The Agnostic third way

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@White: I will let my

@White: I will let my translater know of your approval. As I speak Chimpeeze and have no idea what anything looks like in English, I have to trust the translators.

David Killens's picture
Agnosticism is based on

Agnosticism is based on knowledge.
Atheism is based on a lack of belief.

Nice try at word games Dworkin. Fail.

Tin-Man's picture
....*strumming fingers on

....*strumming fingers on table*... *look of boredom*... Why do we always have folks come here and try to redefine the meanings of perfectly good words that already work quite nicely just the way they are? I think I'm gonna start my own dictionary and redefine words for MY own personal use. Example....

From now on, to ME the word "Elevator" means a person who may or may not know for certain whether or not they do or do not believe in waterfalls during periods of drought.

And, of course, "Waterfall" means rabid vampire pixies.

Oh, and if any of you close-minded assholes try to argue with me about it, I'm simply going to tell you words can mean whatever we want them to mean and that you cannot know for certain that those meanings mean anything in the first place. Because words are just arbitrarily ambiguous metaphoric idioms created by man to communicate abstract concepts so that we can better relay significant information about the reality between us. Therefore, as long as you know what I mean when I say what I know then the meanings of the words I use are totally irrelevant.

David Killens's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

"From now on, to ME the word "Elevator" means a person who may or may not know for certain whether or not they do or do not believe in waterfalls during periods of drought."

The business is on. I am trying to raise the balance for the Gummy Bear so he can submit all the needed Fizzy Cola Bottle Jelly Beans to the Creme Egg for the Peanut M&Ms process to start. Send $1,500 via a Giant Gummy Lizard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QdPW8JrYzQ

Whitefire13's picture
Tin

Tin
Jesus fuckin Christ!!! Count on a theist to try to set the evolution of language “back” a notch or two...

David Killens's picture
@ Whitefire13

@ Whitefire13

"Count on a theist to try to set the evolution of language “back” a notch or two..."

Get used to it, it is a common tactic used by dishonest debaters. They attempt to redefine words to suit their argument.

Columbus's picture
"OK fucktard that comment was

"OK fucktard that comment was unnecessary"

I've gotten my one and only warning for sexism because I referred to you as a chick instead of a bitch.

I couldn't even apologize.

Whitefire13's picture
@Columbus - OK fucktard that

@Columbus - OK fucktard that comment was unnecessary"

I've gotten my one and only warning for sexism because I referred to you as a chick instead of a bitch.

Ahhh :( is that why you got a warning from a big bully admin???
I said “bitch” because I’m obviously a female dog and a few posters here may use it because they know I can be a bitch.

Snowflake warning - someone who pouts when nobody “understands” them or generally known as “A term for someone that thinks they are unique and special, but really are not.”

I had assumed, since I don’t know you, that your “apology” was sincere. If you want to call a PERSON a name do it based on how they present themselves, like “fucktard” - gender neutral, color neutral, race neutral, religious neutral, status neutral, age neutral ... a fuckin’ ‘tard!

Cognostic's picture
@Columbus: I am fairly sure

@Columbus: I am fairly sure that is going to do it for you....... Bye!

Columbus's picture
@Columbus: I am fairly sure

@Columbus: I am fairly sure that is going to do it for you....... Bye!

Probably so.

I got along wi

Nyarlathotep's picture
Columbus - I've gotten my one

Columbus - I've gotten my one and only warning for sexism because I referred to you as a chick instead of a bitch.

Well maybe I should have been more clear: I gave you that warning for telling us that only a female (chick) could "be such a snowflake". You didn't get a warning for insulting a female forum member. You got the warning for your negative stereotyping of every female on the planet.

LostLocke's picture
Just a heads up, I would

Just a heads up, I would answer "yes" to the fourth question.

Cognostic's picture
@White: I would try to

@White: I would try to defend you from the fucktards on the site, but I'm not stupid enough to get in front of you when you are perfectly capable of holding your own. Just let me know when you finish and I will get Tin and Old man to help me drag the body out.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog

@Cog

... *standing by with mop and bucket*....

Whitefire13's picture
@Cog. Backhoe is out back :)

@Cog. Backhoe is out back :)

NewSkeptic's picture
We are going to miss that

We are going to miss that intellect. Haven't seen them kinda smarts since Fergie flew the coup.

