Poll: Atheist or Agnostic?

[Vic]

Ah poor Jack... he doesn't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds but he does believe in alien life. Now THAT is delicious irony.

Anyway, it is funny, you have to admit... rabid "atheists" who act and think and propound their beliefs just like Fundamentalist Christians (with the same lack of ability to logically defend it)... What's even funnier is that the other atheists have left this thread, probably from a lack of desire to be associated with you. Hell, Garth already chased off some of his own simply for not perfecting conforming.

Ah well... Garth, your argument's only defense was from ignorance. You said you have no concept of God. Wonderful for you. Keeping it dumbed down, I see. Some people do have this concept, therefore it exists, and it is that that should be debated, not your strawmen of Leprechauns, etc. If you don't understand the difference, that too can only be from ignorance. BTW, I am amused that you nested the quotes from even a rather short post. Just who were you before you were banned?

Jack, your 15 year-old teenage angst BS got its ass kicked that argument and even worse the one after that. Naturally, the PM's got serious after you resorted to insulting my mother in your frustration. It's pretty well known that your only argument in every situation is to attack the person. I fell for it once, but now I just look at you and laugh at how pathetic you are. You're sooo insistent that you don't believe in religion, while you force your own brand of it down everyone else's throats. That's just who you are, I guess.

Now, do either of you actually have an argument as do why you would persecute others for their beliefs? Or are you actually going to keep acting like fools and pretending you know everything about something of which all of mankind has no clue?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shamgar03

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: shamgar03
I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis myself. He is a christian, however in "mere Christianity" the first couple chapters are all about whether it is logical to believe in a god, same for "miracles" which deals with whether it is rational to believe that supernatural events are possible. I just like his stuff, because he is extremely logical, and takes nothing for granted.

That's not really true. C.S. Lewis is the progenitor of the infamous "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" argument, and I think it was in "Mere Christianity" where that argument appeared. Among the reasons why the argument is flawed is precisely that it takes for granted the truth of the Gospels.

-Garth

He takes that for granted AFTER he has already gone through his logical arguments for why it is reasonable to believe in a god at all. No offense, but you should probobly read the book before you write it off.

Why would you expect that? He's made it extremely clear that his entire argument is from ignorance. He doesn't know, he says, therefore he is right.
For the record, I haven't read the book either, but I would not write anything off without first having knowledge about it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: shamgar03

He takes that for granted AFTER he has already gone through his logical arguments for why it is reasonable to believe in a god at all.

Yeah.... so? That doesn't change the fact that he takes the truth of the Gospels for granted. "God exists" -> "The Gospels are true" is not a tautology.

No offense, but you should probobly read the book before you write it off.

Trust me, I know enough about the book and Lewis' arguments in general to know that the book has nothing convincing to offer me.

-Garth

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic
Ah poor Jack... he doesn't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds but he does believe in alien life. Now THAT is delicious irony.

I don't see anything ironic about it. Aliens, if some shoud exist, would be completely naturalistic and observable, which is a far cry from the attributes described of God.

Anyway, it is funny, you have to admit... rabid "atheists" who act and think and propound their beliefs just like Fundamentalist Christians (with the same lack of ability to logically defend it)... What's even funnier is that the other atheists have left this thread, probably from a lack of desire to be associated with you. Hell, Garth already chased off some of his own simply for not perfecting conforming.

Who did I "chase off"? What thread are you reading?

I also love how anybody who contests Vic's errors in fact becomes "just like Fundamentalist Christians" for being persitant about deciding the truth about reality -- which my arguments have, and have well, as evidenced by Vic's loathing to confront them.

Ah well... Garth, your argument's only defense was from ignorance.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance, if that's what your claim is. The fact is that I am ignorant of god, just like you're ignorant of gremlins and the Tatzelwurmer. That's not an argument, that's a fact, and one that directly refutes your silly claims about "atheistic beliefs."

You said you have no concept of God. Wonderful for you. Keeping it dumbed down, I see. Some people do have this concept, therefore it exists, and it is that that should be debated, not your strawmen of Leprechauns, etc. If you don't understand the difference, that too can only be from ignorance.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? *I'm* the one that had to explain to you -- TWICE -- that there is a difference between having a concept, and having a concept about a concept held by other people.

BTW, I am amused that you nested the quotes from even a rather short post. Just who were you before you were banned?

I've never been banned. Nesting quotes is simply the most effective method of contesting a concentration of factually false statements. If you don't like facing nested quotes, don't make so many false claims.

{snip}

Now, do either of you actually have an argument as do why you would persecute others for their beliefs?

