First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Your Opinion Does not Count Because…
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Then isn't it correct to say that you're being wrong as long as you're remaining in the gray about a God that does nothing?


I'm withholding my judgment which means that I never judged anything except that the existence of god is uncertain. I can't be wrong but I can't be right. I acted like that because I believe that my knowledge is insufficient which is why I remain on the gray. That is all my motive. In the Congress, I believe that the term is "abstain". But perhaps it may be correct to assume that I never cared whether god exists or not.
No, for you cared enough to make a judgmental notion of classifying God as "uncertainty". Thereby your motive isn't one of "abstain" but rather "contempt of court".

And the fact is that if you indeed was abstain, you'll not be here voicing your opinion in the first place. When it has nothing to do with you.


So have I been disrespectful to the court? I doubt it. If so, I apologize. I am just saying that if this was a Congress, I would have "abstained" because my stance is neither yes or no. I was neither on the stance that god does exist or whether god does not exist. Perhaps I made my points clear in that one. Scrutinizing the definition of abstain, I may be incorrect. However, that is not the point that I am trying to make so please refrain from doing that. I make mistakes. Sometimes out of misconception. If ever I used the word "abstain" incorrectly, then you are free to correct me. I am learning.

But in a way, I apologize for voicing an opinion in a topic that has nothing to do with me.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Yei wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



No, I've already explained this before, agnosticism is the only rational theological idea, atheism or conclusively saying there is no apple tree in space is irrational. Can you prove there isn't? No, there's no way of testing this. Therefore saying there isn't one is irrational. Agnosticism doesn't come to any conclusions on anything that cannot be tested, and that's what rationality is. If you don't got the evidence, you can't reach a conclusion. You can't test for anything concerning God, or anything outside our realm of existence, therefore any conclusions on these things is irrational. Atheism comes to the conclusion that there are no deities, therefore atheism is irrational.


'So your saying being agnostic is rational.. What is rational about a person who said I know their is no evidence for Santa Claus, but their is not evidence against Santa as well so he could be their. What is rational about saying I know their is no evidence for Godzilla but their is no evidence that Godzilla is not real as well. What is rational about saying I know their is no chance in hell their be a apple pie hovering around the moon but their is no evidence their is no apple up there. What is rational about saying I know that the doctor saved his life, but their is no evidence that Thor did not save him acting as a doctor. Neanderthal once lived on earth, well what you know I can believe that because their is evidence for it..!!!!! Pixies taking children teeth wile they sleep... No evidence that their is not pixies stealing teeth, so you must be agnostic about that as well right.. (that is so Rational!!! )



Remember the "many atheists seem to have a weak understanding of philosophy" thing I said?

Let me explain rationality to you. Rationality is only accepting things that have been proven. Accepting things that have not been proven is irrational.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, so believing that idea is irrational. I think it's very easy to understand.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Yei wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I was raised a little differently than that.. I was raised not to respect anyone opinion unless they can back it up logically with evidence.
If someone told me their is a apple tree floating in space circling mars. I aspect some evidence for that before even considering it. Same as if someone was to say that their was a god.. SO you can say I am a ANTI-Apple tree in space, in the same aspect as I am an ANTI-GOD. Agnostics bother me.. Because what their saying is their could be a APple tree in space circle mars we just don't know. That kind of stance just does not stand well with me, and is very illogical. So yes I do not agree with agnostic stance on things as well. (their just afraid of rocking the boat.)



No, I've already explained this before, agnosticism is the only rational theological idea, atheism or conclusively saying there is no apple tree in space is irrational. Can you prove there isn't? No, there's no way of testing this. Therefore saying there isn't one is irrational. Agnosticism doesn't come to any conclusions on anything that cannot be tested, and that's what rationality is. If you don't got the evidence, you can't reach a conclusion. You can't test for anything concerning God, or anything outside our realm of existence, therefore any conclusions on these things is irrational. Atheism comes to the conclusion that there are no deities, therefore atheism is irrational.


