On Agnosticism

[whitefork]

Stop feeding that troll.

Thanks, man, I needed that.

Feeding time's over, AWC.

Bye.

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

My point was not that his specific examples of charity were good or bad, I simply meant that he was not being lazy by not concerning himself with thoughts of god, but puttin his energies elsewhere.

My point exactly. This is where the irritating part comes in. The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial and in order to solve the problem one needs to be well armed and willing to fight and oppose the godeists...

 

[Upchurch]

I am not a skeptic

No, really?!

Martinm, the sarcasm was so thick, I had to get a towel to wipe it up.

 

[Samus]

I am not a skeptic. I am a realist, and objectivist a hard core atheist and I do not respect bleeding heart liberals, conservatives, communists, anachists and dumb atheists etc.

Then how do you ever expect them to respect you? Don't be bamboozled by the way you are treated. I've found that, by and large, I've been treated rather well on these forums. Your mileage may vary...

 

[Samus]

My point exactly. This is where the irritating part comes in. The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial and in order to solve the problem one needs to be well armed and willing to fight and oppose the godeists...

I don't think theism is the root cause of all evil in this world. Organized religion, on the other hand, has played a part in some of the worst atrocities in recorded history.

Methinks you're mis-directing your anger.

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Then how do you ever expect them to respect you?

I don't nor desire it. If someone initiates personal attacks against me they have blown it and will treat them as hostile.

I never initiated hostilities or personal attacks against anyone on here from day one. (Note the word initiated)

 

[Upchurch]

The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial

Is there any point in my asking what your proof of this is?

Interestingly, the concept of absolute good and evil is intemently tied to the concept of religion, where the religion supposedly represents one side and works to combat the other. hm...

 

[Martin]

I have no respect for the disrespectful period!

I do not respect bleeding heart liberals, conservatives, communists, anachists and dumb atheists etc.

Your lack of self-respect is understandable, given how little about you there is to respect.

 

[Fun2BFree]

It is not that God is necessarily logically inconsistent--it is that agnosticism is really not logically different from rationally arrived at atheism...and to label it as somehow different is perhaps logically dishonest and inconsistent...


They both start from the exact same foundation--that there is not sufficient evidence for God's existence-

The rational atheist says I do not believe in God because there is not sufficient evidence to do so--and I do not believe in things without evidence--this is the foundation of rational thought--built on evidence

What is the agnostic saying-----
"there is not sufficient evidence but I might believe in God anyway???"
Can that be said to be a rational approach?

(by the way it was George not David Smith who wrote the book which is actually called Atheism: the Case Against God.)

 

[AtheistWorld.Com]

http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=12

 

[Pahansiri]

My point exactly. This is where the irritating part comes in. The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial and in order to solve the problem one needs to be well armed and willing to fight and oppose the godeists...

Hatred, greed are the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial.


Your “thinking” is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Just another angry person blaming the world for his failures screaming out his hate and anger from behind the safety of his room and computer screen.

I do feel great compassion for you and am happy you are powerless to spread your hate or harm anyone. I do hope you overcome this and your suffering eases.

May you be well and happy.

 

[Pahansiri]

I don't nor desire it. If someone initiates personal attacks against me they have blown it and will treat them as hostile.

I never initiated hostilities or personal attacks against anyone on here from day one. (Note the word initiated)

I do not believe that is the case and please allow me to make my case.


Example One;

theistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

Kullervo, don't play stupid here. I am not interested in rants.

You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.



Kullervo made no personal statement about you to this point no has anyone.

So far this is the first proof that you have again lied, this time to your statement

I never initiated hostilities or personal attacks against anyone on here from day one. (Note the word initiated

Example 2

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.

On the other hand you have shown to have no knowledge of what logic and reason means yet you have the audacity to acuse others of same. How pathetic.

Calling someone pathetic, is a personal attack.

You are 0-2 at this point.

Example 3

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112


When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.

Here you attack everyone in the room that does not agree with you. Also descency is spelled decency.

Example 4

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112


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.


As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.

Here you attack all agnostics and the possibility that you can know all agnostics is not possible so again you are proven to be a liar as all agnostics could not have attacked you first. Also exercise is spelled exercise.

Example 5

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

I do understand your position. You are lazy to think.

While as I pointed out before here you mean to say “ you are too lazy to think” but said

I do You are lazy to think.

But regardless of the poor wording and spelling mistakes I left out you called them “lazy” that is a personal attack.


Example 6

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

quote: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?

No, in such case you would be an idiot.

Here you call someone an idiot for being a compassionate human.. How sad.



I could go on but I believe I have proven my point.

Please if you are an honest man and a “great “ debater please post the words/post of others that correspond to your post, that meaning they came before each of the examples.

Post their exact post and show us that they attacked you first.

A mature “debate” champion as yourself would find this easy to do. If you can not, or just ignore this it will be clear you are a liar and do not believe what you say.

 

[Upchurch]

http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=12

I gave it a try, but the mind-numbing power of this "article" finally got to me. Here's what I was able to get through before nearly dozing off...

The Source Of Wealth

{snip} So, let’s get down to the root cause and source of wealth; the fountain of happiness and well being.

A very cynical view of happiness and well being, but ah well.

Wealth is created by the creative mind of thinkers; by those who seek to know things which they do not understand, or to know what else is possible. The men and women whom think about invention, experimentation and advancement of their own knowledge, those are the real source of wealth. To know means science.

I'm sure this would be a surprise to any scientist who has ever sought a grant.

The creative mind of thinkers is the source of advancement, not wealth. The primary source of wealth is labor and effort. An idea isn't enough, it must be implemented. The efficency of the implementation determines the degree of profit. Knowledge alone doesn't always create a profit.

Man sees all this formless stuff, all these substances existing in nature, all the elements found in both organic and inorganic forms and of various shapes and types. All this shapeless stuff is meaningless and worthless in its original form.

Actually, I find great worth in shapeless air. But, AtheistWorld.com is waxing poetically, so I'll try not to interupt with logic.

I could use Thomas Edison or Ford as examples, but instead, I will use Bill Gates as a perfect example. Bill Gates was a nobody, as far as wealth and riches are concerned. However, this great thinker used his brain and took a piece of software which was rendered garbage by his employer, and turned this garbage into millions and millions of dollars.

Actually, this isn't quite true. Bill Gates took other people's ideas and hard work (e.g. Steve Jobs) and implemented them more shrewdly (and some would say, more underhandedly).

Regardless, Bill Gates is more the exception than the rule. Ford would have been a better example, but even he just implemented the ideas of others.

I am not going to go into the accusations made against Bill Gates and MS which claim that he used unethical tactics to get rich, because accusations are made due to religious ethics and morals which are in themselves worthless. That which society calls "morals and ethics" today are religious doctrines and altruistic in nature and so they are worthless.

I'm guessing AtheistWorld.com has never heard of the social contract or living in a society of laws...

In fact, this sounds to me like a plea to anarchy. If altruistic laws are worthless, why should theft be agaisnt the law? Or murder?

Only those whom [sic] are evil make such accusations, those whom [sic] envy achievers, whom [sic] would take what is not theirs simply because their greed is of such nature. Man has always attempted to destroy achievers, throughout all of human history. Bill Gates and many like him, were able to achieve all this, because he had the freedom to do it, to think and innovate and expand. Because he had and has a love of money as a motivating factor, because of the very thing Christianity calls evil, our lives are far better.

...so, if I read this mass of gramatical errors correctly, Bill Gates' greed is the source of wealth and, therefore, happiness but the greed of others is evil because it restrains Gates' greed. Further, the source of thie second greed is Christianity because Christianity calls greed evil.

Not only is this nonsensical, it in no way supports the conection between Christianity and this second form of greed.

Altruism

The foundation of altruism, of Christianity and religions of all sorts says "that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (Ayn Rand - "Philosophy: Who Needs It?")

Here, I thought the foundation Christianity was Christ

Regardless, this is a very strange definition of "altruism". Since when does a principle of altruism mean that man has no right to exist for his own sake? What is the justification for this statement?

Furthermore: "Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is SELF-SACRIFICE - which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the SELF as a standard of evil, the SELFLESS as a standard of the good."

wow... So, if I starve myself to death, to no one else's benefit, that is altruism? It's like he's using a whole different dictionary. (I may have to rethink that this isn't Franko with a new sockpuppet...)

One very important thing I must point out is that Christianity, (or any religion) does not have a moral code! That is right! It has NO MORAL CODE, no moral standard at all! I challenge any and all Christians to write down their moral code and submit it to everyone so we can see what it says.

Unsupported statement. Also an Argument from Ignorance.

Okay, I skimmed the rest of the rest of the article and I really can't get past the fact that he paints Christianity with a very broad brush. He totally ignores that there are different groups of Christians who believe vastly different things. He paints as erroneous picture of Christians as billie paints of atheists.

 

[Pahansiri]

Well done Upchurch.

You say at the end of your post

He paints as erroneous picture of Christians as billie paints of atheists.

It seems our friend AtheistWorld.Com is an Atheist billie on roids.

billie is a young kid looking for an Identity, a place to fit in I believe AtheistWorld is a bit older I believe and also he is just more pissed off about it.

The Buddha said

when one is afraid, they are always so offensive about it.

 

[Fun2BFree]

Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave---she wrote some entertaining novels and some interesting essays all about how selfishness is actually good---her ideas while not all backed up by evidence and sound reasoning were fun and Atlas Shrugged is a blast once you get into it--until the 20 page speech at the end which attempts to explain her philosophy--but this AW.c guy really has not fully understood her and has twisted and mutilated her ideas and yet some might be confused that this is somehow an accurate representation of Objectivism-which is basically a reason based approach that got side-tracked/derailed by the Rand cult of personality.

 

[Jet Grind]

Great, we have a Randroid on the board.

Just stop feeding the troll and he'll go away.

 

[whitefork]

If this discussion is ever to get back on track, the following guidelines might be helpful.

A makes a claim, like "The existence of god is logically impossible".

B offers a counterexample, like "I have an idol that I worship as god".

A says, "No, we're talking about a creator-god here"

C says, "OK, what about a god that creates the initial conditions for the universe, turns the crank, and leaves".

At this point, things broke down, I think. A posts a list of possible attributes for C's god, and asks C which apply to his god.
This is not the way the discussion should go. C's definition should be sufficient for an analysis of the god-concept, to say whether it is logically possible or not.

These responses are not relevant:

Who created your god?
If your god wasn't created, why isn't the universe sufficient to explain itself?

You'll notice that these are phrased as questions. This is against the rules. The claim under investigation - "god is logically impossible" - cannot be proven by asking questions, only by deduction.

Saying "god is not necessary" does not demonstrate that "god is impossible".

What's happening here is that the claimant using the old technique of asking his questioners to prove that his claim is false.

If there is a valid deductive argument that proves the impossibility of the existence of god, it probably take the form of a reductio - irrationality of the square root of 2 for example, or a demonstration that some kind of construction is impossible to carry out in a finite number of steps, and so on.

I guess I'll have to wait until a real argument appears before I can analyze it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, I feel another satire coming up. Gonna be short, though.

Hans

 

[Fun2BFree]

By the way--I would like to chime in on the root causes of the world's problems---to quote an old Burt Bacharach song--"What the world needs now, is love, sweet love. That's the only thing that there's just too little of."

I would beg to differ and say that what the world needs now is thought, rational thought--this is what there is too little of and religion -while the root cause of the problem is certainly the fertilizer--and what an appropriate metaphor for religion--it is manure--People have been conditioned and told that religious thought-which is based on the "virtue" of faith- is a good thing...
there is simply no evidence to support this notion--that faith is good--faith is bad---believeing things to be true because your mind tells you is a bad thing....it is not always a bad thing but it is too much a potential for a bad thing when reality is not required to be validated to back up our behaviours and actions-

Example- A guy believes a sniper is poised to shoot at him from a building across the street---(let us say that objective reality shows there is no such sniper-but this guy believes it anyway--)and he acts accordingly- crawling around on the floor of his own home..he is not hurting anyone with his mistaken "faith" but he could one day fire back at the building in "defense" all because his actions are based on a NON-REALITY...

 

[Upchurch]

It seems our friend AtheistWorld.Com is an Atheist billie on roids.

At least AWC writes his own stuff rather than relying on the work of others. Doesn't make it any less spun to his purposes, but it is his own material. Gotta give him credit for that, I suppose...