Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[mjw47]

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,

 

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

 

You went to an enormous amount of trouble there for nothing as far as I'm concerned.

 

No doubt your pal will have enjoyed reading it so all is not lost..

 

That first bit was all I needed to read, it confirms totally and removes all possible doubt as to the fact that my view of you and your fellow travelers is the correct one.

 

You have absolutely no comprehension as to how totally ridiculous you have made yourself look do you?

 

It is obvious that neither you nor your mates on here have ever heard the story about Socrates reaction when he was told he was the wisest man of all.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fempires%2Fthegreeks%2Fcharacters%2Fsocrates_p4.html&ei=V27LVJe5A6av7AammoD4BQ&usg=AFQjCNEyVw397wHR5VM0DuYKFRRZ4r3NDA&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Or if you have you failed utterly to comprehend the meaning.

[Ryedo40]

It is obvious that neither you nor your mates on here have ever heard the story about Socrates reaction when he was told he was the wisest man of all.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fempires%2Fthegreeks%2Fcharacters%2Fsocrates_p4.html&ei=V27LVJe5A6av7AammoD4BQ&usg=AFQjCNEyVw397wHR5VM0DuYKFRRZ4r3NDA&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Or if you have you failed utterly to comprehend the meaning.

 

Who is claiming to know it all - or to have all the answers? I'm not seeing anyone here do that.

 

What I am seeing is you boasting about the credentials of agnostics as though they are some sort of know it all authority on agnosticism and atheism, but when an atheist does the same - or when an atheist may be qualified to discuss those topics - you call them know it alls and resort to attacking them.

 

By the way, the guy in the article you posted admits to not believing in God. That makes him, like you, an agnostic atheist.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47]

Who is claiming to know it all - or to have all the answers? I'm not seeing anyone here do that.

 

What I am seeing is you boasting about the credentials of agnostics as though they are some sort of know it all authority on agnosticism and atheism, but when an atheist does the same - or when an atheist may be qualified to discuss those topics - you call them know it alls and resort to attacking them.

 

By the way, the guy in the article you posted admits to not believing in God. That makes him, like you, an agnostic atheist.

 

And there you go again, absolutely no self awareness or commonsense whatsoever.

 

Where exactly have I 'boasted' about being an authority on any of the other two views?

 

You are accusing someone who is absolutely adamant that he is Without-Knowledge of the subject at hand of boasting about being an authority on the subject?

 

And as I don't believe that anyone knows or indeed will ever know the answer I was not suggesting that the writer knew the answer.

 

What I was trying - and obviously failing in your case - to point out was two truths.

 

One, the man, based upon his achievements to date is far more intelligent than you or I.

 

Two, he holds a different view to you and your posse and I would take his viewpoint over that of you and your mates any time.

 

However, my whole point of argument is simplicity itself, I maintain that I am an Agnostic as described on the link in the first description under the heading ' Variations of Agnosticism'

 

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

 

Using the emphasis 'strong', that is my viewpoint and has been all along, accept that fact and we're done and you can have the pleasure of all of you conversing through all eternity whilst failing to reach a conclusion.

[Ryedo40]

Where exactly have I 'boasted' about being an authority on any of the other two views?

 

Maybe you should re-read my post. And look back at your previous post to me.

 

You are accusing someone who is absolutely adamant that he is Without-Knowledge of the subject at hand of boasting about being an authority on the subject?

 

Again, re-read my previous post. To save you sometime: I never stated you were boasting about your credentials. I was referring to you boasting about the credentials of the guy in that article you posted.

 

And as I don't believe that anyone knows or indeed will ever know the answer I was not suggesting that the writer knew the answer.

 

No. You were presenting him as some sort of intellectual authority because he's published non-related material. Publishing non-related material doesn't mean he's all that clever when it comes to agnosticism and atheism(and that's quite telling in his article - as has been pointed out.)

 

One, the man, based upon his achievements to date is far more intelligent than you or I.

 

He's certainly an intelligent man, no one is desputing that. But being intelligent doesn't mean you are correct or that you excel in everything you dabble in. That applies to me, you, him and everyone else.

 

Anyone with an interest in any subject can publish a book or material about that subject - and again, it doesn't mean their views are correct. Likewise, anyone can have a great interest in a subject and just be as qualified to speak about the subject even if they haven't published any material.

 

Two, he holds a different view to you and your posse and I would take his viewpoint over that of you and your mates any time.

 

He may have views about the so-called "New Atheist" movement, but he is agnostic just like me and he is also an atheist(he doesn't believe in God) just like me. I only disagree with him on that straw-man atheist characture he's peddling - and his misunderstanding atheism.

 

However, my whole point of argument is simplicity itself, I maintain that I am an Agnostic as described on the link in the first description under the heading ' Variations of Agnosticism'

 

Using the emphasis 'strong', that is my viewpoint and has been all along, accept that fact and we're done and you can have the pleasure of all of you conversing through all eternity whilst failing to reach a conclusion.

