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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'm agnostic so my answer would be: "Maybe."


...so you're unsure as to your own position on something? You have a position whether you acknowledge it or not. To say that your answer to "Do you believe in any deity?" is "Maybe" is to dodge a question that you actually have an answer to.



In my opinion experience is the only thing to base reality on.


Thankfully, personal opinions (mine included) don't really count for much unless they have something to back them up.

In my reasoned out and backed opinion, rational inquiry coupled with the scientific method is the only thing to base reality on. How do I think this is a good idea? You're using a computer, aren't you?


You "Does God exist?" Me: "Maybe"
How is that dodging a question? My question to you would is why do you care?

Your opinion is reasoned out and backed by what exactly? Science? Scientists should learn how magnets work before they make claims on the nature of reality.

My opinion is reasoned out and backed by experience.

Having said that I don't claim any authority and admit that I could be crazy or mistaken or deluded so I don't claim my opinion to be any more valid than yours.




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



Originally posted by Buddha1098
You "Does God exist?" Me: "Maybe"
How is that dodging a question? My question to you would is why do you care?


...that wasn't my question. At all. That is either an outright lie or you're just not bothering to actually read my posts. This is why you're dodging the question, you're not actually answering it.

The question was: Do you believe in any deity?
It appears repeatedly throughout this thread.



Your opinion is reasoned out and backed by what exactly? Science?


Yes, the stuff that resulted in your computer working and most likely you being alive today.



Scientists should learn how magnets work before they make claims on the nature of reality.


Wow, that's a really idiotic response. We know how magnets work. What are you, an ICP fan?



My opinion is reasoned out and backed by experience.


The fact that you're backing up your opinion with experience merely means that it isn't reasoned out. You have no independent corroboration for any event.



Having said that I don't claim any authority and admit that I could be crazy or mistaken or deluded so I don't claim my opinion to be any more valid than yours.


Well, at least you're admitting that you could be wrong...which you are.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



Originally posted by Buddha1098
You "Does God exist?" Me: "Maybe"
How is that dodging a question? My question to you would is why do you care?


...that wasn't my question. At all. That is either an outright lie or you're just not bothering to actually read my posts. This is why you're dodging the question, you're not actually answering it.

The question was: Do you believe in any deity?
It appears repeatedly throughout this thread.



Your opinion is reasoned out and backed by what exactly? Science?


Yes, the stuff that resulted in your computer working and most likely you being alive today.



Scientists should learn how magnets work before they make claims on the nature of reality.


Wow, that's a really idiotic response. We know how magnets work. What are you, an ICP fan?



My opinion is reasoned out and backed by experience.


The fact that you're backing up your opinion with experience merely means that it isn't reasoned out. You have no independent corroboration for any event.



Having said that I don't claim any authority and admit that I could be crazy or mistaken or deluded so I don't claim my opinion to be any more valid than yours.


Well, at least you're admitting that you could be wrong...which you are.


I don't have an opinion one way or another on whether there is a deity or not. Also known as Maybe.

How do magnets work at the atomic level? It's okay to say you don't know cuz guess what!? Science doesn't know... Or you can dodge the question again and attack me to show how superior you are if that feeds your ego and makes you feel good.

Choice is yours
Namaste my friend.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Nada cambia claimed my analogy was not correct, but didn't seem to explain why. Here is another analogy for him. Consider the idea of Schrodinger's cat. If we were asked "Do you believe the cat is dead?", some might say "Yes", some might say "No" and some might say "It may be. It is impossible to tell". This third option, once again, is not a subset of "No".


No, I explained. But I'll explain again... You're suggesting in your analogy that Atheism is the answer "No", and it is. But this is the crucial part you're missing, Atheism is also "It may be. It is impossible to tell". As Atheism is both the belief there is no god, and the absence of belief in God. In your analogy "It may be. It is impossible to tell" parallels the absence of belief in God. It parallels Atheism.

If we were asked "Do you believe God exists?", some might say "Yes", some might say "No" and some might say "Maybe. It is impossible to tell". This third option is still not believing in God, it's still Atheism.

