of what they are not believeing in. so an atheist is an individual who believes not, because an atheist is a person who has knowledge of god.


What?

That makes no sense at all.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Originally posted by Doublemint
an atheist with out any knowledge of god would be able to say I don't believe, but they would not say that because they have no knowledge of what they are not believeing in. so an atheist is an individual who believes not, because an atheist is a person who has knowledge of god.


He was saying an atheist is not an individual that believes not. I was saying that an atheist is an idividual who believes not, because they have knowledge of what they are not believing. To simply not believe as what I understood him to say would require you to have no knowledge of what you are not believing in, therefore you would have no reason to not believe.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Doublemint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 


That would be the difference between a declared atheist and an undeclared atheist...or explicit vs implicit.

Just like heterosexuals aren't necessarily people who have knowledge of the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, atheists can be people who simply are unaware of the god concept.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint

He was saying an atheist is not an individual that believes not. I was saying that an atheist is an idividual who believes not, because they have knowledge of what they are not believing. To simply not believe as what I understood him to say would require you to have no knowledge of what you are not believing in, therefore you would have no reason to not believe.


It still doesn't make any sense.

I was raised/assimilated Christian - - so yeah I know that story. One day I stepped outside the "god" circle - - - and realized "we" believe in a god because we are told a god exists.

I do not believe in a deity - - not because I had that knowledge - - but because I believe something else.

There really is more then two choices.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Again with the dishonest quote mining? I'm sorry, but I'm saying that we're in the same damn group of people. Your dishonest tactics are not appreciated. Note how your statement has neither a capital letter nor a punctuation mark? That's the sign of a bad quote. Hell, you didn't even bother with ellipses.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 



Originally posted by Shamatt
I give up.


Well, that's a shame.



You thibnk you know it all. You don't.


Do not presume to know me. I do not claim to know it all. I do claim that I'm right on a few things, or at least I'm right so far as the arguments and evidence are concerned.



So go ahead, tell me about all my faults.


I'll just snip out the rest. It was three statements, I'm asking you to address the 634 words of my post that didn't involve those three statements.



So you sit back and list all the attacks poeple make on you, And ignore all the attacks you make on people.


Highlighting hypocrisy isn't the same thing as calling someone blind, making snide remarks about me pointing that I'm minoring in philosophy (which was only to point out that I read about the damn distinction quite often even though you've repeatedly accused me of simply making it up), calling someone arrogant.



Whay not try and exlain why you are not attacking when you say the things you say. The things I outlined in my last post for example.


I pointed out that I made a point on hypocrisy...and it was a passing point. It was far from the crux of my statements and it had nothing to do with the validity of your argument.



You are so wrong on so many levls mate.


Well, you've yet to actually address a point I've made in the last few posts you've tossed out...so why not show me how I'm wrong. Oh wait, you're huffing off because I offended you.



Grow up and leave some of your arrogance behind you.


Isn't calling someone arrogant in and of itself a typically arrogant statement? Hell, telling someone to grow up is itself a typically arrogant thing to say.



Learn to see the shades of grey.


Gave that a miss already, I see in color.



Learn something about the subtlety of the English language,


Well, I do teach the damn thing.



and learnsome compassion.


I don't think there's a person who actually knows me that would accuse me of arrogance, lacking of understanding of the English language, or compassion. How about you learn to discuss things like a mature adult?



I am now going to unsubscribe, so any reply will not be read.


How childish.



Have fun twisting the truth and fabricating your strange reality.


Have fun continuing to be ignorant and not listening to what other people say in other threads.



And 1 word of advice I hope you do take. Print out this thread,, or save it to disk. Come back to it in say 10 - 15 years and re-read it. I GARUNTEE you will be embarrased.


Now that, that is quite an arrogant thing to say. And you're right, I'll probably see all sorts of points where I could have hammered my point out better and I'll be embarrassed at how sloppy my sentences are. Hell, I'll probably be embarrassed that I bothered to take the time discussing with someone who never was here to discuss anything at all and huffed off when I made a passing comment about spelling.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Oh no, there's a gang of straw men approaching.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're Christian you're also atheist.


