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

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

eh maybe I don't think one can not believe without knowldege

Doesn't knowledge mean KNOWN?

What is KNOWN about a Deity other then hearsay?

There is as much proof of a Deity as there is of Peter Pan.

reply to post by Doublemint

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
— Christopher Hitchens

The only way to lose an argument is to claim you can reveal the unknown, to claim you do know God exists. Any rational person would dismiss such extraordinary claims (on the grounds of current knowledge), and thus disbelieve.

I guess it all depends on whether you trust your own conviction enough to say "i disbelieve" rather than "i'm in the middle ground".

Being agnostic still doesn't exuse the fact that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. "There is a deity" or "There is a deity that is like this..."

reply to post by Annee


so there is still a differnce of knowing and not knowing anything at all.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


i believe the burdon of prove is on all who wish to talk. it should not be put on one person people should always have a reason for they why they think.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

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.

Nice deflection tactics, but that won't fly with more intelligent people.
Lets try this again for the last and final time.
I said

And the strongest voices against you, are actually people who should be your allies, the agnostics.

Your FULL response.

And I'm trying to tell them that we're not allies, we're in the same boat (except for agnostic theists).

Conclusion: Within the same group, but NOT allies.

The you say with FULL response

Taking out that "we're in the same boat" entirely changes the nature of what I said. I'm saying we're the same group of people..so we're definitely not allies because we're the same group. Instead of being two allied groups we're a singular group in the same damn boat.

Conclusion: Within the same group DEFINITELY NOT allies.

These are your words in FULL sentences there is no quote mining, you do the same to me all the time.

So don't give me any of your lame whining quote mining rhetoric it is coming across as very weak maybe because that's all you have as a rebuttal.

Your perspective from everything you have said to all the agnostics posting in here is pretty clear to all.
And it is what I have previously posted.

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

Unless you would like to recant and call them your friends and allies ? Perhaps you misspoke, perhaps that is not the perception you would like to convey to them ?

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by Annee

 

so there is still a differnce of knowing and not knowing anything at all.

There is a difference between KNOWN and hearsay - - or fantasy.

Why would I waste my time and bother with not knowing ________________ (nothingness?) Unless there is something I am seeking?

Originally posted by Annee
[
Why would I waste my time and bother with not knowing ________________ (nothingness?) Unless there is something I am seeking?

I was almost certain I asked this question ealier.

Originally posted by Annee
What is KNOWN about a Deity other then hearsay?

of course thiss is you believe, also your opion, so why act as if it is a fact?

Originally posted by Doublemint

Originally posted by Annee
What is KNOWN about a Deity other then hearsay?

of course thiss is you believe, also your opion, so why act as if it is a fact?

Why do I feel I am on a "Tilt-a-whirl".

Agnostic - - I don't know
Atheist - - lack of any belief in a deity

Agnostic/Atheist

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Doublemint

Originally posted by Annee
What is KNOWN about a Deity other then hearsay?

of course thiss is you believe, also your opion, so why act as if it is a fact?

Why do I feel I am on a "Tilt-a-whirl".

Agnostic - - I don't know
Atheist - - lack of any belief in a deity

Agnostic/Atheist

what do you mean

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


...I'm saying that instead of being allies we're a group of people, which is to say that we're closer than allies. Allies are people who group themselves together for advantage, typically temporarily. I'm saying that there's an inextricable bond. Of course we're not allies. I'm also not allied to my family, I happen to be a member of it instead.

If you look at the order of the statements in the sentence, I'm taking 'being in the same group' as being a more important relationship and one of greater meaning than mere alliance. It's an increase in meaning, not a distinction of two separate meanings.

I'm saying, and this is unequivocally, that atheists and some of those who choose to declare themselves 'agnostics' are the same group of people. We are a unit. We are people who share a common lack of belief in deities and that means we shouldn't be fighting over it. We should stand up with a unified label and fight for the rights that people like you are trying to deprive us of using dishonest tactics. Like the right to teach science in science classes without having to teach downright falsehoods.