I don't persecute others for their beliefs. I don't purport to have proof or even evidence that God doesn't exist, so I can not disprove him. When you claim that I believe something that I do not, however, I will correct you, and I fail to see how that amounts to "persecution." You're just plain wrong. It's like you'd argue that mathemeticians "persecute" people for correcting their errors in arithmetic. That just doesn't make sense.

Or are you actually going to keep acting like fools and pretending you know everything about something of which all of mankind has no clue?

I've never purported nor acted like I know everything. In fact, I was quite clear about things that I do not know. I *DO* know with first-hand knowledge the things that I do and do not believe, which is what makes your claim so silly.

-Garth

 

[piroroadkill]

Atheism for the win.

 

[Mr Nate]

i believe in einstein's God

 

[MrNutz]

Funny thread... It is basically a poll only pointed toward ppl that do not acknowledge God.

And now... 11 pages into it... they still are so inward thinking that they still do not acknowledge God.

So if there actually was no God, then why so much debate from atheists and agnostics?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't see anything ironic about it. Aliens, if some shoud exist, would be completely naturalistic and observable, which is a far cry from the attributes described of God.

The possibility of the existence of aliens are as equally logical as the possibility of the existence of God. You demonstrating your ignorance again.

Who did I "chase off"? What thread are you reading?

Amused, among others.

I also love how anybody who contests Vic's errors in fact becomes "just like Fundamentalist Christians" for being persitant about deciding the truth about reality -- which my arguments have, and have well, as evidenced by Vic's loathing to confront them.

You are not declaring any "truths." You are declaring a FAITH. That is my point, but you are too blinded to see it.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance, if that's what your claim is. The fact is that I am ignorant of god, just like you're ignorant of gremlins and the Tatzelwurmer. That's not an argument, that's a fact, and one that directly refutes your silly claims about "atheistic beliefs."

You made the ultimate argument from ignorance. You said there were only 2 choices, theism and atheism. That is the very definition of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratum. In addition, you claimed that your atheism was not the faith that it in fact is by stating that you had "no concept of God." Once again, an argument from ignorance. Your claim is that, without knowledge, you must be right.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? *I'm* the one that had to explain to you -- TWICE -- that there is a difference between having a concept, and having a concept about a concept held by other people.

Chase your tail much?

I've never been banned. Nesting quotes is simply the most effective method of contesting a concentration of factually false statements. If you don't like facing nested quotes, don't make so many false claims.

Whee, and I can do it too :roll:

Simply because you call my claims false does not make such a thing so. Is that clear?

I don't persecute others for their beliefs. I don't purport to have proof or even evidence that God doesn't exist, so I can not disprove him. When you claim that I believe something that I do not, however, I will correct you, and I fail to see how that amounts to "persecution." You're just plain wrong. It's like you'd argue that mathemeticians "persecute" people for correcting their errors in arithmetic. That just doesn't make sense.

First, math is precise science. Religion is not. You cannot correct my errors in such fashion because you do not have the authority nor the knowledge. All I did was state the known reality that humans are ignorant regarding the existence of God, chiding those who would claim (and force their claim otherwise), and you have been irrationally attacking me ever since.

I've never purported nor acted like I know everything. In fact, I was quite clear about things that I do not know. I *DO* know with first-hand knowledge the things that I do and do not believe, which is what makes your claim so silly.

You are doing exactly that, acting like you know everything, everytime you claim to correct my errors. The silly one is you. I'm arguing from reason and the reality of human ignorance. Your claim is that you KNOW. Is that clear?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: MrNutz
Funny thread... It is basically a poll only pointed toward ppl that do not acknowledge God.

And now... 11 pages into it... they still are so inward thinking that they still do not acknowledge God.

So if there actually was no God, then why so much debate from atheists and agnostics?

Edit: You know, I misread your question. I think the argument between Agnostics and Atheists is more of just clearing up some details. Nothing really major.

Vic, I'll get back to your lunacy in a little bit...

 

[scorpmatt]

mods..... why isn't there a religious thread for this?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Vic, I'll get back to your lunacy in a little bit...

Lunacy? :roll:

Hey, I'm not the one who is always arguing from ignorance, nor am I the one always trying to force people to conform to my beliefs, nor do I demean the beliefs of others.

Face it, Jack, you believe in something that can never be proven. That is faith.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't see anything ironic about it. Aliens, if some shoud exist, would be completely naturalistic and observable, which is a far cry from the attributes described of God.

The possibility of the existence of aliens are as equally logical as the possibility of the existence of God. You demonstrating your ignorance again.

