NationStates Jolt Archive

Not if the term "agnostic" is to be used correctly.



It could, but it would still be wrong, regardless.

How would the term "agnostic" modify the term "athiest"?

Say, Q is an agnostic athiest. R is a gnostic athiest. How do they differ?

(bolding added by SC)

Wait, are you drawing a constrast here? Should the bolded be the same term? I apologize, I'm not following.

Ummm I think you made a mistake in my post. The first bolded term is agnostic theist not agnostic athiest.

I'll be alittle more clear on this. Agnosticism is a stance on the capability of knowing if there is or is not a god. If your agnostic you take the stance that we can't know if there is or is not a god or which one is the right god from what we've got. Then based on that you can either fall into the theist or atheist camp.

How would the term "agnostic" modify the term "athiest"?
The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, is an example of this position. He believed in god, but refused to ascribe positive attributes to this god on the basis that these attributes would introduce plurality into the divine nature—a procedure that would, Maimonides believed, lead to polytheism. According to the religious agnostic, we can state that god is, but—due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural—we cannot state what god is.

Like his theistic cousin, the agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. For the agnostic atheist, not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well. We cannot have knowledge of the unknowable; therefore, concludes this agnostic, we cannot have knowledge of god’s existence. Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.
From Atheism: The Case Against God

Not if the term "agnostic" is to be used correctly.



It could, but it would still be wrong, regardless.

Are there words or phrases that have a some meaning today, that once had a different meaning but changed over time through this process?

Are those usages wrong?

By what mechanism can a usage change from its earlier meaning, and have the new usage be considered "right"?

Are there words or phrases that have a some meaning today, that once had a different meaning but changed over time through this process?
Yes.


Are those usages wrong?
If those usages blatantly ignore the root words within them (such as making agnosticism into a 3rd position), yes.

Ummm I think you made a mistake in my post. The first bolded term is agnostic theist not agnostic athiest.

I'll be alittle more clear on this. Agnosticism is a stance on the capability of knowing if there is or is not a god. If your agnostic you take the stance that we can't know if there is or is not a god or which one is the right god from what we've got. Then based on that you can either fall into the theist or atheist camp.

Is that to say, then, that an agnostic person is admittedly speculative in their view on God (be it whatever), whereas a non-agnostic feels their position is not speculative?

Is that to say, then, that an agnostic person is admittedly speculative in their view on God (be it whatever), whereas a non-agnostic feels their position is not speculative?

I really don't understand what your trying to get at Saint.

Yes.



If those usages blatantly ignore the root words within them (such as making agnosticism into a 3rd position), yes.


What about the term science?

(please note, I don't raise this example to contrast religion with science, but only because the term science may have a root whose meaning addresses this linguistic issue)

What is the root of the word science, and how does it compare with the actual methodology of science?

What about the term science?
What about it?


What is the root of the word science, and how does it compare with the actual methodology of science?
Having knowledge?

You do realize that a methodology is different from the actual thing, right?

I really don't understand what your trying to get at Saint.

Sorry...it feels to me that the set relation is lexicographically ordered. I'm trying to see what separates the gnostic/agnostics.

The gnostic athiest claims that whether a god exists is discoverable, and does not believe there is a god?

The agnostic athiest believes that the issue cannot be determined, and also does not believe there is a god?

It seems the agnostic feels the issue can only be speculated on, whereas the gnostic feels a definitive answer is possible.

What about it?



Having knowledge?

You do realize that a methodology is different from the actual thing, right?

Well, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to frustrate you.

To me, science is a thing that is at least somewhat defined by its methodology.

So, if its root is "to know" or "knowledge", and scientists address falsifiable models of principals that are continuously improved and revised (which I personally find to be a more sound means of examing the universe than religious teaching), it seems they don't really "know" categorically.

Perhaps you could help me with a better example of a word whose accepted "right" usage has drifted from its root.

Well, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to frustrate you.

To me, science is a thing that is at least somewhat defined by its methodology.
In a way, but not quite. The discipline is different from the method.


So, if its root is "to know" or "knowledge", and scientists address falsifiable models of principals that are continuously improved and revised (which I personally find to be a more sound means of examing the universe than religious teaching), it seems they don't really "know" categorically.
You're smuggling in the infallibist fallacy.


Perhaps you could help me with a better example of a word whose accepted "right" usage has drifted from its root.
Agnostic. Gnosis/Gnostos/Gignoskein = knowledge/to know

Now it means "one who doesn't believe one way or the other if there is a god or not".

Clearly, this is wrong because belief or lack thereof is binary--there are only 2 options. So we come to the idea of not-knowing. Well what don't you know? Do you not know if there is a god? Do you not know what god is? It must be specified.

This is why the common usage of the word "agnostic" is utterly and horribly wrong.

Sorry...it feels to me that the set relation is lexicographically ordered. I'm trying to see what separates the gnostic/agnostics.

The gnostic athiest claims that whether a god exists is discoverable, and does not believe there is a god?

The agnostic athiest believes that the issue cannot be determined, and also does not believe there is a god?

It seems the agnostic feels the issue can only be speculated on, whereas the gnostic feels a definitive answer is possible.

I would assume so Saint. In most likelyness someone like a gnostic athiest would say that its possible to know a god through religious experiences, miracles, other stuff but doesn't believe there is a god for some reason. And yea agnostics tend to go in the camp of we will can't really know. There can be discussion but nothing definitive will be proved.

In a way, but not quite. The discipline is different from the method.

For purposes of discussion, rather than methodology, I'll amend my question to address the discipline, if you prefer. I just feel like the discussion of a discipline will natural include aspects of how it is practiced.


You're smuggling in the infallibist fallacy.

Since you're a fan linguistic precision, may I suggest that "smuggling" implies some kind of intentional deceit or surreptitious act?

BAAWA, I'm really just trying to understand your position, and I believe I've made an honest effort. If you disagree with me or see an error, could you illustrate it without accusing me of some kind of dishonest intent?


Agnostic. Gnosis/Gnostos/Gignoskein = knowledge/to know

Now it means "one who doesn't believe one way or the other if there is a god or not".

Clearly, this is wrong because belief or lack thereof is binary--there are only 2 options. So we come to the idea of not-knowing. Well what don't you know? Do you not know if there is a god? Do you not know what god is? It must be specified.

This is why the common usage of the word "agnostic" is utterly and horribly wrong.

Are there others? In a given day, how much of the average person's discourse might contain these kinds of "wrong" usages?

How different would daily language be if all these usages were limited to their strictest interpretation?

I would assume so Saint. In most likelyness someone like a gnostic athiest would say that its possible to know a god through religious experiences, miracles, other stuff but doesn't believe there is a god for some reason. And yea agnostics tend to go in the camp of we will can't really know. There can be discussion but nothing definitive will be proved.

Seems reasonable.

For purposes of discussion, rather than methodology, I'll amend my question to address the discipline, if you prefer. I just feel like the discussion of a discipline will natural include aspects of how it is practiced.
And...?



Since you're a fan linguistic precision, may I suggest that "smuggling" implies some kind of intentional deceit or surreptitious act?
Surreptitious, yes.


Are there others?
Most likely.

I like precision in terms. This way, there's no ambiguity. Don't you agree?

Do you believe all children are born athiests?

And...?




Surreptitious, yes.



Most likely.

I like precision in terms. This way, there's no ambiguity. Don't you agree?

And if we're discussing the discipline, then its distincition from methodology is no longer a barrier to discussion, that's all.

Am I to take, then, that you feel I'm trying to do something stealthy, and don't believe that I'm actually trying to get clarity out of this?

Since there are most likely others, could you suggest a few? Would one need to know the root of every word to know if its common usage has strayed?

Yes, BAAWA, I like precision in terms, because it serves communication, much like affable civility can.

Do you believe all children are born athiests?

Well insofar as the lacking belief part of the definition of it yea. Unless kids are born with beliefs they fit that part of the definition until their parents give them a religion or until they themselves find on.

Do you believe all children are born athiests?
Of course.

Well insofar as the lacking belief part of the definition of it yea. Unless kids are born with beliefs they fit that part of the definition until their parents give them a religion or until they themselves find on.
So, children also lack a belief in deep sea squid.

Am I to take, then, that you feel I'm trying to do something stealthy, and don't believe that I'm actually trying to get clarity out of this?
You did something stealthy that you didn't quite realize.


Since there are most likely others, could you suggest a few?
Why?

What is the purpose of your continued questioning?


Would one need to know the root of every word to know if its common usage has strayed?
Helps.

So, children also lack a belief in deep sea squid.