Straw man 1.
Not really. Atheists believe in no deities, Christians believe in one deity.



If you refer me to a dictionary, or any other source, that's a logical fallacy! You have to prove what the words mean scientifically, to disprove me!



Straw man 2. I'm saying that 'it's in the dictionary' is not an adequate discussion when my very point is that common usage of the terms is incorrect. And I'm not asking for any scientific proofs, I'm asking for a reasoned statement.



There, looks like a stalemate, OP. That's always the trouble when you reject the commonly-accepted definitions of words, and then you demand to be proven wrong in your rejection of these definitions.


Well, I've clearly outlined my rejection of those definitions, and I'm far from the first person to reject them. If you can see a flaw in my reasoning beyond "But you're disagreeing with the commonly-accepted definition" then I welcome it. I tend to disagree with bending to the ignorant masses. Just like I won't accept the dictionary definition of evolution unless it lines up with the science, I'm not accepting the dictionary definition of atheist unless it lines up with the philosophy.



I know you think you are different for nonsense reasons x, y and z, ad infinitum per your emotional needs, but actually your argument is exactly as my parody above.



An outright insult. It has nothing to do with my emotional needs.



Maybe if you make your response a single huge paragraph of convoluted rhetoric, someone will give you the benefit of a doubt that your argument actually makes more sense than this.


You know, labeling my argument as nonsensical, convoluted, and purely rhetoric doesn't make it so. You could bother addressing my points instead.



I saw several pages ago that there was no arguing with the OP once he outright rejected a dictionary definition of the word "agnostic" as a logical fallacy.


I rejected that the crux of your argument was the dictionary. It is logically fallacious to argue with someone who is rejecting a dictionary definition (not all of them, as some actually get it right) with a citation from a dictionary. Your argument was "You're wrong to doubt the dictionary, here check out what the dictionary says"

Substitute "Bible" for "dictionary". Congratulations, you've put yourself on the level of the most ignorant of Christian fundamentalists!



Obviously if the dictionary itself is an argument from authority, then so must be any other authority that can be cited as to what a word means.


*ugh* grammar problems. I'm saying that a dictionary definition can typically be supported by consensus. The one you presented is not built upon a consensus.



Though of course, rather than scientifically proving the dictionary definition wrong (see how stupid this whole non-issue really is?) he demands the burden of proof also be immediately shifted onto others disproving his claim before he has to prove it. Which is classic.


Except that this is yet another straw man. I've actually outlined my claim and my reasons for rejecting the definition. I've done so repeatedly. Why not go through my posts in this thread?



Really this thread shows an atheist rejecting the idea of agnosticism by trying to force it to mean the same thing as atheist. The dictionary disagrees, but of course that just raises the whole retarded can of worms I describe above.


Yep, you're insulting the straw man of me now.

And the rest is more insult. Congratulations, you made a post of no substance.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Oh no, there's a gang of straw men approaching.


Actually a better word would be parody or satire.




Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're Christian you're also atheist.


Straw man 1.
Not really. Atheists believe in no deities, Christians believe in one deity.


Nope, sorry. What is that based on? Some definition somewhere? Or just you?

Sorry, that's argument from authority.

You have to scientifically prove that the words "atheist" and "Christian" mean different things. Without using a dictionary or any other source. Your own rules, sorry mate.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


...no, again you're throwing out a straw man. I'm asking for reasonable arguments not scientific proofs. I'm asking for you to address what I actually argued in favor of the ideas presented rather than just say "Nope, disagrees with the dictionary".

So, can you show me the flaw in my reasoning?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...no, again you're throwing out a straw man. I'm asking for reasonable arguments not scientific proofs.


It's not a straw-man, it's my serious counter-argument.

You say agnostics are really atheists. Well I say atheists are in reality Christians. The two words mean the same thing. I am looking for a reasonable argument why your position is any more logical than mine?

It seems Christians, atheists and agnostics are all the same thing now, so I feel we have reached a consensus here by common reasoning.