I didn't say anything about the logical coherency of either aliens or God. I spoke to their onotlogical properties. It seems that YOU are demonstrating your inability to correctly interpret my arguments again.

Who did I "chase off"? What thread are you reading?

Amused, among others.

How is he "one of my own"?

I also love how anybody who contests Vic's errors in fact becomes "just like Fundamentalist Christians" for being persitant about deciding the truth about reality -- which my arguments have, and have well, as evidenced by Vic's loathing to confront them.

You are not declaring any "truths." You are declaring a FAITH. That is my point, but you are too blinded to see it.

Absolute gibberish. I declared what it is that I do not believe: I do not believe that god doesn't exist. How that amounts to "faith" is a mystery that you appear unable to explain.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance, if that's what your claim is. The fact is that I am ignorant of god, just like you're ignorant of gremlins and the Tatzelwurmer. That's not an argument, that's a fact, and one that directly refutes your silly claims about "atheistic beliefs."

You made the ultimate argument from ignorance.

You don't know what an argument from ignorance is, because I did not make one. An argument from ignorance claims that because a proposition has not been proven false, it is therefore true. This does not accurately characterize my argument, not that I expect you to be able to discern it.

You said there were only 2 choices, theism and atheism. That is the very definition of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratum.

No, if it were a fallacy, it would be the fallacy of false dichotomy, but that fallacy is only a fallacy when a valid third alternative exists. In this case, one does not.

In addition, you claimed that your atheism was not the faith that it in fact is by stating that you had "no concept of God."

I stated that I do not have a faith because I do not hold a belief that god doesn't exist. This is exemplified by the fact that I lack a concept of god in the first place.

But since when would you engage anything other than absurd strawmen?

Once again, an argument from ignorance. Your claim is that, without knowledge, you must be right.

Once again, you demonstrate that my characterization of you as a layman was highly accurate.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? *I'm* the one that had to explain to you -- TWICE -- that there is a difference between having a concept, and having a concept about a concept held by other people.

Chase your tail much?

And the distinction continues to elude you.

{snip}

Simply because you call my claims false does not make such a thing so. Is that clear?

Of course. That's why I went on to demonstrate that my characterization of your claims is accurate.

I don't persecute others for their beliefs. I don't purport to have proof or even evidence that God doesn't exist, so I can not disprove him. When you claim that I believe something that I do not, however, I will correct you, and I fail to see how that amounts to "persecution." You're just plain wrong. It's like you'd argue that mathemeticians "persecute" people for correcting their errors in arithmetic. That just doesn't make sense.

First, math is precise science.[/quote]
To be more precise, mathematical knowledge is a priori knowledge, which is in the same category as knowledge of the contents of one's own mind. That is why my knowledge of my lack of belief is prima facie true, and your claims to know my beliefs better than I do myself is patently absurd.

Religion is not.

We're not talking about religion. We're talking about beliefs that I do not hold, and that I know first-hand that I do not hold, yet that you claim to know otherwise and better than me.

You cannot correct my errors in such fashion because you do not have the authority nor the knowledge.

Sure I do. If anyone is an authority on the contents of my own mind, it's me.

All I did was state the known reality that humans are ignorant regarding the existence of God, chiding those who would claim (and force their claim otherwise), and you have been irrationally attacking me ever since.

That you think my attacks are irrational only confirms the apparent fact that you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend them.

I've never purported nor acted like I know everything. In fact, I was quite clear about things that I do not know. I *DO* know with first-hand knowledge the things that I do and do not believe, which is what makes your claim so silly.

You are doing exactly that, acting like you know everything, everytime you claim to correct my errors.

Again, that's nonsense. I need not know the current price on opium in China to know that the things you claim I believe, I do not in fact believe.

The silly one is you.

I'm not the one trying to tell other people that I know what they believe better than they do themselves.

I'm arguing from reason and the reality of human ignorance.

Weren't you just lambasting me for arguing "from ignorance"? Now here you are describing your own argument as exactly that for which you chided me. Who's being silly?

Your claim is that you KNOW. Is that clear?

I do know what I do and do not believe. How could I not?

-Garth

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't see anything ironic about it. Aliens, if some shoud exist, would be completely naturalistic and observable, which is a far cry from the attributes described of God.

The possibility of the existence of aliens are as equally logical as the possibility of the existence of God. You demonstrating your ignorance again.

I didn't say anything about the logical coherency of either aliens or God. I spoke to their onotlogical properties. It seems that YOU are demonstrating your inability to correctly interpret my arguments again.

Who did I "chase off"? What thread are you reading?