Yep. No belief in the squid. As far as they know it doesn't exist. Its not until they learn about it that they have some sort of belief in it.

So, children also lack a belief in deep sea squid.


Well, it seems to believe in something you would have to be able to provide some kind of rudimentary description of it.

I don't think a newborn child could tell you anything meaningful about deep sea squid.

So, children also lack a belief in deep sea squid.

Yup.

Yep. No belief in the squid. As far as they know it doesn't exist. Its not until they learn about it that they have some sort of belief in it.
And then the children are proven wrong and are forced to believe.

And then the children are proven wrong and are forced to believe.

Well, I supposed technically they aren't forced, but yeah, upon knowing of the existence of the squids, they tend to accept them as, you know, existing.

And then the children are proven wrong and are forced to believe.

Well I wouldn't say forced to believe. If a kid reads a book they can still actively deny that squids exist. They'll be looked at funny but I wouldn't say they are actively forced to believe squids exist by science teachers all over the world. Unless those damn squids have some sort of conspiracy going.

You did something stealthy that you didn't quite realize.


Well, I'll try not to "smuggle" anything else, but since I'm evidently unaware of it, it may be difficult to curtail. May I at least trust that you don't doubt my intent, then?


Why?

What is the purpose of your continued questioning?


To explore the use and misuse of terms. Its relevence here seems stark. For example, if I picked a random thread here on nationstates, and collaborated with an etymologist or linguist to examine the roots of all or most of words as they contrast with usage, would this "wrongness" you're describing be limited to the term "agnostic"?

I wonder how many terms that I or other people use might be "wrong" under this standard.


Helps.

And certainly it would help further to find other elements of language that are misused.

BAAWA, if you don't want to discuss this, I understand. But there's no tug of war here, I'm not holding the rope. Can't we just examine the ideas involved without there having to be derisive hostility?

Well I wouldn't say forced to believe. If a kid reads a book they can still actively deny that squids exist. They'll be looked at funny but I wouldn't say they are actively forced to believe squids exist by science teachers all over the world. Unless those damn squids have some sort of conspiracy going.
Only forced if they rely on reason and logic. I'm not talking about the crazy kids.

Only forced if they rely on reason and logic. I'm not talking about the crazy kids.

Well how would it be forced. I can agree with the fact that they are given information on squids and what not but no teacher comes up and says here is a squid now you believe in that sucker or your going to get the ruler.

Well, I'll try not to "smuggle" anything else, but since I'm evidently unaware of it, it may be difficult to curtail. May I at least trust that you don't doubt my intent, then?
I didn't.



To explore the use and misuse of terms. Its relevence here seems stark. For example, if I picked a random thread here on nationstates, and collaborated with a etymologist or linguist to examine the roots of all or most of words as they contrast with usage, would this "wrongness" you're describing be limited to the term "agnostic"?
Probably not.


I wonder how many terms that I or other people use might be "wrong" under this standard.
Dunno.



And certainly it would help further to find other elements of language that are misused.
Yes.


BAAWA, if you don't want to discuss this, I understand. But there's no tug of war here, I'm not holding the rope. Can't we just examine the ideas involved without there having to be derisive hostility?
I don't see that there is any.

Well how would it be forced. I can agree with the fact that they are given information on squids and what not but no teacher comes up and says here is a squid now you believe in that sucker or your going to get the ruler.

Frankly, I think that kind of educational method should be limited to geography and cooking classes.

Until you get to grad school, then they should be allowed to ruler the shite out of you.

Only forced if they rely on reason and logic. I'm not talking about the crazy kids.

Well it's the reasonable conclusion, if that's what you think 'forced' means, sure.

But honestly what was the point of the squid tangent. I know they taste good but why bring them into a theology debate?

I didn't.

**small snips**

I don't see that there is any.

Well, saying that I'm "smuggling" something did seem to imply something about my intentions, but now that you describe it as "unintentional" smuggling, I'll try not to take it badly.

It reminds me of the questions at the airport, when they ask if anybody else packed your bags or asked you to carry anything...

When you phrase a reply as "You do realize xxx xxx xxx, don't you?" , it seems like there is some derision there.

As to the rest, may I take from the terminal and curt nature of your replies that these questions hold no interest for you?

But honestly what was the point of the squid tangent. I know they taste good but why bring them into a theology debate?

Was Desp Meas trying to imply something about squid existing regardless of belief?

I didn't follow the squid thing either.

But honestly what was the point of the squid tangent. I know they taste good but why bring them into a theology debate?
Say a child is asked if he knows about Deep Sea Squid? He replies, "I don't know." But he walks down to the library to find out. I'm being told that on his way to the library, to find out the answer to the question he was asked, it should be understood that the child has "a lack of belief" in deep sea squid and therefore is equivalent to someone who denies deep sea squid exist.

Say a child is asked if he knows about Deep Sea Squid? He replies, "I don't know." But he walks down to the library to find out. I'm being told that on his way to the library, to find out the answer to the question he was asked, it should be understood that the child has "a lack of belief" in deep sea squid and therefore is equivalent to someone who denies deep sea squid exist.

Well, you'd use the same word for the two. Asquidist.

Say a child is asked if he knows about Deep Sea Squid? He replies, "I don't know." But he walks down to the library to find out. I'm being told that on his way to the library, to find out the answer to the question he was asked, it should be understood that the child has "a lack of belief" in deep sea squid and therefore is equivalent to someone who denies deep sea squid exist.

So I can go back and look, being told by who?

As to the rest, may I take from the terminal and curt nature of your replies that these questions hold no interest for you?
They hold no interest for me at present.

Well, you'd use the same word for the two. Asquidist.

What modifier would separate the Asquidist who denies the existence of squid from the Asquidist who neither affirms nor deines the existence of squid, but rather says "I don't know"?

So I can go back and look, being told by who?
Baawa.

Well, you'd use the same word for the two. Asquidist.
They are not equal.

Say a child is asked if he knows about Deep Sea Squid? He replies, "I don't know." But he walks down to the library to find out. I'm being told that on his way to the library, to find out the answer to the question he was asked, it should be understood that the child has "a lack of belief" in deep sea squid and therefore is equivalent to someone who denies deep sea squid exist.
The same term is used.

What precisely is your problem?

They hold no interest for me at present.

So, the thread went on for pages, trading insults and accusations and petty jabs, and that was worth being involved in, but should the thread turn to a non-adversarial examination of the core ideas involved, that's uninteresting?

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

The same term is used.

What precisely is your problem?
The fact that you don't understand that I am saying two different things. It's not just you, I don't agree with the particular atheistic argument you are using.

So, the thread went on for pages, trading insults and accusations and petty jabs, and that was worth being involved in, but should the thread turn to a non-adversarial examination of the core ideas involved, that's uninteresting?
You weren't examining the core ideas.

The fact that you don't understand that I am saying two different things.
Atheism in the lack of belief sense encompasses atheism in the belief in lack sense.

Does that make everything crystal clear now?

Say a child is asked if he knows about Deep Sea Squid? He replies, "I don't know." But he walks down to the library to find out. I'm being told that on his way to the library, to find out the answer to the question he was asked, it should be understood that the child has "a lack of belief" in deep sea squid and therefore is equivalent to someone who denies deep sea squid exist.

This is borderline on Agnosticism, not Atheism as it is being referred to. The child at this point does not know, which is Agnosticism. Later when he finishes research and decides whether deep sea squid exist is the point when it is a belief or Atheism.

The same term is used.

What precisely is your problem?

This is what I'm talking about. Instead of the hostile "What precisely is your problem?" couldn't you just patiently present again your view that the lack of a belief is the sole condition for applying the term?

Then, in deference to the other view, you could say that, while there is a distinction between kinds of asquidists, those differences aren't cogent to the application of the term itself.

Do you want people to consider your view? Are your chances of real communication not better without "What's your problem?"

You weren't examining the core ideas.

The variance between roots and common usage isn't at the core of all this?

Atheism in the lack of belief sense encompasses atheism in the belief in lack sense.

Does that make everything crystal clear now?
Atheism is actively believing that there is no God.

This is borderline on Agnosticism, not Atheism as it is being referred to.
It would still be atheism.


The child at this point does not know,
Know what?

You can't just have it hanging. It must be qualified. That's why agnosticism can't stand on its own.

Say a child is asked if he knows about Deep Sea Squid? He replies, "I don't know." But he walks down to the library to find out. I'm being told that on his way to the library, to find out the answer to the question he was asked, it should be understood that the child has "a lack of belief" in deep sea squid and therefore is equivalent to someone who denies deep sea squid exist.

