Atheism and agnosticism

[Solomon Zorn]

Nothing you have said, has led me to conclude that agnostic atheism is an invalid position. Although after reading what aitm has written, and reading some of your own tangents, it may no longer be my position.

[josephpalazzo]

Nothing you have said, has led me to conclude that agnostic atheism is an invalid position. Although after reading what aitm has written, and reading some of your own tangents, it may no longer be my position.

You're an easy pushover...;-)

[drunkenshoe]

Although after reading what aitm has written, and reading some of your own tangents, it may no longer be my position.

While we have said the same thing in the end, I have written a far more detailed, -how many posts again- backed up account -with different aspects- of why agnostic atheism is problematic, but you have changed your position after aitm's post (one post) which is simply based on 'we are allowed to dismiss stupid when stupid' (and I agree with him and I am not trying to be offensive to him) and some of my tangents after telling me that I have 'hubris' and thought that it was your duty to remind me that I'm a tiny speck of matter because of how I see agnostic atheism and defend absolute nonexistence of god.

I do not believe for one second that if there was just aitm's post in this thread you'd change your position or it even was the effective post at all. You are intellectually dishonest and I am not going to have a serious conversation with you again. I don't know why you have a prejudice against me, I don't care. But you do have in a level of denying anything I said could actually mean something -whether you agree or not- or create an influence on you.

Nothing you have said, has led me to conclude that agnostic atheism is an invalid position.

Since you cannot argue with or against even one point I've made, save 'I don't agree with it', esp. with your attitude, your opinion has no value for me at all at this point.

[SoldierofFortune]

charles darwin and richard dawkins are agnostic atheists...i appreciate them...: )

do you know more than they know...argument from authority :D:D

[drunkenshoe]

As nobody claims to be an authority on anything in this thread, you are pitching a strawman. Darwin and Dawkins or science has nothing to do with the subject.

This is not/has never been an attempt on having a last word on something, this is an opinion.

May be people should stop trying to score by seeing everything offered as an ultimate conclusion about huge issues like this -which is a religious way of thinking- and just have conversations about what they think and exchange ideas instead of trying to beat each other down to look cool to other posters. (I'm not saying this to you.)

But then the interesting is what I am saying sounds alien and also bigger, loaded than it is, highly likely because people here are not interested in or informed about it. 

[drunkenshoe]

The monkey mind has to be knocked out.

Interesting you say that. I am thinking the monkey should be encouraged along with the sapient. It's the belief and the 'as if' the monkey doesn't exist thinking/behaviour messes up a lot of things. Modern human thinks it is not a monkey any more. Actually the 'danger' is that it thinks it is different 'now' than a couple of hundreds or even thousands of years. This thing called 'now' comes up everywhere in history and everyone thinks that now is different. Myeh.

[drunkenshoe]

You're an easy pushover...;-)

Like you have the balls to admit if someone ordinary -like yourself- influenced your opinions. We all know almost everyone in this forum only can be swayed by extraordinary minds as themselves. *Snort.

[SoldierofFortune]

As nobody claims to be an authority on anything in this thread, you are pitching a strawman. Darwin and Dawkins or science has nothing to do with the subject.

This is not/has never been an attempt on having a last word on something, this is an opinion.

May be people should stop trying to score by seeing everything offered as an ultimate conclusion about huge issues like this -which is a religious way of thinking- and just have conversations about what they think and exchange ideas instead of trying to beat each other down to look cool to other posters. (I'm not saying this to you.)

But then the interesting is what I am saying sounds alien and also bigger, loaded than it is, highly likely because people here are not interested in or informed about it.

the ultimate conclusion is that god may exist...beceuse we are unable to detect whether he exists or not; the existence of him can't be proven or disproven...having some ideas like thinking of the absence of him is for certain is signals os being bigoted...

[drunkenshoe]

the ultimate conclusion is that god may exist...beceuse we are unable to detect whether he exists or not; the existence of him can't be proven or disproven...having some ideas like thinking of the absence of him is for certain is signals os being bigoted...

I am guessing you are talking about empiric data and the scientific method of proving/disproving as it is the only way exists.

Did you read anything I wrote above? Becuse either you didn't or you do not really understand those concepts you use to blame someone with being a bigot.