Oh, and stop tripping yourself up trying to justify your lies.

reply to post by Doublemint


No, but in the case of those who are ignorant of the concept of a deity they are also atheists because they can't believe in a thing they do not know of. Some atheists (like babies) are ignorant of the concept of a deity and thus are atheists. This doesn't apply to all atheists, only the implicit ones.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

We are people who share a common lack of belief in deities and that means we shouldn't be fighting over it. We should stand up with a unified label and fight

The only reason the agnostics and you are "fighting over it", is because you expect them to move from the "I don't know" category into your category of "I do know". And they just aren't ready yet, otherwise they would be atheists.
Why do you think so many agnostics have expressed their disagreement with you?

instead of being allies we're a group of people, which is to say that we're closer than allies.

Also nice turn about, we're not allies but we are closer than allies within the same group.
Yeah like the Sith and Jedi are both force users in the same group.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


You can't prove the tooth-fairy exists or does not exist.

Which is it, do you believe that claim, or do you not? The claim cannot be proven wrong or right, as the person claiming is wise enough to state "she only comes when you are fast asleep"

I will say now "i don't believe in the tooh fairy" - I'm a tooth-fairy atheist.

Are you petty enough to be hold the "middle-ground" over such a conjure?

...is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

I wasn't aware that Agnosticism meant you couldn't disbelieve unfalsifiable theories.

can you rewrite your oringinal post so that it can keep up with your changing mind? after that I think this dumb agrument would be over.

reply to post by Doublemint

You can't prove the tooth-fairy exists or does not exist.

Which is it, do you believe that claim, or do you not? The claim cannot be proven wrong or right, as the person claiming is wise enough to state "she only comes when you are fast asleep"

I will say now "i don't believe in the tooh fairy" - I'm a tooth-fairy atheist.

Are you petty enough to be hold the "middle-ground" over such a conjure?

Also, any chance of a little more effort in your replies. Your frequent lack of regard for spelling and your one-lined responses are becoming tiresome, and telling.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

You can't prove the tooth-fairy exists or does not exist.

Which is it, do you believe that claim, or do you not? The claim cannot be proven wrong or right, as the person claiming is wise enough to state "she only comes when you are fast asleep"

I will say now "i don't believe in the tooh fairy" - I'm a tooth-fairy atheist.

Are you petty enough to be hold the "middle-ground" over such a conjure?

Also, any chance of a little more effort in your replies. Your frequent lack of regard for spelling and your one-lined responses are becoming tiresome, and telling.

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

so the people im talking to can post one liners

or do this

but I cant?

grow up, why make fun of my spelling?

reply to post by Doublemint


You can't prove the tooth-fairy exists or does not exist.

Which is it, do you believe that claim, or do you not? The claim cannot be proven wrong or right, as the person claiming is wise enough to state "she only comes when you are fast asleep"

I will say now "i don't believe in the tooh fairy" - I'm a tooth-fairy atheist.

Are you petty enough to be hold the "middle-ground" over such a conjure?

My question still stands. I did quote myself before - I'm not about responding with meaningless one-liners.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

You can't prove the tooth-fairy exists or does not exist.

Which is it, do you believe that claim, or do you not? The claim cannot be proven wrong or right, as the person claiming is wise enough to state "she only comes when you are fast asleep"

I will say now "i don't believe in the tooh fairy" - I'm a tooth-fairy atheist.

Are you petty enough to be hold the "middle-ground" over such a conjure?

My question still stands. I did quote myself before, I'm not about responding with meanigless 1 liners.

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

first time you have asked me so don't get so mad.

the tooth-fairy doesn't exist because I cought my mother taking my tooth and leaveing a dollar and I assume I will have to do the same for my kids.

Why you have to bring in believe in the tooth fairy is sad. I geuss you never experinced who the tooth fairy is?

But your a tooth fairy atheists believing blindly that tooth fairy is not real. As I know the tooth fairy is not real I don't believe it not to be real I know it is not real.

reply to post by Doublemint


Firstly, "i aint even mad"

Secondaly, my argument is highlighting unfalsifiable theories. Whether or not you caught your mother is of no relevance here.

As I know the tooth fairy is not real I don't believe it not to be real I know it is not real

Here's another concept,

If i was to suggest that a teapot exists on pluto, that is out of range of our telescopes, would you believe it? Or would you take your "middle-ground" route "i don't know, i can't prove it".?

Here's a better explanation:-

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

"Russel's Teapot" (Bertrand Russel)

Or

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false.

"Argument from ignorance"

Carl Sagans response to that was "evidence of absence is not absence of evidence" - But by that measure, there is no evidence for positive claims so they can be easily falsified on the grounds of Agnosticism.