RE: Not Using "Agnostic" Anymore
February 19, 2013 at 12:35 am
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2013 at 12:37 am by naimless.)
(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:(February 18, 2013 at 11:52 pm)naimless Wrote: Well I'm glad you raised the point and I like the idea of defining the keywords in the thread first of all - if only this could be done for every word and every debate.
As it should.
Yes but it is impossible. You never know how many definitions of words another person knows. For example, there is the assumption I understand what you understand "should" means. Then the intonation of the phrase is another issue. My reply, right now, is probably not teaching you anything new. It's just attempting to find common ground and reinforce similar definitions. But you knew that, too, and so on...
(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:(February 18, 2013 at 11:52 pm)naimless Wrote: Nevertheless, there are a few issues here.
You can be an atheist and have a lack of belief in god. You can also be an atheist and have a belief that god will never exist. The 8/7 view, as I like to say.
Most atheists I have encountered are <=6/7, but the perception is nearly always 7-8/7.
This is where agnosticism is helpful. Anyone with any rationality can agree that we do not know everything - as you mentioned this is a given. Except it genuinely isn't.
Except, when it comes to knowledge of a supreme being, it is. No one can know for sure.
I understand what you are saying. But I also understand how someone can know for sure. Think of how many things we know for sure, with regards to science, that will not be for sure in 200,000 years. You can't. In 200,000 years, is my belief of a flying spaghetti monster the truth? Genuinely calculating it, I'd currently give it a 1/2,589,300,000,000,000,000 chance. That isn't factoring in my objective chances of being right - that is just me factoring objectivity from my subjective position.
(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:(February 18, 2013 at 11:52 pm)naimless Wrote: It's like I told my woman she was beautiful ten times a day. Ten times a day she'd smile, then look away.
I get frustrated with people not understanding my experience of definitions either. However, to say "fuck you, I'm not helping you understand me" is to be even more close-minded on the issue.
There does come a point, after a few years, when trying to help your woman understand she is beautiful, that you realise, she doesn't trust it or you. I told her, on the day I quit, you don't love me, you love the relationship.
Except beauty is subjective. Existence of a supreme being isn't.
Only if you trust the current human perception of objective reality. We have limited senses.
(February 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:(February 18, 2013 at 11:52 pm)naimless Wrote: A lot of people enjoy the argument for entertainment. However, I enter debate because I want to be proven wrong. Once you understand the motivations, as well as the definitions of the person who you are debating with, it is a lot easier.
But yes, we communicate in miscommunication so I write "other" or "music" on any forms. It's just as valid an expression for me.
I was really just talking about conversation in general, with the semantic debate coming as a result. I rarely seek out a debate.
You seek a debate if you disagree with the semantics of a conversation. Again, I understand you are saying their definitions are incorrect and yours are more objectively true so it isn't your fault.
I don't believe the universe is free enough for it to be their fault either though. We can agree to disagree on that if you wish.