LogicFTW's picture
@Dworkin Original post

@Dworkin Original post

I agree, we can know nothing to absolute certainty. So at its core I agree with your argument.

But to me, it is mostly useless. Saying I know nothing with certainty is factually true, but little other then reigning in one's own hubris does this conclusion help us.

Plus this sort of conclusion leaves the door wide open to religious nuts to go on believing their very likely lie. Which is a problem. There are a lot of people making real world decisions based on their completely unevidenced god ideas.

In my own humble opinion, you gather all available data, facts, and anything else that can be verified in some way beyond simple human imagination and talk, and draw a conclusion from that to guide your actions to better self outcomes and outcomes for others you care about.

To me all the available data, facts, etc etc point to an overwhelming conclusion:

Like the monsters under your bed when you were a child, it is safe to dismiss and operate as there is no "god." To me, it is the better way to operate, leads to better self outcomes, instead of thinking some invisible sky daddy is going to fix things for everyone that follows a vague shifting set of rules written/shared/etc by other humans.

I am okay with the conclusion that: there may be some sort of "greater" entity then us humans in terms of power and intelligence, etc. But that information by it self is mostly useless to us anyhow.

Dworkin's picture
Hi LogicFTW,

Hi LogicFTW,

I agree with most of your thinking, and appreciate your comments.

One thought is that '"greater" entity' sounds worryingly like a traditional God concept to me. The real benefit from the agnostic position is that it doesn't have to scoop us into that kind of thinking. The agnostic position allows for a rarely expressed view (outside of uni philosophy departments) that the underlying condition of reality has not even been thought of. We just don't know, and this includes not even being able to apply Kantian categories. Maybe we are just caught in our own projections.

This doesn't mean that science can't keep the lights on, because it obviously can. But science does not answer philosophical questions and it doesn't need to. Amusingly, philosophers cannot answer philosophical questions either, because once answered, the questions are no longer philosophy.

D.

Randomhero1982's picture
It's pretty amazing when

It's pretty amazing when these thick fuckers cannot even grasp basic laws of logic!

A exists or A does not exist...

Fuck a doodle doo.

Dworkin's picture
Folks,

Folks,

I would like to thank everyone for replies on this thread. I've looked carefully at all the ideas presented and am satisfied that my thesis stands as consistent and plausible. However, I do accept that my allusion to grammar can be removed without weakening the core thesis.

ATB

D.

Cognostic's picture
*Shaking head in disbelief as

*Shaking head in disbelief as I step in squishy doG poo. It oozes up between my toes and I realize, poo can wash away but "stupid" clings like a m.............er.*

Whitefire13's picture
@Cog. *m.........er*

@Cog. *m.........er*

It’s spelled “moth ducker*

Sheldon's picture
Dworkin "Question – Do you

Dworkin "Question – Do you believe that the statement ‘There is God’ is true?

Dworkin – No.

Sheldon (That is the very definition of an atheist, disbelieving the claim a god exists. )

Question – Do you believe that the statement ‘There is no God’ is true?

Dworkin – No."

Sheldon (That is the definition of a theist, believing the claim a god exists. )

So you both dis-believe a deity exists, and simultaneously believe a deity exists, I'm seeing a flaw in this ludicrous rhetoric.

Agnosticism, for the gazillionth time, is a knowledge statement. A belief, such as theism is the affirmation of a claim, disbelief such as atheism is not however the affirmation of a contrary claim, it is solely the lack or absence of a belief in any deity, and nothing more. If one disbelieves the claim any deity exists then you are by definition an atheist. If you believe the claim a deity exists you are by definition a theist, or at the very least a deist.

Dworkin's picture
Sheldon.

Sheldon.

With respect, I cannot accept your assertion that a "No" in answer to the question "Do you believe that the statement 'There is no God ' is true?' is the definition of a theist. In the same way a "No" in answer to the question "Do you believe that the statement 'There is God' is true?" does not mean that the respondent is an atheist.

An Agnostic can withhold belief on both questions, which is why an Agnostic is not an Agnostic theist or and Agnostic atheist.

D.

Cognostic's picture
@Dworkin: An Agnostic can

@Dworkin: An Agnostic can withhold belief on both questions. STOP BEING A TARD ----AGNOSTICISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEF. HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO HEAR THIS BEFORE IT SINKS IN.

