"Can't have two words meaning the same thing."

You're familiar with the existence of thesauruses, correct?

I think the better question is how agnosty comes up with these brilliant objections to our dogmatically religious scientism.  Did somebody accidentally CC him on the conspiracy mailing list?

(January 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "Can't have two words meaning the same thing."

You're familiar with the existence of thesauruses, correct?

Dinosaurs are a lie of the debil!

Atheism can have more then  one meaning .

It can be a positive position of claiming there is no god 

It can be a negative position merely claiming to lack a belief in a god 

It can be coupled with Agnosticism as it's a question of belief . Not a question of certainty. 

Thus one can say "i don't accept in the theistic claims that a god exists . But i don't claim certainty or Gnosticism on the subject . 

But since your so fond of definitions 

Quote:a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Yeah, I mean gnosticism is about knowledge, where as various isms are about belief. They're different axes on the same graph.

In my experience, most atheists are agnostic. They're open to the possibility of a god (one that likely isn't anything described in various religions here), but because they haven't experienced any legit proof of one, don't believe in one. In other words, their lack of knowledge with regards to a god's existence is the source of their unbelief. That said, there are definitely gnostic atheists (a.k.a., strong atheists) who claim to know that there is no god, and fuck you.

A lot of theists think we're being wishy-washy when it comes to this, because most seem to operate in a binary universe, but it's really just us recognizing that there's a sliding scale, and we're merely pointing out our individual positions on it.

(January 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "Can't have two words meaning the same thing."

You're familiar with the existence of thesauruses, correct?

What's a synonym for thesaurus?

(January 16, 2018 at 12:52 pm)Agnosty Wrote: What?!?  Problems with logic?  Dispense with the illustrations or can the allegations.   You're talking out your backside and doing a mighty poor job convincing me to hang around with this unsubstantiated indictment and slanderous censure.

You have trouble with logic, Agnosty. 

All of us do, really. Our brains are programmed with type 1 thinking, and we have to LEARN logic. I still commit fallacies. Even G.E. Moore, a famous philosopher has been accused of fallacious reasoning. 

When you said holding the position "2+2=4" was not "objective" because one is not open to other possibilities, I knew that you both misunderstood logic and had an eccentric definition for the word "objective." 

The good news is, it's fixable. If you manage to stick around, I will personally do my best to show you where your logic fails--not to be a dick... to help you.

Quote:More unsubstantiated conjecture.

You accused science of confirmation bias because "it uses empiricism to prove empiricism." I told you that was false: one uses logic to arrive at empiricism. I even recommended Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" which explains the process from the ground up, and you were like "I read Locke once; he didn't impress me much." Or something like that. Well, obviously that's your loss.

These aren't insults. These are not conjecture. You need to work on logic. You need to read up on the foundations of empiricism. I was really exited to see that you were posting stuff arguing for a sort of "true agnosticism" rather than "atheist leaning" because it's an interesting position. If you learned some basic logic like burden of proof among other things, you could really add to the discussions.

And stop taking things so personally.

(January 16, 2018 at 5:07 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(January 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "Can't have two words meaning the same thing."

You're familiar with the existence of thesauruses, correct?

What's a synonym for thesaurus?

While it's not an exact synonym, 'onomasticon' is pretty fucking rad.

Love it.

(January 16, 2018 at 6:27 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 16, 2018 at 12:52 pm)Agnosty Wrote: What?!?  Problems with logic?  Dispense with the illustrations or can the allegations.   You're talking out your backside and doing a mighty poor job convincing me to hang around with this unsubstantiated indictment and slanderous censure.

You have trouble with logic, Agnosty. 

All of us do, really. Our brains are programmed with type 1 thinking, and we have to LEARN logic. I still commit fallacies. Even G.E. Moore, a famous philosopher has been accused of fallacious reasoning. 

When you said holding the position "2+2=4" was not "objective" because one is not open to other possibilities, I knew that you both misunderstood logic and had an eccentric definition for the word "objective." 

The good news is, it's fixable. If you manage to stick around, I will personally do my best to show you where your logic fails--not to be a dick... to help you.

Quote:More unsubstantiated conjecture.

You accused science of confirmation bias because "it uses empiricism to prove empiricism." I told you that was false: one uses logic to arrive at empiricism. I even recommended Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" which explains the process from the ground up, and you were like "I read Locke once; he didn't impress me much." Or something like that. Well, obviously that's your loss.

These aren't insults. These are not conjecture. You need to work on logic. You need to read up on the foundations of empiricism. I was really exited to see that you were posting stuff arguing for a sort of "true agnosticism" rather than "atheist leaning" because it's an interesting position. If you learned some basic logic like burden of proof among other things, you could really add to the discussions.

And stop taking things so personally.

To be fair empiricism proves itself by consistently demonstrating itself . or 

---

(January 16, 2018 at 3:17 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think the better question is how agnosty comes up with these brilliant objections to our dogmatically religious scientism.  Did somebody accidentally CC him on the conspiracy mailing list?

Indeed using logic and empiricism to object to logic and empiricism.