'So your saying being agnostic is rational.. What is rational about a person who said I know their is no evidence for Santa Claus, but their is not evidence against Santa as well so he could be their. What is rational about saying I know their is no evidence for Godzilla but their is no evidence that Godzilla is not real as well. What is rational about saying I know their is no chance in hell their be a apple pie hovering around the moon but their is no evidence their is no apple up there. What is rational about saying I know that the doctor saved his life, but their is no evidence that Thor did not save him acting as a doctor. Neanderthal once lived on earth, well what you know I can believe that because their is evidence for it..!!!!! Pixies taking children teeth wile they sleep... No evidence that their is not pixies stealing teeth, so you must be agnostic about that as well right.. (that is so Rational!!! )



Remember the "many atheists seem to have a weak understanding of philosophy" thing I said?

Let me explain rationality to you. Rationality is only accepting things that have been proven. Accepting things that have not been proven is irrational.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, so believing that idea is irrational. I think it's very easy to understand.


You can't prove a meteor made out of peanutbutter that speaks French doesn't exist, so don't believing it exists is irrational?
Is it irrational to think things exist while you have no evidence at all, you can't proof that something does not exist, so with that logic everything is possible and everything you can think of exists until disproven.

In my opinion, THAT is illogical and irrational.

Posted 3/4/10

Yei wrote:



Remember the "many atheists seem to have a weak understanding of philosophy" thing I said?

Let me explain rationality to you. Rationality is only accepting things that have been proven. Accepting things that have not been proven is irrational.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, so believing that idea is irrational. I think it's very easy to understand.
And you can't prove that God is "uncertainty", thereby you rationalizing that you as an agnostic are correct is just entitlement. Not philosophy.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote: I'm saying that by a theist's definition I would've been an atheist. Which is partially true because I do "reasoning" instead of "believing".

I'll be taking sociology this summer, thereby I'll attempt to reform society and redefine sociology altogether. The reason why sociologists were using "inductive" logic theory back then is because they didn't what to attract public scrutiny, by them making standardized general theory of the human society. You should read some new books in the field of sociology, I can recommend you some if you want.

Finally, the minority I was referring to is none other than myself.


Now you’re just blubbering incoherently.
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Then isn't it correct to say that you're being wrong as long as you're remaining in the gray about a God that does nothing?


I'm withholding my judgment which means that I never judged anything except that the existence of god is uncertain. I can't be wrong but I can't be right. I acted like that because I believe that my knowledge is insufficient which is why I remain on the gray. That is all my motive. In the Congress, I believe that the term is "abstain". But perhaps it may be correct to assume that I never cared whether god exists or not.
No, for you cared enough to make a judgmental notion of classifying God as "uncertainty". Thereby your motive isn't one of "abstain" but rather "contempt of court".

And the fact is that if you indeed was abstain, you'll not be here voicing your opinion in the first place. When it has nothing to do with you.


So have I been disrespectful to the court? I doubt it. If so, I apologize. I am just saying that if this was a Congress, I would have "abstained" because my stance is neither yes or no. I was neither on the stance that god does exist or whether god does not exist. Perhaps I made my points clear in that one. Scrutinizing the definition of abstain, I may be incorrect. However, that is not the point that I am trying to make so please refrain from doing that. I make mistakes. Sometimes out of misconception. If ever I used the word "abstain" incorrectly, then you are free to correct me. I am learning.

But in a way, I apologize for voicing an opinion in a topic that has nothing to do with me.
The Canadians are generalized by the world as the politest people around, because one of our sociologist discovered the mechanism of "politeness". And right now you're either a "sorry excuse" of a Canadian, or you're actually being passive aggressive to a fault.

Furthermore, if this was a Congress and you were a Congressman, you won't be here at all due to the fact that you just didn't care. And that would've made you as "abstained".


SeraphAlford wrote:


DomFortress wrote: I'm saying that by a theist's definition I would've been an atheist. Which is partially true because I do "reasoning" instead of "believing".

I'll be taking sociology this summer, thereby I'll attempt to reform society and redefine sociology altogether. The reason why sociologists were using "inductive" logic theory back then is because they didn't what to attract public scrutiny, by them making standardized general theory of the human society. You should read some new books in the field of sociology, I can recommend you some if you want.

Finally, the minority I was referring to is none other than myself.


Now you’re just blubbering incoherently.
The last poser that I responded would've been the poster-child of incoherency, IMO. And no, you labeling/stereotyping/generalizing me being "incoherent" without proof, doesn't mean anything but just a label. Or have you already forgotten whatever that you've said here?

