Fed up of non believers

[Cyclone]

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).

 

I still don't see the logic that allows you to say "I don't believe X exists", but then claim, "ah, but I don't believe that x doesn't exist", the lack of belief in existence is belief in not existence.

[mjw47]

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.

 

Well I'm still having a laugh with people who are apparently unable to work out that someones personal thoughts and beliefs are exactly that, their thoughts and beliefs.

 

Their obsessive need to fit someone into their own particular narrow mindset is both amusing and oddly endearing.

 

Me being a leftie? That's good, from where did you dream that one up? I'm a capitalist and always was. In management for years, had to deal with unions, lazy bunch of self indulgent gits out for themselves as opposed to their members.

No problem with employees who worked for the company however, 98% decent hard working people.

 

Sorry Tony Benn has died, but he had a decent innings and was as daft as a brush with his views, harmless enough though.

 

Getting a little bored on here now, so be with you shortly.

[Ryedo40]

Well I'm still having a laugh with people who are apparently unable to work out that someones personal thoughts and beliefs are exactly that, their thoughts and beliefs.

 

Their obsessive need to fit someone into their own particular narrow mindset is both amusing and oddly endearing.

 

I had the same impression from you mate. It's no wonder the discussion went on so long.

[mjw47]

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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:

 

 

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

 

Are you saying that it is not possible to hold an agnostic view on it's own?

 

Are you claiming that another term has to be added to make the word acceptable to you?

 

Not according to my 'professor mate', Huxley wasn't a professor, he was a biologist and supporter of Darwin.

 

The professor to whom I referred who clarified the word by simplifying the definition is still alive to the best of my knowledge, he's 82.

 

It isn't just them who thought that way either is it?

 

The word is contained in every English dictionary, in isolation, with a separate definition, and in not one instance to my knowledge is there an instruction to the effect;

 

'This word may not be used on it's own as a description of belief, it must always be accompanied by a further defining word in order to satisfy some weirdo's who lack the imagination to accept that some people hold their own views.'

 

I don't wish, you have been told on more than one occasion what my view is, and the fact that you are still questioning it is a testament to both your lack of comprehension and manners.

 

One more time, for the hard of understanding. I neither believe nor disbelieve that God exists.

 

How do you manage to interpret that as 'You don't believe that God exists' ?

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 11:21 ----------

 

I had the same impression from you mate. It's no wonder the discussion went on so long.

 

Really? How did you manage that then?

 

As I'm not the one telling someone who has made a statement as to their beliefs that they are wrong, I find your view strange to say the least.

 

This whole argument is down to the fact that I claim to be an agnostic without further definition, which numerous posters have refused to accept.

 

Any adverse comments made by me toward other posters have been in defence of that claim.

 

If they choose to argue as to what another person feels, and have the unmitigated arrogance to think that they know better, then they get what they get.

[ivanava]

Well I'm still having a laugh with people who are apparently unable to work out that someones personal thoughts and beliefs are exactly that, their thoughts and beliefs.

 

 

No one as said otherwise, but once you shared your beliefs and thoughts with the world it became apparent that you are an atheist. That means you have no belief in God's existence, you are also an agnostic because you have the belief nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

[Ryedo40]

As I'm not the one telling someone who has made a statement as to their beliefs that they are wrong, I find your view strange to say the least.

 

And

 

Well I'm still having a laugh with people who are apparently unable to work out that someones personal thoughts and beliefs are exactly that, their thoughts and beliefs.

 

Their obsessive need to fit someone into their own particular narrow mindset is both amusing and oddly endearing.

 

Maybe you should re-read all your own posts mate. On numerous occasions, because of your narrow mindset, you've told atheists what they believe and what they are. You've been corrected on that numerous times too - but you refuse to take any of it on-board.

 

You're doing exactly the same of what you are accusing everyone else of - only you've been doing it from the start.

 

This whole argument is down to the fact that I claim to be an agnostic without further definition, which numerous posters have refused to accept.

 

I accept you claim to be agnostic without further definition. I just don't see how it's possible. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

As professor Robert Flint said back in 1888, and I'm paraphrasing, "it's erroneous to separate agnosticism & atheism as if the one were exclusive of the other."

 

Thought you may enjoy that being as you are so fond of appealing to "authority".

[mjw47]

No one as said otherwise, but once you shared your beliefs and thoughts with the world it became apparent that you are an atheist. That means you have no belief in God's existence, you are also an agnostic because you have the belief nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

I have shared my thoughts in order to state unequivocally that my belief is in direct agreement with the definition of agnostic as described by the inventor of the word, and also that of a highly qualified person who specializes in the subject in question.

 

The second person that I agree with in his definition happens to be an atheist, so how you lot can keep arguing the toss is beyond me.

 

Except of course, it isn't beyond me.

 

A number of you are so full of your own self imagined self importance and certainty that you actually believe you know better than everyone else, no matter their obvious superiority in both intelligence and experience to you.

 

Only a truly stupid and pig headed person could even begin to attempt this.

 

Nice to know you.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 15:39 ----------

 

And

 

 

 

Maybe you should re-read all your own posts mate. On numerous occasions, because of your narrow mindset, you've told atheists what they believe and what they are. You've been corrected on that numerous times too - but you refuse to take any of it on-board.

 

You're doing exactly the same of what you are accusing everyone else of - only you've been doing it from the start.

 

 

 

I accept you claim to be agnostic without further definition. I just don't see how it's possible. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

As professor Robert Flint said back in 1888, and I'm paraphrasing, "it's erroneous to separate agnosticism & atheism as if the one were exclusive of the other."

 

Thought you may enjoy that being as you are so fond of appealing to "authority".

 

Firstly you appear somewhat confused.

 

Saying that some posters have an ' Obsessive need to fit someone into their narrow mindset' is not telling them what to think is it?

 

It's an observation based upon their constant refusal to accept what has been explained to them again and again.

 

As for my telling atheists what they think, If I recall correctly,( and I have no intention of going back over the thread ) it was to do with pointing out that the OED definition of atheism is 'The belief that God does not exist.' As opposed to their ' absence of belief' fine distinction.

 

As the OED definition of absence is ' The non-existence or lack of' I thought that they were splitting hairs in a somewhat daft fashion.

 

Had everyone else said as you just have, that they accept my claim to be agnostic then there would be no disagreement, and think of the fun we'd have missed out on.

 

As for Professor Robert Flint you're having a laugh.

 

Never heard of him so looked him up. Compare and contrast the amount of detail given to the two 'authorities' I quoted to the amount devoted to him.

 

They've both got page fulls, he's got a paragraph.

[ivanava]

I have shared my thoughts in order to state unequivocally that my belief is in direct agreement with the definition of agnostic as described by the inventor of the word, and also that of a highly qualified person who specializes in the subject in question.

 

The second person that I agree with in his definition happens to be an atheist, so how you lot can keep arguing the toss is beyond me.

 

 

Yes we fully understand that, the problem is that your beliefs or lack of them also falls within the definition of atheist, this word was invented by someone else and he definitely intended for you to fall within its definition. So you can deny you are an atheist until the cows come home but it won't change the fact that you are an atheist.

[Ryedo40]

Saying that some posters have an ' Obsessive need to fit someone into their narrow mindset' is not telling them what to think is it?

 

Maybe you have a short memory because you've done far more than that. You've also been telling people what they think - and that's quite different from telling people what to think.

[dosxuk]

I still don't see the logic that allows you to say "I don't believe X exists", but then claim, "ah, but I don't believe that x doesn't exist", the lack of belief in existence is belief in not existence.

 

It's not though.

 

I could say I ate nothing but a sack of ghost chillies yesterday - you have the option to believe that to be true, or not. Not believing it to be true doesn't automatically mean you have to believe I'm lying - if you're willing to accept that I did at the presentation of some evidence, then you clearly don't believe I am lying.