Atheism & Religious Beliefs

[mjw47]

Mjw47, would you mind giving a serious answer to the question in post#104 ?

 

Actually RootsBooster do you know what? I don't think I'll bother. We've both had a bit of fun on this thread but it's getting somewhat tiresome. Should I indulge you by replying to that, no doubt you'll come up with another hoop for me to jump through.

My position with regard to Atheism & Religious Beliefs was made crystal clear with my first post.

That some posters chose to argue with a relatively simple concept, in order to have an argument about it, was fine by me & I encouraged it by joining in.

Well it's been fairly enjoyable but is now becoming old.

 

The thing is, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, as an agnostic, discussions about religion, or indeed the lack of it, have a very limited appeal.

 

There have even been posters on here trying to encourage me to take advantage of other posters ' considerable knowledge & erudition' apparently blissfully unaware that the very last person interested in that would be an agnostic.

An Atheist may well be interested as they would probably wish to argue & try to prove a point.

A Theist would probably also be interested in order to increase their knowledge.

An agnostic however, would simply have no interest, we believe no one can know whether or not God exists therefore making discussion of the subject completely otiose.

 

Now the fact that people can not grasp a simple concept like that & continue to argue the toss is making me lose interest in the topic.

 

I think someone else has asked me a question so I'll have a look at that & see whether it's worth replying to then have a look back to see if you need a response other than that, it's a lovely evening so I'm going for a wander around the garden.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 20:12 ----------

 

By the way did you ever get back to me regarding how you were born agnostic?

 

Or any of the other multitude of things I pointed out to you (like your poor use of definitions that you insisted were correct before miraculously ignoring after my post correcting you using the, erm dictionary and the fact you claimed the religious had to believe in God before doing a U-turn on it).

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 18:16 ----------

 

Btw, sorry if I've missed anyones postes addressed to me the thread has gotten quite big and I confess to only skimming the last bit so if I've missed anything feel free to point it out to me.

 

You do understand the use of common expressions which are not actually meant to be taken absolutely literally as in' I was born a Blade' don't you?

Or is this part of your usual technique of using every single opportunity to argue about everything?

If you recall I did refer back to the Buddhist religion & had no problem admitting that I knew little about the religion. Unlike some people I do not claim to know everything about everything, in fact the breadth of my ignorance is quite impressive. And as an agnostic, religion is a subject which is seldom given any consideration.

 

As for when I became agnostic, it was actually very early in my schooling.

Raised a Catholic, I always had problems accepting the logic of what was being taught to me. Stayed with the Church until my very late teens but then made a clear decision to leave as opposed to just drifting away.

 

Now, I have told you, in my first post, exactly what my views are. What are yours?

I have no interest in arguing with you whatever they may be, that would be inconsistent with being an agnostic wouldn't it

 

just curious.

[mikem8634]

My position with regard to Atheism & Religious Beliefs was made crystal clear with my first post.

That some posters chose to argue with a relatively simple concept, in order to have an argument about it, was fine by me & I encouraged it by joining in.

Well it's been fairly enjoyable but is now becoming old.

 

And your use of definitions is as inaccurate now as it was then.

 

 

There have even been posters on here trying to encourage me to take advantage of other posters ' considerable knowledge & erudition' apparently blissfully unaware that the very last person interested in that would be an agnostic.

An Atheist may well be interested as they would probably wish to argue & try to prove a point.

A Theist would probably also be interested in order to increase their knowledge.

An agnostic however, would simply have no interest, we believe no one can know whether or not God exists therefore making discussion of the subject completely otiose.

 

Now the fact that people can not grasp a simple concept like that & continue to argue the toss is making me lose interest in the topic.

 

Why on earth do you assume that all agnostics (your term) are as happy in ignorance as you are? Do you have any evidence to substantiate the assertion that those who you deem to be agnostic are not interested in the definitions of theological belief?

