First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:



You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
That according to the apathetic agnostic belief, your disposition is one of "don't know, don't care". Which is contradicting to your own Internet behavior, when you're apparently not expressing due to the fact that you obviously cared enough for yourself to ask a question. Unless of course, you're in fact a hypocrite to your own claims, when the reality is you couldn't possibly heard me "sounding" mad via the Internet.


What?

Apathetic agnosticism(aka ignosticism or apatheism) — the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences.

Where did you get that definition from, I don't even
So when organized religions justified rape, slavery, torture, and even genocide in the name of God, your best defense is through your own ignorance?


My defense would be to claim that they did it for their own sake and not for their Gods.
And what happened to your Red Herring argument earlier, Dom? Why do you keep bringing up useless shit that has absolutely nothing to do with my original posts?
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:



You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
That according to the apathetic agnostic belief, your disposition is one of "don't know, don't care". Which is contradicting to your own Internet behavior, when you're apparently not expressing due to the fact that you obviously cared enough for yourself to ask a question. Unless of course, you're in fact a hypocrite to your own claims, when the reality is you couldn't possibly heard me "sounding" mad via the Internet.


What?

Apathetic agnosticism(aka ignosticism or apatheism) — the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences.

Where did you get that definition from, I don't even
So when organized religions justified rape, slavery, torture, and even genocide in the name of God, your best defense is through your own ignorance?


My defense would be to claim that they did it for their own sake and not for their Gods.
And what happened to your Red Herring argument earlier, Dom? Why do you keep bringing up useless shit that has absolutely nothing to do with my original posts?
That's an insufficient counterargument from one who's "don't know, don't care" about other people's Gods.

And I've been proving the irrationality of the logic of an agnostic, simply by me exposing your own logical fallacies as an apathetic agnostic towards facts.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:



You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
That according to the apathetic agnostic belief, your disposition is one of "don't know, don't care". Which is contradicting to your own Internet behavior, when you're apparently not expressing due to the fact that you obviously cared enough for yourself to ask a question. Unless of course, you're in fact a hypocrite to your own claims, when the reality is you couldn't possibly heard me "sounding" mad via the Internet.


What?

Apathetic agnosticism(aka ignosticism or apatheism) — the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences.

Where did you get that definition from, I don't even
So when organized religions justified rape, slavery, torture, and even genocide in the name of God, your best defense is through your own ignorance?


My defense would be to claim that they did it for their own sake and not for their Gods.
And what happened to your Red Herring argument earlier, Dom? Why do you keep bringing up useless shit that has absolutely nothing to do with my original posts?
That's an insufficient counterargument from one who's "don't know, don't care" about other people's Gods.

And I've been proving the irrationality of the logic of an agnostic, simply by me exposing your own logical fallacies as an apathetic agnostic towards facts.

I'm sorry if it didn't feel sufficient enough, but that's the best defense I could give you.
k lol
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


I'm sorry if it didn't feel sufficient enough, but that's the best defense I could give you.
k lol
Then you're no different than those who committed rape, slavery, torture, or even genocide in the name of God, aka feeling entitled.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


I'm sorry if it didn't feel sufficient enough, but that's the best defense I could give you.
k lol
Then you're no different than those who committed rape, slavery, torture, or even genocide in the name of God, aka feeling entitled.


Because my answer to your question wasn't satisfactory enough? what?

edit!: I finally get why you highlighted "the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences". Sorry for calling you out earlier on the red herring thing. I'm in the wrong here.

anyway, I think you're mistaken here. What I meant by "The existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences" is that whether or not said deities exists or not doesn't matter because he stopped caring about us/doesn't care about us
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


I'm sorry if it didn't feel sufficient enough, but that's the best defense I could give you.
k lol
Then you're no different than those who committed rape, slavery, torture, or even genocide in the name of God, aka feeling entitled.


Because my answer to your question wasn't satisfactory enough? what?
That's what.
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


I'm sorry if it didn't feel sufficient enough, but that's the best defense I could give you.
k lol
Then you're no different than those who committed rape, slavery, torture, or even genocide in the name of God, aka feeling entitled.


Because my answer to your question wasn't satisfactory enough? what?

edit!: I finally get why you highlighted "the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences". Sorry for calling you out earlier on the red herring thing. I'm in the wrong here.

anyway, I think you're mistaken here. What I meant by "The existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences" is that whether or not said deities exists or not doesn't matter because he stopped caring about us/doesn't care about us
But that just implied that you believed that God does exist, regardless of His thoughts and feelings about humans. So how can an agnostic still ended up believing in the existence of a none-caring God?
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


I'm sorry if it didn't feel sufficient enough, but that's the best defense I could give you.
k lol
Then you're no different than those who committed rape, slavery, torture, or even genocide in the name of God, aka feeling entitled.


Because my answer to your question wasn't satisfactory enough? what?

edit!: I finally get why you highlighted "the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences". Sorry for calling you out earlier on the red herring thing. I'm in the wrong here.

anyway, I think you're mistaken here. What I meant by "The existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences" is that whether or not said deities exists or not doesn't matter because he stopped caring about us/doesn't care about us
But that just implied that you believed that God does exist, regardless of His thoughts and feelings about humans. So how can an agnostic still ended up believing in the existence of a none-caring God?


We are speaking in hypothesis here. All I'm saying is that God's existence or non-existence doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me or any of us in a direct way. And by direct I mean he doesn't zap people for not believing in him or give money to the people who DO believe in him.
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:



We are speaking in hypothesis here. All I'm saying is that God's existence or non-existence doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me or any of us in a direct way. And by direct I mean he doesn't zap people for not believing in him or give money to the people who DO believe in him.
That's irrelevant, when you're basing your hypothesis on the premise that God doesn't care. Thereby within the logic of cause and consequence, you had to first establish the existence of a God, or believe Him, in order for you to claim that He as "it doesn't affect me or any of us in a direct way". In other words, as an apathetic agnostic, you're still believing in a being that you claimed to know nothing about.
Engineer
87993 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / California
Offline
Posted 9/19/10
The topic seems like it should be focused on specific types of agnostics since even the original poster concedes that he is more of an agnostic atheist.

Though I still do not see how Agnosticism is any more illogical than Atheism. In Atheism, you believe there is no God simply because there is no proof of it but, conversely, there is no proof that there isn't a God. It's like asking me 'what football team I think is the best' when I have very little information on the subject. According to what some here believe, I should just pick a team and go with it based on that little amount of information. To me, this is foolish. In this case, I would just say that I do not follow football so I do not have enough information to make an adequate choice and either research it further or move on instead of sticking to some half-baked choice that I pulled out of my ass.

So because I am agnostic (probably better classified as weak-agnosticism), I will not take a side on an issue that I do not have an adequate amount of data on. So, until I have some information about what happened before the Big Bang (whether a God started it or some natural forces), I will not budge on this subject and rashly choose a side for the sake of choosing.
Posted 9/19/10

BasouKazuma wrote:

The topic seems like it should be focused on specific types of agnostics since even the original poster concedes that he is more of an agnostic atheist.

Though I still do not see how Agnosticism is any more illogical than Atheism. In Atheism, you believe there is no God simply because there is no proof of it but, conversely, there is no proof that there isn't a God. It's like asking me 'what football team I think is the best' when I have very little information on the subject. According to what some here believe, I should just pick a team and go with it based on that little amount of information. To me, this is foolish. In this case, I would just say that I do not follow football so I do not have enough information to make an adequate choice and either research it further or move on instead of sticking to some half-baked choice that I pulled out of my ass.

So because I am agnostic (probably better classified as weak-agnosticism), I will not take a side on an issue that I do not have an adequate amount of data on. So, until I have some information about what happened before the Big Bang (whether a God started it or some natural forces), I will not budge on this subject and rashly choose a side for the sake of choosing.