Amused, among others.

How is he "one of my own"?

I also love how anybody who contests Vic's errors in fact becomes "just like Fundamentalist Christians" for being persitant about deciding the truth about reality -- which my arguments have, and have well, as evidenced by Vic's loathing to confront them.

You are not declaring any "truths." You are declaring a FAITH. That is my point, but you are too blinded to see it.

Absolute gibberish. I declared what it is that I do not believe: I do not believe that god doesn't exist. How that amounts to "faith" is a mystery that you appear unable to explain.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance, if that's what your claim is. The fact is that I am ignorant of god, just like you're ignorant of gremlins and the Tatzelwurmer. That's not an argument, that's a fact, and one that directly refutes your silly claims about "atheistic beliefs."

You made the ultimate argument from ignorance.

You don't know what an argument from ignorance is, because I did not make one. An argument from ignorance claims that because a proposition has not been proven false, it is therefore true. This does not accurately characterize my argument, not that I expect you to be able to discern it.

You said there were only 2 choices, theism and atheism. That is the very definition of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratum.

No, if it were a fallacy, it would be the fallacy of false dichotomy, but that fallacy is only a fallacy when a valid third alternative exists. In this case, one does not.

In addition, you claimed that your atheism was not the faith that it in fact is by stating that you had "no concept of God."

I stated that I do not have a faith because I do not hold a belief that god doesn't exist. This is exemplified by the fact that I lack a concept of god in the first place.

But since when would you engage anything other than absurd strawmen?

Once again, an argument from ignorance. Your claim is that, without knowledge, you must be right.

Once again, you demonstrate that my characterization of you as a layman was highly accurate.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? *I'm* the one that had to explain to you -- TWICE -- that there is a difference between having a concept, and having a concept about a concept held by other people.

Chase your tail much?

And the distinction continues to elude you.

{snip}

Simply because you call my claims false does not make such a thing so. Is that clear?

Of course. That's why I went on to demonstrate that my characterization of your claims is accurate.

I don't persecute others for their beliefs. I don't purport to have proof or even evidence that God doesn't exist, so I can not disprove him. When you claim that I believe something that I do not, however, I will correct you, and I fail to see how that amounts to "persecution." You're just plain wrong. It's like you'd argue that mathemeticians "persecute" people for correcting their errors in arithmetic. That just doesn't make sense.

First, math is precise science.

To be more precise, mathematical knowledge is a priori knowledge, which is in the same category as knowledge of the contents of one's own mind. That is why my knowledge of my lack of belief is prima facie true, and your claims to know my beliefs better than I do myself is patently absurd.

Religion is not.

We're not talking about religion. We're talking about beliefs that I do not hold, and that I know first-hand that I do not hold, yet that you claim to know otherwise and better than me.

You cannot correct my errors in such fashion because you do not have the authority nor the knowledge.

Sure I do. If anyone is an authority on the contents of my own mind, it's me.

All I did was state the known reality that humans are ignorant regarding the existence of God, chiding those who would claim (and force their claim otherwise), and you have been irrationally attacking me ever since.

That you think my attacks are irrational only confirms the apparent fact that you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend them.

I've never purported nor acted like I know everything. In fact, I was quite clear about things that I do not know. I *DO* know with first-hand knowledge the things that I do and do not believe, which is what makes your claim so silly.

You are doing exactly that, acting like you know everything, everytime you claim to correct my errors.

Again, that's nonsense. I need not know the current price on opium in China to know that the things you claim I believe, I do not in fact believe.

The silly one is you.

I'm not the one trying to tell other people that I know what they believe better than they do themselves.

I'm arguing from reason and the reality of human ignorance.

Weren't you just lambasting me for arguing "from ignorance"? To Jack, you said "Hey, I'm not the one who is always arguing from ignorance." Now here you are describing your own argument as exactly that for which you chided others. Who's being silly?

Your claim is that you KNOW. Is that clear?

I do know what I do and do not believe. How could I not?

-Garth

[/quote]

 

[GhettoPeanut]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Agnostic. To be an Atheist, you'd have to be incredibly ignorant/close minded.

atleast your being intelligent/open minded about it.

 

[hardwareuser]

Ah poor Jack... he doesn't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds but he does believe in alien life. Now THAT is delicious irony.

What's wrong with believing in alien life? The universe is vast, and there are many many planets out there. Why can't they spring and support life like this planet?

Are you two arguing about whether atheism is a religion or not? Why not just get a dictionary?

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you go by 1a and 1b, then it's not a religion. If you go by 4, then it can be. We can even call science a religion if we use number 4.

