Confessions of an Atheist

reply to post by JayinAR


Agnostic and atheist aren't the same thing. Though there is a basis in that neither holds the possibility at unquestionably yes. Look at it this way, Yes= Theist, Maybe= Agnostic, No= Atheist and the rest is just a lean in one direction or another. And the definitions of the words involved reflect that.
The only reason I argue is because certain intellectually dishonest individuals that are trying to push their particular belief set on everyone else are dualisticly assume the middle ground as if they had any right to it. And even then it's only so they can "sound right".

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Well then how could you make a statement saying, and I quote...

Sounds more like your agnostic

You are strange Watcher.

I am not sure if you just like to argue for the sake of argument or really build up grudges against people and argue against what those people say no matter what it is that they say.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Actually, gnosticism, or the lack thereof, is a claim that it is either possible or IMpossible to KNOW whether god exists or not.

It doesn't make mention of your belief, or lack thereof, in said God.

For instance, I can be an atheist and an agnostic by saying "I do not believe God exists yet even if he did it would be impossible for us to know it. Therefore, I am also an agnostic."

People always talk in circles in this debate. As I have just done.

In the end, it doesn't matter.

Live a good life and don't rain on anyone else's parade and you'll be okay.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Was wondering when you'd start ad homing it again with the "your just out to get me/atheists/whatever" crap again. That statement was based off your statement at the time. Though you have reversed that in later statements.

How sadly predictable.

reply to post by JayinAR


Personal definitions are well and good but do try to pay attention:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly :

one who is not committed to

believing in either the

existence or the nonexistence

of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

I made the key phrase that refutes your claim an atheist can be agnostic big to catch your attention.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Thanks for illustrating my point.

Agnosticism is the 'belief' that absolute knowledge (on any topic but in this context as it applies to the existence of a supreme diety) is unattainable.

Therefore, I can believe that god exists and still be agnostic believing that we will never know for certain.
Perhaps it is you that needs to pay attention. The crux of the issue is belief vs. knowledge.

I can state that I believe something is true yet acknowledge that we will never know for certain, can't I?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ;"

Is it too hard to understand that the difference here is between belief and knowledge? Atheism, or theism for that matter, is a belief. As is agnosticism. It is entirely possible to hold both beliefs as they DO NOT contradict each other. I can believe god exists and also believe that I will never KNOW that for certain. "A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown." Doesn't mean I can't believe he exists or not.

It's not rocket surgery.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by JayinAR]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by JayinAR]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


It took some time but I finally read what you typed. People who do not believe in an afterlife will exist in a "Black Box". I finally see where you stand.

You attack those that disagree with your belief in an afterlife. Plain and Simple.

No effort to explain WHY you believe in your "Black Box" theory simply attacking those who do not believe in it is good enough for you.

Watcher I am disappoint.

reply to post by JayinAR


Can you really be that dense? From the definition:

one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

The rest ties into this.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Firstly, you are disappoint? LoL! Secondly, I do not attack anyone. I believe what you believe you will get is what you will get. So thusly those that believe strongly that only oblivion awaits us after death will get just that. Thus my statement.

Gnosticism is a term derived from the Greek "gnosis" which literally means knowledge - period.

Theism is a doctrine for a BELIEF in God.

This should be enough to see that they deal with two entirely separate issues, as belief in God is wholly separate from the issue of absolute knowledge about God or anything else for that matter.

And yeah, you can find 1,000 definitions for most terms on the net. I find it easier to look at the root of the word.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


If you don't attack people who disagree with you why the condescending remarks on my "density?"

From my standpoint, agnosticism is the only honest approach to this subject. However, lately I have changed from an atheistic agnostic to a theistic agnostic.

I don't hold a grudge against anyone who sees it differently though. Each has their own path to walk.

The man has emerged from a dark dungeon called religion. Let him be.

reply to post by JayinAR


Because you blantently left parts out. I assumed you weren't being wantonly intellectually dishonest so I assumed you missed it in a hurry to say that I proved your point when I did nothing of the sort. Thusly dense.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Intellectually dishonest?




You're a lost cause. Try some comprehension next time you read someone's posts.

reply to post by Phlegmi


You know nothing of me so kindly don't assume you do please.

reply to post by JayinAR


Well, you blantantly missed a part. Either way. Good day.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Hey Watcher no offense meant I apologize if I misread you.

I was hoping that you could give me some details about the "Black Box" theory.

How and Why you came to the conclusion of the "Black Box" theory would help me understand where you are coming from better.

Also if you could present some evidence to go along with the "Black Box" theory would be greatly appreciated. I have never heard of it and am curious.

Originally posted by Gigatronix



I have found my own answer to life, and it doesn't include any trans-dimensional, mind reading, world destroyers.

Sir, your words of who you think God is are not in any way Biblical...so the God you have rejected OT rejects...

Maybe this will help your research...search...

Sermons of the Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, of London By Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Elias Lyman Magoon

Link: books.google.com... Q&hl=en&ei=sYBiSvSVGMSktgedu6nuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10

All the best

OT

Read thispost by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Please note also that the locking one's self into a small black box called oblivion for eternity is simply a turn of phrase I use. The meaning is quite simple, if someone believes there is nothing but oblivion waiting for them beyond death that is what they will get. Which is very sad in my opinion but there is really nothing I can do *or should really* because you can't really save someone from themself.

I love when people cherry pick my statements.... *sigh* If you had read perhaps a little farther you would have read the above and thusly not engaged in this silly ad hom.