Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

I've hardly nit picked on anything here and I rarely declare myself an expert, unlike yourself who seems to be an expert on everything, and you have little modesty in saying so. This is odd because you have a great deal to be modest about I think.

 

As of tears, yes you did reduce me to tears of laughter so I'll have to dash those hopes of yours. Now lets move on before you embarrass yourself further shall we.

 

Just to be clear here, what precisely is it that I have claimed to be an expert on?

 

I have stated quite clearly in a previous post that my views on here are merely opinions.

 

The only thing that I have claimed to be true, is that I consider myself to be an agnostic.

 

Something that I believe I have a right to do without undue questioning by people who do not know me and therefore have no idea as to my beliefs, other than those which I have stated, and they have chosen to argue with me about.

 

Now the whole premise of agnosticism is that we neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God because there is no positive proof either way. We also believe that we - our species - will never get to know.

 

The first part of that is incontrovertibly true. We do not have any positive proof at this time.

 

The second part is where the 'belief' is involved. It is not impossible - however unlikely - that the truth will be revealed someday. We simply don't believe that that will happen.

 

Given that agnosticism is an acceptance of lack of knowledge please explain how I manage to be wrong?

 

Are you claiming that unbeknownst to me, I do know something as to the existence or none existence of God (s) ?

 

Glad you are amused I'm sure it was a pleasant change for you, and as I've been getting a lot of laughs from the thread it only seems fair.

[Obelix]

Just to be clear here, what precisely is it that I have claimed to be an expert on?

 

I have stated quite clearly in a previous post that my views on here are merely opinions.

 

The only thing that I have claimed to be true, is that I consider myself to be an agnostic.

 

Something that I believe I have a right to do without undue questioning by people who do not know me and therefore have no idea as to my beliefs, other than those which I have stated, and they have chosen to argue with me about.

 

Now the whole premise of agnosticism is that we neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God because there is no positive proof either way. We also believe that we - our species - will never get to know.

 

The first part of that is incontrovertibly true. We do not have any positive proof at this time.

 

The second part is where the 'belief' is involved. It is not impossible - however unlikely - that the truth will be revealed someday. We simply don't believe that that will happen.

 

Given that agnosticism is an acceptance of lack of knowledge please explain how I manage to be wrong?

 

Are you claiming that unbeknownst to me, I do know something as to the existence or none existence of God (s) ?

 

Glad you are amused I'm sure it was a pleasant change for you, and as I've been getting a lot of laughs from the thread it only seems fair.

 

Dunning-Kruger. Do a little reading.

[mjw47]

Nah. Keep it going. It's fun.

 

Try typing a two word answer at him and then watch him type out a series of three-hundred-plus word posts at you in which, among other comedic moments, he accuses you of being obsessed.

 

Rinse & repeat.

 

It's back Giving advice as usual.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 15:51 ----------

 

Dunning-Kruger. Do a little reading.

 

If you are incapable of explaining yourself ,and in the words of one of your like minded posters are ,'appealing to authority' then I'm not interested.

 

I referred to an eminent Professor, not in order to use him as proof of any belief, but purely as someone perfectly qualified to provide a definition of the differences between beliefs.

 

As that was dismissed on the grounds that it didn't suit the views of the unqualified, and in fact contradicted them, much to their annoyance, I see no reason why I should be expected to play along.

 

Answer the question in your own words. Where am I wrong in claiming to be agnostic, when both the OED and Professor William L Rowe an atheist agree with my definition?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 16:08 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2014 at 15:36 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2014 at 15:40 ----------

 

How would you prove that some air was no in the corner of the room?

 

 

Seriously? That's what your going with?

 

Scientists have these things which they refer to as instruments. Many of these instruments are accurate to an incredible degree.

 

There is no doubt that a complete absence of air and a vacuum can be achieved.

 

I know you have no faith in God, but try not to lose your faith in science.

 

So accepting that, would it prove a negative or not? No idea myself, it was just something I thought up in answer to your claim that it couldn't be done

 

By the way are you a Scot?

[redwhine]

...if someone lacks a belief in something ,then it means that they believe the opposite. ' I don't believe the patient will survive. '

 

This means ' I believe the patient will die.'

 

We know there are patients. We know that some die of their illness/injuries and some don't. We don't know that god exists. So a very bad analogy to start with, but we know that everyone who has ever lived throughout history (apart from the present generation) has died!!!

 

So I have no problem at all in saying that the patient will die.

 

Now about that definition of Agnostic, a word which is apparently redundant in your opinion as everybody is either a theist or an atheist.

 

And not in someone else's diagram, in your own words.

No. I quoted Huxley (who coined the word) and have posted 2 diagrams explaining how it is used.

 

Had you not spent the whole thread insulting me whilst I continued to patiently explain your errors I might feel more like acceding, but no. I won't dance to your tune.

 

That way we can compare your definition with the definition previously posted which was put forward by an extremely well qualified person in the field in question.

Still appealing to authority, I see. You do know that that is a logical fallacy, don't you?

 

Whilst your about it you can no doubt explain why the word exists and is in common usage as a separate description to the other alternatives?

Agnostic? It applies to anyone who takes a polar opposite view to a gnostic about knowledge on any subject. (In this case, regards knowledge of god's existence.)

