Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

[quote=Ryedo40;10385

 

I am agnostic atheist. However, your pure agnostic stance - with your indifference either way, fails. If you are indifferent, then you cannot hold a positive belief that God exists. You must have an absence of that belief(meaning you are atheist.)

 

 

My pure agnostic belief makes me an atheist?

 

My belief that I am an agnostic, and nothing else, is confirmed by the fact that my view is summed up perfectly by the man who invented the word when he defined it, and further reinforced by other definitions since then.

 

You haven't understood the meaning at all.

 

'If you are indifferent, then you cannot hold a positive belief that God exists.'

 

I don't, neither do I hold a positive belief that he doesn't exist and am indifferent to that theory also.

 

'An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and atheist believe and disbelieve respectively.'

 

How difficult is that to understand?

[ivanava]

My pure agnostic belief makes me an atheist?

 

My belief that I am an agnostic, and nothing else, is confirmed by the fact that my view is summed up perfectly by the man who invented the word when he defined it, and further reinforced by other definitions since then.

 

You haven't understood the meaning at all.

 

'If you are indifferent, then you cannot hold a positive belief that God exists.'

 

I don't, neither do I hold a positive belief that he doesn't exist and am indifferent to that theory also.

 

'An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and atheist believe and disbelieve respectively.'

 

How difficult is that to understand?

 

Did he also invent the word atheist, which means without God, if you are without God you are an atheist, if you are with God you are a theist. There isn't a middle position you are either with or without God.

 

Did he also invent the word disbelieve, inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. If you don't accept that God is real then you disbelieve and if you disbelieve you are an atheist.

Edited March 16, 2014 by ivanava

[mjw47]

I have no idea, why do you ask?

 

 

 

How do you know that no one knows?

 

 

You are either with God or without God, there isn't a middle position.

 

 

 

 

All of the above.

 

 

All of them.

 

God doesn't exist other than in the believers mind, have you decided if the non corporeal monkeyis possible yet.

 

You did, 'if they think it's possible to be something other than with or without God.'

No one said that, they said it is possible not to know whether or not God exists.

 

I know no one knows because there are enough fanatics on both sides of the argument that if someone did know they wouldn't keep it to themselves.

 

However if they did, effectively no one would know, would they?

 

There isn't a middle position? It isn't possible for anyone to admit that they simply don't know?

 

You of course know everything don't you?

 

Is there a single subject in the entire world that you would admit ignorance of?

If there isn't then we can confirm our suspicions as to your particular complex.

On the other hand, in the unlikely event that there is, why is it not possible to believe that other more modest and logical people accept that they do not know either way regarding Gods or lack thereof?

 

And you can provide some proof of these tests which have been successfully carried out, and have discredited all the major religions of the world thus causing mass defections to the atheist cause?

 

You do realise that if you come up with a stupid analogy designed purely to prove a point which in fact is unprovable, except in the weird recesses of what passes for your brain, it doesn't prove anything other than the lack of logic in your thinking?

[Ryedo40]

'If you are indifferent, then you cannot hold a positive belief that God exists.'

 

I don't, neither do I hold a positive belief that he doesn't exist and am indifferent to that theory also.

 

So you agree with me. If you don't hold the positive belief that God exists, you have an absence of that belief. And to add: having an absence of belief doesn't mean you assert, or hold the positive belief that a God doesn't exist.

 

You can have an absence of belief in the existence of God(making you an atheist) while maintaining you can't possibly know whether a God actually exists or not(Agnostic).

[mjw47]

Did he also invent the word atheist, which means without God, if you are without God you are an atheist, if you are with God you are a theist. There isn't a middle position you are either with or without God.

 

Did he also invent the word disbelieve, inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. If you don't accept that God is real then you disbelieve and if you disbelieve you are an atheist.

 

What the hell are you on about now?

 

No he didn't, what he did was realise that there was another view which was neither theist nor atheist, and he therefore gave it some thought and invented a word and definition to describe the position of many people he knew.

 

The man was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, an enthusiastic advocate of Darwin's theories to such an extent that he was nick named 'Darwin's Bulldog'.

 

Oh, and he himself was an atheist, although obviously one that actually thought about things, as opposed to believing he knew everything.

[ivanava]

You did, 'if they think it's possible to be something other than with or without God.'

No one said that, they said it is possible not to know whether or not God exists.

 

You said atheist means without God, I said you can only be with God or without God and that there is no middle ground, you have said you don't believe in God so you must be with out God and by your own words that would make you an atheist.

 

 

I know no one knows because there are enough fanatics on both sides of the argument that if someone did know they wouldn't keep it to themselves.

But they don't keep it to themselves, they spout about it all the time.

 

 

However if they did, effectively no one would know, would they?

No one would know what.

 

 

There isn't a middle position? It isn't possible for anyone to admit that they simply don't know?

Its not about knowing, its about believing and if you don't believe in God, you must disbelieve, which makes you an atheist.

 

You of course know everything don't you?

That would make me God and God doesn't exist, so either I don't exist or I don't know everything.

