Atheists Admit Defeat - Video Atheists don't want you to see

[Veritas]

since we only believe God does not exists. We don't claim it in an absolute way (which would need a defense).

Interesting. Do you claim anything in an absolute way?

Normally, all humans do.

Absolutely sure hmm? Just no defense for your position about God.... ok.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Your understanding of agnosticism is not inline with how this philosphical view point has been understood since the advent of the term.

I believe your understanding is more inline with what is known as weak agnosticism (a newer term), which is more centered in non-commital until more evidence is provided.

True agnosticism centers more on the ability of human understanding and its limit in discovering God or gods, and in fact some go as far as say we can not know any truths outside of self defined definitions or math proofs. It is closely aligned with what you just spoke about God being beyond our understanding to some degree. Pure agnostics just take that to a further conclusion and say God or any gods are completely beyond human understanding.

Being non-committed to the evidence suggests you believe our subjective ability to learn truths exists. true, or strong agnosticsm denies this.

If you want to read more about the formal view of agnostics, I recommend reading some of Igersoll and Bertrand Russell.

With your understanding of agnostics, I can see how you feel the definition of atheism falls into a closer alignment, but the alignment fails when you consider classical pure agnosticism and how it has been used in philisophical works for the last 150 years. There are dramtic differences in saying the evidence is not compelling and the human ability to understand the evidence and truth is limited.

One is considering the evidence, the other is not.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

since we only believe God does not exists. We don't claim it in an absolute way (which would need a defense).

Interesting. Do you claim anything in an absolute way?

Normally, all humans do.

Absolutely sure hmm? Just no defense for your position about God.... ok.

There are 8 pages of defense.

They are well articulated, and logically structured.

Any absolute claim in for the non-existence of ANYTHING is not defendable. You can not absolutely claim that the greek gods do not exist, yet most if not everyone, believes they do not exist.

 

[francisdesales]

Your understanding of agnosticism is not inline with how this philosphical view point has been understood since the advent of the term.

Please don't bother making such statements... They make you look silly - "since the advent of the term"? Such wild bluster is pitiful.

I believe your understanding is more inline with what is known as weak agnosticism (a newer term), which is more centered in non-commital until more evidence is provided.

Whatever.

True agnosticism centers more on the ability of human understanding and its limit in discovering God or gods, and in fact some go as far as say we can not know any truths outside of self defined definitions or math proofs. It is closely aligned with what you just spoke about God being beyond our understanding to some degree. Pure agnostics just take that to a further conclusion and say God or any gods are completely beyond human understanding.

You are entitled to your opinion, but "agnosticism" is based on the Enlightenment's idea that man cannot know certain things AFTER examining the evidence. I believe God is knoweable - but some people, including myself once, wanted evidence that could not be provided. When we subject God to a constant set of standards, such as historical standards for accepting whether Julius Caesar existed, then there is plentiful evidence. However, when I raise the bar of proof required to believe God, am I being consistent?

"Pure" Agnosticism sounds like some contrived definition! Is there such a thing?

Being non-committed to the evidence suggests you believe our subjective ability to learn truths exists. true, or strong agnosticsm denies this.

Could you re-word that? I am not picking up on what you are saying.

If you want to read more about the formal view of agnostics, I recommend reading some of Igersoll and Bertrand Russell.

And if you want more formal arguments on proofs of God, I recommend you read some of Aquinas' work.

With your understanding of agnostics, I can see how you feel the definition of atheism falls into a closer alignment, but the alignment fails when you consider classical pure agnosticism and how it has been used in philisophical works for the last 150 years. There are dramtic differences in saying the evidence is not compelling and the human ability to understand the evidence and truth is limited.

I sense you are reaching here to try to maintain the "upper hand". "Classical pure agnosticism"?

I don't see "dramatic differences". This is your effort to maintain your position on the definition of atheism by clouding the meaning of agnosticism. The fact remains that they are not the same definition. An agnostic is not an atheist. They have different beliefs. Atheists have decided there is no god. Agnostics withhold that decision - they are not convinced that the evidence is compelling. And it is THIS FACT that makes them say "we cannot know God". It is not determined a priori that God is unknoweable. This idea comes from FIRST examining the evidence and concluding (correctly or not) that God is not knoweable.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I see that discourse with you is not the type of discourse I am looking for. You complain about someone else bashing others with opposing view points, and then 2 posts later use terms such as "makes you look silly" "pitiful", and generally abusive language.