[Solomon Zorn]

...but you have changed your position after aitm's post (one post) which is simply based on 'we are allowed to dismiss stupid when stupid' (and I agree with him and I am not trying to be offensive to him) and some of my tangents after telling me that I have 'hubris' and thought that it was your duty to remind me that I'm a tiny speck of matter because of how I see agnostic atheism and defend absolute nonexistence of god.

It wasn't a really sudden change, though. You, and especially aitm, just managed to articulate some of the thoughts I've had over recent years, in a lucid manner.

As for hubris, I mean c'mon, we all display that quality, at some point, so don't take it to heart. I reminded you of being a tiny speck, only to point out the obvious, that a speck in a little corner of such a vast universe can say very little with certainty about what created it.

I do not believe for one second that if there was just aitm's post in this thread you'd change your position or it even was the effective post at all. You are intellectually dishonest

 I don't know why you have a prejudice against me, I don't care. But you do have in a level of denying anything I said could actually mean something -whether you agree or not- or create an influence on you.

Are you that dense? I said that you contributed to my change of mind! How is that anything less than a compliment? But it wasn't your linguistics argument so much as some of your other statements (you wrote at such length, that you'll have to forgive me if I don't hunt through you're posts for a quote).

You insist that I am dismissing your opinions, when I am only disagreeing with the notion that the study of linguistics has rendered the “agnostic atheist” position (or any other position, for that matter) invalid. In my mind, you still haven't satisfactorily connected the dots.

[SoldierofFortune]

i am also wondering how any kind of god cannot exist according to linguistic...

[drunkenshoe]

It wasn't a really sudden change, though. You, and especially aitm, just managed to articulate some of the thoughts I've had over recent years, in a lucid manner.

As for hubris, I mean c'mon, we all display that quality, at some point, so don't take it to heart. I reminded you of being a tiny speck, only to point out the obvious, that a speck in a little corner of such a vast universe can say very little with certainty about what created it.

All you have written me in this thread -and in others- tantamounts to how arrogant, condescending I am and how I treat people as if they are stupid which I tried to explain many times that I don't. You know what, may be I should. They don't see any difference any way. And you claim that you have changed your position because of a post that said "this is the way because the other is stupid". I don't know a bigger hubris than that.
 

Are you that dense? I said that you contributed to my change of mind! How is that anything less than a compliment? But it wasn't your linguistics argument so much as some of your other statements...

The linguistics argument is a small part of a whole.

(you wrote at such length, that you'll have to forgive me if I don't hunt through you're posts for a quote).

You insist that I am dismissing your opinions, when I am only disagreeing with the notion that the study of linguistics has rendered the “agnostic atheist” position (or any other position, for that matter) invalid. In my mind, you still haven't satisfactorily connected the dots.

Yes, you do. Not bothering to quote or having a conversation but just coming up with a statement "I don't agree" with expressed ad hominem based on the approach to the subject is the position of dismissing or a disguised "I don't know what you are talking about, also I don't like that atitude, mostly because you are showingit". It doesn't bother you when someone else forget that they are a tiny speck of matter.

Are you aware that you are criticising me for not offering a perfect argument on an issue with this scope (WHOA!) and dismissing because a part of it didn't make sense to you in a topic you admit that you are not informed about and then claim that you changed your position about it because of another post that barely put 1/10 of what I have without backing anything up but just declaring "I know this the way it is, because the other way is stupid!"?

As I said, I do not believe you changed your position because of aitm's post, whenever the thought process began. You are either dishonest about your reaction to mine or his. Either way, you are intellectually dishonest, because you have a problem to admit an influence; a change 'drunkenshoe' (whoever/whatever you think she is) might have caused on your position. I am not angry, I find your prejudice hurtful and I don't want to talk about it anymore.

[drunkenshoe]

i am also wondering how any kind of god cannot exist according to linguistic...

I think you should first read the thread. And then may be look up a few concepts and along with that try to engage points made instead of writing one liners about your idols or what you don't undrestand.

I am not here to repeat what I have written or explain everything over and over again to you, just because you can't be bothered to get informed what the conversation was about.

So I'll dismiss your 'curiosity'.

[Solomon Zorn]

You really are impossible.

[Jannabear]

I never expected this thread would get so many fucking responses.
I've thought to myself lately if falsifiability should be a factor in agnosticism, and I'm not completely sure. (No pun intended)
I can definitely see where you're coming from though.