 

Is there a single subject in the entire world that you would admit ignorance of?

Yes.

 

If there isn't then we can confirm our suspicions as to your particular complex.

On the other hand, in the unlikely event that there is, why is it not possible to believe that other more modest and logical people accept that they do not know either way regarding Gods or lack thereof?

I do accept that you don't know either way, you are no different to billions of other people that don't know either way, and some of them are theists and some are atheists.

 

And you can provide some proof of these tests which have been successfully carried out, and have discredited all the major religions of the world thus causing mass defections to the atheist cause?

No, they are tests that I carried out and they prove God doesn't exist, it is simply not possible for it to exist.

 

 

You do realise that if you come up with a stupid analogy designed purely to prove a point which in fact is unprovable, except in the weird recesses of what passes for your brain, it doesn't prove anything other than the lack of logic in your thinking?

 

Have you come to a decision about the possibility of the non corporeal monkey yet, is it possible that we all have one?

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2014 at 22:16 ----------

 

What the hell are you on about now?

 

No he didn't, what he did was realise that there was another view which was neither theist nor atheist, and he therefore gave it some thought and invented a word and definition to describe the position of many people he knew.

 

The man was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, an enthusiastic advocate of Darwin's theories to such an extent that he was nick named 'Darwin's Bulldog'.

 

Oh, and he himself was an atheist, although obviously one that actually thought about things, as opposed to believing he knew everything.

 

So he invented a word to call himself, that's great, but it doesn't change the meaning of the other words so he and you are still atheists.

[mjw47]

So you agree with me. If you don't hold the positive belief that God exists, you have an absence of that belief. And to add: having an absence of belief doesn't mean you assert, or hold the positive belief that a God doesn't exist.

 

You can have an absence of belief in the existence of God(making you an atheist) while maintaining you can't possibly know whether a God actually exists or not(Agnostic).

 

Are you really so obtuse or are you simply having a laugh? For your sake I do hope it's the latter.

 

If someone holds a belief/disbelief in equal measure about two opposing opinions it means that they are neutral as to their view on that particular subject.

 

Understand?

 

I've noticed that you are trying to push the atheist angle, why?

 

Why haven't you tried to make out that I'm an agnostic theist?

After all I have stated that my view on both is equally balanced and therefore equally likely, or in actual fact unlikely.

 

Read my last response to ivanava, maybe you can then understand how agnostic is a stand alone, no further explanation required word.

[Ryedo40]

Why haven't you tried to make out that I'm an agnostic theist?

 

Because of your previous statements where you said you don't believe.

 

After all I have stated that my view on both is equally balanced and therefore equally likely, or in actual fact unlikely.

 

That's your view. Now do you hold the positive belief that God exists? If you don't, you are, by definition, an agnostic atheist.

[janie48]

Are you really so obtuse or are you simply having a laugh? For your sake I do hope it's the latter.

 

If someone holds a belief/disbelief in equal measure about two opposing opinions it means that they are neutral as to their view on that particular subject.

 

Understand?

 

I've noticed that you are trying to push the atheist angle, why?

 

Why haven't you tried to make out that I'm an agnostic theist?

After all I have stated that my view on both is equally balanced and therefore equally likely, or in actual fact unlikely.

 

Read my last response to ivanava, maybe you can then understand how agnostic is a stand alone, no further explanation required word.

Well I never, still stuck on here MJ.

I thought politics and history were your specialist subjects, You being a leftie I'm quite surprised not to see a further contribution from you on the Tony Benn thread.

[dosxuk]

If someone holds a belief/disbelief in equal measure about two opposing opinions it means that they are neutral as to their view on that particular subject.

 

Understand?

 

Except in this case, it's not two opposing opinions.

 

I've noticed that you are trying to push the atheist angle, why?

 

Why haven't you tried to make out that I'm an agnostic theist?

After all I have stated that my view on both is equally balanced and therefore equally likely, or in actual fact unlikely.

 

Because an agnostic theist would be someone who believed in God but was willing to accept the alternatives.

 

Read my last response to ivanava, maybe you can then understand how agnostic is a stand alone, no further explanation required word.

 

According to your professor mate, it is, but to everyone else 140 years after it was coined it means differently. It it was truly standalone, statements like "technology agnostic" would make no sense.

 

It's quite simple, you can write a truth table for it if you wish:

 

                    Believe that God exists
                  -------------+-------------
                       Yes     |      No
                  -------------+-------------
  Accepts  |     |  Agnostic   |   Agnostic
  that we  | Yes |   Theist    |   Atheist
   don't   +-----+-------------+--------------
    know   |  No |   Gnostic   |   Gnostic
 for sure  |     |   Theist    |   Atheist

 

If you, as you admit, don't believe that God exists, you are an atheist. Or, in your own words:

The word atheist itself refers to God in it's meaning, 'without God', which is a claim in itself - I am without a God - an atheist is claiming an absence of belief in a deity.

 

You are inferring that to mean a belief in the opposite, which is not required, by your own definition.