Your confusing the part that atheism has 2 parts to its definition. There is the actively denying the existance of god and then there is the lacking of belief in god. I can be an atheist even if I don't say god doesn't exist. I can be an atheist if I simply lack the belief.

This is what I'm talking about. Instead of the hostile "What precisely is your problem?"
That's not hostile; that's asking a question.

The variance between roots and common usage isn't at the core of all this?
For this word. You wanted to discuss all the words like that. That's not part of this discussion AND YOU KNOW IT.

Atheism is actively believing that there is no God.
If you mean that solely and only, then you're wrong. And you've had it demonstrated to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

So I must conclude that if you mean that solely and only, you are lying your ass off.

Your confusing the part that atheism has 2 parts to its definition. There is the actively denying the existance of god and then there is the lacking of belief in god. I can be an atheist even if I don't say god doesn't exist. I can be an atheist if I simply lack the belief.The word agnostic is used for the second part of that definition which should not be confused with atheism.

That's not hostile; that's asking a question.

If you truly believe that, you're the one smuggling here.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt as being somebody with a sincere and authentic desire for precision and clarity in language.

But if you honestly can't see the hostility in "What precisely is your problem?", then you clearly don't have the acumen for language that I thought you had.

The word agnostic is used for the second part of that definition which should not be confused with atheism.
Wrong.

If you truly believe that, you're the one smuggling here.
Not in the least. It was asking a question. If you decide to smuggle in some ulterior motive on my part, that's your problem.

I'm beginning to grow tired of your antics.

It's quite simple really.
If you believe in god, you're a theist.
If you don't, no matter how you reach the conclusion, you're atheist.

For this word. You wanted to discuss all the words like that. That's not part of this discussion AND YOU KNOW IT.

Okay, please calm down. Sometimes, by examing the dynamic in adjacent situations, it can shed some light on the central theme.

When you say that I "know it", you again make it sound like I'm trying to put something past you. I'm not.

What do you think I'm trying to gain here? Do you think I get ten dollars if I somehow do something against you?

Know what?

You can't just have it hanging. It must be qualified. That's why agnosticism can't stand on its own.

Agnosticism is not knowing/caring whether a power exists. Atheism is denying the existence of a power, or not believing in the existence of a power.

That is the argument, and also a very simple answer to your debate.

No qualification is needed. 8 year olds can be agnostic because they don't want to go to church. Of course, they can also be atheist on the same level.

It's quite simple really.
If you believe in god, you're a theist.
If you don't, no matter how you reach the conclusion, you're atheist.
Oh noes, say the self-proclaimed agnostics. We want to stay above it all. Don't make us be atheists! We don't want to be communists or baby-eaters or anything like that! Don't make us be atheists! We don't want it!

Not in the least. It was asking a question. If you decide to smuggle in some ulterior motive on my part, that's your problem.

I'm beginning to grow tired of your antics.

Can a question not be hostile?

The word agnostic is used for the second part of that definition which should not be confused with atheism.

No its not Desperate. Agnosticism can be a modifier to the position but its not a sperate one to it. Look I used to think the same way you did but I looked at the lack of belief part. If you have no belief in a diety, god, whatever you want to call it you fall under the atheist category. Now you can modify it to say I don't believe we can know if there is or is not a god so I don't have a belief in a god hence becoming an agnostic atheist but you can't simply be agnostic.

Oh noes, say the self-proclaimed agnostics. We want to stay above it all. Don't make us be atheists! We don't want to be communists or baby-eaters or anything like that! Don't make us be atheists! We don't want it!

This crap your spewing right now doesn't help. Alot of people who aren't as well versed on the topic do mistakenly view this as an attack on agnosticism and acting all full of yourself doesn' t help BAAWA.

Agnosticism is not knowing/caring whether a power exists.
Not precisely. It's not knowing if there is or what it is. But there still must be a belief in existence or lack of belief in existence associated with it for it to make sense.


Atheism is denying the existence of a power, or not believing in the existence of a power.
Not believing != denying.


No qualification is needed.
Sure it is. "I don't know"--well WHAT don't you know?

See how it must be qualified?


8 year olds can be agnostic because they don't want to go to church.
Ummm....how would that make one an agnostic?


Of course, they can also be atheist on the same level.
Then you agree with me.

@Saint Curie: The modifier could be the Weak and Strong thing mentioned earlier

@Insomnileptia: Agnosticism is not a lack of knowledge, it is a lack of belief in our ability to know.


Atheism is actively believing that there is no God.

No, see, break down the word with me.

A-, Lacking, without
Theos-, a god
-ism, a belief in

See how that comes together? Lacking a belief in a god. Simple, yes?

Can a question not be hostile?
You tell me.

It's quite simple really.
If you believe in god, you're a theist.
If you don't, no matter how you reach the conclusion, you're atheist.

Sounds reasonable. For those who wish to illustrate the difference in how they arrived at atheism (and whether or not they exclude the possibility of some god or other), is there some term or modifier to describe subsets of atheism?

Alot of people who aren't as well versed on the topic do mistakenly view this as an attack on agnosticism and acting all full of yourself doesn' t help BAAWA.
Tough. I'm making fun of the people who think it's an attack on them.

If you mean that solely and only, then you're wrong. And you've had it demonstrated to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

So I must conclude that if you mean that solely and only, you are lying your ass off.
No reputable dictionary has "lack of belief" in the definition for atheism. The word comes from the Greek atheos. The ism was added later. From the birth of the word until about 250 years ago, when philosophers began fucking with the it, an atheist is solely one who denies the existance of God.

No qualification is needed. 8 year olds can be agnostic because they don't want to go to church. Of course, they can also be atheist on the same level.

They can be Agnostic if they don't think we can know for sure, they can be Atheist if they don't believe.

You tell me.

Well, you mentioned that you weren't being hostile, you were asking a question. That implied that one exluded the other. I feel they don't, and I'm presenting that idea politely. Hence, my question was not hostile.

Okay, please calm down.
I'm quite calm.


When you say that I "know it", you again make it sound like I'm trying to put something past you.
Then what were all the questions about other words about?

Just wondering.

Well, you mentioned that you weren't being hostile, you were asking a question. That implied that one exluded the other. I feel they don't, and I'm presenting that idea politely. Hence, my question was not hostile.
And my question was?

Tough. I'm making fun of the people who think it's an attack on them.

Could that kind of behaviour not inhibit useful communication as much as imprecise language?

Tough. I'm making fun of the people who think it's an attack on them.

So you've just resorted to trolling how fun.

No reputable dictionary has "lack of belief" in the definition for atheism. The word comes from the Greek atheos. The ism was added later. From the birth of the word until about 250 years ago, when philosophers began fucking with the it, an atheist is solely one who denies the existance of God.

If you wanna talk about where it comes from, go even farther down, to what the word is made of. Eytmology can be helpful when looking to understand the meaning of a word. We're uusing the word that has the ism on it now, and if it didn't it'd still be "without a god".

No reputable dictionary has "lack of belief" in the definition for atheism.
Actually, it does. Disbelief. Same thing.

a-: lacking/without.

So you might want to take your self-righteous "I'm above it all" bull and cram it up your ass.

If you wanna talk about where it comes from, go even farther down, to what the word is made of. Eytmology can be helpful when looking to understand the meaning of a word. We're uusing the word that has the ism on it now, and if it didn't it'd still be "without a god".
Denial of God.

So you've just resorted to trolling
Nope.

And my question was?

Your question was "What precisely is your problem?", and since the person happened to disagree with you, they may not have felt the problem was on their end.

BAAWA, its just not hard at this point to look back through this thread and see a lot of derision and hostility from you.

Denial of God.
Disbelief of the existence of god.

We can do this until you get mad and hold your breath until we agree with you.

Could that kind of behaviour not inhibit useful communication as much as imprecise language?
No.

Your question was "What precisely is your problem?", and since the person happened to disagree with you, they may not have felt the problem was on their end.
And?

Is there some point to your statement?

Actually, it does. Disbelief. Same thing.

a-: lacking/without.

So you might want to take your self-righteous "I'm above it all" bull and cram it up your ass.

What is the root of the word "bull" as opposed to its usage here?

What is the root of the word "bull" as opposed to its usage here?
*yawn*

Nope.

So how is making comments designed to get people angry not trolling?

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.


Note the further explanation of disbelieve. To refuse to give credit to. When dealing with something that is yet to be experience, the value of conflicting opinions on the matter is exactly the same and are not to be relied on by people who value experience.

And?

Is there some point to your statement?

You asked what your question was, and I answered. The statement's point was commensurate with your question.

*yawn*

So the standard is far less worthy when applied to you.

