On Agnosticism

Actually, I borrowed from deist philosophy. But regardless, maybe this god at a time idea isn't a very good one.
Click to expand...

LOL, you crack me up! That is rich! :D

Let's start over, How is the concept of God logically inconsistant in all cases?
Click to expand...

By definition.
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:





Which begs the question as to responsability...
If the problems facing our civilization are not important enough to ponder and resolve them then not only agnostics lazy but parasites as well. Thanks for bringing this up.
Click to expand...

The problems facing our civilization is not if someone believes in a God,, or does not or does not know is in NO way a problem. facing our civilization.

Hate is, hunger is violence is, illiteracy is.

PLEASE tell me how someone saying they do not know for sure if there is a god or not is a problem facing our civilization? This is without any logic.

My friend it is not being an agnostic that is a problem it is what you have demonstrated here the belief that you contain “ THE TRUTH” and anyone who does not believe you is inferior and people have only the rights to believe as you do.

My friend you are the Pat Robertson of Atheist.

I hope you find comfort from your pain
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
Which begs the question as to responsability...
If the problems facing our civilization are not important enough to ponder and resolve them then not only agnostics lazy but parasites as well. Thanks for bringing this up.
Click to expand...
hmmm, problems facing our civilization that I can think of:

Hunger
War
Tyranny/Terrorism
Human rights violations
Poverty

Maybe I missed a couple. Hammering down a definition of god, especially when so many different people (people as in collective societies, not individuals) have fought for thousands of years to have their definition accepted, is not high on my list.

What if I told you I didn't have time to conclude there is no god because I was too busy feeding starving children and helping old ladies cross the street. Would I still be lazy in your eyes?

Your thought crises are not my problem.
 
Let me rephrase this, God is not logically consistant by what definition?
Click to expand...

LOL! I get the feeling you regret getting into this debate and now are seeking to turn the tables/find a way out quick because you found that you are not very good at playing the devil's advocate.

anyway, to answer your question, too many to list. That is why I asked for your/a model.

Here is where you can find my SHORT refutation of many possible ones:
http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=4

Max
 
What if I told you I didn't have time to conclude there is no god because I was too busy feeding starving children and helping old ladies cross the street. Would I still be lazy in your eyes?
Click to expand...

No, in such case you would be an idiot.
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
Fun2BFree thanks for the tip.
and I agree with your observations.

To the previous poster who posted this

Yes as long as you convince all deists to do the same. We were talking about the deist/passive god after all and it is not I who made the claim of this god's gender but the deists themselves.
Click to expand...

My apologies; I misunderstood.

Let me see if I understand your position. Your problem is with people who are agnostic about the crop of gods we already have? If so I finally see your point. Yes, I would consider the ideas behind the Christian god, and any other I can think of, discredited.

I think this doesn't adequately describe many who call themselves agnostics, though. Many simply consider that we don't have all the facts yet to say either way whether the Universe popped into existence with or without a "creator".
 
Yo, atheist dude, you're not scaring me.

Your linked article does not contain any arguments, merely a set of assertions.

If you would take the time to actually formulate a true argument, we might have something to discuss.

Right now, you only have some tossed out opinions and pasted-together Ayn Rand quotes.

You will have to do better if you are going head to head with the likes of Upchurch or SlimShady.

Do not underestimate these guys, or I will be forced to unleash Tricky on your posterior.

Your friend,

The Lord
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
LOL! I get the feeling you regret getting into this debate and now are seeking to turn the tables/find a way out quick because you found that you are not very good at playing the devil's advocate
Click to expand...
I think you should have a read of this. It might stop you from making such an idiot of yourself.
 
No, in such case you would be an idiot.
Click to expand...

He's an idiot for feeding the poor and helping old ladies across the street. You are a bastion of rationality.
 
Many simply consider that we don't have all the facts yet to say either way whether the Universe popped into existence with or without a "creator".
Click to expand...

Yes we do. Logic. What is the logical conclusion to who created the creator and the creator's creator and on and on?

On the other side of the coin, if the creator simply existed, then I can claim existence simply existed and all that is within existence is natural thus no room for the supernatural.

If you follow any argument to a logical conclusion the end result is very simple.

What we do not know is the infinite possibilities about the nature of existence and that is another topic all its own. But with regards to the creation or the universe or its origin, the answer is very very simple and the answer is a logical conclusion.

One need not be Einstein to understand this.
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:


No, in such case you would be an idiot.
Click to expand...

''Name calling and labeling. Extremists are quick to
resort to epithets (liar, Nazi, fabian, et al.) to label and
condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their
arguments and to discourage others from hearing them
out.''

This was taken from the book by John George and Laird
Wilcox titled ''American Extremists'' ISBN 1-57392-058-4
copyright 1996.

It was found under the sub-heading of "The Traits of
"Extremists"p.56.


Concervtives: Authoritarian personality syndrome: characterzied by exaggerated submission to authority, extreme levels of conformity to conventional standards of behavior, self rightous hostility and punitiveness toward deviants and members of minority groups. Atlemyer limits the syndrome to the political right wing. Right wing authoritarianism is associated wtih hostility toward homosexuals, Aids victims, drug users, the homeless, and environmentalists.
 
He's an idiot for feeding the poor and helping old ladies across the street. You are a bastion of rationality.
Click to expand...

Helping the problem continue to exist is not solving the problem.

Take a look at the savages in Africa for instance. The missionaries and charities beg for money to feed them but not to force them to use contraceptives. The dumb savages refuse self control and birth control but expect food so they can keep on multiplying. Such parasites should not be helped and puting a side a greater problem in order to solve a simpler and less dangerous one is hardly a rational aproach.

max
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
No, in such case you would be an idiot.
Click to expand...
You crack me up. Your assertion makes no sense.

Let me explain this one a different way: Not everybody is consumed with knowing whether there exists a god. That doesn't make any said individual an idiot, lazy, or a detriment to society.

It's all in how much evidence is enough. Atheists say "I've seen enough evidence to know that the probability of a god existing is small enough such that I can reasonably assert I believe in no god." Agnostics say "there does not yet exist enough evidence for me to reasonably assert that god exists or doesn't exist."

There's nothing wrong with being unsure. You seem to think there is, and that is where this argument has fundamentally forked and will not converge.
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:


Yes we do. Logic. What is the logical conclusion to who created the creator and the creator's creator and on and on?

On the other side of the coin, if the creator simply existed, then I can claim existence simply existed and all that is within existence is natural thus no room for the supernatural.

If you follow any argument to a logical conclusion the end result is very simple.

What we do not know is the infinite possibilities about the nature of existence and that is another topic all its own. But with regards to the creation or the universe or its origin, the answer is very very simple and the answer is a logical conclusion.

One need not be Einstein to understand this.
Click to expand...

Oh, you were doing really well until that last line! :D

We have a dialogue going; let's try to continue it. Here's what I think is one problem with your reasoning. Playing devil's advocate here, so don't be insulting.

If we as skeptics are allowed to ask "What created God", we are falling into the same trap as believers who ask "What created the Big Bang". Both positions are an argument that causality must be satisfied. The fallacy is obvious: we as nonbelivers say, "Nothing created the Big Bang, it just WAS". They say, "Nothing created God, he/she/it just WAS". See the problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom