(January 19, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Whereas my gnosticism is based on the simple fact that I am not required to plumb the entire universe for novel godlike things in order to confidently state that no one is staring over your shoulder..watching you piss...making sure you don't shake it enough times to count as masturbation.

In my experience (and opinion), much "agnosticism" is predicate on the social or subconscious proposition that to say that gods do not exist is somehow a relatively difficult claim to demonstrate, or impossible to demonstrate.  That it's "heavy".  It isn't, that's just what the religious have been bleating for centuries, is all.  Undue deference of concept.

I know that there are no gods as much and for the same reasons that I know the sun will rise tommorrow, or that there are five digits on my hand.  If these things do not count as knowledge, then nothing does, and the terms gnosticism and agnosticism have no sensible referent.

I have no problem maintaining an all-truths-accepted agnostic stance while also dismissing silly stuff for what it is.  I'm just not going to accept responsibility for proving a negative which will be futile.  Besides, life is short enough without taking on the refutation of every silly notion someone plunks on my computer screen.  Letting believers know I can't take such things seriously and offering a psychological explanation why it seems so plausible to them suits me better.  But you go get em', you're good at it.

(January 19, 2018 at 1:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote:  Letting believers know I can't take such things seriously and offering a psychological explanation why it seems so plausible to them suits me better.  But you go get em', you're good at it.

This is, both to the religious and propositionaly, a statement of knowledge indicating that there are no -gods-....that rather, there is "psychology".  

I'd say you're pretty good at it too, lol. "That shits in your head, stop being silly" is the factually correct response to the question of the existence of gods.  Not because of something we don't know, but because of what we do.

I understand that the religious can be massive irritants, demanding a more extravagent explanation than is sensibly required....but their being committed dipshits is no reason to misrepresent or misclassify our status of belief or knowledge to them, or to ourselves...and puts one in the onerous position of the religious being able to -accurately- make a comment that one is being facetious and cagey in their discussion of the subject..offering arguments of convenience that are meaningfully disingenuous.

(January 19, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Whereas my gnosticism is based on the simple fact that I am not required to plumb the entire universe for novel godlike things in order to confidently state that no one is staring over your shoulder..watching you piss...making sure you don't shake it enough times to count as masturbation.

In my experience (and opinion), much "agnosticism" is predicate on the social or subconscious proposition that to say that gods do not exist is somehow a relatively difficult claim to demonstrate, or impossible to demonstrate. That it's "heavy". It isn't, that's just what the religious have been bleating for centuries, is all. Undue deference of concept.

I know that there are no gods as much and for the same reasons that I know the sun will rise tommorrow, or that there are five digits on my hand. If these things do not count as knowledge, then nothing does, and the terms gnosticism and agnosticism have no sensible referent.

By this do you mean that in your opinion, agnosticism gives more weight to the god question than it deserves? ... perhaps on account of how widespread it is and how much has been said about it... as compared to any other arbitrary and extraordinary claim, which is not as widespread or talked about?

(January 19, 2018 at 2:00 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 19, 2018 at 1:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote:  Letting believers know I can't take such things seriously and offering a psychological explanation why it seems so plausible to them suits me better.  But you go get em', you're good at it.

This is, both to the religious and propositionaly, a statement of knowledge indicating that there are no -gods-....that rather, there is "psychology".  

I'd say you're pretty good at it too, lol. "That shits in your head, stop being silly" is the factually correct response to the question of the existence of gods.  Not because of something we don't know, but because of what we do.

Almost but more like "That shit in your head can be some pretty good shit, just don't be a shit about it."

(January 19, 2018 at 2:00 pm)emjay Wrote: By this do you mean that in your opinion, agnosticism gives more weight to the god question than it deserves?

Precisely that, yes...and not by a little...by a country mile. How would we respond if someone demanded that we prove the Cat in the Hat was not real, or that Dracula was not a news report from the victorian front? We (and even the religious) immediately realize that either of these requests is trivial and....less-than-serious. However, can we isolate exactly what the functional difference between either of those requests is in comparison to a "prove god isn't real!" demand?

@Whatevs,
Sure, you have a nicer way of putting things than me. Most people do. It's still a claim of knowledge, and directly in contradiction with what they're asserting when they posit the existence of gods.

"If by gods you mean the things in your head" - they do not, even if that's what "gods" are. Just as, above, the request to prove that the cat in the hat isn't real is not a request to prove that there are no books, or that no child believes in the cat in the hat..if we use it as a functional equivalent to god claims for comparison.

(January 19, 2018 at 11:40 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Banned, like I said earlier (I don't remember if it was in this thread or a different one), there are different types of atheism, and an individual atheist can be a different one depending on the context of the situation.

My base level is agnostic atheist.  I'm open to the possibility of some godlike thing existing, but lacking proof of one, I don't believe this hypothetical thing actually exists.

Regarding the gods I've encountered on earth, I'm a gnostic/strong atheist.  I'm entirely convinced they're nothing more than myths given how self-contradictory and absurd they are.

I'm also an apatheist.  I really don't care about gods.  They don't impact my daily life.  I only visit here to  take a mental break from living in a society that assumes god is real as a default setting.

Forgot to put this down the last time I wrote this, but I also lean ignostic... I'm not entirely sure what a god would actually be.  Attempts to define one are wanting at best.

Unlike religion, there's no incompatibility between these different aspects of atheism.  I understand that denominations tend to be a line in the sand for you guys, but atheism doesn't really work the same way.  Moreover, these terms are all well defined.  Talk to (and, more importantly, listen to) any atheist and they'll use the same words to refer to the same thing.

So, no, we're not playing games to deny a god we know exists.  We don't think there's any such creature out there, and the level of certainty of that disbelief changes depending on the god in question.

You are right about the variants.

And of course there are commonalities among atheists, as there are in any group of variants.

Quote:You are right about the variants.

And of course there are commonalities among atheists, as there are in any group of variants.

Which is again irrelevant. And no atheism is not a group .

Once again the topic is no longer in question. The lack of focus isn't a coincident.

Admitting you're a sinner doesn't happen with those have to make continuous adjustments and clarifications to their pet philosophy (idol).

Notice how the above have to neatly tailor their idols to please themselves.
"I am this and that, with a little bit of this ism and that ism."

It certainly isn't about relating, or having a relationship with someone else, let alone someone worthy. It's about self. Boring.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that a person who doesn't believe in god also doesn't believe in his silly little list of things he doesn't like?

So, if you ask a person, "do you sin" and they don;t think that god or sin are real things...there really can;t be any sensible or honest answer other than "no". If you ask people whether or not they do bad shit™...who, do you think, will say no?

Get, your shit, together.

(January 19, 2018 at 4:19 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Is it really so hard for you to understand that a person who doesn't believe in god also doesn't believe in his silly little list of things he doesn't like?

So, if you ask a person, "do you sin" and they don;t think that god or sin are real things...there really can;t be any sensible or honest answer other than "no". If you ask people whether or not they do bad shit™...who, do you think, will say no?

Get, your shit, together.

Why do you find it impossible to keep yourself away from such topics as sin and spirituality?
Do you lack self control, or does someone manipulate you to go to places where you supposedly have no interest?