So how is making comments designed to get people angry not trolling?
It's not designed to get people angry; it's designed to show them how silly it is for them to think that it's because we want to indoctrinate them into atheism or some other such idiotic nonsense.

Sometimes you have to slap people in the face with their own nonsense for their own good.

It's not designed to get people angry; it's designed to show them how silly it is for them to think that it's because we want to indoctrinate them into atheism or some other such idiotic nonsense.

Sometimes you have to slap people in the face with their own nonsense for their own good.
I know the feeling.

So the standard is far less worthy when applied to you.
So you do have some ulterior motive.

It's not designed to get people angry; it's designed to show them how silly it is for them to think that it's because we want to indoctrinate them into atheism or some other such idiotic nonsense.

Sometimes you have to slap people in the face with their own nonsense for their own good.

And you don't like other people's "self-righteous bull"?

You asked what your question was, and I answered. The statement's point was commensurate with your question.
I didn't see a point in your statement. If you could kindly provide it to me, I would be most appreciative.

Baawa's obviously got enough to give away.

It's not designed to get people angry; it's designed to show them how silly it is for them to think that it's because we want to indoctrinate them into atheism or some other such idiotic nonsense.

Sometimes you have to slap people in the face with their own nonsense for their own good.

If your making fun of someone how does that not get them angry. I can understand logically taking them through the steps but to sit there and make fun of them won't help.

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit;
Not to believe.

Not "to believe in not".

See how it's a lack of belief?

So you do have some ulterior motive.

No, I'm openly asking you to be fair. If I establish that we all occasionally use words that are "wrong" by your standard, maybe you won't feel the need to "slap" everybody for something you do yourself.

If your making fun of someone how does that not get them angry.
Ask Don Rickles.


I can understand logically taking them through the steps but to sit there and make fun of them won't help.
It does when you want to eliminate the nonsense in the first place and say what needs to be said.

No, I'm openly asking you to be fair.
I am.

I didn't see a point in your statement. If you could kindly provide it to me, I would be most appreciative.

My point was to illustrate that I believe your earlier question (regarding what somebody else's problem) was hostile.

You asked what your question was, I described it.

Not to believe.

Not "to believe in not".

See how it's a lack of belief?
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.


I cannot reject the truth or reality of anything that has not revealed itself to me. You cannot prove a negative.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit;
Not to believe.

Not "to believe in not"

See how it's a lack of belief?

We can keep doing this until you stomp your feet and call for mommy.

I am.

When you want to "slap" others for their "nonsense" of misusing words by your standard, and you turn around and do it yourself, you are not.

Not to believe.

Not "to believe in not"

See how it's a lack of belief?

We can keep doing this until you stomp your feet and call for mommy.
I already said that I do believe in God if God exists.

My point was to illustrate that I believe your earlier question (regarding what somebody else's problem) was hostile.
And that belief is based on.....?

Not to believe.

Not "to believe in not".

See how it's a lack of belief?

I think that all this usage of euphemism and phrasing is pointless and just causes stupid arguments like this one. Do your research, and there's no need to argue about phrasing, like you sir are doing, in the stead of talking about what the argument is about.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.


I cannot reject the truth or reality of anything that has not revealed itself to me. You cannot prove a negative.

Since when did you need to prove something to have an according belief? Besides, by this logic, there are no Atheists.

Talking to you is like taking crack. It's against my better judgement but damn it if I can't stop.

I already said that I do believe in God if God exists.
Yes. And I already explained how that's a mighty big if, and that since you currently do not believe, you currently are an atheist.

Since when did you need to prove something to have an according belief? Besides, by this logic, there are no Atheists.
No, there are atheists. I just hold them as equals to theists.

When you want to "slap" others for their "nonsense" of misusing words by your standard, and you turn around and do it yourself,
I didn't.

I already said that I do believe in God if God exists.
is that like keeping your options open in case there really is a heaven?

Yes. And I already explained how that's a mighty big if, and that since you currently do not believe, you currently are an atheist.
I believe in everything that exists, that encompasses God if he exists.

No, there are atheists. I just hold them as equals to theists.
So you're just proving that you're stupid and trolling. Gotcha.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.


http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html

And that belief is based on.....?

The idea that asking somebody what their problem is isn't some innocent question. "What precisely is your problem" implies its the other persons problem.

In my view, there are clear currents of hostility there.

So you're just proving that you're stupid and trolling. Gotcha.
Good way to try to think.

I believe in everything that exists, that encompasses God if he exists.
And since you currently don't believe, you currently are an atheist.

I think that all this usage of euphemism and phrasing is pointless and just causes stupid arguments like this one.
Then why are you involved in this discussion? Feeling schizophrenic?

is that like keeping your options open in case there really is a heaven?
If the Christian God exists, I'm damned anyway.

The idea that asking somebody what their problem is isn't some innocent question.
It is.

And since you currently don't believe, you currently are an atheist.
Say God exists. That means I believe in him.

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.

Stuffed if I'm going to read 51 pages to see if this has already been said but...

I find "christians" are just agnostics with too much pride.

No, there are atheists. I just hold them as equals to theists.

Well, unfortunately they aren't. Clearly you see how Atheist is Theist with 'A-' In front of it, yes? Atheist is everything outside of Theist. If Atheist were, say, equal and opposite to Theist, it'd be more likely called Antitheist. The A- prefix could be consider to mean 'not'. Not Theist = Atheist.

Good way to try to think.
Irony-o-meter. Blown.

I didn't.

You did. You used the term "bull" in its meaning of common usage, not its meaning per its root.

Do you honestly not see how that reflects on all your other posts about validity of common usage when different from root meaning?

Well, unfortunately they aren't. Clearly you see how Atheist is Theist with 'A-' In front of it, yes? Atheist is everything outside of Theist. If Atheist were, say, equal and opposite to Theist, it'd be more likely called Antitheist. The A- prefix could be consider to mean 'not'. Not Theist = Atheist.
They both hold an opinion as to the existance of God. And neither one knows.

Say God exists. That means I believe in him.
IFF god does. But you said if, therefore you currently do not believe.

You did.
No, I did not. I simply didn't want to have some little pansy cry to the mods about someone "swearing".

Capice?

They both hold an opinion as to the existance of God. And neither one knows.

No one knows. However, Theists hold an opinion, anyone that doesn't not hold that opinion is Atheist.

No one knows. However, Theists hold an opinion, anyone that doesn't not hold that opinion is Atheist.
I don't agree with that. Athiests hold the opinion that God does not exist.

They both hold an opinion as to the existance of God. And neither one knows.
Knows what?

I don't agree with that.
Kent Hovind doesn't agree with the fact that evolution happens. Neither his disagreement there nor your disagreement here means anything to the facts of the matter.


Athiests hold the opinion that God does not exist.
All of them? Have you polled every single one?

No one knows. However, Theists hold an opinion, anyone that doesn't not hold that opinion is Atheist.

Has anyone put up a Venn diagram?

Perhaps we could show something that way, by having a clear boundary between atheists and theists as disjoint sets, and their union would equal the universal set (which we could designate as all people).

Knows what?
About the existance of things not revealed.

Yes. And I already explained how that's a mighty big if, and that since you currently do not believe, you currently are an atheist.
Since you are struggling, let me make it easy for you?

Atheist = not religious

Agnostic = somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Theist = belief in God

I don't agree with that. Athiests hold the opinion that God does not exist.

No, just look at the word. You know how the prefix 'a-' works don't you? It's rather similar to 'non-'.

Kent Hovind doesn't agree with the fact that evolution happens. Neither his disagreement there nor your disagreement here means anything to the facts of the matter.



All of them? Have you polled every single one?
Evolution is a working theory that works too well to be successfully discredited.

Has anyone put up a Venn diagram?
Something like it (but not quite) has been put up way back in the beginning of this thread.

All of them? Have you polled every single one?
It's the definition of the word. If they believe that God might exist, they are not atheists.

Since you are struggling, let me make it easy for you?

Atheist = not religious

Agnostic = somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Theist = belief in God

Luckily, Agnostic is not mutually exclusive to the other two, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

No, I did not. I simply didn't want to have some little pansy cry to the mods about someone "swearing".

Capice?

Regardless of your reasoning, you did. You used the common usage which conflicts with the root.

Why would doing that to avoid mod problems be any more justifying than using common usage for practical reasons?

Evolution is a working theory that works too well to be successfully discredited.
It's also a fact. And it's a fact that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It's also a fact that this encompasses the statement that there is no god.

Like it or not--those are the facts.

Then why are you involved in this discussion? Feeling schizophrenic?

Was wondering how long it was going to take me to find a flamer in intelligent discussion. Didn't take that long, did it?

You have skewed beliefs and because you are here more to piss people off, the argument from you becomes completely invalid. Going against what everyone is saying just shows how unoriginal and uninformed you are. I bet if someone came on here and shared the same argument with you, you'd reply with "Screw you m8. Pwnedzorz!", like you've been doing in the last bit of this discussion. Showboating 16-year-old. If you're not 16, you have the mind and maturity of an uneducated 16-year old.

Regardless of your reasoning, you did.
No, I did not.

Was wondering how long it was going to take me to find a flamer in intelligent discussion.
You were trying to have an intelligent discussion?

Get lost, troll.

It's the definition of the word. If they believe that God might exist, they are not atheists.

But many don't believe god might exist. Back to the child example, they don't believe anything. Which means they don't believe a god exists, thus Atheist.

It's also a fact. And it's a fact that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It's also a fact that this encompasses the statement that there is no god.

Like it or not--those are the facts.
I don't like the fact that you've got your facts wrong, friend. Now I go to lie in bed with my girlfriend and wonder if I'm going to face God when I die, or oblivion, or a very terribly smart kitten.

It's the definition of the word. If they believe that God might exist, they are not atheists.
If they don't believe that god exists, even if they think it might, they are atheists.

You were trying to have an intelligent discussion?

Get lost, troll.

You forgot PWNEDZORZ!!!11.

Child.

I don't like the fact that you've got your facts wrong,
I don't, as I've shown.

You can be smugly ignorant about this, but that's as close as you're going to get to being correct.

You forgot PWNEDZORZ!!!11.

Child.
You're not even a good troll, child.

I don't, as I've shown.

You can be smugly ignorant about this, but that's as close as you're going to get to being correct.
Back at you. Goodnight.

No, I did not.

Well, help me understand how you didn't.

You used the word "bull" (for mod-related reasons) to mean something. What was its meaning as you used it?

What is its meaning per its root?

Since you are struggling, let me make it easy for you?

Atheist = not religious
Wrong. Buddhism is techinically an atheistic religion.


Agnostic = somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
Wrong.


Theist = belief in God
Hey, One-outta-three! That might get you into Cooperstown, but doesn't do you well here.

Atheist: lacks the belief in the existence of a god
Theist: has the belief in the existence of a god

Any middle?

Ummmm....nope. Can't have a middle between having and lacking.

Well, help me understand how you didn't.
No.

You're not even a good troll, child.

I challenge you to try something original.

Such as:
-not using what others have said as a returned insult
-not repeating things you have already used as an insult to avoid using thought.
-actually saying something intelligent.

Would that be a little big for you? Or should I lower my demands?

Back at you. Goodnight.
And the child stomps off to go be comforted by mommy.

I challenge you to try something original.
I challenge you to actually have a point.

And the child stomps off to go be comforted by mommy.
While I understand your point of view through the discussion dont be uselessly petty

While I understand your point of view through the discussion dont be uselessly petty
Oh that was quite useful. While I can't say for certain, I think there are some reading this thread (perhaps not participating) who were thinking the same thing and are glad it was said.

Wrong. Buddhism is techinically an atheistic religion.

Wrong.

Hey, One-outta-three! That might get you into Cooperstown, but doesn't do you well here.

Atheist: lacks the belief in the existence of a god
Theist: has the belief in the existence of a god

Any middle?

Ummmm....nope. Can't have a middle between having and lacking.
Says you. Perhaps you should re-write the dictionary, you have a good start?

You coould call it BAAWA's "Fictional Dictional". :p

I challenge you to actually have a point.

...case in point. Have fun with whatever you're wholeheartedly failing to prove. Night.

Says you.
Says reality.

...case in point. Have fun with whatever you're wholeheartedly failing to prove. Night.
I concur.

I concur.
Awwww.....feeling that you need validation for your ineptness? Wanting someone to tell you that being wrong isn't really being wrong?

Wrong. Buddhism is techinically an atheistic religion.



Sounds reasonable.

In some Theravada and Mahayana schools of Buddhism, certain "gods" (sometimes on other planes, sometimes the Hindu gods) are referenced,
such as a passage in the Buddhacarita when the Hindu Gods come to life and bow before Buddha, but I think stories like this are probably not reflective of Siddhartha's actual teachings.

If one were a member of one of these sects and believed the stories of gods in buddhist writings to somehow be literal, I suppose they'd be theist, but most buddhists I've talked to don't seem to believe in a god as such.

Awwww.....feeling that you need validation for your ineptness? Wanting someone to tell you that being wrong isn't really being wrong?
"Luke, you're going to find many of the truths we cling to depend on our point of view."

There is much great philosophy to be found in Star Wars.

:sniper: I hate the Roman Catholic Church. And all other organized religions as well.

No.

Okay, I can't force you to back your point. We'll just have to disagree, I hope we can do so affably.

And the child stomps off to go be comforted by mommy.
Holy shit. You are a jerk. I couldn't resist seeing what you would say. You really have to resort to this? You would have been interesting to talk to if a. You could actually hold a conversation without insulting others; b. you didn't mindlessly repeat your arguments (quite a few times I felt I had to repeat my own as it seemed you'd forgotten what I said only a few pages back) and c. If you had an original thought in your body that wasn't completely lifted from arguments I could have (and did) read myself by Googling. The only thing that could possibly redeem yourself in the eyes of the people here who try (for the most part) to hold a certain respect for each other and at least hold a minimum of attention to others arguments is if you are, indeed, a child.

"Luke, you're going to find many of the truths we cling to depend on our point of view."

There is much great philosophy to be found in Star Wars.
Coincidentally (or tangentally), I know one of the editors/quasi-main-people of Open Court Books, the company which publishes the whole "X and Philosophy" series.

Just saying, that's all.

Oh that was quite useful. While I can't say for certain, I think there are some reading this thread (perhaps not participating) who were thinking the same thing and are glad it was said.
Not that

I am glad you like to share your viewpoint on the topic at hand but I doubt anyone worth their weight in salt wishes you to be petty and provide nothing to the discussion

Holy shit. You are a jerk.
And you're a total smeg-head with delusions of adequacy. What's your point?

Look: you've had it explained to you why your narrow view is wrong. You cling to it anyway. That's smugly arrogant stupidity.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I would suggest that you take some time to understand the nature of the difference between lack of belief and belief in lack, and how the former can encompass the latter (much to your utter chagrin).

Not that

I am glad you like to share your viewpoint on the topic at hand but I doubt anyone worth their weight in salt wishes you to be petty and provide nothing to the discussion
I rather think it provided a lot. I've been told in other chat rooms and message boards that people wish they could say the things that I do say, or write the things that I write--especially when I nail someone precisely as I did.

The only thing that could possibly redeem yourself in the eyes of the people here who try (for the most part) to hold a certain respect for each other and at least hold a minimum of attention to others arguments is if you are, indeed, a child.
nor is your continued use of 'child' as an insult ameliorating the situation, though we may agree with you. to your point c though, the internet is an incredible source of information. sifting through the available information to defend one's point is a crucial skill.

and to baawa, defending one's point with an emotional detachment is also a crucial skill.

Awwww.....feeling that you need validation for your ineptness? Wanting someone to tell you that being wrong isn't really being wrong?
I can see why you declare yourself as an atheist. :eek:

and to baawa, defending one's point with an emotional detachment is also a crucial skill.
Then why defend it at all?

I can see why you declare yourself as an atheist. :eek:
Yeah: I do not have the belief that there is a god.

nor is your continued use of 'child' as an insult ameliorating the situation, though we may agree with you. to your point c though, the internet is an incredible source of information. sifting through the available information to defend one's point is a crucial skill.

and to baawa, defending one's point with an emotional detachment is also a crucial skill.
I think I only called him a child once but that's beside the point. I also use the internet for information but for the most part I try to interpret it for myself, something I find lacking in his arguments. But, I agree with you completely that I did nothing but poke a stick at somebody who likes being poked.

This is the way I see it: Most agnostics are also atheists and don't know it, while most atheists are agnostics and don't know it. I state how this is below.

There is not conclusive data as to the existance of X [agnostic].
Ergo, since the non-existance of X is to be presumed before conclusive data is available, I will assume X doesn't exist in the mean while (and presumably forever) [Atheist].

The atheist who says there is no god is just stating what is logical in the face of what is known. Statements conserning the non-existance of god on other grounds are not justified true beliefs.

Then why defend it at all?
as James Earl Jones points out in Conan, true power is not killing another man with a sword. He then orders a woman to jump off a cliff, killing herself.

Likewise, truly winning an argument is not (metaphorically) bashing your opponent's head in with a rock. It is forcing them to concede defeat to your towering intellect. You will only show your towering intellect if you are calm about it, as James Earl Jones was calm ordering the woman to commit suicide.

There is great wisdom to be found in Conan.

as James Earl Jones points out in Conan, true power is not killing another man with a sword. He then orders a woman to jump off a cliff, killing herself.

Likewise, truly winning an argument is not (metaphorically) bashing your opponent's head in with a rock. It is forcing them to concede defeat to your towering intellect. You will only show your towering intellect if you are calm about it, as James Earl Jones was calm ordering the woman to commit suicide.
I tried that with him. I found it didn't work, no matter how calm or how many times I explained things to him. So I got out the rock. Figured it couldn't make things any worse.

as James Earl Jones points out in Conan, true power is not killing another man with a sword. He then orders a woman to jump off a cliff, killing herself.

Likewise, truly winning an argument is not (metaphorically) bashing your opponent's head in with a rock. It is forcing them to concede defeat to your towering intellect. You will only show your towering intellect if you are calm about it, as James Earl Jones was calm ordering the woman to commit suicide.

There is great wisdom to be found in Conan.

What is best in life?

What is best in life?
SomethingIdon'tremember, see your enemies driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

What is best in life?
42

I tried that with him. I found it didn't work, no matter how calm or how many times I explained things to him. So I got out the rock. Figured it couldn't make things any worse.
"To beat the Bug, we must learn to think like the Bug."

There is great wisdom to be found in Starship Troopers.

Invert their arguments. Lead them down a path that must end in their miserable defeat. Concede defeat to gain a strategic position, until they writhe in the crushing grip of reason.

and read Calvin and Hobbes. There is no greater wisdom than Calvin and Hobbes.

42

WRONG!

Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush yer anemies, to draive them before you, und to hear za lamentations of zer vimmen.

Close one Bwabwaasaa (I don't remeber your name and I can't see it on the post screen, sorry).

1)Well if I didn't believe (I like to say know) for a variety of other reasons that God was God and is the master and creator of the unniverse I'd look at it this way...If I was an atheist...and I lived however I wanted to live...slept around, got drunk, did drugs and w/e else and died...I don't exactly get to say I told you so...if I'm a christian (which I am) I live However I want to live (because I want to live for God and by his word) I live a good full life doing what I want to do...I die and go to heaven and the atheist goes to hell...so basically I'm saying the christian life is win win and the atheist life is win lose...a man of the odds would be a christian...I encourage any of my atheist friends here to go pick up a book by Lee Strobel called case for a creator. I'll pray for all of ya and hope God works in you and you do give your life over to him...yes it is narrowminded to say Jesus is the ONLY way truth and life, that everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell, but so is 2+2, its 4, you could say 5 and I'd still love you, but I'm sorry its 4...

http://www.markstivers.com/Cartoons/Cartoons%202003/Stivers%202-10-03%20Pavlov%27s%20dogs.gif

"To beat the Bug, we must learn to think like the Bug."
Are you going to be like the Master of Wisdom in Mystery Men?


There is great wisdom to be found in Starship Troopers.

Invert their arguments. Lead them down a path that must end in their miserable defeat. Concede defeat to gain a strategic position, until they writhe in the crushing grip of reason.
Tried that. You can't use reason on a person who didn't come to their belief via reason.

WRONG!

Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush yer anemies, to draive them before you, und to hear za lamentations of zer vimmen.

Close one Bwabwaasaa (I don't remeber your name and I can't see it on the post screen, sorry).
I never said Conan was the source of all wisdom. Everyone knows that 42 is the answer to life. Since it is the answer to life, it follows that it is the best thing in life, as we futily search for meaning in our existance.

Are you going to be like the Master of Wisdom in Mystery Men?
there was no wisdom in Mystery Men, it was a godawful movie.

1)Well if I didn't believe (I like to say know) for a variety of other reasons that God was God and is the master and creator of the unniverse I'd look at it this way...If I was an atheist...and I lived however I wanted to live...slept around, got drunk, did drugs and w/e else and died...I don't exactly get to say I told you so...if I'm a christian (which I am) I live However I want to live (because I want to live for God and by his word) I live a good full life doing what I want to do...I die and go to heaven and the atheist goes to hell...so basically I'm saying the christian life is win win and the atheist life is win lose...a man of the odds would be a christian...I encourage any of my atheist friends here to go pick up a book by Lee Strobel called case for a creator. I'll pray for all of ya and hope God works in you and you do give your life over to him...yes it is narrowminded to say Jesus is the ONLY way truth and life, that everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell, but so is 2+2, its 4, you could say 5 and I'd still love you, but I'm sorry its 4...
Nice little story there, but I as an atheist don't believe it.
So why should I give a fuck if I go to heaven or not? It doesn't exist.

1)Well if I didn't believe (I like to say know) for a variety of other reasons that God was God and is the master and creator of the unniverse I'd look at it this way...If I was an atheist...and I lived however I wanted to live
1. Please learn how to properly punctuate sentences.

2. Your ignorance is not needed here.

3. Strobel is a hack and liar.

I never said Conan was the source of all wisdom. Every one knows that 42 is the answer to life. Since it is the answer to life, it follows that it is the best thing in life, as we futily search for meaning in our existance.
<Smug mode: on>
I met Douglas Adams
<Smug mode: off>

there was no wisdom in Mystery Men, it was a godawful movie.
But it had Pee-Wee Herman. Pee-Wee Herman!

yes it is narrowminded to say Jesus is the ONLY way truth and life, that everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell, but so is 2+2, its 4, you could say 5 and I'd still love you, but I'm sorry its 4...
numbers, like religion, can be made to show anything you want. I proved in firstyear physics that 1=2, at 45 degrees. I asked the professor to mark my test at a 45 degree angle so that all my marks would be worth double. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and I still bombed the course.

1)...If I was an atheist...and I lived however I wanted to live...slept around, got drunk, did drugs and w/e else and died...I don't exactly get to say I told you so.

Have you considered that there may be atheists who develop and abide by a reasonable code of personal ethics?

And that maybe, the derivation of such a code through insight, personal introspection, and rational examination might in fact make it more meaningful?

Or that it is voluntarily practiced without threat of damnation or promise of reward, an ethic for its own self-evident worth?

<Smug mode: on>
I met Douglas Adams
<Smug mode: off>

Lucky. I got into his writting after he died.

numbers, like religion, can be made to show anything you want. I proved in firstyear physics that 1=2, at 45 degrees. I asked the professor to mark my test at a 45 degree angle so that all my marks would be worth double. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and I still bombed the course.

Were you addressing planar kinematics?

In classical mechanics, there are vector dot products where the angle can lessen the impact of a term.

1)Well if I didn't believe (I like to say know) for a variety of other reasons that God was God and is the master and creator of the unniverse I'd look at it this way...If I was an atheist...and I lived however I wanted to live...slept around, got drunk, did drugs and w/e else and died...I don't exactly get to say I told you so...if I'm a christian (which I am) I live However I want to live (because I want to live for God and by his word) I live a good full life doing what I want to do...I die and go to heaven and the atheist goes to hell...so basically I'm saying the christian life is win win and the atheist life is win lose...a man of the odds would be a christian...I encourage any of my atheist friends here to go pick up a book by Lee Strobel called case for a creator. I'll pray for all of ya and hope God works in you and you do give your life over to him...yes it is narrowminded to say Jesus is the ONLY way truth and life, that everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell, but so is 2+2, its 4, you could say 5 and I'd still love you, but I'm sorry its 4...

Sounds...Pascal-y.

if I'm a christian (which I am) I live However I want to live (because I want to live for God and by his word) I live a good full life doing what I want to do...I die and go to heaven and the atheist goes to hell...so basically I'm saying the christian life is win win and the atheist life is win lose...a man of the odds would be a christian...I encourage any of my atheist friends here to go pick up a book by Lee Strobel called case for a creator. I'll pray for all of ya and hope God works in you and you do give your life over to him...yes it is narrowminded to say Jesus is the ONLY way truth and life, that everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell, but so is 2+2, its 4, you could say 5 and I'd still love you, but I'm sorry its 4...

Some part of me hopes there is a God. It would be interesting to be behind you in line when the real implications of faith as a stochastic excercise is addressed by a god.

Were you addressing planar kinematics?

In classical mechanics, there are vector dot products where the angle can lessen the impact of a term.
lol i subsequently proved it that way in second year physics (bombing firstyear apparently didn't deter me).

in firstyear, i combined the range equation, d= v^2*sin(2*Theta)/g and the equation v^2 = v1^2 + 2ad. Let v1 =0 starting at rest. Allowing a = g in an object experiencing vertical acceleration only, and setting Theta = Pi/4, we obtain v^2 = 2*v^2. Dividing through by v^2, 1 = 2. I've also proved it in polar coordinates and with infinite series. physics classes can go so slowly...

yes, it's flawed. but terribly amusing in firstyear.

Some part of me hopes there is a God. It would be interesting to be behind you in line when the real implications of faith as a stochastic excercise is addressed by a god.

The main thing is that atheists go to hell, that's what's really important.....

The main thing is that atheists go to hell, that's what's really important.....
i was under the impression that atheists went into limbo.

The main thing is that atheists go to hell, that's what's really important.....

Back when I was teaching middle school, if a student ignored the taught method and derived and implemented his/her own sound method, I gave 125% of the points for the assignment. If god isn't like that, he's bad at his job.

i was under the impression that atheists went into limbo.

Wait, I heard that because we didn't take the zombiejesusblood bath, we go to the telestial kingdom? Or was it terrestrial...

I heard the Catholics were considered flushing limbo as a doctrine. Suppose that's true?

Back when I was teaching middle school, if a student ignored the taught method and derived and implemented his/her own sound method, I gave 125% of the points for the assignment. If god isn't like that, he's bad at his job.

I'll bet you don't slaughter innocent babies to make a point either.

i was under the impression that atheists went into limbo.

No, I've been assured of my hellboundness.

Wait, I heard that because we didn't take the zombiejesusblood bath, we go to the telestial kingdom? Or was it terrestrial...

I heard the Catholics were considered flushing limbo as a doctrine. Suppose that's true?
thank God. I can't imagine anything more awful than eternity in limbo. At least there's something to do in hell.

I'll bet you don't slaughter innocent babies to make a point either.

My disciplinary record in this school district has been sealed. I'm advised by counsel not to address this further.

Seriously, though, yep.

No, I've been assured of my hellboundness.

By which of God's many retail clerks?

He secretly owns both Denny's and IHOP, as it were, but the price points are still different.

By which of God's many retail clerks?

He secretly owns both Denny's and IHOP, as it were, but the price points are still different.
never get treated well at Denny's. perhaps it is a Sign.

By which of God's many retail clerks?

He secretly owns both Denny's and IHOP, as it were, but the price points are still different.

It's hard to keep track to be honest.

I do remember some nice lady on the radio telling everyone that those who believe in satan's 'eviloution' are definitely going to the warm place.

The main thing is that atheists go to hell, that's what's really important.....
But the love of Jesus extends to people who've spent years doing evil things, if they'll only sincerely accept him and turn away from them.

However, the Bible does say that there will be a time when it will be too late. In several places it says that on Judgment Day people will be judged according to their actions, and those who have done good deeds will go to heaven, while people who have rejected Christ and done evil will go to hell. It also says that people who have relied on their own efforts to get to heaven and yet have rejected Christ will not get there. And it warns people who think they can rely on their own goodness to get to heaven while not admitting how sinful they really are that in fact they are not pleasing God.

Jesus said that when he returns and people are judged, people will be divided into those who have done good and those who haven't. The good will go to be with him and the rest will go off into punishment. He said: (Matthew Ch 25)

"When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left.

"Then the King will say to the people on his right, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.'
The righteous will then answer him, "When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? 38 When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?'

"The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!'"


So it seems that anyone who has been caring and compassionate and not actually rejected Christ will go to heaven.

I always thought agnostics were the sissies who didn't believe in a real religion, but were too afraid that they might be wrong to completely denounce the existance of a higher being. Ironically, you're fucked either way if God (or whatever) really exists.

As a Christian, I always (jokingly) say that I'm set. Of all the religions, I've got the best bet if mine is right. If I'm right, I go to heaven. If the Buddhists are right, I'm just set back a few steps - maybe I'll be reincarnated as a bug or something. If Mormons are right, I just get to chill in the 2nd or 3rd level of heaven. The list goes on. The only religion that I'm really screwed for is if the Muslims are right.

PLEASE tell me that your joking about the Muslim joke... I mean do you even know anything about the religion? Islam follows the same "rules" as Christianity... Muslims see Jews and Christians as equals. I really hope you were joking...

So it seems that anyone who has been caring and compassionate and not actually rejected Christ will go to heaven.

Yah. But I think atheism pretty much entails rejecting Christ.

IMHO, the 10 simple rules are separate and apart from all the various religious interpretations.

If you believe that the Commandments were "made up" by some religious group, I would disagree.

I know you've mentioned you eschew a rigorous examination of the Old Testament, but I honestly feel it necessarily introduces itself here.

The "10 simple rules" were said to have been delivered by Moses, from God. How do you separate them from the larger body of Mosaic Law in veracity (since you clearly separate them in emphasis by personal inclination)?

For example, the prohibition against worshipping graven images; how do you address such a rule outside of a religious interpretation?

I do believe in a higher power, but some religions take it just too far. :rolleyes:

So it seems that anyone who has been caring and compassionate and not actually rejected Christ will go to heaven.

What if heaven is not as wonderful as claimed? What if you dislike the color white, or feathers make you break out in rashes for example?

If you are stuck in a place you don't like for all eternity...

I don't believe in heaven, I believe in reincarnation.

But the love of Jesus extends to people who've spent years doing evil things, if they'll only sincerely accept him and turn away from them.
Yeah, a serial killer can repent before death and be saved, but an atheist won't be.

Yeah--how nice.

And please: don't give me any nonsense about how the serial killer wouldn't be saved or I'll just throw Jn 3:16 in your face.

What if heaven is not as wonderful as claimed? What if you dislike the color white, or feathers make you break out in rashes for example?

If you are stuck in a place you don't like for all eternity...

Yeah, I hear they don't have locks on the doors ('cause, you know, what would that imply), so you don't really get any privacy if you want to listen to devil music and drink redbull and vodka...

I don't believe in heaven, I believe in reincarnation.

Oh please, you've been preaching that since we were in that bar in Kentucky and you promised that Lee could never lose...

Yeah, I hear they don't have locks on the doors ('cause, you know, what would that imply), so you don't really get any privacy if you want to listen to devil music and drink redbull and vodka...

There's Redbull in heaven? I thought you only get health food and fruit juices.

Will there be the Thought-Police in heaven, what if I start thinking 'bout... nevermind.

I know you've mentioned you eschew a rigorous examination of the Old Testament, but I honestly feel it necessarily introduces itself here.

The "10 simple rules" were said to have been delivered by Moses, from God. How do you separate them from the larger body of Mosaic Law in veracity (since you clearly separate them in emphasis by personal inclination)?

For example, the prohibition against worshipping graven images; how do you address such a rule outside of a religious interpretation?
IMHO, the 10 simple rules are separate and apart from any religious dogma. Down through the ages, various religions have complicated these simple rules with there own interpretations. Why make these rules any more complex than they need to be?

They weren't written in legalese, but in such a manner that the simplest of humans could understand them. They aren't some complicated mathematical formula.

Yeah, a serial killer can repent before death and be saved, but an atheist won't be.
You obviously do not know of which you speak.

Yeah--how nice.

And please: don't give me any nonsense about how the serial killer wouldn't be saved or I'll just throw Jn 3:16 in your face.
You can't throw anything in my face. You are powerless over me and even more so as you continue to fail in delivering YOUR ultimate wisdom.

IMHO, the 10 simple rules are separate and apart from any religious dogma. Down through the ages, various religions have complicated these simple rules with there own interpretations. Why make these rules any more complex than they need to be?

They weren't written in legalese, but in such a manner that the simplest of humans could understand them. They aren't some complicated mathematical formula.

How is "I am the lord, your god, you shall have no other god before me" in any way separate from religious dogma?

It specifically and clearly addresses the issue of deity and worship. How is that not religious dogma?

I'm not addressing the issue of their clarity, but rather their content. Again, how does a prohibition against making graven idols not fall clearly under a religious impetus?

I do believe in a higher power, but some religions take it just too far. :rolleyes:
Exactly. Personally, I would imagine that God is not extremely pleased with the behaviours of certain purveyors of "religion".

You obviously do not know of which you speak.


You can't throw anything in my face. You are powerless over me and even more so as you continue to fail in delivering YOUR ultimate wisdom.

I certainly don't put myself in the same camp as BAAWA, but you didn't address his/her point at all.

For clarity, suppose person "A" is a serial killer who asks forgiveness from your christ. Is he going to heaven?