 

PS. In post 837 you stated ' You've claimed quite a lot of knowledge '. In post 843 you state ' Really? I know there just your opinions '.

 

Contradicting yourself completely. Do you know this pedantic thing is catching isn't it?

Now I know that you are lying there. I would never use there when I meant they are or they're!!!

[mjw47]

 

We know there are patients. We know that some die of their illness/injuries and some don't. We don't know that god exists. So a very bad analogy to start with, but we know that everyone who has ever lived throughout history (apart from the present generation) has died!!!

 

So I have no problem at all in saying that the patient will die.

 

 

No. I quoted Huxley (who coined the word) and have posted 2 diagrams explaining how it is used.

 

Had you not spent the whole thread insulting me whilst I continued to patiently explain your errors I might feel more like acceding, but no. I won't dance to your tune.

 

 

Still appealing to authority, I see. You do know that that is a logical fallacy, don't you?

 

 

Agnostic? It applies to anyone who takes a polar opposite view to a gnostic about knowledge on any subject. (In this case, regards knowledge of god's existence.)

 

 

Now I know that you are lying there. I would never use there when I meant they are or they're!!!

 

You still need to explain why the word agnostic is contained within the dictionaries as a separate word with a different definition to theist and atheist.

 

In a previous post you claimed that as far as agnostics are concerned, 'everyone of them is also either a theist or an atheist.'

 

Actually, as we're being pedantic, what you actually said was ' ever one of them.'

 

Now you did say 'either a theist or atheist' Yes?

 

That would mean that one of those words alone could be used to define their belief, Yes ?

 

Which would make the word 'agnostic' redundant and indeed otiose, wouldn't it?

 

So why is it still there? Not only in the OED but in all other English Dictionaries including those published in every English speaking country in the world.

 

And why does it have a different definition to theist and atheist in every one of those dictionaries?

 

Please explain.

[janie48]

In my eyes, Alan de Botton is not a true atheist. Some of the concepts which he touches on already existed in other major religions before it got dissected into modern day perception that it should be exclusive.

 

What happens historically and in this world is that, around each generation, there will be a new group of people who will try and reinvent or reinterpret what they think meaning of life or the existence of life or religion will be. A handful of people will adhere to the past and the history to find its meaning and then apply to the future. Others will learn from what they experience now and define it in words. That is why you find so many work written and rewritten. I have no doubt that de Botton is definitely a scholar, but I do not actually take what he says too seriously when I have already exposed myself to other teachings already. What he says no longer make sense to me, or have a place in my life. I have skimmed his work before. I just find other work more relevant.

 

He has done a BBC TV documentary before about travelling and why travelling is really a psychological effect within us. But if he only exposes himself to one of the main religion of the world which has preserved itself, then he will find some of the things which he wrote about as less meaningful. But I would not advocate that he does that, because if I do, it will change the meaning of his life as a whole already. He is someone that represents his time. But I also know that I represent me, and what others like me have been through already. It is just that it is not as socially accepted here, but in other countries, it does exist and it is more accepted.

 

There are very very few religion in the world remaining that has preserved its heritage, as well as its learning. Even though Tibetan Buddhism schools are now being opened in the West in hope to preserve some of that heritage, people are actually reinterpreting it into their own context than to take its teaching into their own lives. They actually do not truly understand what it means. For me, I am still learning and truly to quantify it myself. What Alan de Botton has done is to place concepts which exists in Tibetan Buddhism into actions. As we live in a true, real and factual life. If you lived in the same spot all your life, the thoughts are just thoughts, it does not turn into actions. So travelling is like a way to displace your own thoughts into actions. Just as anxiety is what drives people to search for answers and actually to dig deep into knowledge and provide what we have today in the modern world.

You could be quite right, I'm not familiar enough with his writings, to contradict you.

All I was saying, is that I've been impressed with some of the views I've heard him express, which shouldn't imply that I'm expecting to agree with every single opinion he has.

[ivanava]

if someone lacks a belief in something ,then it means that they believe the opposite.

No it doesn't.

 

I lack believe that you will live for another 20 years, but I don't believe that will die in the next 20 years.

[mjw47]

No it doesn't.

 

I lack believe that you will live for another 20 years, but I don't believe that will die in the next 20 years.

 

Doesn't make sense, all you are saying is that you don't know. Atheists are not saying that they don't know, that would make them agnostic.

 

They are saying that they do know, or at least 'believe' that they know.

 

OED Atheism : 'The BELIEF that God does not exist.'

 

It has been enormous fun on here watching people tying themselves in knots, whilst accusing me of arrogance, and at the same time claiming that their opinion counts for more than that of Dictionaries, Professors and the originator of the word.

 

And all this without a trace of irony.

[Guest]

I don't like labels like atheist and agnostic. Using these terms is an acknowledgement that believing is the norm when really the default state of every child growing up is to have no belief in any god, it is something some people eventually choose to do, and therefore it is incumbent on them to define and label THEMselves.

[ivanava]

Doesn't make sense, all you are saying is that you don't know. Atheists are not saying that they don't know, that would make them agnostic.

It made perfect sense and successfully countered your claim that

if someone lacks a belief in something ,then it means that they believe the opposite.