RE: A case for positive atheism
July 27, 2010 at 7:52 pm
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2010 at 8:08 pm by theVOID.)
(July 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's already been said many many times already VOID. You chose to ignore that and I have no reason to believe you wont in the future.
What are you talking about specifically? I have not 'chosen' to ignore anything, and simply asserting that I do is unsubstantial. If you can demonstrate a flaw that i have made then please do so, simply stating it as fact however achieves absolutely nothing.
Quote: If you'd like to explore it again, sure, I'm a sucker for punishment.
Explore what? I challenged you to contest my statement that "agnostic atheism is the only rational position". Are you actually going to get around to doing this any time soon?
Quote: You know very well what you deny. Or maybe you really are that much in denial.
You are being utterly ambiguous. If i have made a flaw in my reasoning or blatantly denied something obvious then you should have no problem giving examples. If you cannot give examples of this so called "denial" then i'm forced to conclude once again that you are full of shit.
Also, you speak as if i am the only one who has committed this "denial". Is that the case? If not please give examples.
Quote: I've said it there, but then ostrich like you fail to see it. To be intellectually honest doesn't mean burying your head in the sand VOID, no matter how much you want it to.
I'm not interested in you simply saying things fr0d0, i want to see some reasoning. You clearly believe that i am unjustified in my statements about agnostic atheism, so i would like you to demonstrate why it is an unjustified position.
(July 27, 2010 at 7:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. theists aren't claiming existence - atheists are claiming the opposite and trying to hang the accusation where it wasn't claimed. It's nothing more than a distraction.
You conclude that God exists.
I am of the position that there is no logical way to reach that conclusion, nor the conclusion that he does not exist, and the only rational position is that of withholding judgement.
((This is the part where you try to demonstrate why my position is wrong))
Quote:2. agnostic atheism may be strictly rational - given 'rational' is then defined as strictly observable. To be comprehensively correct you can only say that agnosticism is actually rational. Atheism alone has no convincing argument, as theism doesn't.
1. Rational is not and never has been defined as "strictly observable".
2. One is an atheist if they do not hold belief in the existence of God(s). Because agnosticism concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached, an agnostic does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.
Agnostic Theism, as stated in your "religious views" is an oxymoron as it by it's very definition concludes the existence of a God (theism). Your individual case is even more innacurate as you have concluded that not only is there in fact a god, but that he has a son called Jesus. Can you please explain where the agnosticism is in that conclusion?
.