Correct. You do not jump into something without knowing where to land. Simply because a faith has so many followers does not mean it will be right for you or anyone. As for Agnosticism and Atheism, of the two, Atheism makes the most sense. Where was it that we've observed truly the actions of any god physically? Either they are there or they are not, and if I was a god, I would have made my presence known to my followers a long time ago. A book can tell a story, but can it reveal the truth? I say that it cannot and will not, no matter how fancifully written it is. No amount of hallucinations equates to spiritual experience. If you chose a faith, then let it be a choice made as the result of copious research, not when you obviously see it as a social dynamic born from the need to conform.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 9/19/10

BasouKazuma wrote:

The topic seems like it should be focused on specific types of agnostics since even the original poster concedes that he is more of an agnostic atheist.

Though I still do not see how Agnosticism is any more illogical than Atheism. In Atheism, you believe there is no God simply because there is no proof of it but, conversely, there is no proof that there isn't a God. It's like asking me 'what football team I think is the best' when I have very little information on the subject. According to what some here believe, I should just pick a team and go with it based on that little amount of information. To me, this is foolish. In this case, I would just say that I do not follow football so I do not have enough information to make an adequate choice and either research it further or move on instead of sticking to some half-baked choice that I pulled out of my ass.

So because I am agnostic (probably better classified as weak-agnosticism), I will not take a side on an issue that I do not have an adequate amount of data on. So, until I have some information about what happened before the Big Bang (whether a God started it or some natural forces), I will not budge on this subject and rashly choose a side for the sake of choosing.


I really appreciate the way you've approached this--

I would never have thought to compare my choice of faith with my choice of football team.
Even though I'm a fan for entertainment only, I'm still a rabid, adamant Bears fan; I could never cheer for another team, even if the Bears were hopelessly in last place.

In review of my dedication to my chosen faith, I am probably just as adamant. Unlike the choice of football team, which I fully believe is a direct result of being raised in Chicago, I chose my faith as a result of personal experience & thoughtful decision, after dabbling in & checking out several different belief systems.

The fact that I don't fully understand all aspects of the game of football doesn't prevent me from enjoying the Bears game. The fact that there is no concrete, material proof of a God doesn't hinder my faith either.

I'm still mulling over this comparison in my head, even as it applies to other things to which I firmly adhere.
Guess it's a good thing to assess the reason why we think or do the things we do each day without question!
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 9/26/10
If a person is screaming at the top of his lungs that the world is going to end in a few days based on hearing voices in his head, or because a book told him so...... You send him to the Loony bin.
The rational set stance is a Atheistic stance. Being Agnostic 100% is Irrational, its logical to have a little agnosticism mix in your Atheism. But Agnosticism can not stand alone because its not a stances... Its a lack of a stance..
its perfectly logical to Dismiss ideals is their baseless claims, yet leave it open for wen evidence comes, Atheist/Agnostic but Irrational not to dismiss said objects that have 0 evidence based on not wanting to upset a side. (or whatever your fear of choices is all about.)

Are you that Irrational wen it comes to deciding what food you like better. Lets see I like Banana's more than Apples, I also Like Cheese Cake more than Chocolate cake. (Other people may not agree with your opinion... does that mean you should be agnostic about what you believe taste better?) No because that is just plain illogical.

55201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 9/26/10
Agnostic 100% is better than blind faith in the unreal world of religions is it not?
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 9/26/10

tarakelly wrote:

Agnostic 100% is better than blind faith in the unreal world of religions is it not?


100% anything does not work... But being Agnostic 100% is a way not to have to make a choice, that is all.
Tell me would you want to fallow a leader who is a person who can look at the information, and make the best choice judging on what their is. Or someone who will not make a choice be cuss they are 100% neutral to everything, and don't care about what information we have for any side.
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.