Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[flamingjimmy]

You are a liar.

 

Prove me wrong, all you have to do is click the button and if your explanation makes sense then I will accept it and apologize.

 

So, there you have it, the perfect opportunity to prove how clever you are, go for it my little delusional monomania/sophomania pal.

 

why are there three separate words, all referring to the subject and each with a separate definition in every English dictionary?

Because they are three different words, with three different meanings.

 

That does not mean their meanings are mutually exclusive.

 

Big, spotty, and pink, are also three different words with three different separate definitions in every english dictionary yet they too are not mutually exclusive, see here for an example.

 

EDIT: I was not lying, I've had that typed for hours. That's twice you've called me a liar now, any chance of an apology?

 

Now, any chance you might respond to one of my arguments?

 

Both of which I made long before you started asking me that stupid question.

Edited January 21, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[mjw47]

Because they are three different words, with three different meanings.

 

That does not mean their meanings are mutually exclusive.

 

Big, spotty, and pink, are also three different words with three different separate definitions in every english dictionary yet they too are not mutually exclusive, see here for an example.

 

EDIT: I was not lying, I've had that typed for hours. That's twice you've called me a liar now, any chance of an apology?

 

Now, any chance you might respond to one of my arguments?

 

Both of which I made long before you started asking me that stupid question.

 

Oh my God (deliberate choice of words ) is that it? Is that all you've got?

 

They are not mutually exclusive?

 

Seriously? That's it? Your whole argument is that they can, under certain circumstances be used in conjunction with each other?

 

So can they be used on their own?

 

Yes, we know that they can be combined if someone is conflicted about things, but can they be used on their own?

 

If not, why not, and if yes, then what is you and your fellow monomania/sophomania pals problem with me stating that I am an Agnostic, no additions, no embellishments, no nuances, just an Agnostic pure and simple?

 

I take back liar, you are not a liar, you are delusional, pure and simple.

 

My diagnosis of you and your mates as suffering from monomania is, I believe, spot on.

 

Currently, I am involved in five threads on General Discussions, one on Sheffield history and expats, seven on Sheffield Football, one on Entertainment Chat, plus eight on General sports Chat.

 

However, it seems that I only come up against you and your cohorts on certain threads.

 

 

Maybe I have this wrong, maybe it's just that you have different interests and post on different threads and we have not come across each other, but it does seem as though there is a pattern emerging.

 

For instance, you are posting on the 'Will we ever know the meaning of life? ' thread and I would have taken a heavy bet that you would, and that at least one of your pals would join you, and guess what, there they are.

 

But it does look at this point that my diagnosis of monomania holds some credence.

 

As for sophomania it is nailed on.

[RootsBooster]

And you appear to only pay attention to what you want to.

 

I have always stated that I am an agnostic and that the definition provided by Huxley and Rowe fits in with my view

Being an old git I stick to the original meaning.

In that case, William Rowe's opinion (who was born more than 100 years after Huxley) would not matter to you, as it is obviously not the original meaning.

Having said that, if you were to jump position again and decide that his (newer) opinion is the true meaning, it seems that he believes the true meaning is as such...

 

"According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist" (from your source)

 

...which does not exclude you from being with belief or without belief in a god or gods. But then again, he's disqualified for not being the originator of the word, right?

 

So that leaves us with the originator, Thomas Huxley. As far as I'm aware he never claimed it to mean something between theism and atheism.

What he did say though is that he is not only an agnostic but also an atheist...

 

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts." (from your source)

 

Cool, eh?

 

I don't care if the words can be used together to explain some nuance or other.

It is of no interest to me that some people say they are more than one of them.

 

It has been explained to you three musketeers time and again that as far as I'm concerned the term agnostic applies to me and requires no further embellishment, but it appears to be beyond your capacity to understand this point.

All of you are under the apparent belief that none of the three words can be used in isolation.

You evidently do care a great deal about it, it has got you seriously riled.

Of course you can use the words in isolation, nobody has denied that at all. It is you who is denying that you are an atheist as well as an agnostic, even though the information you have given about yourself qualifies you as one.

You don't have to call yourself a mammalian agnostic, but you are one.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to recap on events...

 

1. Rowe is now out of the picture

2. Huxley was an agnostic atheist and apparently never claimed that being agnostic means you can't be without belief (in gods).

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited January 22, 2015 by RootsBooster
Added pretty colours

[mjw47]

You really are obsessed aren't you? The time and effort that you put into trying to tell someone you don't know what they should label themselves is hilarious.