I will save discourse with someone who tends to be a bit more respectful and less condescending.

I will make a final rebuttal and then let it be.

Agnosticism as a term coined in the current understanding of agnosticism was in the early to mid 1800's by Huxely.

It, as a philosophical view point was developed by writers and speakers such as I have mentioned.

Study those if you want to understand more about agnosticism. Aquinas has very little relevancy to what we are discussing.

I have provided the reasoning why your idea of agnostics seems to be that. Just your idea, and fails to follow the idea of agnosticism as laid out by the people who are attributed to it.

Aquinas has little relevancy, if any (of course most ideas in philosophy take from prior ideas)

Pure agnosticism is not "contrived". Anyone familiar with writings on agnosticism would understand terms such as this and hard agnostic, soft agnostic, open ag, closed, etc. You seem to suggest there is some black and white, binary function to all philosophy.

I sense you are reaching here to try to maintain the "upper hand". "Classical pure agnosticism"?

I don't see "dramatic differences". This is your effort to maintain your position on the definition of atheism by clouding the meaning of agnosticism. The fact remains that they are not the same definition. An agnostic is not an atheist. They have different beliefs. Atheists have decided there is no god. Agnostics withhold that decision - they are not convinced that the evidence is compelling. And it is THIS FACT that makes them say "we cannot know God". It is not determined a priori that God is unknoweable. This idea comes from FIRST examining the evidence and concluding (correctly or not) that God is not knoweable.

If you do not see the difference in "the evidence is not compelling" and "the evidence is unable to be understood with limited human understanding", then I am unable to convince you.

Agnostics are not just with holding the decision because of not committing.

Your reply again has convinced me that further discussion with you on this issue will not be constructive, therefore if you actually want to understand agnostics I suggest your read some of the things from the authors I mentioned.

Just remember that ad homs, unlike the incorrect way you have charged them throughout this thread are things like:

This is your effort to maintain your position on the definition of atheism by clouding the meaning of agnosticism.

You are attacking my character as being less than honest in the debate.

Ad hom attacks character OVER argument, and is a fallacy that unfortunately society has picked up a bad habit with from politics and our media.

I believe from this point it would be best for each of us to use the ignore button features of this site.

 

[wavy]

since we only believe God does not exists. We don't claim it in an absolute way (which would need a defense).

Interesting. Do you claim anything in an absolute way?

Normally, all humans do.

Absolutely sure hmm? Just no defense for your position about God.... ok.

Thanks for completely misunderstanding my words to make an irrelevant 'point'.

Thanks (again),
Eric

 

[platos_cave]

If a God is "unknowable", would you agree that this is a LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD???

No. You can still believe in something that you don't know to be true.

 

[francisdesales]

I will make a final rebuttal and then let it be.

Well, that's good to hear, because this conversation is going nowhere.

Study those if you want to understand more about agnosticism. Aquinas has very little relevancy to what we are discussing.

I am not concerned with reading Russell, just as you are not concerned with reading Aquinas. The point is relevant as a rebuttal to your suggestion that I read someone I could care less about.

I have provided the reasoning why your idea of agnostics seems to be that. Just your idea, and fails to follow the idea of agnosticism as laid out by the people who are attributed to it.

Ditto.

Pure agnosticism? Weak agnosticism? More contrived definitions to support what you have been doing here all along. Being a spin master. I have the distinct feeling that if I said the sky was blue, you'd complain and say it was violet and deny that blue is a color... That is the frustration level I am at with you.

Pure agnosticism is not "contrived". Anyone familiar with writings on agnosticism would understand terms such as this and hard agnostic, soft agnostic, open ag, closed, etc. You seem to suggest there is some black and white, binary function to all philosophy.

No doubt you are that "anyone" you refer to. More spin to pat yourself on the back, I presume.

Binary function? Why are you trying so hard to use 10 dollar words?

If you do not see the difference in "the evidence is not compelling" and "the evidence is unable to be understood with limited human understanding", then I am unable to convince you.

We agree that we are not able to convince the other. I commented on this long time ago. That's the nature of principles held. We both believe we are correct, and you aren't going to convince me otherwise, just as I won't either. I know this from experience, as I had heard all the "atheist" arguments before. In addition, I had heard numerous Christian arguments before converting - while remaining agnostic. You a priori have determined that God does not exist. Bottom line. Thus, no argument will move you from your emotionally held position. I, also, am not going to be moved by your arguments, because I have "been there, done that".