Labels are tools that we use to avoid thinking. We employ them to stereotype ourselves so that we can avoid thinking –for- ourselves by fitting neatly into a mold. We employ them to stereotype others so we can generalize them and often demonize them.
Which reminds me:

The forefront of technology has been traditionally sponsored by religion especially in the Middle Eastern world. It was the Muslim scholars, for example, that produced the advanced tools and methods of navigation that allowed European explorers to reach China and the New World by sea.
You can't use Middle Eastern Muslim scholars as an example of religious intellectuals, because to them their Islamic faith overlaps and integrates their society so much so, it's their method to legally obtain their citizenship through faith.

So can you imagine just what kind of public backlash the sociologists will get, when they begin to systematically referring to all religious faiths as just institutions of methodology?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

amersfoort wrote:

You can't prove a meteor made out of peanutbutter that speaks French doesn't exist, so don't believing it exists is irrational?
Is it irrational to think things exist while you have no evidence at all, you can't proof that something does not exist, so with that logic everything is possible and everything you can think of exists until disproven.

In my opinion, THAT is illogical and irrational.



I don't think I can make it any clearer.

If you have no evidence for a claim, it is an irrational claim. I don't know where you got "so not believing it exists is irrational?" and "so with that logic everything is possible and everything you can think of exists until disproven." No. Reread the posts.

Rationality = having evidence to support your conclusions

I shouldn't even have to tell people this, it's very basic common sense.


DomFortress wrote:


And you can't prove that God is "uncertainty", thereby you rationalizing that you as an agnostic are correct is just entitlement. Not philosophy.


Great, you came up with something after a while. But seriously, stop trying to come up with responses just for the sake of having a response.
Posted 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


And you can't prove that God is "uncertainty", thereby you rationalizing that you as an agnostic are correct is just entitlement. Not philosophy.


Great, you came up with something after a while. But seriously, stop trying to come up with responses just for the sake of having a response.
And like you're doing anything different. When you as an agnostic couldn't prove "uncertainty" because of what it is, while you claimed that's a "rational" and "philosophical" respond.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


And you can't prove that God is "uncertainty", thereby you rationalizing that you as an agnostic are correct is just entitlement. Not philosophy.


Great, you came up with something after a while. But seriously, stop trying to come up with responses just for the sake of having a response.
And like you're doing anything different. When you as an agnostic couldn't prove "uncertainty" because of what it is, while you claimed that's a "rational" and "philosophical" respond.


Listen, you need to try a little harder next time, this was too obvious, but I'll humor you anyways.

I'll try to break it down as simply as I can now. I have to keep repeating myself but try to make it simpler every time:

1. You cannot prove God exists.
2. You cannot prove God doesn't exist.
3. Therefore (because of 1 & 2) no conclusions can be made about the existence of God.

So it goes way beyond "uncertainty," you cannot conclude anything at all. Again, very weak and obviously forced attempts at saying something meaningful.
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


And you can't prove that God is "uncertainty", thereby you rationalizing that you as an agnostic are correct is just entitlement. Not philosophy.


Great, you came up with something after a while. But seriously, stop trying to come up with responses just for the sake of having a response.
And like you're doing anything different. When you as an agnostic couldn't prove "uncertainty" because of what it is, while you claimed that's a "rational" and "philosophical" respond.


Listen, you need to try a little harder next time, this was too obvious, but I'll humor you anyways.

I'll try to break it down as simply as I can now. I have to keep repeating myself but try to make it simpler every time:

1. You cannot prove God exists.
2. You cannot prove God doesn't exist.
3. Therefore (because of 1 & 2) no conclusions can be made about the existence of God.

So it goes way beyond "uncertainty," you cannot conclude anything at all. Again, very weak and obviously forced attempts at saying something meaningful.
Therefore your agnostic attitude of "I don't know God" is no more correct/prove/rational as my atheist attitude of "I don't care if there's a God". So "why" are you telling me to stop? That's what's so obviously lacking from you.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote:

Therefore your agnostic attitude of "I don't know God" is no more correct/prove/rational as my atheist attitude as "I don't care if there's a God". So "why" are you telling me to stop? That's what's so obviously lacking from you.


I think Seraph hit the nail on the head.

in·co·her·ent

–adjective
1.without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.
2.characterized by such thought or language, as a person: incoherent with rage.
3.not coherent or cohering: an incoherent mixture.
4.lacking physical cohesion; loose: incoherent dust.
5.lacking unity or harmony of elements: an incoherent public.