Answer 2 and 3 is Atheism, answer 1 is Theism.

Again the problem is you seem to think Atheism is exclusively the belief there is no God, that's simply not true. Like many words it has several definitions and understandings.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Okay, I'm done. You're clearly not reading my posts, so I'm just going to leave you with the question you're not answering:

Do you believe in any deity?


There is quite a bit of difference between that question, which is what I have constantly asked, versus the question of whether or not a deity exists. Your belief is not an absolute reality claim. You cannot answer whether or not you believe with a 'maybe'.

Edit:

Well, I'm going to do it anyway....


Originally posted by Buddha1098
I don't have an opinion one way or another on whether there is a deity or not. Also known as Maybe.


To quote myself in the previous post!


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...that wasn't my question. At all. That is either an outright lie or you're just not bothering to actually read my posts. This is why you're dodging the question, you're not actually answering it.

The question was: Do you believe in any deity?
It appears repeatedly throughout this thread.


If you don't have an opinion, you are not believing. If you are not believing, you are an atheist.



How do magnets work at the atomic level? It's okay to say you don't know cuz guess what!? Science doesn't know...


...and it doesn't matter one bit. I'm ignoring the red herring. Science, as a method, is the only way we've ever actually learned anything useful about the world.



Or you can dodge the question again


...of course you dodge a red herring. It's irrelevant to the conversation. The presence of unknowns in no way invalidates science as a method for understanding the world.



and attack me to show how superior you are if that feeds your ego and makes you feel good.

Choice is yours
Namaste my friend.


You're somehow accusing me of attacking you...yet your claim that I'm going to attack you out of some superiority complex is itself an attack. I have yet to attack you, I'm merely presenting an argument that you are simply ignoring.
edit on 3/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added response to quotes



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


You missed options 4 and 5. Theists could also merely believe in a sense where they're not sure...and people simply may not know what a 'deity' is...and thus also be atheists.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Okay, I'm done. You're clearly not reading my posts, so I'm just going to leave you with the question you're not answering:

Do you believe in any deity?


There is quite a bit of difference between that question, which is what I have constantly asked, versus the question of whether or not a deity exists. Your belief is not an absolute reality claim. You cannot answer whether or not you believe with a 'maybe'.

Edit:

Well, I'm going to do it anyway....


Originally posted by Buddha1098
I don't have an opinion one way or another on whether there is a deity or not. Also known as Maybe.


To quote myself in the previous post!


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...that wasn't my question. At all. That is either an outright lie or you're just not bothering to actually read my posts. This is why you're dodging the question, you're not actually answering it.

The question was: Do you believe in any deity?
It appears repeatedly throughout this thread.


If you don't have an opinion, you are not believing. If you are not believing, you are an atheist.



How do magnets work at the atomic level? It's okay to say you don't know cuz guess what!? Science doesn't know...


...and it doesn't matter one bit. I'm ignoring the red herring. Science, as a method, is the only way we've ever actually learned anything useful about the world.



Or you can dodge the question again


...of course you dodge a red herring. It's irrelevant to the conversation. The presence of unknowns in no way invalidates science as a method for understanding the world.



and attack me to show how superior you are if that feeds your ego and makes you feel good.

Choice is yours
Namaste my friend.


You're somehow accusing me of attacking you...yet your claim that I'm going to attack you out of some superiority complex is itself an attack. I have yet to attack you, I'm merely presenting an argument that you are simply ignoring.
edit on 3/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added response to quotes


You attacked me when you said "You are at least admitting you could be wrong. Which you are." Does that serve any purpose other than feeding your ego? I come to ATS for intelligent debate. None to be found from you. Only rhetoric. You're inability to admit that science can't answer all of the fundamental questions of life is enough for me. You Win

Namaste
My friend



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



Originally posted by Buddha1098
You attacked me when you said "You are at least admitting you could be wrong. Which you are."


It is not an attack to claim that another is wrong, it is merely a position I took. You have yet to even bother answering the question I asked, yet you accuse me of quite a bit of rhetoric and feeding my ego...a personal attack in and of itself.



