Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Asmodee]

Sigh....you managed to do it again.....Look....you might disagree with the point I'm making but I wouldn't know, because you've yet to address it.

Because I don't like arguing with you. I find you abrasive, arrogant and unpleasant, at least in this discussion. We two are apparently unable to have a civil discussion about this like two rational adults, so I don't want to have the conversation.

If a person knows their own minds then they know what they do not know.

Aren't you the one who said that we didn't? In any case, since I'm not discussing whether or not they know what they do not -know-, but rather whether they know what they -believe-..... your comment is irrelevant.

Case in point. This was not a thoughtful reply, it was a "point score" reply. Throw it back at me to make it look as if I'm confused when I'm clearly addressing what you claim to believe, then call it irrelevant.

I'm suggesting that they know -whether or not they believe-, not telling them -what they believe-. Understand? I mean, if you could just reset, realize that you are absolutely not talking with me at all, and have not been- you might find that I can make a conversation pretty interesting....but it all starts there.

Once again I'm just too simple a man to possibly understand what you're saying. All the problems lie with me. Again, THIS is why I am done having this conversation with you. You're coming off as an arrogant ass and, frankly, I don't want to have these types of discussions here. Maybe I'm coming off that way too. I probably am. If so, my apologies. but I REALLY do not want to engage in this type of mud-slinging, unproductive, petty debate here. And so I won't.

(I could, for example, quote a post you made to another to illustrate - with one of your examples- why we probably aren't so far off in our opinions but for one little tick of the mind - and how that's relevant to a post Benny made about the same - and explain why it may be that this tick is incredibly informative with regards to how we frame our "beliefs" set against or alongside our "knowledge" - if you'd like)

If you REALLY want to set aside the utter bullshit that has been this conversation so far, I would LOVE to have an intelligent debate/conversation without emotional responses and personal attacks. That hasn't happened so far so I have no reason to believe it will in the future. THIS is the type of crap which makes me HATE coming to these boards. It becomes a chore; something I must do so that I don't just run away from a debate. I don't want that here. I want to enjoy the company of like-minded people, not piss them off and be pissed off by them. I am here looking for something I can enjoy, not one more crap thing in my life that I have to do out of duty.

So if you really want to have this conversation, fine. Start over. State your position and I will reply. Don't start by asking me a bunch of seemingly unrelated questions. I know you've been there. Theists will ask a bunch of seemingly innocent questions specifically designed to make "not the answer they are looking for" look stupid at the end. So when that ploy comes out I am instantly apprehensive and uncooperative. Just state your point. I'll even start.

My position is that people can actually be agnostic. You can believe some god exists, which makes you a theist. You can believe no god exists, which makes you an atheist. Or you can hold no belief which makes you agnostic OR atheist. Of course one can easily find technicality in definitions, for instance, a definition for atheist which defines an atheist simply as one who does not believe in any gods, which would put agnostics squarely in the "atheist" corner.

However, there are several definitions, none being "the" definition. So you may end up with two people holding the exact same position, one calling himself atheist, the other calling himself agnostic. While this might at first seem to be a problem as two people holding the same position are called two different things it's really only a problem to others as the people labeling themselves are perfectly happy as things are.

Since the definitions have some overlap there is some room for interpretation. It is my opinion that if a person tells me that they are agnostic I have two choices. I can take them at their word with the understanding that they would know better than I or I could go to the library and check out 50 dictionaries, do some research on the Internet and research the history of ancient languages to prove them wrong. It is my opinion that the second is really a dick move, telling more about the size of the stick up my ass than the reality of the difference or lack thereof between atheism and agnosticism. Essentially my position boils down to this: 1) The word "agnostic" is a real word. 2) Those using the word to describe their position on religion are generally using it correctly. 3) I really don't need to go any farther than that. There is no reason to doubt them, no reason to correct them, no reason to relabel them, no reason to start a huge philosophical argument about who they really are and no purpose served by doing any of that.