 

We've already reached the conclusion that has been your view-point all along. None of us have disagreed with you there. But the atheists here have also had the pleasure of concluding you are also an atheist. So yes, I accept those facts and now we are done

Edited January 30, 2015 by Ryedo40

[flamingjimmy]

You went to an enormous amount of trouble there for nothing as far as I'm concerned.

 

No doubt your pal will have enjoyed reading it so all is not lost..

 

That first bit was all I needed to read, it confirms totally and removes all possible doubt as to the fact that my view of you and your fellow travelers is the correct one.

 

You have absolutely no comprehension as to how totally ridiculous you have made yourself look do you?

 

It is obvious that neither you nor your mates on here have ever heard the story about Socrates reaction when he was told he was the wisest man of all.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fempires%2Fthegreeks%2Fcharacters%2Fsocrates_p4.html&ei=V27LVJe5A6av7AammoD4BQ&usg=AFQjCNEyVw397wHR5VM0DuYKFRRZ4r3NDA&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Or if you have you failed utterly to comprehend the meaning.

 

Classic mjw47, completely ignore the points I made and throw a few personal insults. Keep it up bro, yeah this is totally making me look ridiculous.

[mjw47]

Maybe you should re-read my post. And look back at your previous post to me.

 

 

 

Again, re-read my previous post. To save you sometime: I never stated you were boasting about your credentials. I was referring to you boasting about the credentials of the guy in that article you posted.

 

 

 

No. You were presenting him as some sort of intellectual authority because he's published non-related material. Publishing non-related material doesn't mean he's all that clever when it comes to agnosticism and atheism(and that's quite telling in his article - as has been pointed out.)

 

 

 

He's certainly an intelligent man, no one is desputing that. But being intelligent doesn't mean you are correct or that you excel in everything you dabble in. That applies to me, you, him and everyone else.

 

Anyone with an interest in any subject can publish a book or material about that subject - and again, it doesn't mean their views are correct. Likewise, anyone can have a great interest in a subject and just be as qualified to speak about the subject even if they haven't published any material.

 

 

 

He may have views about the so-called "New Atheist" movement, but he is agnostic just like me and he is also an atheist(he doesn't believe in God) just like me. I only disagree with him on that straw-man atheist characture he's peddling - and his misunderstanding atheism.

 

 

 

We've already reached the conclusion that has been your view-point all along. None of us have disagreed with you there. But the atheists here have also had the pleasure of concluding you are also an atheist. So yes, I accept those facts and now we are done

 

Thank you, I accept your acceptance and you and I are done.

 

As for the Atheists on here, if they still conclude that I am an Atheist then they are as thick as planks and not worth talking to.

 

Obviously, you are in agreement -although you may have put it in a more gentle way - because as you have accepted my claim it means that they are in disagreement with you also, doesn't it?

 

Goodbye, and may your God go with you, as Dave Allen used to say.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2015 at 15:24 ----------

 

Classic mjw47, completely ignore the points I made and throw a few personal insults. Keep it up bro, yeah this is totally making me look ridiculous.

 

I think that I may have explained in the past that as I'm an Agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves, and is convinced that mankind will never know one way or the other, I have a very limited interest in the subject matter?

 

If you were to board a train and find yourself talking to the only other passenger in the compartment what would you talk about?

 

For instance, if football was mentioned and the other person were to say " To be honest I have no real interest in football, went to a couple of games when I was young but have no intentions of going again and I don't support anyone".

 

Would you then continue to talk about football for the entire length of the Journey and try to convince him that he was a Man U fan?

 

Because that is what you have been doing on here with me.

 

At least I'm glad you agree that it is making you look totally ridiculous.

 

Now, my one and only point has been to get people to accept that I know my own views better than they do, whatever inflated view that they may have as to their own brilliance.

 

So, simple question, do you accept that my self description matches the first one 'strong Agnostic' under the headline ' Variations in Agnosticism' ?

 

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

 

If you do then we are finished, if you don't then you find yourself in disagreement with both Ryedo40 and myself, because he has just agreed that he accepts my self description, and indeed states that 'none of us have disagreed with you there', which I must confess I find a bit strange as it's the only thing that I was interested in arguing about.

 

So what is it to be, have we reached the parting of the ways?

Edited January 30, 2015 by mjw47

[teeny]

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

 

It's an all too common ruse amongst apologists.

 

as is atheists trying to make Christians look and sound stupid ! when actually that stance makes perfect sense to them !!!

[SnailyBoy]

as is atheists trying to make Christians look and sound stupid ! when actually that stance makes perfect sense to them !!!

 

That's the problem with debating someone that doesn't take things on faith.

 

Faith to anyone else does sound stupid.

[flamingjimmy]

I think that I may have explained in the past that as I'm an Agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves, and is convinced that mankind will never know one way or the other, I have a very limited interest in the subject matter?

So you didn't read that article then, you just posted it blindly?

 

Why would you do that?

 

If you were to board a train and find yourself talking to the only other passenger in the compartment what would you talk about?

 

For instance, if football was mentioned and the other person were to say " To be honest I have no real interest in football, went to a couple of games when I was young but have no intentions of going again and I don't support anyone".