 

You see, nobody is trying to teach you anything about the existence or nature of god or of belief. That is the huge fundamental point you have been unable to grasp all along. The definitions you have poured so much scorn on are a philosophical method of understanding and defining ourselves. Therefore, whether you are an agnostic (your term) or not is irrelevant to the value of the definitions involved and is as equally otiose as claiming you have no interest in the the definitions of positions on a football pitch because you are agnostic. It is perfectly plausible to be agnostic (your term) and to have an interest in how others position themselves in relation to god and belief and in how cutting edge thinking on the subject has evolved.

 

Finally, in light of the scorn you have poured all over this thread because people have attempted to introduce you to a more nuanced undertanding of terms such as theist, atheist, gnostic and agnostic, do you also hold the vast raft of academics and philosophers who also trade in these terms in equal contempt and if so why?

[mjw47]

And your use of definitions is as inaccurate now as it was then.

 

 

 

 

Why on earth do you assume that all agnostics (your term) are as happy in ignorance as you are? Do you have any evidence to substantiate the assertion that those who you deem to be agnostic are not interested in the definitions of theological belief?

 

You see, nobody is trying to teach you anything about the existence or nature of god or of belief. That is the huge fundamental point you have been unable to grasp all along. The definitions you have poured so much scorn on are a philosophical method of understanding and defining ourselves. Therefore, whether you are an agnostic (your term) or not is irrelevant to the value of the definitions involved and is as equally otiose as claiming you have no interest in the the definitions of positions on a football pitch because you are agnostic. It is perfectly plausible to be agnostic (your term) and to have an interest in how others position themselves in relation to god and belief and in how cutting edge thinking on the subject has evolved.

 

Finally, in light of the scorn you have poured all over this thread because people have attempted to introduce you to a more nuanced undertanding of terms such as theist, atheist, gnostic and agnostic, do you also hold the vast raft of academics and philosophers who also trade in these terms in equal contempt and if so why?

 

If nobody is trying to teach me anything why was I advised to 'take advantage of other posters considerable knowledge & erudition' ? Because to me that sounds very much like someone wanting to teach me something.

As to an agnostic wanting to learn about Atheism or Theism, fine, then that person is obviously no longer agnostic as they are leaning toward one or other belief.

An agnostic does not believe it is possible to learn the truth as to the existence or non existence of God. Therefore why would any true agnostic waste their time looking for something they believe doesn't exist?

 

As to pouring scorn & holding people in contempt you really need to calm down & stop taking everything, including yourself, so seriously.

 

You are coming across here as though you are foaming at the mouth. It really doesn't matter that much you know.

[mikem8634]

If nobody is trying to teach me anything why was I advised to 'take advantage of other posters considerable knowledge & erudition' ? Because to me that sounds very much like someone wanting to teach me something.

 

Have you deliberately chosen to misrepresent what I said? If so, that would qualify as a strawman. I didn't say that nobody was trying to teach you anything, as you well know. I said -

nobody is trying to teach you anything about the existence or nature of god or of belief

I then went on to be very specific about what they are trying to teach you. They are trying to teach you about the definitions used to describe the various nuanced positions people have in relation to god, knowledge and belief.

 

As to an agnostic wanting to learn about Atheism or Theism, fine, then that person is obviously no longer agnostic as they are leaning toward one or other belief.

An agnostic does not believe it is possible to learn the truth as to the existence or non existence of God. Therefore why would any true agnostic waste their time looking for something they believe doesn't exist?

 

No they are not. Wrong again. You can be interested in Nazism and not be a Nazi - obvious really, so much so that it really shouldn't require pointing out. I think it is fair to say that Dawkins and Hitchens are/were interested in religion without leaning towards being religious in any way.

 

 

As to pouring scorn & holding people in contempt you really need to calm down & stop taking everything, including yourself, so seriously.

 

You are coming across here as though you are foaming at the mouth. It really doesn't matter that much you know.

 

I can assure you that what I choose to take seriously or not is entirely my business and about as relevant as suggesting that you should take debate more seriously. Furthermore, foaming at the mouth (as you so predictably put it) is just not part of my character I'm afraid. Not that my character has anything to do with the debate. Your refenerce to it is just another example of you resorting to ad hominem attacks (as I have previously pointed out at length) in order to avoid dealing with the subject matter and your limited appreciation of it.

[mort]

Closed for review