I'm asking for you to address what I actually argued in favor of the ideas presented rather than just say "Nope, disagrees with the dictionary".


Like you, I also obviously don't care about dictionary definitions anymore. After all, you have made me realize that atheism and Christianity are really the same thing. So now that neither of us have to worry about dictionaries or any other conventional sources, why do you think "Christian" and "atheist" mean anything different from each other? I'm looking for real, logical reasons, not appeals to authority or out-of-hand dismissals. Seriously, why do you think Christianity and atheism are different?


So, can you show me the flaw in my reasoning?


No, I believe you are correct now, but then it follows that atheists are therefore also Christian. It's a logical conclusion given that dictionary definitions are out the window and we are free to interpret words now as we please.

Christians and atheists both have beliefs that can't be proven, so therefore they are the same, just as agnostics and atheists both have a lack of belief, so they are the same. Atheists however also positively claim that there is no God, therefore they have beliefs just like Christians and therefore are the same as Christians.

This is absolutely no different than your own reasoning. Dictionaries and other sources are not allowed, just pure reasoning, pointing out the similarities and ignoring any differences.

edit on 10-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



that atheism and Christianity are really the same thing


After all that? Lmao.

Give up now madness



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

that atheism and Christianity are really the same thing


After all that? Lmao.

Give up now madness


Yes, I agree it's about time for you to abandon ship.


So using madness's rules against dictionaries and other sources, and being forced to use pure "reasoning" alone, why are not Christians and atheists the same? They both have beliefs (Christians positively believe in a God, while atheists positively believe in no God), so therefore they are the same.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I provided an argument to back up my claims, you have done nothing of the sort. Why should I bother to address your baseless argument when you're not even bothering to address my arguments one bit?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So you don't know if you don't know? I'm sorry, but atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they merely don't believe. This has been gone over many times. Atheists simply don't believe, though some do go the further step of making the positive claim in no deities.


if you would look and understand what manessinmysoul is saying here what I'm saying would make more since.

How can some one not claim that there isn't a diety but still not believe. its a double negative meaning that there is a diety they just dont believe in it, but why would you assume that there is a diety if you are not going to believe in it to me that just seems pointless.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Abandon ship?

I'm not the one who's making his own definitions up. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, Christianity is belief in a deity, AND that deities wishes. Atheism and Christianity are not the same.

...... I'd say that's the mimimum you need to understand before you start arguing agnosticism vs atheism.

You've tried to make them the same by stating well Atheism has "no evidence" And requires just as much "faith" - Atheists arn't the people conjuring positive assertions, remember that.

Atheism isn't faith, faith isn't mindlessly believing in positive assertions. It's not that Atheists state "there is no God" only that there's no evidence to even postulate that God exists, whether God exists or not.

I say there's a teapot on mars - You can't prove me - THerefore believe me - The teapot Atheist simply replies "NO" - Whether the teapot COULD exist on mars.

The burden of proof is on the person saying God exists. There shouldn't even be a word for my Atheism, There's no word for my lack of belief in fairies.

Atheism isn't a faith. I don't have "faith" that no fairies exist or that Santa Claus isn't real.

Before you tell other people to adbandon ship actually read what you are typing.


So using madness's rules against dictionaries and other sources...


It's not a rule, he never called it a rule. But he does understand the difference between Christianity and Atheism, at least it appears that way

edit on 10/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I provided an argument to back up my claims, you have done nothing of the sort.


Yes I have.

Christians believe there is a God. Atheists believe there is no God. Neither can be proven.

Due to that similarity, therefore Christians and atheists are the same.


This is the exact same as your reasoning, which I must simultaneously agree with:

Agnostics don't have a belief in God. Atheists also don't have a belief in God. They both share a lack of belief.

According to you, due to this similarity, therefore atheists and agnostics are the same.


Seriously, a two-year-old can see that the reasoning you and I are now using, is identical.



Why should I bother to address your baseless argument when you're not even bothering to address my arguments one bit?


I already agreed with your argument. But if what you say is true, then what I say is true, too.




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join