Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fun-deez debunk anything they don't agree with. And "misrepresenting what you said". The same can be said for "dismissing out of hand notions we don't understand" or "because the facts are of no personal need to me."
In the face of such grotesque misrepresentations, response would seem pointless.
Both of you ignore the reason I give for the label because you refuse to accept that your labels are simply dismissive of what reality IS . . . because "We don't know." You consider the "We don't know" stance to be too expositive of the ignorance it embraces and don't want to be associated with it . . . even though it IS your position. Your position is weak but you pretend it is superior and the default. You cannot escape the truth that it is just the unknown with YOUR preferred labels on it . . . because you are adamant that it can NOT BE God.
Little of the above is true in even the smallest way. The fact is we do not know - and that is about all you got right here. But just because we do not know - this does not mean we need to make things up.
You fail to acknowledge even the most basic tenets of philosophy - such as the burden of proof. It is not for us to show it "can not be god". It is for you to show it is. But you can not - so you simply linguistically label it "god" just to get the word into use. And you spring board from that smuggling onto all kinds of nonsense claims you make up out of nowhere. Your position is weak but you pretend it is superior and the default. It is no such thing.
I have no issue at all with "we do not know" - certainly not to the extent you do - because I realise it is true and things being true never bother me. They are just true. And until we do know - I will continue to call out those who pretend they do.
Fun-deez debunk anything they don't agree with. And "misrepresenting what you said". The same can be said for "dismissing out of hand notions we don't understand" or "because the facts are of no personal need to me."
In the face of such grotesque misrepresentations, response would seem pointless.
yeah they do.
that's what I think when I see you say 'I have clearly debunked it". I always think no way he thinks that for real. Or your other half claims "yeah but pointless to me and my personal needs". Like these two claims dismiss all the data. I have to agree with mystic, sometimes I think it so crazy we must be in the matrix and something is yanking our chains.
But due to the nature of the internet and its ability to support any belief anybody has, it must be called out for what it is. Pitting one baseless belief system against another baseless belief system. basically funny fundies fighting each other with fairytales. Omni-dude VS spaghetti monster. The pathetic saga continues. people range from ape to awake and all points inbetween.
All I am going to state is that agnosticism isn't referencing towards a belief in a being, force, etc. or the lack of a belief in one. Agnosticism is more related towards the "unknown" portion of the spectrum (which in this case represents human knowledge).
Correct me if I am wrong, but gnostic tends to be placed before the word athiest as a synonym for convinced, aka "convinced athiests", whereas an "agnostic-athiest" is an athiest that leans more towards the idea of their being no "God", force, etc. that controls all, but these individuals aren't presumably completely (100%) closed to the idea that they may or may not be wrong. (In other words, skepticism).
As an theistic-agnostic, I personally believe that no one can answer whether or not their is an "after life" or anything that can't be experienced/observed. Like I stated in another thread, the scientific method cannot be applied to disproving an after life unless someone, somehow dies both physically and mentally, but they're revived and can recall what they "experienced" during death.
Secondly, relating to the start of my post, agnosticism is concentrated on what's "unknown" and is tied to skepticism. Sorry but trying to twist agnosticism to benefit an atheistic or theistic perspective is absurd. I personally believe (yes an opinion) that there is some form of a "God" but I don't limit myself to the athiestic perspective (generalizing) of that of the Christian faith or any Abraham-derived belief such as Judism, Islam, or Christianity. I would interpret a force as being a "God" I don't stay stuck solemnly to an individual who died for all humans as a form of saving us. If there is some formula (in general, I'm not going to specify) that can somehow explain how the universe came into existence, down to the littlest detail without any doubt, I consider that "God". I am also open to the idea that I may be wrong, if I am wrong, who cares? If I am right... who cares?
By the way, some individuals consider being awe in the complexity and vastness of the universe a form of sprituality, while others consider things that are known such as nature a "God" in itself. The problem that occurs is that many individuals when observing the word "God" they automatically jump to the notion of the "Christian God".
By the way; FSM, Unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. is categorized as being a logical fallacy also known as the "strawman" argument.
When someone is open to the idea that there may or may not be a higher being, force, etc. They are not taking sides, and trying to refute to inanimate objects or evolutionary complexeties isn't a reasonable way of debating the "unknown", I know this explanation in itself is a paradox because it's similar to that of asking "what came first, the (blank) or the (blank)".
There is an unlimited potential of knowledge just as there is of the unknown. (opinion)
Now, I will not respond to any comments, because I throughouly explained my perspective on the debate, whether or not you agree is your personal choice. If I made a mistake with the explanation of "agnosticism" please PM, thank you.