 

Would you then continue to talk about football for the entire length of the Journey and try to convince him that he was a Man U fan?

 

Because that is what you have been doing on here with me.

That's a very poor analogy.

 

In that analogy you say you don't have any interest in football and don't support anyone, I would conclude you're not a football fan.

 

You'd then argue, "no I'm not 'not a football fan', I just don't really care about football and couldn't care less how well man utd are doing"

 

Then I'd be like, so you're not a football fan, ok.

 

Then you'd be like 'No you blithering idiot, how stupid are you!!!!! I'm not 'not a football fan' I just don't care who wins.'

 

Then I'd try and link you to a page explaining what the word 'not' mean then you'd respond with a post not addressing what I'd just said but being like 'You sophomaniac you're totally obsessed aren't you!' then we'd go back and forth until you moved the goalposts and we start off all over again.

 

Now, my one and only point has been to get people to accept that I know my own views better than they do, whatever inflated view that they may have as to their own brilliance.

No it isn't you've made numerous other points over the course of this thread, and tried to move the goalposts and lied about/forgotten what you've said in the past several times.

 

So, simple question, do you accept that my self description matches the first one 'strong Agnostic' under the headline ' Variations in Agnosticism' ?

 

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

Yes, however you also still fit the word atheism too. I'd call myself a strong agnostic too at a pinch. If someone told me they knew whether god exists I'd certainly say "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

 

I find it odd that you keep throwing up that link, because you have on numerous occasions claimed that one can't be an agnostic atheist, that it is an oxymoron, and yet now you keep linking to that site that defines one.

 

If you do then we are finished, if you don't then you find yourself in disagreement with both Ryedo40 and myself, because he has just agreed that he accepts my self description, and indeed states that 'none of us have disagreed with you there', which I must confess I find a bit strange as it's the only thing that I was interested in arguing about.

No-one, at any point, has disagreed that you are strong agnostic. That's not the only thing you've been interested in arguing about, you're lying again or you have a very bad memory. Edited January 30, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[mjw47]

So you didn't read that article then, you just posted it blindly?

 

Why would you do that?

 

That's a very poor analogy.

 

In that analogy you say you don't have any interest in football and don't support anyone, I would conclude you're not a football fan.

 

You'd then argue, "no I'm not 'not a football fan', I just don't really care about football and couldn't care less how well man utd are doing"

 

Then I'd be like, so you're not a football fan, ok.

 

Then you'd be like 'No you blithering idiot, how stupid are you!!!!! I'm not 'not a football fan' I just don't care who wins.'

 

Then I'd try and link you to a page explaining what the word 'not' mean then you'd respond with a post not addressing what I'd just said but being like 'You sophomaniac you're totally obsessed aren't you!' then we'd go back and forth until you moved the goalposts and we start off all over again.

 

No it isn't you've made numerous other points over the course of this thread, and tried to move the goalposts and lied about/forgotten what you've said in the past several times.

 

Yes, however you also still fit the word atheism too. I'd call myself a strong agnostic too at a pinch. If someone told me they knew whether god exists I'd certainly say "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

 

I find it odd that you keep throwing up that link, because you have on numerous occasions claimed that one can't be an agnostic atheist, that it is an oxymoron, and yet now you keep linking to that site that defines one.

 

No-one, at any point, has disagreed that you are strong agnostic. That's not the only thing you've been interested in arguing about, you're lying again or you have a very bad memory.

 

Why would I do that? Because I have no interest in the subject as I keep stating and you keep failing to grasp.

 

I agreed with the first statement, which was along the lines of 'agnosticism is not some kind of weak tea atheism' and ' agnosticism is not atheism or theism it is radical skepticism '.

 

That was what I agreed with, didn't bother to read anymore, not interested.

 

No it's not, it is though I say so myself an excellent analogy, someone tells you their not interested and you keep blathering on regardless.

 

All you would have had to say is, so you aren't a football fan, and then agree when it is confirmed but you kept insisting he was a Man U fan.

 

At no time have I accepted the word Atheist when applied to me, I have no recollection of stating no one else could be an agnostic atheist, but I may well have pointed out that it seems somewhat of a contradiction, in that claiming to be without knowledge and then having a bias one way seems a bit weird, but if that's what you wish to call yourself you won't find me going on and on about it, suit yourself.

 

I do not fit the word Atheist in any way shape or form, and that is the whole point of what I'm arguing about.

 

I'm an agnostic, pure and simple nothing more nor less.

 

You say that you have never at any point disagreed that I'm a strong Agnostic?

 

The definition of which makes no connection with Atheism whatsoever?

 

In fact there is a separate definition under the same heading, as you have pointed out for Agnostic-Atheist isn't there?

 

Therefore, they are two separate descriptions referring to different standpoints aren't they?

 

You originally claimed that everyone was either an Atheist or a Theist didn't you?

 

But you were wrong ,weren't you?

 

Now, Ryedo40 has accepted that I am an Agnostic with no other need for additional labels other than possibly the affirming 'strong', so do you also accept that, or not?