Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[Ryedo40]

So you took the trouble to search all that out? Your obsession is frightening.

 

every single one of those remarks was earned by a blinkered ignorant inability to accept reality, and also my enjoyment at being able to precisely describe people who are apparently besotted with descriptions.

 

Now, what do you have to say about these links backing up my contention that my description of myself as an Agnostic pure and simple was correct from the beginning, and you and your equally obsessed mates haven't a clue?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAgnosticism&ei=yzjKVNXZPKOC7gaq24GoBA&usg=AFQjCNGShXnvStu94C3ftDHENuiHbMCRLQ&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

First description under variations of agnosticism

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGoQ1ScwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Flife%2Fthe_spectator%2F2010%2F06%2Fan_agnostic_manifesto.html&ei=XD7KVOmkDqiy7QbNm4CgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGx2ZrE_KiW4deRZfNh4_FMtFjDww&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

Don't try to deviate, what is your explanation for the fact that these separate sources both back up my original point and that all the nonsense spouted by you and your mates was exactly that, nonsense?

 

 

And again, you continue to do and exhibit everything you accuse others of.

 

 

As for your first link, I don't see anything that disagrees with what we have discussed. And your second link is a very poor article, complete with straw-man atheist, writen by an agnostic who is attempting to distance agnosticism from its ties with atheism.

[teeny]

Lol, seriously?

 

His arguments are full of presuppositions.

 

Please explain the points and give examples of this ? Snail boy

[flamingjimmy]

I think WLC is a very good apologist- whose arguments have not successfully been debunked.

 

Since you brought up Hitchins, you can enjoy this over a cup of tea..

 

 

I've watched that whole debate before, Hitchens wipes the floor with him.

 

Aw man I miss that guy, definitely my favorite of the people who became famous for their atheism/skepticism.

[mjw47]

And again, you continue to do and exhibit everything you accuse others of.

 

 

As for your first link, I don't see anything that disagrees with what we have discussed. And your second link is a very poor article, complete with straw-man atheist, writen by an agnostic who is attempting to distance agnosticism from its ties with atheism.

 

And there we have it, the overwhelming self regard, the conviction that you, and only you have the answer.

 

Firstly, the first link completely destroys all the 'you are an Agnostic-Atheist' brigade by dissecting the word into every possible interpretation and providing as its first example the one that I have always claimed to be my view.

 

As for your comments on the second link, absolutely priceless and complete and total proof of my contention of your inherent Sophomania.

 

Ron Rosenbaum is a published author of at least six books, five factual one a novel and is obviously a highly intelligent man.

 

But you Ryedo40 with all your many accomplishments, you know better, you are the arbiter of this subject.

 

Oh and don't come back with the old 'appeal to authority' crap, number one it's the last desperate cry of those who have been found out and are wiggling.

 

Secondly, whilst I have no idea as to what Rosenbaums expertise is on this subject, what I do know is that he has given it some serious thought, enough to go on public record with his views, and he is obviously a much more intelligent man than you are.

 

So who should I believe an obviously intelligent man and published author or some guy wasting his time on a forum who is under the mistaken idea that his view is somehow important.

 

Tough one, but on the whole I think I'll go with the non obsessive.

[SnailyBoy]

Please explain the points and give examples of this ? Snail boy

 

Presupposes that the god of the Bible exists without evidence.

[teeny]

Presupposes that the god of the Bible exists without evidence.

 

Why do you think he pre supposes ? Is the fact he talks like he knows ?

[SnailyBoy]

Why do you think he pre supposes ? Is the fact he talks like he knows ?

 

Yes, takes a stance to attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

It's an all too common ruse amongst apologists.

[Ryedo40]

And there we have it, the overwhelming self regard, the conviction that you, and only you have the answer.

 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. You asked me my thoughts on those links. And I stated "I don't see anything that disagrees with what we have discussed". Never stated I was right or wrong in that assessment.

 

Firstly, the first link completely destroys all the 'you are an Agnostic-Atheist' brigade by dissecting the word into every possible interpretation and providing as its first example the one that I have always claimed to be my view.

 

It doesn't destroy that at all. What it does is give possible interpretations. One interpretation is:

 

Agnostic atheism is the view contrary to agnostic theism: the existence of God or gods is unknowable, therefore one should not believe in said God or gods. - (I don't entirely agree with how this variation has been coined, but it suits its purpose.)

 

Two more variations:

 

Apathetic agnosticism "I simply do not care whether God exists or not."

 

and

 

Strong agnosticism "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

 

None of those agnostic views destroy what we have been discussing: Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of God or gods(something to which you agreed). And neither do they destroy the fact that you can be both agnostic and atheist.

 

You claim to be solely agnostic, but that doesn't negate the fact that, even with the stance you take, you still have an absence of belief in the existence of God.

 

As for your comments on the second link, absolutely priceless and complete and total proof of my contention of your inherent Sophomania.