It's not "my attitude", which you got wrong anyways, and it's not "your attitude", which has nothing to do with atheism. Remember, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, you can't redefine the word.

One more time. You cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist. Therefore theism and atheism are irrational. It's not my attitude, it's basic rationality, common sense, you don't need to think about it much. And I'm not tell you what to do or believe, I'm not saying if anything is bad or good, I'm just pointing out that they're both irrational.
Posted 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Therefore your agnostic attitude of "I don't know God" is no more correct/prove/rational as my atheist attitude as "I don't care if there's a God". So "why" are you telling me to stop? That's what's so obviously lacking from you.


I think Seraph hit the nail on the head.

in·co·her·ent

–adjective
1.without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.
2.characterized by such thought or language, as a person: incoherent with rage.
3.not coherent or cohering: an incoherent mixture.
4.lacking physical cohesion; loose: incoherent dust.
5.lacking unity or harmony of elements: an incoherent public.

It's not "my attitude", which you got wrong anyways, and it's not "your attitude", which has nothing to do with atheism. Remember, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, you can't redefine the word.

One more time. You cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist. Therefore theism and atheism are irrational. It's not my attitude, it's basic rationality, common sense, you don't need to think about it much. And I'm not tell you what to do or believe, I'm not saying if anything is bad or good, I'm just pointing out that they're both irrational.
I'm asking why you requested me to stop from responding, as in what's your rational to say that your entitlement/attitude is more correct than mine. When according to you agnostic is just a stance on "uncertainty", not a philosophy nor a methodology of any kind.

And enough with you being a mindless dictionary, when you can't even justify "how" I was being incoherent. For that's still entitlement, not an explanation. Because you didn't prove anything with your uncertainty stance, and that's why "Your Opinion Does not Count".
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote:

I'm asking why you requested me to stop from responding, as in what's your rational to say that your entitlement/attitude is more correct than mine. When according to you agnostic is just a stance on "uncertainty", not a philosophy nor a methodology of any kind.

And enough with you being a mindless dictionary, when you can't even justify "how" I was being incoherent. For that's still entitlement, not an explanation. Because you didn't prove anything with your uncertainty stance, and that's why "Your Opinion Does not Count".


I didn't tell you to stop responding, I said you shouldn't respond just for the sake of responding, you should actually make sense and have a good point to make, and most importantly not force anything.

Agnosticism is not a stance on "uncertainty," it is a philosophical stance that simply means being rational. Rationality = having evidence for your beliefs. That's all agnosticism is, being rational, it has nothing to do with uncertainty.
Posted 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I'm asking why you requested me to stop from responding, as in what's your rational to say that your entitlement/attitude is more correct than mine. When according to you agnostic is just a stance on "uncertainty", not a philosophy nor a methodology of any kind.

And enough with you being a mindless dictionary, when you can't even justify "how" I was being incoherent. For that's still entitlement, not an explanation. Because you didn't prove anything with your uncertainty stance, and that's why "Your Opinion Does not Count".


I didn't tell you to stop responding, I said you shouldn't respond just for the sake of responding, you should actually make sense and have a good point to make, and most importantly not force anything.

Agnosticism is not a stance on "uncertainty," it is a philosophical stance that simply means being rational. Rationality = having evidence for your beliefs. That's all agnosticism is, being rational, it has nothing to do with uncertainty.
And that's where your agnostic belief on God being uncertain is unrealistic and thereby philosophically incorrect, when "uncertainty" doesn't need evidence due to what it is: doubt. And still, "Your Opinion Does not Count".
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


And that's where your agnostic belief on God being uncertain is unrealistic and thereby philosophically incorrect, when "uncertainty" doesn't need evidence due to what it is: doubt. And still, "Your Opinion Does not Count".


Uncertainty and doubt are very insignificant parts of agnosticism, you should be uncertain of and doubt anything that hasn't been completely proven, but "doubt" and "uncertainty" don't apply to things that have no proof whatsoever, you just flat-out reject those ideas. Agnosticism is simply demanding evidence for beliefs, which is just being rational. (for the millionth time)

The agnostic stance on God is that the existence or nonexistence cannot be proven so neither should be accepted. That's not unrealistic, that's very basic rationality.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.