Does that serve any purpose other than feeding your ego?


...it points out to the many more who view these discussions than those who participate in them that you are wrong.



I come to ATS for intelligent debate.


Could have fooled me. You've yet to actually provide any arguments or even bother addressing my points. Hell, you just quoted a whole post that you're mostly ignoring, save for that little bit at the end.



None to be found from you. Only rhetoric.


Please, show me where I'm only using rhetoric. Please, show a post where I didn't attempt to actually make a specific point with supporting argument in a logical manner.

I have pointed out to you that you have yet to answer a simple question: Do you believe in any deity? You have not answered this question, the closest you got was to answering a question that was not asked.



You're inability to admit that science can't answer all of the fundamental questions of life is enough for me.


I never said that science could comment on such things as art, taste, or many other things...but it is definitely the only means we have for properly evaluating the universe. You are merely dismissing me simply because I don't agree with you. You've yet to give me reason to agree with you, yet you are somehow put off by the fact that I don't.



You Win


You were never really participating. Spouting off your points without argument or support is not debating. You're here to have a bunch of people agree with you and you just decided to scurry off because I wasn't convinced by your statement that the inability of science to entirely understand magnetism somehow invalidates it as a whole.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I have issue with the idea that apparently sane and intelligent atheists don't acknowledge the rationalism of being an agnostic, seeing as it is a logical conclusion for someone who has neither conclusive proof for nor against the existence of divinity.

However I redact my previous post in its entirety. An agnostic is by definition an atheist (for whatever it's worth, lol).
Good thought exercise, OP.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Buddha1098
 



Originally posted by Buddha1098
You attacked me when you said "You are at least admitting you could be wrong. Which you are."


It is not an attack to claim that another is wrong, it is merely a position I took. You have yet to even bother answering the question I asked, yet you accuse me of quite a bit of rhetoric and feeding my ego...a personal attack in and of itself.



Does that serve any purpose other than feeding your ego?


...it points out to the many more who view these discussions than those who participate in them that you are wrong.



I come to ATS for intelligent debate.


Could have fooled me. You've yet to actually provide any arguments or even bother addressing my points. Hell, you just quoted a whole post that you're mostly ignoring, save for that little bit at the end.



None to be found from you. Only rhetoric.


Please, show me where I'm only using rhetoric. Please, show a post where I didn't attempt to actually make a specific point with supporting argument in a logical manner.

I have pointed out to you that you have yet to answer a simple question: Do you believe in any deity? You have not answered this question, the closest you got was to answering a question that was not asked.



You're inability to admit that science can't answer all of the fundamental questions of life is enough for me.


I never said that science could comment on such things as art, taste, or many other things...but it is definitely the only means we have for properly evaluating the universe. You are merely dismissing me simply because I don't agree with you. You've yet to give me reason to agree with you, yet you are somehow put off by the fact that I don't.



You Win


You were never really participating. Spouting off your points without argument or support is not debating. You're here to have a bunch of people agree with you and you just decided to scurry off because I wasn't convinced by your statement that the inability of science to entirely understand magnetism somehow invalidates it as a whole.


Sigh.. You win yet you still have to engage.. could it be that this is more about YOU having to be validated by others than me? Again keep feeding your ego if it makes you feel good.

I didn't answer your question to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean I didn't answer the question. I don't know if there is and why does it matter to you would be my response. I don't like being called an Atheist because the word conjures up images of Gnostic Atheism to most people when you mention it. I'm agnostic. As I have said over and over and over again. If you want to label me an atheist go for it.

I asked you to explain magnetism to illustrate the point that science doesn't have all the answers. Nice straw man but I never said the fact that science not being able to explain magnetism invalidates it as a whole. You evaded my question because you said it is a red herring, it isn't. Science cannot explain Magnetism, yet I'm supposed to believe that the Scientific method should be the end all be all for the nature of reality and it should supercede my own experiences. Why? Make me believe. That is an intelligent debate, if you were interested in that instead of having to be right perhaps we would get somewhere.

