Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Asmodee]

"Anything can photosynthesize"
"This one thing can't"

Do you understand? I can say this as many ways as you like. If you say we can be agnostic about anything I only have to point out a single thing that we can't be agnostic about to demonstrate why this claim is in error. Personally, I think that there's more than one thing in that set.

I understand what YOU are saying just fine. But I'm sick of this conversation. I concede. The world is filled with only rational, thinking individuals who could not possibly ever hold an ignorant opinion about any given thing which seems obvious to you and me. Everyone on the entire planet is smart and, since you so expertly gave such elegant, obvious examples I now understand that there are no stupid people anywhere and nobody exists in all of the universe who could ever possibly hold an irrational belief to the point of being absolutely stupid. Thank you.

About particular things, yes. I'm being generous here - as I rarely answer any question regarding what I believe in the affirmative. Rarely as in never, in years of posting. It's not exactly what I'm saying, but it's clear that you aren't going to participate in what I'm actually saying...so I'll let you do your thing. So, where to next?

To be fair, I, hold the opinion that your opinion is wrong.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Someone may believe that they don;t know whatever they believe - I'm suggesting that their belief is in error, yes, surprise surprise.

Technically it is a belief until there is knowledge. "I don't know" actually makes it a belief, as does having incorrect or wrong knowledge. Belief is by necessity integrally linked to knowledge.

If you believe that I smoke elephants you'd be wrong.

But am I wrong to hold that belief until I have the knowledge that it is wrong? More to the point, if one holds a belief about that for which there is no actual knowledge, what makes that belief wrong since there is no knowledge to make it "not be" a belief?

A belief can be right or wrong regardless..jesus christ.

IF the facts or known at which time you're dealing with facts, not belief. In the case of religion, NOBODY has the facts as there are none to be had. It is not right or wrong UNTIL there are facts to show it to be one way or the other, at which time one can either continue to hold a belief in opposition to those facts or lose the belief and accept the knowledge. If the former, yes, the belief is wrong. But not unless there is knowledge to show it.

Belief isn't required to demonstrate that a given belief is wrong, but even if it were and I did...and?

No, facts are required to show whether a belief is right or wrong. Until there are facts there is only belief. And belief IN THE ABSENCE of facts is neither right nor wrong, to clarify the point I was trying to make. It's not "right" or "wrong" unless it can be proved to be right or wrong.

---

Jesus Christ, I just read over that and enough already. Enough dumb-ass examples, enough philosophical debate, enough dictionary mining...just enough.

If person A says he or she is agnostic, he or she is agnostic. Why? Because he or she is telling me what they believe and their beliefs are every bit as valid (and invalid) as my own. It is not my right to re-label them as something else whether they like it or not because I have a stick up my ass about definitions.

[LastPoet]

I am quite gnostic that, if I shoot myself in the head, I'll end up dead. Those that disagree, prove me wrong!

[Asmodee]

I am quite gnostic that, if I shoot myself in the head, I'll end up dead. Those that disagree, prove me wrong!

Only you can prove it wrong as you said "...I shoot myself..."

Interestingly, I knew a man who shot himself in the head and is very much alive.

[The Grand Nudger]

I understand what YOU are saying just fine. But I'm sick of this conversation. I concede. The world is filled with only rational, thinking individuals who could not possibly ever hold an ignorant opinion about any given thing which seems obvious to you and me. Everyone on the entire planet is smart and, since you so expertly gave such elegant, obvious examples I now understand that there are no stupid people anywhere and nobody exists in all of the universe who could ever possibly hold an irrational belief to the point of being absolutely stupid. Thank you.

Clearly you don't understand what I'm saying at all. I would have loved to give elegant, obvious examples...but you declined to participate, and despite my constant protestation decided to have an alternative conversation with yourself...as you are doing right here.

To be fair, I, hold the opinion that your opinion is wrong.

One of us has explained his opinion, the other has asserted it. I wonder which you think is which, between the two of us? Why is it that you think that we can be agnostic about anything? Can you be agnostic about anything? Can you be agnostic about whether or not you believe that you know your own name - to my mind, that would have to be included in "anything" - or perhaps -this- is what we have a disagreement over..that anything in fact, includes anything.

Technically it is a belief until there is knowledge. "I don't know" actually makes it a belief, as does having incorrect or wrong knowledge. Belief is by necessity integrally linked to knowledge.

If you told me that you didn't know whether or not I smoked reds...what belief have you expressed? What belief is that? If you told me that you didn't believe I smoked reds, what knowledge have you expressed? What knowledge is that?