 

[l Xes l]

wow.. i can't believe there are so many atheists...
people are willing to believe that creation of the universe is only by chance.. ?
even just looking at our planet and our body.. w/ such complexity and precision.. they believe it's coincidence?...
if earth was only 2degrees off we would've been burned down millions years ago.... open ur eyes atheists...
i would not say anything as to how we should define GOD or supernatural being.. but all of this can't be a coincidence..

 

[konakona]

i am willing to bet more on absolute lack of collective human knowedge at hand. once again i got into a little debate with my roomate, who is a christian with a good faith (or so he thinks). he was trying to explain to me why evolution is BS since things are too complex to evolve into another creature from amoebas. My response to that was, I try not to see things in black and white. Who says there is no other explannation other than christianity and evolution? For one thing, there are millions of other religeons out there all claiming they are 'the thruth'. For another, evolution, just like religeon, is a way of best explaining how things came into existence. I am agnostic since I dont willingly support evolution thinking it is the only way; we simply dont know enough to take things for granted. Theories are built upon speculations upon speculations, and get proven wrong time and again. Yet they make a whole lot more sense to me than the religeons, so they are pretty much the best answer out there now that i would reluctantly agree. If I get some really convincing reason (unlike, christianity is the way cuz evolution is BS!) that makes sense, then I would slowly change my stance on it, and that includes religeons of all sorts. In the end, all this is totally besides the point though; I got my hands full worrying about very imminent mundane details and facets of everyday life to be caught up in these uncertainties that I would have to try my best to make highly inaccurate guesses.

 

[0roo0roo]

hostile enviroment? wtf? sounds like some kind of middle eastern country where they can take you out for questioning the koran

 

[JackBurton]

Ah Vic, I now have some time to waste on you. Let me finish this little thing off...

Originally posted by: Vic
Ah poor Jack... he doesn't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds but he does believe in alien life. Now THAT is delicious irony.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Alien life? Are you talking about the Leprechauns I mentioned? If you took that as anything BUT sarcasm, you're even dumber than I first thought you were (which was pretty dumb).

Jack, your 15 year-old teenage angst BS got its ass kicked that argument and even worse the one after that.

You are truely delusional. Seriously.

Naturally, the PM's got serious after you resorted to insulting my mother in your frustration. It's pretty well known that your only argument in every situation is to attack the person. I fell for it once, but now I just look at you and laugh at how pathetic you are. You're sooo insistent that you don't believe in religion, while you force your own brand of it down everyone else's throats. That's just who you are, I guess.

Now I'm REALLY calling you out...You are a FVCKING LIAR! If you haven't discredited yourself already, you've surely done so now.
Here is the thread you were refering to. Where did I make that comment? It surely wasn't done through PMs because I have the WHOLE conversation between us and there was no such comment made. You want me to post the whole PM conversation? I have it all.

Vic, your arguments have never held any weight. But now that you have stooped to the level where you have to lie, well, that shows how worthless you really are. Talk about fvcking pathetic. I hope no one ever takes you seriously again, because to me you're just a fvcking joke...a bad one at that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: krnxpride83
people are willing to believe that creation of the universe is only by chance.. ?

I don't believe that. I don't believe that the universe was "created" at all.

even just looking at our planet and our body.. w/ such complexity and precision.. they believe it's coincidence?

I don't think that terms like "coincidence" or "accident" can meaningfully describe events in the objective universe. Not without projecting false significance or intended purposes upon them, at least.

if earth was only 2degrees off we would've been burned down millions years ago....

2 degrees off what? Which axis? Do you even know? Or are you simply parroting something you read on an apologist's website somewhere?

open ur eyes atheists...

To what?

i would not say anything as to how we should define GOD or supernatural being.. but all of this can't be a coincidence..

Lucky one doesn't have to believe that it is in order to be an atheist, huh?

-Garth

 

[konakona]

but all of this can't be a coincidence..

classic example of seeing things in black and white. its gotta be coincidence theory if it werent god right? who did actually say it has to be a coincidence? maybe some atheist you know, but that doesnt account for all atheism now, does it? i think you might be assuming little too much here.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

IT can be a coincidence. How many times have u gotten "Gayed" in poker where your pocket Aces get ruined by someone with K7 off who connects a straight randomly. Yea. I know. It can be. With so many years in our world... definitely many coincidences.

 

[dnuggett]

Neither..... I'm not an idiot.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Neither..... I'm an idiot.

Corrected that for you.

 

[hardwareuser]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Neither..... I'm an idiot.

Corrected that for you.

:thumbsup: