Agnosticism: The most logical choice

For the ones who think they are Atheist here, yet say they affirm their is no God until their is proof are not true Atheist.

Who died, leaving you, ClinTrojan, to be the one who dictates whether anyone else is a "true Atheist?"

I am just giving my unbiased opinion and beliefs of the language we use to classify belief.

Who's we?

Atheist, theist, and agnostic are mutually exclusive. "Agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" are oxymorons, for the same reason that "atheist theist" is an oxymoron.

If you want to apply some made-up term to yourself, then that's your business. You want to cook up some offensive and ill-informed name for my religion, then keep it to yourself.

Who the hell are you to call me a weak anything? Spare me the lecture about how weak is a technical term. No kidding. But the way you're using it isn't what the technical term means, and weak is never applied to a person, nor to a person's ideas and beliefs.

Weak is offensive. Denying someone's being true to their professed beliefs is offensive.

So, these usages are avoided. At least, they are avoided by everyone who knows what they are talking about.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Very nice, I think I also refuted john's post.

reply to post by eight bits


I disagree. I see it more as a spectrum and yes while I may agree that the two poles would lead to massive cognitive dissonence *atheist theist* I do think there is room within the term agnostic for those that are not 100% certain of the existance or lack of the existance of a "God" yet professes to believe one way or the other though not very "loudly".

Originally posted by eight bits

For the ones who think they are Atheist here, yet say they affirm their is no God until their is proof are not true Atheist.

Who died, leaving you, ClinTrojan, to be the one who dictates whether anyone else is a "true Atheist?"

I am just giving my unbiased opinion and beliefs of the language we use to classify belief.

Who's we?

Atheist, theist, and agnostic are mutually exclusive. "Agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" are oxymorons, for the same reason that "atheist theist" is an oxymoron.

If you want to apply some made-up term to yourself, then that's your business. You want to cook up some offensive and ill-informed name for my religion, then keep it to yourself.

Who the hell are you to call me a weak anything? Spare me the lecture about how weak is a technical term. No kidding. But the way you're using it isn't what the technical term means, and weak is never applied to a person, nor to a person's ideas and beliefs.

Weak is offensive. Denying someone's being true to their professed beliefs is offensive.

So, these usages are avoided. At least, they are avoided by everyone who knows what they are talking about.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by eight bits]

My post about Atheism/Agnostic was to at least one who were classifying themselves as Atheist but yet show they do hold possibility there is a God, just that they don't believe because lack of proof.

I am not pulling the subcategories of Agnosticism out of my rear, it is actual terms related to what different Agnostics hold to be the case.

Just as there are Strong Determinist like Spinoza who believes God determines all that happens even to individual wills, there are also Weak Determinist who believe God determines what happens universally but an individual has free will as long as it coincides with the will of the universal.

Same goes for saying Weak/Strong Agnostics, weak believe we could possibly have knowledge of God eventually but currently don't have the technology while strong believe this knowledge is impossible to acquire. Weak isn't meant as a derogatory term.

I don't think you are really willing to classify together without questions those Agnostics who believe that God could be possible, but cannot know with certainty and those who believe that God never existed, but also cannot know with certainty.

They are not theist/atheist because those beliefs hold their convictions with a level of certainty, which Agnostics do not.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by ClinTrojan]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


you cannot decide by yourself now what agnostic is just to suit any means to appear less religious then before

go create another term, like the past christians or whatever titles that would refer better to your new existence justification base

agnostic is the opposite of gnosticism which then mean the opposite to spiritual determinism
so it means free spirituality, then it cant mean skpticism about god existence, it is true freedom spirtuality, like atheism is true freedom physicality

you must understand how your humility is always false because your base is always one and one as the creator of all reference to yourself mind is a sense of superiority that leave no room to truth certainty objective facts livings

reply to post by imans


And you sir are talking out of your nether regions.

