Fed up of non believers

[flamingjimmy]

Were you the poster who used the term agnostic atheist? Can't be bothered to check, but if it was you ,that is a clear contradiction in terms and shows that you don't understand the meaning of the word agnostic.

 

No it really doesn't. I'm an agnostic atheist, pretty much every atheist you've ever come across is an agnostic atheist, even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, the words are not mutually exclusive.

[Cyclone]

:DCyclone.

 

Your last comment was that you don't care, how I wish that were true. For if it were true you would discontinue your remorseless pursuit of making yourself look daft on this thread.

I don't care whether you believe in god or not. I'm really not interested.

 

You really are irrational.

Again with your crazy beliefs.

 

Why would anyone need to extend their view on one particular subject such as theology to every other facet of their lives?

 

Were you the poster who used the term agnostic atheist? Can't be bothered to check, but if it was you ,that is a clear contradiction in terms and shows that you don't understand the meaning of the word agnostic.

No, I certainly wasn't. Why bother with a conversation if you can't even remember who said what?

 

Whilst I have offered the occasional opinion on here I have only made claim to three things which I know to be true.

What rubbish, the last post I replied to was absolutely scattered through with your beliefs, most of which were subjective opinions. You don't even understand the nature of proof.

 

Firstly, the words theist, agnostic and atheist are descriptions of three separate beliefs regarding the existence or otherwise of God(s).

 

Secondly, the definition of agnostic as described by William L Rowe as ' Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities ', is an accurate description of the meaning of the word.

 

Additionally, the explanation by Thomas Henry Huxley the man who coined the word, that you should ' follow your reason as far as it will take you without regard to any other consideration - and - do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

 

Both definitions are compatible, and agree that agnostics hold the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.

 

Finally, I have stated that being in agreement with the wording of the definitions I am an agnostic.

 

How anyone can choose to find an argument with any of the above is hilarious.

I haven't argued with any of that.

I've argued that agnosticism is an irrational position to hold. You've asked continuously for a proof of a negative otherwise you wish to equate atheism with theism as an unsupported belief.

 

To disagree with the first point you have to take issue with every English Dictionary in the world.

 

To disagree with the second point you have to have the unmitigated arrogance to think that you actually know better than the man who invented the word as to it's meaning.

 

Additionally, you would need to come up with a new definition of the word to replace that contained in the dictionaries, and persuade them to include it in their next addition.

 

To disagree with the third point, you would require the ability to read the mind of a man who you wouldn't recognise if you passed him in the street.

 

Despite which, here we are, with some posters apparently wishing to argue about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

 

I do find it all very amusing, in particular the delusion apparent with regard to several posters conviction that despite everything they, and only they, have the level of intelligence required to know the true meaning of everything.

And yet you're convinced that only you are correct, and you refuse to learn anything about basic logic or the nature of science.

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 07:32 ----------

 

Thanks for posting the link. Looks interesting (long though).

 

It's good you mention compassion; I can't help but feel with some people there is too much mind and not enough heart (and I include myself in that description). We place an unhealthy emphasis on reason and rationality when it comes to making sense of the world around us. To the point where only things that can be measured and cognitively grasped within the framework of our rational minds, hold any value for us.

 

A very scary paragraph. How can you use anything other than reason and rationality to make sense of the world around us. What do you suggest should have emphasis placed on it instead, guessing, making it up and weird feelings?

[SnailyBoy]

I just did. Your very asking to see examples, is a prime example. You wanting to rationalise and quantify, being your tool of choice.

 

Or did I get you wrong?

 

Please don't feel I am being critical by the way.

 

How is that unhealthy?

[mjw47]

No it really doesn't. I'm an agnostic atheist, pretty much every atheist you've ever come across is an agnostic atheist, even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, the words are not mutually exclusive.

 

Aren't they?

 

OED Atheist : some one who believes that God does not exist.

 

: 'a' = without + theist = God

 

OED Agnostic : A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

: 'a' =without + gnostic = knowledge

 

Appears contradictory to me. The first is a statement of belief, the second is a statement that one cannot actually know either way, and therefore it isn't possible to hold a belief either way.

 

On the other hand if you believe that you are an agnostic atheist you must have your reasons and I am merely interested as to your definitions of the words.

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 11:19 ----------

 

Cyclone.

 

If you think that it is irrational to believe anything other than your statement 'How can you use anything more than reason and rationality to make sense of the world around us'.

 

Perhaps you can explain what is irrational about acknowledging that no one actually knows the truth regarding the existence or none existence of God?

 

Whilst your at it, lets have your personal definition of the word agnostic.

 

As you appear to disagree with the definitions of 'authority' lets be knowing your infinitely wiser description.

[ivanava]

Aren't they?

 

OED Atheist : some one who believes that God does not exist.

 

: 'a' = without + theist = God

 

OED Agnostic : A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

: 'a' =without + gnostic = knowledge

 

Appears contradictory to me. The first is a statement of belief, the second is a statement that one cannot actually know either way, and therefore it isn't possible to hold a belief either way.

 

On the other hand if you believe that you are an agnostic atheist you must have your reasons and I am merely interested as to your definitions of the words.

 

OED Atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

 

OED Agnostic : A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

Agnostic Atheist would then be. A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods and also believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

[Bonzo77]

What a load of b&**%$£s!

[mjw47]

OED Atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

 

OED Agnostic : A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

Agnostic Atheist would then be. A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods and also believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

Which would mean that he/she could describe his/her belief by using one word instead of two, doesn't it?

 

Your second definition above is fully covered by the word agnostic isn't it?

 

Agnostic : Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities.

 

The use of the word agnostic implies doubt, and an acceptance of lack of knowledge.

 

Someone stating that they are an atheist solely is claiming that they believe that there is no God 'a' without + theos God.

 

Anyone disputing this would need to explain why there are two different words in the dictionaries with two differing definitions.

[Ryedo40]

Aren't they?

 

OED Atheist : some one who believes that God does not exist.

 

: 'a' = without + theist = God

 

OED Agnostic : A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

: 'a' =without + gnostic = knowledge

 

Appears contradictory to me. The first is a statement of belief, the second is a statement that one cannot actually know either way, and therefore it isn't possible to hold a belief either way.

 

If you don't hold a belief, you have an absence of belief.

 

Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods = atheism.

Belief in the existence of God or gods = theism.

Agnostics, who don't know either way, can still hold the belief that God or gods exist. They don't know if God exists, but they hold the belief that God does exist. Agnostics can also have an absence of that belief.

[Waldo]

How is that unhealthy?

 

Do you ask because you genuinely want to know?, or because you like to argue, and find it gratifying to be seen to come out on top? What's your motive for asking?

 

More than happy to explore the matter with you, and share my perspective, but only if you're open and have the right intent.

[Ryedo40]

Someone stating that they are an atheist solely is claiming that they believe that there is no God 'a' without + theos God.

 

Completely wrong. I have an absence of belief in the existence of an actual God because I have no knowledge or awareness of an actual God. That's why I'm an atheist. I also find no good reason to believe the claims that an actual God exists. None of this means I assert an actual God doesn't exist; it just means I have no knowledge or awareness of one - and that I find no good reason to believe there is one.