But am I wrong to hold that belief until I have the knowledge that it is wrong? More to the point, if one holds a belief about that for which there is no actual knowledge, what makes that belief wrong since there is no knowledge to make it "not be" a belief?

In the end, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong to hold a belief for -any- reason to my point, my position, the conversation I tried to have with you. You know the status of your belief regarding whether or not I smoke elephants and it isn't "I don't know". You are not agnostic about -your beliefs- regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong to hold the belief...or whether the contents of the belief are right or wrong.

IF the facts or known at which time you're dealing with facts, not belief. In the case of religion, NOBODY has the facts as there are none to be had. It is not right or wrong UNTIL there are facts to show it to be one way or the other, at which time one can either continue to hold a belief in opposition to those facts or lose the belief and accept the knowledge. If the former, yes, the belief is wrong. But not unless there is knowledge to show it.

Even if you don't have access to the facts (or no one does) the belief can still be right or wrong. Two entirely separate issues. I have plenty of facts about religion. So here again, like your anything above, your nobody is plainly wrong. I'm somebody, your name is something.

No, facts are required to show whether a belief is right or wrong. Until there are facts there is only belief. And belief IN THE ABSENCE of facts is neither right nor wrong, to clarify the point I was trying to make. It's not "right" or "wrong" unless it can be proved to be right or wrong.

"The color red doesn't exist because I can't see it"

As succintly and as accurately as possible, so you can decide whether or not you want to have the same conversation that I was having with you. My position is this.

There are many things that a person can be agnostic about. There are -at least some- things that we cannot. Among those things, in my opinion, is the status of our own beliefs. Not the accuracy of the beliefs - not whether it;s right or wrong to hold the belief. Simply - we know whether we do - or do not....believe any given thing. I'm of the opinion that to state otherwise would be to state that we did not know our own minds - and if we did not know our own minds..how can we say that we know...that we do not know what we believe?

[LastPoet]

There are times a bad aim can save one's life life then.

[Asmodee]

As succintly and as accurately as possible, so you can decide whether or not you want to have the same conversation that I was having with you. My position is this.

There are many things that a person can be agnostic about. There are -at least some- things that we cannot. Among those things, in my opinion, is the status of our own beliefs. Not the accuracy of the beliefs - not whether it;s right or wrong to hold the belief. Simply - we know whether we do - or do not....believe any given thing. I'm of the opinion that to state otherwise would be to state that we did not know our own minds - and if we did not know our own minds..how can we say that we know...that we do not know what we believe?

I understand your position perfectly. You keep restating it and asserting that I MUST not understand it if I don't agree with you. This is not the case. I simply don't agree with you.

We do not know our own minds, at least, not fully. We know our own minds better than anyone else does, though. That fact alone is enough to make me accept that if someone is telling me that their position is that they are agnostic, that is probably their position. I'm not so arrogant or stuck on my own beliefs to think that I know better than they.

---

There are times a bad aim can save one's life life then.

I don't think it was bad aim. He was playing Russian Roulette. He lost. He lost some teeth is what he lost, but I think he was purposely not aiming at the important bits.

[The Grand Nudger]

I understand your position perfectly. You keep restating it and asserting that I MUST not understand it if I don't agree with you. This is not the case. I simply don't agree with you.

-and then you proceed to argue against some other point.....

We do not know our own minds, at least, not fully. We know our own minds better than anyone else does, though. That fact alone is enough to make me accept that if someone is telling me that their position is that they are agnostic, that is probably their position.

Agnostic agnostic - the double double. The super nuetral nuetral (as I put it earlier in the thread) - the person who says they do not know whether or not they believe. I haven't been arguing that a person can't be an agnostic. I've already stated that people can be agnostics...................this is why I have to keep restating it - because you keep fucking it up when you respond.

I'm not so arrogant or stuck on my own beliefs to think that I know better than they.

No, you're just arrogant enough to tell someone else what they're arguing rather than let them tell you- repeatedly.

[Simon Moon]

I am quite gnostic that, if I shoot myself in the head, I'll end up dead. Those that disagree, prove me wrong!

Gabriel Giffords.

"On January 8, 2011, a week into her third term, Giffords was a victim of a shooting near Tucson, which was reported to be an assassination attempt on her, at a supermarket where she was meeting publicly with constituents. She was critically injured by a gunshot wound to the head"

People survive gunshots to the head on a regular basis.

[abaris]

People survive gunshots to the head on a regular basis.

But chopping of the head should do the job. I'm gnostic about that.

[dyresand]

People survive gunshots to the head on a regular basis.

But chopping of the head should do the job. I'm gnostic about that.

the head survives but not that long.