Suppose person "B" is an atheist, who cannot ask forgiveness of christ, since he doesn't believe in washing himself in the blood of dead people, even figuratively, or he has a personal ethic against letting others take punishment for him, or for any other set of reasons. Is he going to heaven?

How is "I am the lord, your god, you shall have no other god before me" in any way separate from religious dogma?

It specifically and clearly addresses the issue of deity and worship. How is that not religious dogma?

I'm not addressing the issue of their clarity, but rather their content. Again, how does a prohibition against making graven idols not fall clearly under a religious impetus?
Perhaps I am not understanding your question clearly. Obviously I believe in God. He issued 10 rules, one of which states that He is the one and only God, and that no one should whorship any other Gods. God commands that we whorship Him and Him alone.

What I mean by "religious dogma", is the fact that there are hundreds of religions, when in fact there is only one God.

Exactly. Personally, I would imagine that God is not extremely pleased with the behaviours of certain purveyors of "religion".

But in your post, you've referenced axiomatic declarations about a deity and its nature, referenced scripture, and exhorted others to convert.

While within your rights, this behaviour is distinctly religious and dogmatic. The fact that you use some scripture and deliberately ignore others only proves that your dogma is one of convenience and simplicity.

Perhaps I am not understanding your question clearly. Obviously I believe in God. He issued 10 rules, one of which states that He is the one and only God, and that no one should whorship any other Gods. God commands that we whorship Him and Him alone.

What I mean by "religious dogma", is the fact that there are hundreds of religions, when in fact there is only one God.

Ah, but your belief in one god is a religious dogma.

Your entire theme is that all the other interpretations of god/gods are incorrect and your's isn't. The behaviour of most other religions in this regard is identical to yours and vice-versa.

And again, he "issued" those ten rules to Moses (supposedly), so why are you free to ignore the other edicts issued to Moses? Because they aren't "simple"?

I certainly don't put myself in the same camp as BAAWA, but you didn't address his/her point at all.

For clarity, suppose person "A" is a serial killer who asks forgiveness from your christ. Is he going to heaven?
Firstly, there is a God and I am not Him. Secondly only God knows the answer to that question. However, as a layperson, I will offer my thoughts. I would imagine that if the "killer" truly believes in God, confesses his wrongdoing to Him and asks for His forgiveness, then yes he has a chance to be forgiven.

Suppose person "B" is an atheist, who cannot ask forgiveness of christ, since he doesn't believe in washing himself in the blood of dead people, even figuratively, or he has a personal ethic against letting others take punishment for him, or for any other set of reasons. Is he going to heaven?
Again, since I am just a humble layperson, my guess is that the answer would be no.

Firstly, there is a God and I am not Him. Secondly only God knows the answer to that question. However, as a layperson, I will offer my thoughts. I would imagine that if the "killer" truly believes in God, confesses his wrongdoing to Him and asks for His forgiveness, then yes he has a chance to be forgiven.


Again, since I am just a humble layperson, my guess is that the answer would be no.

Then why, when BAAWA presented those same interpretations for examination, did you say he didn't know what he/she was speaking of?

Firstly, there is a God and I am not Him. Secondly only God knows the answer to that question. However, as a layperson, I will offer my thoughts.

So, if only God knows the criteria by which people will be judged, doesn't that impede the correct practice of religion?

It would be like a judge with absolute power saying "I will torture anyone who doesn't abide by these strictures in my hand, which will be kept confidential".

If your ten rules are so simple, why can you not determine accurately who is out of bounds?

And if you can't determine who is out of bounds, how do you know its me and not you?

Ah, but your belief in one god is a religious dogma.

Your entire theme is that all the other interpretations of god/gods are incorrect and your's isn't. The behaviour of most other religions in this regard is identical to yours and vice-versa.

And again, he "issued" those ten rules to Moses (supposedly), so why are you free to ignore the other edicts issued to Moses? Because they aren't "simple"?
Of course there are many other subsets of rules that spin off from the 10 main rules, and of course I will do my best to follow them, and of course I will stumble. However, the 10 simple rules are the ones that I truly need to focus on.

Of course there are many other subsets of rules that spin off from the 10 main rules, and of course I will do my best to follow them, and of course I will stumble. However, the 10 simple rules are the ones that I truly need to focus on.

So you do your best to follow the other rules? Do you know what they are?
You've already said you don't feel the need to even be familiar with them. How do you "do your best" to follow rules you've claimed to not be inclined to know about?

Then why, when BAAWA presented those same interpretations for examination, did you say he didn't know what he/she was speaking of?
I blew him off due to his overbearing demeanor. He is full of himself and he has demonstrated that throughout this thread. I tried to address his previous posts in a relevant manner but that wasn't good enough for him. He choses to be contoversial, I elect not to play. It is of no consequence to me.

I blew him off due to his overbearing demeanor. He is full of himself and he has demonstrated that throughout this thread. I tried to address his previous posts in a relevant manner but that wasn't good enough for him. He choses to be contoversial, I elect not to play. It is of no consequence to me.

But by "blowing him off" in that manner, you gave tremendous credence to his position, particularly since you now describe your view as ratifying the interpretation he was attributing to you.

Earlier, you pitched your religion and some book, meaning you want us to take you seriously about important things. If you want us to do that, your credibility and consistency as a thinker is very much of consequence.

So you do your best to follow the other rules? Do you know what they are?
You've already said you don't feel the need to even be familiar with them. How do you "do your best" to follow rules you've claimed to not be inclined to know about?
There are 7 deadly sins and 7 heavenly virtues and I try my best, knowing full well that I am not nor ever will be perfect. In the end I will stand in judgment and if I fail, then I fail, but it won't be for lack of trying.

There are 7 deadly sins and 7 heavenly virtues and I try my best, knowing full well that I am not nor ever will be perfect. In the end I will stand in judgment and if I fail, then I fail, but it won't be for lack of trying.

Which doesn't address the point. Why can you ignore the vast majority of Mosaic law in favor of the ten that you've judged as more relevant?

What if everybody just obeyed the laws that they found "simple"?

I'm not trying to be rude, but you haven't really answered the questions. You've said you do your best to follow the "spinoff" rules, yet you've admitted you don't really know what they are. Isn't that lack of trying?

EDIT: I've gotta get to bed. Canuck, you seem like a nice enough sort, but if you want me to take you seriously, please try to look at these questions a little more closely before you answer.

1)Well if I didn't believe (I like to say know) for a variety of other reasons that God was God and is the master and creator of the unniverse I'd look at it this way...If I was an atheist...and I lived however I wanted to live...slept around, got drunk, did drugs and w/e else and died...I don't exactly get to say I told you so...if I'm a christian (which I am) I live However I want to live (because I want to live for God and by his word) I live a good full life doing what I want to do...I die and go to heaven and the atheist goes to hell...so basically I'm saying the christian life is win win and the atheist life is win lose...a man of the odds would be a christian...I encourage any of my atheist friends here to go pick up a book by Lee Strobel called case for a creator. I'll pray for all of ya and hope God works in you and you do give your life over to him...yes it is narrowminded to say Jesus is the ONLY way truth and life, that everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell, but so is 2+2, its 4, you could say 5 and I'd still love you, but I'm sorry its 4...

Tell me, with Christianity does hypocrisy follow? You have hypocrisy all over your post. First of all, you advertise a book which no one here will read and that's it. No details on it, no reason for me to actually pick it up. Strike one. Secondly, don't say you're going to pray for us all. You won't. You already forgot about us. Strike Two. Lastly, I love how you label Christian in regards to going to heaven. Just a couple weeks ago, I saw the biggest bible thumper friend of mine walk right past a homeless man without giving him any money. Sure, there's a 50 percent chance he would have spent it on booze, but the fact of the matter is that maybe he wouldn't have. Maybe he would have bought some food or clothing. I ended up going into K-mart's deli and buying him a sandwich and water and giving him a 20 dollar bill. When I see my Christian friend do nothing, I can't help but to think to myself that since she is filled with the 'zeal of Christ', this makes her completely oblivious to those who aren't Christians or don't present themselves in a Christian manner. This zeal gives them the mindset that since they goto church, pray to win the lottery, and label themselves as Christians then they are going to heaven. You do the same thing and it's just plain sickening. Strike three and you're out.

By what I've seen recently in my life i.e. George Bush's so called Relgious attitude and the influence he claims it has on his policies, the overall hypocrisy of Christians I've seen, and the holier than thou attitude they present...then I want no part of Christianity or any other religion for that matter. I believe that some higher power created things. That's all I believe in when it comes to religious matters. As for treating others with respect, not stealing, not killing, etc. that's common sense and just plain decency something no one needs religion to accomplish.