 

Let me give you two Huxley quotes on the subject.

 

" It came into my head as suggestively antithetical to the 'Gnostic' of church history who profess to know so much of the very things of which I was ignorant "

 

" Not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in a rigorous application of a single principle, to follow reason as far as it can take you but then when you have established as much as you can, frankly and honestly to recognize the limits of your knowledge".

 

That is not Atheism, it is a different and more logical way of looking at things.

 

It acknowledges lack of knowledge, not something that Atheists are renown for.

 

Huxley referred to himself as an Agnostic, he didn't add any qualifier.For verification read the eleventh quote on this link.

 

http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=Obituary+of+Thomas+Henry+Huxley&cb=YL&p2=%5EYL%5Exdm557%5ELAENUK%5Egb&qid=e1929dae55874010ab61523d90303843&n=781aa50b&ptb=E6B70CDC-ACE5-4F29-8E58-CC7A2129F3DC&si=google_soccer-search-uk-teams-phrase-54164823172&pg=GGmain&ots=1421927152708&pn=1&ss=sub&st=hp&tpr=jrel2&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEd93Zj%2BVaL8OyLi%2FaNLb6F%2BDxyNrz0l6jIQTtvTIUyhKmgVCQNN4qITqqrz61OCanjZ3iA%2Bwo%2BJN%2B%2FyImmKOiAU%3D&ord=4&

 

You of course take no notice of anyone's views but your own.

 

You are incapable of accepting the limit of your knowledge, which is a clear indication of sophomania.

[RootsBooster]

You really are obsessed aren't you? The time and effort that you put into trying to tell someone you don't know what they should label themselves is hilarious.

 

Let me give you two Huxley quotes on the subject.

 

" It came into my head as suggestively antithetical to the 'Gnostic' of church history who profess to know so much of the very things of which I was ignorant "

 

" Not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in a rigorous application of a single principle, to follow reason as far as it can take you but then when you have established as much as you can, frankly and honestly to recognize the limits of your knowledge".

 

That is not Atheism, it is a different and more logical way of looking at things.

 

It acknowledges lack of knowledge, not something that Atheists are renown for.

 

Huxley referred to himself as an Agnostic, he didn't add any qualifier.For verification read the eleventh quote on this link.

 

http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=Obituary+of+Thomas+Henry+Huxley&cb=YL&p2=%5EYL%5Exdm557%5ELAENUK%5Egb&qid=e1929dae55874010ab61523d90303843&n=781aa50b&ptb=E6B70CDC-ACE5-4F29-8E58-CC7A2129F3DC&si=google_soccer-search-uk-teams-phrase-54164823172&pg=GGmain&ots=1421927152708&pn=1&ss=sub&st=hp&tpr=jrel2&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEd93Zj%2BVaL8OyLi%2FaNLb6F%2BDxyNrz0l6jIQTtvTIUyhKmgVCQNN4qITqqrz61OCanjZ3iA%2Bwo%2BJN%2B%2FyImmKOiAU%3D&ord=4&

 

You of course take no notice of anyone's views but your own.

 

You are incapable of accepting the limit of your knowledge, which is a clear indication of sophomania.

 

Huxley acknowledged he was an atheist and an agnostic, I've already given you the quote from him stating this. Nothing you've provided in this post alters, contradicts or excludes people from being able to exist as both agnostics and atheists.

[mjw47]

Huxley acknowledged he was an atheist and an agnostic, I've already given you the quote from him stating this. Nothing you've provided in this post alters, contradicts or excludes people from being able to exist as both agnostics and atheists.

 

And nothing that you have ever said precludes people from being one or the other without further qualification.

[flamingjimmy]

Oh my God (deliberate choice of words ) is that it? Is that all you've got?

 

They are not mutually exclusive?

 

Seriously? That's it? Your whole argument is that they can, under certain circumstances be used in conjunction with each other?

 

So can they be used on their own?

 

Yes, we know that they can be combined if someone is conflicted about things, but can they be used on their own?

 

If not, why not, and if yes, then what is you and your fellow monomania/sophomania pals problem with me stating that I am an Agnostic, no additions, no embellishments, no nuances, just an Agnostic pure and simple?

Saving this for later, I'll respond to it when you address one of my arguments. You know I'm not lying this time, I will directly respond to the points you've made here, and already have in mind what I will say, but let's just have some give and take yeah?

 

And once again, can we cut it out with the personal insults?