Your attack points out to people who think like you that I'm wrong, and to people who think like me you're wrong, and to most of the people on the planet we are both wrong. Why does it matter if you are right or wrong and why do you care if others know you are right or wrong? Oh yes... There is your ego again...
'
I disagree that experience is inferior to the scientific method for evaluating the spiritual for the reasons I stated.

And for the record I could care less whether you agree with me or not you are entitled to your opinion and I mine. I'm not dismissing you because we disagree, I'm dismissing you because you don't have anything interesting to say.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




There is quite a bit of difference between that question, which is what I have constantly asked, versus the question of whether or not a deity exists. Your belief is not an absolute reality claim. You cannot answer whether or not you believe with a 'maybe'.


Well guess what, I believe that maybe (well, I guess I can, sorry) there is not any kind of deity, but I'm not sure, so I'm not closing my mind to the possibility, and you know why? because if there is a deity out there then it is way beyond what the humans mind can comprehend, so I don't bother searching for it nor proving it doesn't exist.

This is the human mind you are talking about, there is no binary answer, its a complex and elaborate set of feelings, experiences and beliefs that cannot give a yes or a no for an answer because there will ALWAYS be something else.
edit on 3/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: typo



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Now this is the arrogant ultra aggressive atheistic perspective that is embedded in most of your posts.
Now you are attacking the agnostic perspective which should really be your ally, but I think you perceive them as a threat because their unsure perspective actually is at odds with your hardline philosophical stance that really can't be justified. An agnostic perspective actually shows a measure of mental humbleness, saying, "I am not sure either way, so I am undecided". If I didn't know what I know, and never experienced what I have experienced, I would probably be agnostic too.

If I can use a jury from a court case, agnostics are like a jury that is still in the deliberation stage not having reached a conclusion. Whereas the theists and atheists have finished deliberations and reached a verdict.


Thankfully, personal opinions (mine included) don't really count for much.


Excellent, that applies to the title of this thread.


edit on 3-5-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Now this is the arrogant ultra aggressive atheistic perspectives that is embedded in most of your posts.


What is arrogant or ultra aggressive about it? Hell, what's particularly atheistic about it? What does this thread have to do with not believing in any deity? I'd be saying the same damn thing if I were a theist.



Now you are attacking the agnostic perspective which should really be your ally,


I'm not attacking agnostics, I'm pointing out to them that they are, in fact, atheists. They merely shun an apt description. Don't believe in a deity? That makes you an atheist.



but I think you perceive them as a threat because their unsure perspective actually is at odds with your hardline philosophical stance


Yes, the hardline philosophical stance...that I don't believe in any deity. Wait...what's so hardline about that?



that really can't be justified.


It's a skeptical position, I don't really need to justify it beyond the lack of compelling arguments for the positive claim.



An agnostic perspective actually shows a measure of mental humbleness, saying, "I am not sure either way, so I am undecided".


No, that's not what an agnostic is. Agnostic comes from the root for knowledge. An agnostic is one without knowledge. How many times do we have to go over this in this thread?

I'm an agnostic atheist. I freely admit that I could be wrong, as there are more possible deity claims than there are current claims on Earth...and the ones that exist on Earth to begin with often go beyond the possibility of disproof, though they're always within the realm of quite easy proof.

I will never say that I positively believe that there is no deity...though I will continue to not believe in any deity until evidence is provided for one.



If I didn't know what I know, and never experienced what I have experienced, I would probably be agnostic too.


You mean if you knew what you don't know...like science.



If I can use a jury from a court case,


You can't because it's a horrible analogy.



agnostics are like a jury that is still in the deliberation stage not having reached a conclusion.


Undecided individuals are still not believing. What part of that is so hard to grasp for people? If you have yet to decide you are still not engaging in belief. If you are not believing, you are an atheist.



Whereas the theists and atheists have finished deliberations and reached a verdict.






Thankfully, personal opinions (mine included) don't really count for much.


Excellent, that applies to the title of this thread.