Agnostics are not just with holding the decision because of not committing.

Huh?

Your reply again has convinced me that further discussion with you on this issue will not be constructive, therefore if you actually want to understand agnostics I suggest your read some of the things from the authors I mentioned.

Not interested in reading about agnostics. I was one for 20 years and my "things to read" list is ever so long. I don't intend on wasting that time reading pissed off old men complaining about the how the world crapped on them and that God should have bailed them out... Study the lives of Satre and other loveless atheists who thought they had all the answers...

Just remember that ad homs, unlike the incorrect way you have charged them throughout this thread are things like:

This is your effort to maintain your position on the definition of atheism by clouding the meaning of agnosticism.

Please. That is not a personal attack, my friend. You are misappropriating the idea of "ad hominem".

You are attacking my character as being less than honest in the debate.

You are jumping to conclusions. Did I say you were dishonest?

I believe from this point it would be best for each of us to use the ignore button features of this site.

Agreed.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

VaultZero4Me wrote:
I have provided the reasoning why your idea of agnostics seems to be that. Just your idea, and fails to follow the idea of agnosticism as laid out by the people who are attributed to it.


Ditto.

Pure agnosticism? Weak agnosticism? More contrived definitions to support what you have been doing here all along. Being a spin master. I have the distinct feeling that if I said the sky was blue, you'd complain and say it was violet and deny that blue is a color... That is the frustration level I am at with you.

You get the distinct feeling that I am being argumentative, when I explain how you use a definition wrong?

I provide support for my evidence, and you say you could care less for my support.

Your rebuttals are purely to say “I was one, therefore I know what one is.†Which is nothing more than to beg the question….

Yet I point this out, and I some how would even argue against the colour of the sky.

No doubt you are that "anyone" you refer to. More spin to pat yourself on the back, I presume.

Binary function? Why are you trying so hard to use 10 dollar words?

Again nothing more than pure ad hom.

You do not address anything at all in my arguments. You label me a “spin master†and state that I “[try] hard to use $10 wordsâ€Â.

Which anyone calling “binary†a $10 word is beyond me. I never knew that such a simple word could be taken as an attempt to appear sophisticated.

“I will jus’ start a speekin like a dis’†if that some how forces you to actually address anything with responses beyond appealing to emotion, circular arguments, and ad hom.

We agree that we are not able to convince the other. I commented on this long time ago. That's the nature of principles held. We both believe we are correct, and you aren't going to convince me otherwise, just as I won't either. I know this from experience, as I had heard all the "atheist" arguments before. In addition, I had heard numerous Christian arguments before converting - while remaining agnostic. You a priori have determined that God does not exist. Bottom line. Thus, no argument will move you from your emotionally held position. I, also, am not going to be moved by your arguments, because I have "been there, done that".

Again nothing more than appealing to emotion with an attempt to set yourself up as the standard for agnosticism because “[you] been there, done that†(circular again)

VaultZero4Me wrote:
Agnostics are not just with holding the decision because of not committing.


Huh?

It means you are over simplifying what is actually held by agnostics.

VaultZero4Me wrote:
Your reply again has convinced me that further discussion with you on this issue will not be constructive, therefore if you actually want to understand agnostics I suggest your read some of the things from the authors I mentioned.


Not interested in reading about agnostics. I was one for 20 years and my "things to read" list is ever so long. I don't intend on wasting that time reading pissed off old men complaining about the how the world crapped on them and that God should have bailed them out... Study the lives of Satre and other loveless atheists who thought they had all the answers...

Again your argument is that you were one so you know what one is (more circular reasoning), and the rest is an ad hom against my sources.

Ad hom – to attack the character in order to attack the argument.

You are writing off what they say on the basis that they were merely “pissed off old menâ€Â. In fact, you haven’t established that they were even pissed off (in fact a few weren’t even that old when they began writing).

VaultZero4Me wrote:
Just remember that ad homs, unlike the incorrect way you have charged them throughout this thread are things like:

This is your effort to maintain your position on the definition of atheism by clouding the meaning of agnosticism.


Please. That is not a personal attack, my friend. You are misappropriating the idea of "ad hominem".

Please define what you feel ad hom, or even list a source. I am truly interested in what you feel it is, because by any account of my simple study into logical fallacies, trying to discredit someones argument on the basis that they are “clouding the meaning of†a definition merely to maintain a position, is an ad hom.