 

Ron Rosenbaum is a published author of at least six books, five factual one a novel and is obviously a highly intelligent man.

 

I see. So your view is if someone publishes non-related material they must therefore be intelligent and qualified on atheism and agnosticism - or at least you'll take their word over anyone elses.

 

But if I publish non-related material, I can't be intelligent and I can't be qualified on the topic of atheism and agnosticism. Is that what you are saying?

 

What if I published material related to the topic of atheism and agnosticism?

 

Back in 2005 I published an extensive website for atheists and agnostics (this was just before Richard Dawkins published his.) My website was voted no.6 in the top 10 atheist and agnostic websites in the Guardian newspaper at the time. And it was later mentioned on this books front-cover:

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HThpjGUXZ4gC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=BLIND+FAITH+and+the+Quest+for+the+truth+about+Christianity&source=bl&ots=QeUu908PkQ&sig=FhViFZU7W1X6HhXFpAKIp6USv4I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z6HKVKLaPMHhar6OgsgJ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=BLIND%20FAITH%20and%20the%20Quest%20for%20the%20truth%20about%20Christianity&f=false

 

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/isbn/9781847996404/

 

The author used some of the resources available at my website. I eventually closed AtheistResource.co.uk due to ill-health and because better funded organisations, whom I collaborated with at the time, came on the scene.

 

So I must have had some accomplishments, not mentioning them all, to have had some success and 5 minutes of fame in the related topics of atheism and agnosticism.

 

Now because you obviously don't have any accomplishments, past or present, in the related fields do you think I'm going to take anything you say seriously?

 

Actually I would. Reason for that is because I'm someone who believes anyone who has an interest in a subject can be very knowledgeable(or have given a subject a great deal of thought) - whether they've published material on that subject or not. Of course, it also doesn't mean they are right - or that their reasoning and knowledge isn't flawed (that's something everyone is prone to) whether they've published material on that subject or not.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Ryedo40

[flamingjimmy]

But you Ryedo40 with all your many accomplishments, you know better, you are the arbiter of this subject.

 

Call me arrogant or a sophomaniac or whatever you like as I'm sure you will but I genuinely do think I know better than that guy, it's as if he's never actually spoken to an atheist. I tried to read that article but couldn't get very far because it's just plain wrong.

 

This is as far as I got (only three paragraphs):

 

"Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.

 

I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.

 

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)"

 

Ok, the first paragraph, none of those prominent atheists he lists have ever expressed that there are no gods as a 'certitude'. No atheist I've ever met has proclaimed such a thing.

 

Second and third paragraphs, again who thinks we have a definite answer as to why and how the universe came into existence? We know what it was like and how it formed (to an extent) up until a few fractions of a second after the big bang, but again, that's not necessarily atheism. Not all people who are atheists are scientifically literate and not all people who are scientifically literate are atheists.

 

Finally, the absurd point he puts in brackets. Yeah atheists behave totally as intolerantly to heretics as the most unbending religious inquisitor. All the time you hear about atheists going round and torturing people until they convert, making videos where they behead theists, flying planes into buildings to fight the theists, making laws where it's punishable by public lashing to criticise Richard Dawkins, yeah that kind of thing happens all the time. Those pesky little atheists, they're just the other side of the coin to the religious fundamentalists!

 

I had to stop there, really, don't care how many time he's been published.

Edited January 30, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[Ryedo40]

Call me arrogant or a sophomaniac or whatever you like as I'm sure you will but I genuinely do think I know better than that guy, it's as if he's never actually spoken to an atheist. I tried to read that article but couldn't get very far because it's just plain wrong.

 

This is as far as I got (only three paragraphs):

 

"Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.

 

I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.

 

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)"

 

Ok, the first paragraph, none of those prominent atheists he lists have ever expressed that there are no gods as a 'certitude'. No atheist I've ever met has proclaimed such a thing.

 

Second and third paragraphs, again who thinks we have a definite answer as to why and how the universe came into existence? We know what it was like and how it formed (to an extent) up until a few fractions of a second after the big bang, but again, that's not necessarily atheism. Not all people who are atheists are scientifically literate and not all people who are scientifically literate are atheists.

 

Finally, the absurd point he puts in brackets. Yeah atheists behave totally as intolerantly to heretics as the most unbending religious inquisitor. All the time you hear about atheists going round and torturing people until they convert, making videos where they behead theists, flying planes into buildings to fight the theists, making laws where it's punishable by public lashing to criticise Richard Dawkins, yeah that kind of thing happens all the time. Those pesky little atheists, they're just the other side of the coin to the religious fundamentalists!

 

I had to stop there, really, don't care how many time he's been published.

 

Yes, and after creating his straw-man atheist he's pretty much behaving like, and asking agnostics, to become just like the straw-man atheist he's created.

 

Terrible article mate.