Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:02 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 1:55 pm)Faith Tester Wrote: By Skeptic I mean that I doubt the validity of all religions and their divine nature. This might be a little different from the standard skeptic definition, which is more close to agnostic views. I'd say that is a good definition of a skeptic; someone who doubts the validity of certain claims (i.e claims that have no evidence to support them). An agnostic claims no knowledge, which is slightly different from the angle you are coming from.
(July 17, 2009 at 4:47 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Others claim it is valid to be an agnostic atheist ... I don't agree and am "discussing" it with the boss ( ) at the moment. If we ever get you past your mis-definition of agnosticism as knowledge of belief rather than knowledge of reality...then I'm sure we could have an actual discussion of the merits of agnosticism  So far, you've just been making strawmen out of my arguments by showing how they don't work with your definition of agnosticism.
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:06 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 5:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If we ever get you past your mis-definition of agnosticism as knowledge of belief rather than knowledge of reality...then I'm sure we could have an actual discussion of the merits of agnosticism So far, you've just been making strawmen out of my arguments by showing how they don't work with your definition of agnosticism.
Not trying to be funny Adrian but my remark didn't call for a putdown did it?
I made 3 statements:
- Others claim it is valid to be an agnostic atheist
- I don't agree
- I am "discussing" it with the boss (you) at the moment.
All were fair and completely accurate.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: All were fair and completely accurate. So was my response
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote: (July 17, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: All were fair and completely accurate. So was my response
No, it was your opinion, it is NOT settled yet. But, since you're all so fired up on widening the argument to here as well, consider it my official retirement from the discussion (I genuinely can't be arsed if you're going to jump on me everywhere about it ... AND before it's resolved!).
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm
That you "do not agree" is also your opinion. I was simply commenting on the discussion, where I have demonstrated that you simply use a completely definition to the one I use in order to "rebut" my points (in other words, strawman argument).
(July 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: consider it my official retirement from the discussion Fair enough, I was getting tired of it too. I have my suspicions that if you actually read about the agnosticism that I follow, actually understood the definition I use, rather than continually using the one that no philosophers have ever used, you would agree with me about it.
It's all in the semantics. Your arguments are sound if you use your definition (I've even said this in the discussion), and mine are sound if you use my definition. It is only when you impose your definition on my arguments that they fall apart (for obvious reasons).
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 5:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: That you "do not agree" is also your opinion.
No! It was a statement of FACT that I (me, myself, moi) disagree, I balanced by saying others do not agree and further explained that we were (emphasis on "were" discussing it) ... you just had to put your [expletive deleted] oar in! You were out of order as far as I am concerned ... moreover you're too [expletive deleted] gutless to simply apologise and bring the discussion back to where it should have been, where we were discussing it.
And NO Adrian ... I was entirely committed to discussing it, I was reading your posts I just happened to disagree with your stance on the discussion.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Fine, if you want an apology, I apologize for taking a swipe at you in a thread that had nothing to do with the subject. I wasn't the one who needs to bring the discussion back however; you informed me that you had not responded to my latest post because you were doing computer work.
If you want to continue, please do so. However I think we've both made it clear that we have no wishes to continue; you because you "cannot be arsed", and me because in my opinion, we just have a semantic argument going.
I will if you will though (or anyone else for that matter).
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Fine, if you want an apology, I apologize for taking a swipe at you in a thread that had nothing to do with the subject.
Thank you.
(July 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I wasn't the one who needs to bring the discussion back however; you informed me that you had not responded to my latest post because you were doing computer work.
What? I apologised to you because I DID NOT WANT YOU TO THINK I HAD FORGOTTEN, it was an indicator to you that I DID intend to continue ... it's also worth noting that I did so in area which involved staff and not members.
(July 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If you want to continue, please do so. However I think we've both made it clear that we have no wishes to continue; you because you "cannot be arsed", and me because in my opinion, we just have a semantic argument going.
I agree it is an issue of semantics though I note with interest that only a short while ago I was guilty of raising strawmen.
(July 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I will if you will though (or anyone else for that matter).
We're done as long as you agree WE are done (which was precisely the point at which I believed we were whenever I posted about it to you before).
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Testing My Faith
July 17, 2009 at 6:21 pm
(July 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What? I apologised to you because I DID NOT WANT YOU TO THINK I HAD FORGOTTEN, it was an indicator to you that I DID intend to continue ... it's also worth noting that I did so in area which involved staff and not members. Woah...calm down. That's what I meant. I was just saying how it wasn't me who needed to bring the discussion back, it was you since I'd left the last post and you had yet to reply to it for the reasons you gave.
Quote:I agree it is an issue of semantics though I note with interest that only a short while ago I was guilty of raising strawmen.
You can use strawmen without intending to, which is the point I was trying to make. By it becoming an issue of semantics, we were both inadvertently using strawmen (i.e. rebutting a point by using a definition that wasn't being used by the person who made the point).
Quote:We're done as long as you agree WE are done (which was precisely the point at which I believed we were whenever I posted about it to you before).
Ok, so I agree that we're done. I don't like getting into semantic debates because people understand words differently, and often you end up arguing over the word even though you would both agree with the concept.
Posts: 2
Threads: 1
Joined: July 19, 2009
Reputation:
0
RE: Testing My Faith
July 19, 2009 at 3:03 am
(July 17, 2009 at 11:25 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Hi Faith Tester,
Welcome to the forum.
Atheism as a "path" is not much of a path to walk on. It only contends to one single question: Do I believe this claim of the existence of gods?
Anything else is up to you really. It says nothing on any other topic.
Atheism shouldn't be regarded as a "path" more a thought of higher intelligence and lack of ignorance. the "path" seems mixed with religion and believers.
Matt C-P
Just because you believed in Santa when you were younger doesn't mean that becoming wise and seeing that he doesn't exists means u were a believer u were just ignorant to the facts.
|
