Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Asmodee]

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.....

Christ, will you lay off already? I understand what you are saying. I disagree with it. It's not that I'm too stupid to get your point, it's not that your point, if I understood it, would change my mind. It's that I disagree with the point you are making.

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.

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

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.

And you're arrogant enough to tell someone else what they believe rather than let them tell you. We're both a couple of arrogant fucks and we're both wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christ, will you lay off already? I understand what you are saying. I disagree with it. It's not that I'm too stupid to get your point, it's not that your point, if I understood it, would change my mind. It's that I disagree with the point you are making.

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.

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.

And you're arrogant enough to tell someone else what they believe rather than let them tell you. We're both a couple of arrogant fucks and we're both wrong.

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.

(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)

[SpecUVdust]

Rejecting somethings existence equates accepting its non-existence, and vice versa. because the law of non contradiction dictates something can't both exist and not exist at the same time.

Therefore according to the law of non contradiction, God can't exist and not exist at the same time, therefore if you don't believe God exists -Just as with spaghetti monsters and invisible unicorns- you must believe God does not exist because the final outcome of your equation equates GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Just wanted to throw this in:
Non-existence on its own two legs, is not possible. It equates to the existence of nothingness. Ever tried to think of "nothing"? Nothing is a term. An idea which actually makes it "something" and is therefor not nothing. You should study relativity. Relative to our viewpoint of a black hole, we see what appears to be nothing. But it's that we see "nothing" that tells us we see "something" which is basically the only reason we talk about black holes. God doesn't even offer this "nothing" to hint to his existence. Anyhow, "non-existence" cannot exist. Non-existence does not exist =\= non-existence is non-existant. Through relativity, things "can" both exist and not exist.

[Losty]

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

Wtf 0.o

[Jackalope]

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

I dunno, man, I know a guy who took a 7.62x54R to the head in Iraq, and he's very much alive.

[IATIA]

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences.

Assumption from the get go.

So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist, therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

Continuing this assumption to it's logical end, then your god must be able to infer an intelligence 1% greater.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Asmodee.......I also think that people can be agnostic. Ive said that a couple of times. You find me abrasive...I'm certain that I am being abrasive - that's why.

I'm suggesting that they know -whether or not they believe-

[Losty]

I kind of feel like people have to be agnostic. All people. Is it even possible to be truly gnostic? I don't think so.

[pocaracas]

I kind of feel like people have to be agnostic. All people. Is it even possible to be truly gnostic? I don't think so.

Doesn't that boil down to the problem of solipsism?

As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.