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

Merriam Webster

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


yes but then get to the conclusion, what is meaning the universe not being one knowable life is meaning himself life freedom from the universe wholeness one

like atheists as an abstract definition, mean not following god conditions to themselves existence, as the creator of their physical existing terms
and this lead them to their own definition of bodies life means

the dictionnary gives you the abstract definition source of living term, because there is no synonym otherwise it would tell you what it is exactly as real
you cannot take that definition from obvious opposition as a fact of agnostic reality

reply to post by imans

maybe from what you fear being sinner yourself if you act freely,

Just to make myself clear. I'm fully aware of being a sinner.
My point was.
1. An Atheist is wrong for denying the unknown.
2. A theist is always right because faith is real you can not deny faith, you can only loose it.

The only logical step is agnosticism. Unless you are without doubts believer you will be agnostic every once in a while. Or stupid for thinking you know something you actually don't.

Watcher

I do think there is room within the term agnostic for those that are not 100% certain of the existance or lack of the existance of a "God" yet professes to believe one way or the other though not very "loudly".

Of course. And if such a person wants to describe themselves as an agnostic, then that's fine.

If they want to call themselves weak, or theist, or whatever, then that's fine, too.

But, when you talk about my religion, the name of my religion is agnostic. Not weak anything, not theist anything, not atheist anything.

And if this person who's leaning, let's say leaning against, prefers to describe themselves as atheist, say no more, then they get to do so without some pseudonymous web sniper blowing that they are not a "true" atheist.

ClinTrojan

They are not theist/atheist because those beliefs hold their convictions with a level of certainty, which Agnostics do not.

They don't need your permission, Your Excellency.

Mother Theresa doubted. If Mother Theresa wasn't a theist, then the word has no meaning.

reply to post by eight bits


When exactly did I say that they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves what they want?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Ok...so we aren't dealing with true formal logic...which is usually the case when atheists and agnostics start talking. They use this fake "logic" that has nothing to do with real formal logic. And if I asked you to demonstrate true formal logic...you would tell me that you are using "different" logic. Believe me...been there...done that.

I'll leave you kids to fight among yourselves.

And if you really wanted to show I was wrong, like you said I was, you would do more than reply with definitions. BTW...that makes you look like an idiot who is attempting to be an elitist and you keep doing it...and it is only making you look foolish.

And a logical inference in true formal logic isn't a reasonable educated guess like you are suggesting. Educate yourself if you want to discuss a subject.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by imans

 

1. An Atheist is wrong for denying the unknown.
2. A theist is always right because faith is real you can not deny faith, you can only loose it.

i see your point, but mine is different i really think objectively which you dont, you think for your beliefs maybe because you are not sure
so at least you have to stand to compensate the lackness of certainty to your beliefs

an atheist is wrong for denying the unknown when the unknown is right

but an atheist is also always right for being the direct source of himself positive state, for knowing himself he is then acting as awareness right existence

and that is how he is through that absolute right he would admit the unknown through his knowledge reality share with its rights

theist is always right to you because that intimate relation of your positive self drive towards your creator is very strong present in you as aware of yourself

but to me theist is always wrong because that identification of positive drive as meaning someone or one whatever is not then real as true positive certain living move
you should be aware of what you are positive about truth certainty linear life, as slight true awareness drive like ready yourself if you have a brain to act for objective positive absolute reality as a living awareness certain fact

sorry, but it is too easy to be positive for someone having so much powers even on yourself it cant mean being positive about anything when powers are what determin a positive field

the point of truth is that truth dont generate energies, it is always true facts realities that is why it is absolutely and the moves are seen

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


but i really dont mean offense, i respect you and your faith it is your positive existence, and to me you are what is speaking with me i cant see outside of that any other person existing

but my point was to make you realize how you should just accept others existence too as you, deal with them from their realities acts with you

i dont agree with christianity preaching hells to everyone for lacking faith, here where i take my right to contradict you as you are then meaning to put us a lot of people under your shoes while thinking that you are the only heads rights life

you say god i say truth, but logically it is the same objective perspective result

you know that god do everything like i know that truth do everything, so why not focusing on yourself as positive aware and keep the rest for your god

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

Ok...so we aren't dealing with true formal logic...

...i'd say thats a fair bet, although i'm no expert and had no formal schooling in the art of debate or philosophy...