Look, Blue_Jay is quote mining me again! Ah..reminds me of just a few weeks ago. You seem to ignore that I contextualized that statement by saying that you have to back your opinions up with an argument. And it's quite simple:

If you don't believe in any deity, even if you are still undecided and deliberating, you are an atheist. Those who lack any active belief in any deity are atheists.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


No, that's not what an agnostic is. Agnostic comes from the root for knowledge. An agnostic is one without knowledge. How many times do we have to go over this in this thread?


You do know that the meaning of words evolve? culture meant cultivate until a couple hundreds years ago, it doesn't mean that's its definition now, etymology search the origin not the meaning, so here you go:


Agnostic: a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)




Look, Blue_Jay is quote mining me again! Ah..reminds me of just a few weeks ago. You seem to ignore that I contextualized that statement by saying that you have to back your opinions up with an argument. And it's quite simple:

If you don't believe in any deity, even if you are still undecided and deliberating, you are an atheist. Those who lack any active belief in any deity are atheists.

hypocrite, you are complaining because he is quoting phrases in an un-contextualized way, yet that's all you do when someone has a better argument than you
edit on 3/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mbartelsm
 



Originally posted by mbartelsm
Well guess what, I believe that maybe (well, I guess I can, sorry) there is not any kind of deity, but I'm not sure, so I'm not closing my mind to the possibility, and you know why? because if there is a deity out there then it is way beyond what the humans mind can comprehend, so I don't bother searching for it nor proving it doesn't exist.


So you're an atheist. Why? Well, you're not participating in an active belief, are you? I've already going over this. Acknowledging the possibility that there could be a deity is not mutually exclusive with not believing in any particular deity.

You and I are in similar camps. I do not believe in any deity, but I freely acknowledge that I could be wrong and allow any challengers to prove their deity claims to me. This makes me an agnostic atheist.

You and I both lack a belief, you and I are both atheists. You seem to be under the false impression that atheism somehow has to do with disproving a deity exists.



This is the human mind you are talking about, there is no binary answer, its a complex and elaborate set of feelings, experiences and beliefs that cannot give a yes or a no for an answer because there will ALWAYS be something else.


Except that this is a binary situation. I am currently not fishing. At any point in time when I am not actively engaging in fishing, I am not fishing.

Anyone who is not actively engaging in belief in a deity is not believing in a deity...thus they are atheists.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I already addressed this. You are using a computer. That very fact alone should explain to you why you should take the scientific method (which is the only method for tackling questions of reality that has produced results) as a means to tackle questions of reality.

Now, you brought up an incredibly complex question in physics that is currently being tackled by the scientific method, it hasn't been cracked, but there is no alternative method to tackle those sorts of questions that actually bothers to come up with a useful result.

Science works. Scientific thinking works. Sure, in your day-to-day life scientific thinking might not be anywhere near as effective as it would be in proper experimental settings, but nobody has the liberty to set up all the controls and proper number of data sets in real life...but thinking in terms of a general scientific understanding, a general form of critical thinking, is the most useful way to get through life.

And by choosing to not label yourself as an atheist you are merely cow-towing to those who would marginalize others. You are an atheist, embrace it. I'd also like to point out that I can't think of a single gnostic atheist. One. Not a single one. Sure, the cultural perspective has been corrupted by bigotry against atheists, but that should be no excuse to not stand up and be counted as what you are.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   


So you're an atheist. Why? Well, you're not participating in an active belief, are you? I've already going over this. Acknowledging the possibility that there could be a deity is not mutually exclusive with not believing in any particular deity.

This is where you are wrong, I do believe, I believe that god is way above my comprehension so there is not way I can prove or disprove that it exist, so I decide to focus my life in something else or, in other words, ignore the subject.



You and I both lack a belief, you and I are both atheists. You seem to be under the false impression that atheism somehow has to do with disproving a deity exists.

Sorry, but do not claim to know me, that's rude.



Except that this is a binary situation. I am currently not fishing. At any point in time when I am not actively engaging in fishing, I am not fishing.