I personally believe that no one can answer whether or not their is an "after life" or anything that can't be experienced/observed. Like I stated in another thread, the scientific method cannot be applied to disproving an after life unless someone, somehow dies both physically and mentally, but they're revived and can recall what they "experienced" during death.
No, but that said we are also not so blind as to have to take a 50:50 position without any conclusion either. We may not understand human consciousness entirely but we are not completely ignorant either. We understand much. And at this time 100% of what we understand points to a link between human consciousness and the brain. While 0% of what we understand is even remotely suggestive of any possible disconnect between the two.
So we can apply the scientific method to some degree and reach a conclusion that everything we do know leaves us at a point where we should fully expect death to be the end and there to be nothing to expect after it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadSoul103
If there is some formula (in general, I'm not going to specify) that can somehow explain how the universe came into existence, down to the littlest detail without any doubt, I consider that "God".
Then you merely joint the ranks of new-agers, of which this forum already has many, who are simply arbitrarily making up their own definition for the word "god" and applying it to things we already have perfectly serviceable words for. It seems to me sometimes that a whole new form of religion is arising in our culture around a fetishism/worship of the WORD "god" rather than any actual "god".... and such people will go to just about any extremes in order to hold on to it's use. Usually by affording it definitions so labile and dilute as to render it meaningless. Alas, for me at least, a word that can apply to anything really does apply to nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadSoul103
The problem that occurs is that many individuals when observing the word "God" they automatically jump to the notion of the "Christian God".
There is a lot of metaphysical baggage associated with the word indeed, which forces me to question the utility of so desperately trying to cling on to it and apply it in unusual contexts and ways. Surely to do so will only open up a chasm of tautology yawning wide at your feet where rather than telling people what you do believe or think, you then spend inordinate amounts of lost time telling them what you DO NOT believe but they assume based on your use of that one word?
I spend enough time on this forum, without the use of labels and loaded words, pulling peoples words out of my mouth or correcting their misinterpretations (some willful, some genuine honest mistakes) of what I believe. I can only question the wisdom of bringing yet MORE of that on yourself by clinging uselessly and meaninglessly to a word that is going to stoke that fire massively.
And it is not just the "Christian god" either. When someone uses the word god the common assumption is you are talking about SOME kind of non-human intentional intelligent agency. Christian or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadSoul103
By the way; FSM, Unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. is categorized as being a logical fallacy also known as the "strawman" argument.
Not really. It depends on the context they are brought up in. The FSM for example, like Russels Teapot, was brought up to analogize the "You can not prove there is NO god" fallacy that theists trot out in order to shirk the burden of proof which lies at their feet because they can not aspire to addressing it. Highlighting that fallacy is genuinely useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadSoul103
Now, I will not respond to any comments, because I throughouly explained my perspective on the debate
Oh goodie Another chance to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forums" which states that "the probability of any given user responding to a thread increases in direct proportion to the number of they they have indicated they will not do so".
Not asking for a response as generally I have no problem with that, except that the logically correct belief position on what you don't know and have no persuasive and valid evidence for is not to believe it. That is being an atheist, in respect of any god -claims.
And Santa, leprechauns, is not a strawman argument. though what one means by 'Santa' or 'leprechauns' may have to be altered to fit what one means by "God".
Not asking for a response as generally I have no problem with that, except that the logically correct belief position on what you don't know and have no persuasive and valid evidence for is not to believe it. That is being an atheist, in respect of any god -claims.
And Santa, leprechauns, is not a strawman argument. though what one means by 'Santa' or 'leprechauns' may have to be altered to fit what one means by "God".
I have to answer, you know that, otherwise I can't change the foot in my mouth. You are right, and I think it's important to tag what we think with numbers. When the theist says "nobody knows" it is not 50/50 nobody knows. No data and little data aren't even close to each other. Like whats the percent increase from zero to 0.01 Cents?
Like with dark matter. It's not 50/50 between something and nothing. It's there, something is there. We just have no idea what it is. Where the number might be 50/50 is stating something like WIMP vs. gross underestimation of regular matter. But it is not 50/50 if we claim WIMPS vs. red dwarf's. Still it is not known but we can be reasoanable.
Then to push off red draft's as dark matter or you are hell bound is flat out insane to me. That's why I tire of fundies. You know I have to do both sides, Same goes for calling people delusional or mental when they claim something is there but they don't know what it is. I know you don't, but other sites aggressively attack anybody that suggest it. we have them here too, just in far smaller numbers due to good admins.
now they are real examples, santa vs omni dude are not real.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Omni-dude VS spaghetti monster. The pathetic saga continues. people range from ape to awake and all points inbetween.