...i've been on lots of web boards in the past 15 years or so and one thing i found the most prevalent is that people who pride themselves on using formal debate terms of etiquette rarely apply those terms to themselves or their buddies... funny, huh?...

...i think the most often used and misused is the infamous ad hominem attack thangy... it hasnt been copied&pasted by the author of the op yet but, imo, it should have been tonight if for no other reason than to continue the facade...

...so, since i saw several infractions (by the same person) let's rockNroll and hoocheecoo...

Originally posted by ClinTrojan
For the ones who think they are Atheist here, yet say they affirm their is no God until their is proof are not true Atheist. Sorry but if you believe their COULD be proof of God than you do not believe with certainty that there is no God.

...dyslexia type of malfunction often, dear?...

Originally posted by ClinTrojan
I will not be replying to posts which show little attempt at logic or reason and makes the basis of their claims by the lack of understanding in which they speak.

...it might be a fair conclusion that those who cant make a clear determination of when to use "their" and when to use "there" also have faulty logic...

Originally posted by ClinTrojan
I do not mind being wrong or having errors in understanding,

...thats nice and i hope its true...

Originally posted by ClinTrojan
Also, is English your secondary language?

...i am SO disappointed...

Originally posted by ClinTrojan
As to your post being clear to you, I think you should carefully read your posts or put a little more effort into them because they aren't as clear to those outside of your own existence

...tsk, tsk, tsk...

Originally posted by ClinTrojan
Please make no response to my post as it is clear that you must have some mental defect and/or don't care about presenting yourself in an intelligent matter.
When you learn how to form sentences

..."people that live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones"...

Originally posted by imans
you say god i say truth, but logically it is the same objective perspective result

After reading your replies I'll have to say, you totaly misunderstood me.
I'm not telling you or anyone else what to think or believe. I can not call myself Christian. I don't fit in.
I'm certainly not claiming my believes to be superior or better or higher then the believes of others.

I was trying to point to a situation where as well an atheist and a theist are both wrong but because of it their also both right.

I'm not pretending I know the answer I'm just creating an extra view.

PostReply

To all !
Did my posts made anyone else believe I was giving a statement instead of an opinion ?
Please back me up, or kick me down.( Don't worry I can handle it.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
To all !
Did my posts made anyone else believe I was giving a statement instead of an opinion ?

Please back me up, or kick me down.( Don't worry I can handle it.

...well, yeah, since you asked, it read more like a statement of fact than a personal opinion - but - i knew you werent stating facts and, besides, i've been guilty of that myself... so, no biggie... its just a message board, eh?...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
To all !
Did my posts made anyone else believe I was giving a statement instead of an opinion ?

Please back me up, or kick me down.( Don't worry I can handle it.

...well, yeah, since you asked, it read more like a statement of fact than a personal opinion - but - i knew you werent stating facts and, besides, i've been guilty of that myself... so, no biggie... its just a message board, eh?...

Thanks.

I'll try to avoid it then. I know for a fact almost all my opinions are probably further from the truth then I think they are. Or not, of course.

Post Reply

Do I read deliberate insulting taking place ? People get banned for that you know.


Grow up !

So to me it seems everyone on here is debating semantics.

Are you really an atheist or an agnostic or a gazeiozbewhohoi if you firmly deny the existence of God or just don't know but have an open mind?

And should that be the end goal of this discussion....to define the terms?

Perhaps I'm missing something. But these....words.....agnostic, theist, atheist....are just how you define yourself now. Right? And if you are agnostic, should you be content with that, or should you keep searching?

Its a personal decision, of course, and one a person should not try to dictate to others.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Right.... And the splitting of hairs continues. You placed your linch pin for refuting the argument presented in a semantic argument because you interpreted a certain sentence a certain way. I responded in kind helping you by defining the words you were splitting hairs over. So sorry the format of my answer assumed you could get the gist. Which most likely there was no answer that I could give that would have sufficed. You cannot attack the logic so you superficially snipe it in a emotional bid to pretend it's wrong. Topped off with a self-righteous cowardly retreat rhetoric line too.

The amount of attempted dodges is hillarious. Can't tell me why they are committing argument from ignorance fallacy so they attempt to dodge and call it refuted.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]