I'm talking about a mental process, not an action. If I ask you: are you gay? you know that even if you are not, there is something no matter how little that will keep you answer somewhere in a grey area wehter it is 99.9999999% grey or 0.0000001% grey



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I already addressed this. You are using a computer. That very fact alone should explain to you why you should take the scientific method (which is the only method for tackling questions of reality that has produced results) as a means to tackle questions of reality.

Now, you brought up an incredibly complex question in physics that is currently being tackled by the scientific method, it hasn't been cracked, but there is no alternative method to tackle those sorts of questions that actually bothers to come up with a useful result.

Science works. Scientific thinking works. Sure, in your day-to-day life scientific thinking might not be anywhere near as effective as it would be in proper experimental settings, but nobody has the liberty to set up all the controls and proper number of data sets in real life...but thinking in terms of a general scientific understanding, a general form of critical thinking, is the most useful way to get through life.

And by choosing to not label yourself as an atheist you are merely cow-towing to those who would marginalize others. You are an atheist, embrace it. I'd also like to point out that I can't think of a single gnostic atheist. One. Not a single one. Sure, the cultural perspective has been corrupted by bigotry against atheists, but that should be no excuse to not stand up and be counted as what you are.


I'm not cow-towing to anyone, I don't label myself. I am.

I'm trying to understand i just don't. Science made my computer. Cool.. Science works. Yup.. scientific thinking works.. Sure.. Scientific method is required for me to validate my spiritual experiences.. Huh?

I'm having a hard time following the logic there.

Magnetism is a complex question that science cannot yet explain. How much more complex do you think the nature of god is vs magnetism? How about infinitely more complex. Which is why I'd never say anyone else's beliefs are wrong. Because how would I know? I can disagree of course but I'll never know.

For an agnostic atheist you certainly don't act like one. If an omnipotent God tried to hide from you would you be able to find it? If you answer anything but no you are not using logic, if you answer yes then how can you be sure anyone else is wrong?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





If you don't believe in any deity, even if you are still undecided and deliberating, you are an atheist. Those who lack any active belief in any deity are atheists.


Really Madness does your arrogance have any limits on this topic?
Now you want to speak for other peoples personal opinions based on your personal perspective.
I think enough posters have come into this thread to set you straight, yet you stubbornly and dogmatically continue to cling to your stated position. A position that is totally your own personal opinion on other peoples perspectives. So you arrogantly think you know how all agnostics think and feel.
This thread is just digging your unreasonable reputation even deeper, as some other posters have alluded too.

Keep digging buddy.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Mate, it is very simple. Yoiu can tell me I am wrong all you like, but that will not make me or anyone else wrong. I know you will stick dogedy to your point, fair enough, you go for it.

You say I have not offered a counter argument., I think I have, but I will summarise:

There are 3 possible possions, not 2. Just because I do not beleive in a god does not make me an athiest. This has been explained to you by so many on this thread but you tell everyone who subscribes to this point of view that they are wrong. Just that, wrong, end of story. You, however, are right in your novel new way of interpreting things. Lucky you! :O)

An athiest does not beleive in spirits, magic, divination, holistic healing, clairvoyance etc. An agnostic might.

You seem to be coming closer to the truth though, Terms like Agnostic Athiest.... Ummm are you starting to see that your initial premise was wrong but feeling too proud to make a climb down? Sounds like you might be.

See, if we could agree the following sematic translations, I think you and I would agree wholeheartedly on this topic:

You Say....................I Say

Athiest....................Athiest
Agnostic Athiest.........Agnostic
Theist......................Nutter

Seem reasonable?
See much diference between us?

I would add that these are only labels, however it is important we are able to label ourselves as we feel comfortable. I would call myself a spiritual agnostic - I think most people would understand this, even if it does not fit into your very strict defanitions. This is why I don't like strict definitions - they are restrictive.

Open your mind and accept that there are traditional meanings behind these words which no amount of arguing on here will ever change. Be humble enough to look at those old defanitions and say "you know what - that is reasonable" and perhaps start to use the language the same as everyone else. This would serve you well. These meanings have been arround a lot longer than you or I have.

edit on 3-5-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)







 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join