 

Also, lol at the quote from Huxley where he says he's an atheist too, that's a good find!

 

You are a liar.

 

Prove me wrong, all you have to do is click the button and if your explanation makes sense then I will accept it and apologize.

Also, are you going to stick to your word or are you the liar?

Edited January 22, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[mjw47]

Saving this for later, I'll respond to it when you address one of my arguments. You know I'm not lying this time, I will directly respond to the points you've made here, and already have in mind what I will say, but let's just have some give and take yeah?

 

And once again, can we cut it out with the personal insults?

 

Also, lol at the quote from Huxley where he says he's an atheist too, that's a good find!

 

 

Also, are you going to stick to your word or are you the liar?

 

I said if your explanation made sense, it doesn't, see my response at 282.

 

Can they be used on their own?

 

You do not appear to understand that I have no interest whatsoever in your views on this subject.

 

As an Agnostic I accept that I do not know ( and nor does anyone else whatever they may say ) the answer as to whether or not there is a Creator.

 

Nor do I believe that we will ever know.

 

That being the case what is the point of arguing about it?

 

I am only arguing with people who apparently think that they possess some insight into what another person believes, despite being told ad nauseam that he doesn't accept their definition.

 

And also, it must be admitted that I like arguing.

 

However, I think that you and your pals obsession with this subject, and your obvious need to provide a label whether anyone cares or not is somewhat unhealthy.

 

My feeding of your irrational behaviour as a means of amusing myself is starting to make me a little uncomfortable.

Edited January 22, 2015 by mjw47

[flamingjimmy]

I said if your explanation made sense, it doesn't, see my response at 282.

I did prove you wrong, you did accept my explanation that I wasn't lying, you just decided to call me deluded instead. In any case, I wasn't lying, which you conceded, and promised you'd apologise for.

 

It doesn't matter that you think I'm wrong, the point is I wasn't lying, which you directly accused me of, and then pledged to apologise for if you were wrong. You were wrong, and the only conclusion I can reach is that it was you who lied when you said that, because I very much doubt you ever intended to apologise to me, under any circumstances, on account of your childishness.

 

Can they be used on their own?

 

You do not appear to understand that I have no interest whatsoever in your views on this subject.

Clearly not true, otherwise you wouldn't've got so mad when I put that tiny little joke in my post about being an 'agnostic atheist'.

 

But I see now you're going back to your standard 'nah nah nah I'm not listening' form of argument, nice.

 

Just in case you grow a bit of intellectual courage at some point and do want to engage with my arguments, here they are one more time:

 

Here's an argument about the practical consequences of each definition:

here's "the main reason why I think my definition is much better than yours"?

 

if we use your [definition], then atheism doesn't really describe anyone. It doesn't describe the world's most famous (and possibly most annoying) atheist Richard Dawkins, it doesn't describe me, in fact it doesn't describe anyone I've ever met who would call themselves an atheist. I don't know anyone who claims to know as a fact that there are no gods, and to my knowledge have never met such a person.

 

That definition only really exists as a strawman so that those of faith can be like "see! you're just as dogmatic as us!"

 

I'm sure there are a few people out there who genuinely do think they know for a fact that there are no gods, but I've never met one.

 

Now, if we use my definition then it includes every self identifying atheist ever, isn't that much better?

And here's an argument that addresses your silly question about '3 defintions' (that I made before you actually started asking the question):

Here are two true statements I can make about myself:

 

I do not believe in any gods.

 

I do not know for a fact that there are no gods.

 

Those two statements do not contradict each other, as a consequence of the first one I am an atheist and as a consequence of the second I am an agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Do you accept that?

 

I expect you will ignore both of those and throw a few insults, possibly call me obsessed a few more times (despite spending less time than yourself arguing about this), maybe you'll ask me like 6 more questions without answering any of mine like last time. I would so love it if I was wrong though and you actually responded to one or both of these, it's been several days now you've been dodging them.

Edited January 22, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[RootsBooster]

And nothing that you have ever said precludes people from being one or the other without further qualification.

 

That's cool, because I've never made any such claims (I don't think anyone else did either).

 

You, however, made the claim that you can't be an atheist if you are an agnostic, you have been proved wrong on this. After much jumping ship between definitions and finally settling upon one, your basis for this definition now lays in tatters around you while you still strut and rant.

 

Being an atheist as well as an agnostic is not a prefix or a qualifier, it's just another thing that you are. You can refer to yourself as an agnostic, that's fine, it doesn't alter the fact that you are also many other things.