A -= Without Gnosis = Knowledge An agnostic has no KNOWLEDGE.

A = Without Theism = Belief in god or Gods. An atheist has no BELIEF.

Knowledge is a subcategory of BELIEF. To have Knowledge you must believe it is knowledge. Knowledge without belief is nothing. (Nothing I can think of.)

Belief without knowledge is Agnostic Theism.
Non-belief without knowledge is Agnostic Atheism.

Are you really that fucking dense or just Trolling?

Sheldon's picture
Dworkin "With respect, I

Dworkin "With respect, I cannot accept your assertion that a "No" in answer to the question "Do you believe that the statement 'There is no God ' is true?' is the definition of a theist."

Well whether you accept it or not is a moot point, as that is what the word means.

theism
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Dworkin "In the same way a "No" in answer to the question "Do you believe that the statement 'There is God' is true?" does not mean that the respondent is an atheist."

That's because atheism is not a belief, or a claim, or even a question. I disbelieve in any deity or deities because there is no objective evidence, but this does not mean I know there is no deity, anymore than I know there are no invisible mermaids, but I don't believe in those either.

Atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Dworkin "An Agnostic can withhold belief on both questions, which is why an Agnostic is not an Agnostic theist or and Agnostic atheist."

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief, and yes an agnostic can believe or disbelieve the claim a deity exists, but you cannot withhold belief on atheism, as atheism is not a belief or a question. Just Google atheism definition...it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. I'm sorry but you;re using semantics to deal in sophistry.

Dworkin's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

Yes I agree with your statement "..an agnostic can believe or disbelieve the claim that a deity exists." Of course, this is only one part of the issue. It is, of course, possible to claim that a deity exists and it is possible to claim that a deity does not exist. I do understand that atheists are quite cagey about the latter part of the issue (for some reason), but I am a realist and want to cover the subject as fully as possible.

On this point I have finished preparing the second part of my thesis which deals with your statement above and will be posting soon.

D.

Cognostic's picture
OH FUCK: Atheists are not

OH FUCK: Atheists are not cagey about a fucking thing. LEARN TO READ!

I can't wait for what dip fuck thing you come up with next.

Sheldon's picture
Dworkin "it is possible to

Dworkin "it is possible to claim that a deity does not exist. I do understand that atheists are quite cagey about the latter part of the issue (for some reason), but I am a realist and want to cover the subject as fully as possible".

Cagey? I can't speak for others, but on here I haven't noticed any atheists being "cagey" about word definitions, and I have never been cagey about the definition of words, I am if anything obsessive about not misrepresenting their definition. In my experience it is nearly always theists who come here with a chip on their shoulder about atheism and atheists who are cagey, and often stubbornly dishonest in misrepresenting both the word atheism, and atheists in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof their theism obviously carries, in an equally futile attempt to insist atheism carries a burden of proof, which is asinine as this would never be argued in any other context, other than a religious one.

The claim a deity does not exist is of course an atheistic claim, it is not however atheism, as atheism is not a claim. Any more than a smell being "fishy" makes that smell a fish.

Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is solely the absence or lack of belief in any deity or deities, it is not a claim, a belief, nor a worldview, though an atheist may make claims and hold beliefs about the existence of a deity, and hold an atheistic worldview.

I'm not sure how much more fully the word can be explained, but there is nothing realistic about getting the word's commonly understood dictionary definition wrong.

I am an atheist because I don't believe the claim a deity or deities exists, I am an agnostic regarding all unfalsifiable claims, including those about unevidenced deities, as I cannot be otherwise.

Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of "God ". Though it can apply to other unfalsifiable concepts of course.

Most importantly agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, as agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, whereas theism is a belief claim, and atheism is the lack of that belief.

This doesn't require a thesis IMHO, indeed Occam's razor suggests any attempt to add unnecessarily to atheism's definition will be wrong.

David Killens's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

"This doesn't require a thesis IMHO, indeed Occam's razor suggests any attempt to add unnecessarily to atheism's definition will be wrong."

Well said.

I live by the KISS rule because it works. Keep It Simple Stupid.

All Dworkin is attempting to do is redefine words so they add to his argument.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.