You are allowed to say that my definition is wrong, fine. You are not allowed (if we want to have a real debate) to insinuate that I do it merely to hold my position (of course which implies intentional dishonesty)

Of course this is assuming you want to have a logical debate.

VaultZero4Me wrote:
You are attacking my character as being less than honest in the debate.


You are jumping to conclusions. Did I say you were dishonest?

That was certainly the implications. If it is intentional or not, I cannot say. That does not mean its not ad hom.

VaultZero4Me wrote:
I believe from this point it would be best for each of us to use the ignore button features of this site.


Agreed.

Hopefully you will be a bit more disciplined than me and refuse to expand the ignored section.

 

[turnorburn]

"Things Atheists Don't Want You To See"

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

My two spense sense cents ing:

 

[Veritas]

...Just no defense for your position about God.... ok.

There are 8 pages of defense.
They are well articulated, and logically structured.

I will agree everyone here seemed to post in an articulated way but I did notice tension throughout as well. There seems to be more of a disagreement on the definition of terms than a defense that God doesn't exist.

Any absolute claim in for the non-existence of ANYTHING is not defendable.

I agree with THAT completely.

You can not absolutely claim that the greek gods do not exist, yet most if not everyone, believes they do not exist.

I think the greek gods represent a dilution (human caused) of what/who God is.

 

[wavy]

"Things Atheists Don't Want You To See"

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

My two spense sense cents ing:

At least be original.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Veritas]

Thanks for completely misunderstanding my words to make an irrelevant 'point'.

Thanks (again),
Eric

Well, I'll assume you know the point I made - it is in line with what Vault fleshed out.

 

[dadof10]

"Things Atheists Don't Want You To See"

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

My two spense sense cents ing:

It's kinda hard to discuss natural Law when we can't even agree on a single definition of a single word. It would have been nice to, though. We might have actually made some progress toward understanding.

God bless, Mark

 

[turnorburn]

"Things Atheists Don't Want You To See"

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

My two spense sense cents ing:

At least be original.

Thanks,
Eric

Why when your throwing mud on my friends, besides you wouldn't believe anything I or anyone else submitted for your approval, your toying with the members here, why not go home to awe

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I will agree everyone here seemed to post in an articulated way but I did notice tension throughout as well. There seems to be more of a disagreement on the definition of terms than a defense that God doesn't exist.

No tension on my part. I just call out circular arguments, ad homs, appeal to emotion, and the like when I see them in a debate.

Any debate should reject those.

I think the greek gods represent a dilution (human caused) of what/who God is.

It does not matter what we think may or may not have caused them. The question was do you think they exist?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

"Things Atheists Don't Want You To See"

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

My two spense sense cents ing:

At least be original.

Thanks,
Eric

Why when your throwing mud on my friends, besides you wouldn't believe anything I or anyone else submitted for your approval, your toying with the members here, why not go home to awe

If you feel mud has been thrown by me, please point it out. I will formally apologize if I went beyond the scope of attacking someones argument and attacked their person, indirectly or directly.

If wavy attacked someone in that way, show me as well. I do not recall him doing that.

Remember, it has to be attacking the person.

You know, something like "spin master", " Why are you trying so hard to use 10 dollar words?", "Please don't bother making such statements... They make you look silly - "since the advent of the term"? Such wild bluster is pitiful." (which I do hope everyone sees something a bit ironic in the last sentence)

Something personal along those lines.

 

[turnorburn]

Vault zero 4 U, Your entitled to defend the Atheist, I myself see Atheists in a different light. I realize what you mean but when someone makes light of Jesus and his sacrifice I take offense at it. He knows about the gospel message it isn't his cup of tea, he makes his own home brew. Besides, let him defend himself, come on wavy I'm waiting :smt045

 

[platos_cave]

Vault zero 4 U, Your entitled to defend the Atheist, I myself see Atheists in a different light. I realize what you mean but when someone makes light of Jesus and his sacrifice I take offense at it.

What reason do we have to take it seriously?

 

[turnorburn]

Vault zero 4 U, Your entitled to defend the Atheist, I myself see Atheists in a different light. I realize what you mean but when someone makes light of Jesus and his sacrifice I take offense at it.

What reason do we have to take it seriously?

Time to put up the Firewall I knew this would cause an outbreak of osmosis

Btw where is wavy :smt090

Not only that but wheres the rest, maybe here? http://www.mrr1968.com/Platos_Cave.html