Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

DomFortress wrote:
1)A fluke is still a cause, yet you've no proof that such is the supernatural existence of metaphysical causation. Thereby,

2)How's a possibly physical fluke be the probability of a supernatural existence of metaphysical causation? Unless,

3)Just like you referring me unapologetically as "barbarian" is by your definition of being classy and different than me, which self-evidently it isn't. Therefore,

4)Nothingness is still the foundation of all your beliefs based on.

I have a truth-seeking disposition, not a believe system. It's thereby you're the one who's kept making faulty leap of logic known as an oxymoron, when you haven't made your reasoning clear on just how improbability is improbability, and how improbable supernatural existence of metaphysical causation can possibly be true. Whereas I OTOH wasn't as clumsy with my logic in the first place. Unless you wish to argue that metaphysically supernatural existence is both "physically" and "naturally" quite possible.


It is really annoying trying to decipher what you're trying to say, I said it last time we were discussing something, I'll say it again. So I'm just going to rewrite your sentences into what I think they mean and respond to those. If I'm interpreting something wrong then point it out to me.
1) You have no proof that a fluke is what created the universe.
I'm saying sometimes we can guess with zero evidence and still randomly be right. That's a fluke. In response to you saying we have a 0% chance to be right unless we arrived at the conclusion using evidence. Which is wrong. I'm not saying the creation of the universe was due to a fluke.

2) How can a physical fluke be used to explain a metaphysical entity creating the universe?
Refer to (1), you obviously misunderstood me and what I meant by a fluke. I stand by my word, everything is possible, not always probable but still possible. You need to make that distinction. Possible does NOT mean the same thing as probable and it certainly does not mean the same thing as inevitable.

(3) How can you say you have class when you're using the word 'barbarian' to insult me?
I'm using the word 'barbarian' to insult your personality, which is highly abrasive. I've also followed the golden rule of engagement in a debate to not use vulgarities. Especially considering the inconsequential nature of this debate, I've not once forsaken my integrity and given over to impulsive and biased insults. That alone is a display of the class I possess, the very same one that you lack. Thus, you are a bad-mouthing barbarian.

(4) You beliefs are based on nothing.
My beliefs are based on a variety of things which include but are not limited to:
(a)The fact that commonly accepted knowledge has been overturned countless times in history by a new idea that has not existed before. This convinced me to keep an open mind and not condemn something to impossibility no matter how improbable it may seem currently.

(b)The world around us is filled with cause and effect. This leads to two possible conclusions, that an entity/phenomenon existed before the universe and was the uncaused cause, or the universe itself is the uncaused cause. Both seem equally likely at this point, so I will keep both possibilities alive.

I've said this before, I will say this again: I know what I know, I don't know what I don't know, but I will not pretend to know what I don't know just so I can have an answer. Both the religious and the atheistic fall under the third category. They pretend to know what they couldn't possibly know for sure, based purely on their own preferences and vehemently deny the opposition as if to empower their own beliefs.
67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
That's where your leap of logic failed big time, when the possibility of baseless claim being true is 0%. When you just can't prove a negative no matter how hard you try, and in the case of agnostics, it's their pussy-ass disposition about the proposition of metaphysical existence based on just such faulty logic. When no evidence of just such existence is even less reliable than the human fallacy known as human memories.

Just how do you imagine to obtain factual and physical evidence of supernatural existence from the realm of metaphysic? When all you agnostics could ever hope to achieve in this particular argument is "sitting on your sorry asses while contemplating on nothingness".


Oh fuck you too.

you want to tell me that you don't buy my stance fine. but you can keep your lousy insults to yourself. And that's Mr. Pussy to you.

At least I got an honest respond out of it, even though I was hoping for a sufficient solution to the illogical agnostic disposition straight from the horse's mouth. It's thereby unfortunate that not all of us can utilize negative emotion quite as effectively.


(emphasis mine)

That's a lot of fancy words for "I'm Being a Dink"


17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10
In the end, the Neutral position for a person on any matter is Lack of belief.

If their is no evidence for Godzilla walking around in Japan, not believing it is the neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zombies walking around your town, than lack of belief is the Neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zeus , or Odin, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for Me telling you pixies at night rape children, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for GODS or a God, than lack of belief is both the logical and neutral position.
Agnosticism my good friends is baseless, useless, an just a lack of position do to indecisiveness.

Atheism is the neutral position.
67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

In the end, the Neutral position for a person on any matter is Lack of belief.

If their is no evidence for Godzilla walking around in Japan, not believing it is the neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zombies walking around your town, than lack of belief is the Neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zeus , or Odin, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for Me telling you pixies at night rape children, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for GODS or a God, than lack of belief is both the logical and neutral position.
Agnosticism my good friends is baseless, useless, an just a lack of position do to indecisiveness.

Atheism is the neutral position.


No, because you're NOT neutral about it. you, that is you (Darkphoenix) and you also (Domfortress) are Rudely, Insultingly pushy about it.

you are NOT neutral.

And Dom, you can KISS my neutral agnostic ass.

17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

In the end, the Neutral position for a person on any matter is Lack of belief.

If their is no evidence for Godzilla walking around in Japan, not believing it is the neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zombies walking around your town, than lack of belief is the Neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zeus , or Odin, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for Me telling you pixies at night rape children, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for GODS or a God, than lack of belief is both the logical and neutral position.
Agnosticism my good friends is baseless, useless, an just a lack of position do to indecisiveness.

Atheism is the neutral position.


No, because you're NOT neutral about it. you, that is you (Darkphoenix) and you also (Domfortress) are Rudely, Insultingly pushy about it.

you are NOT neutral.

And Dom, you can KISS my neutral agnostic ass.



We only seem that way to some people because are remarks hit cords with your belief system, an so it twangs at them harder than it would if it was not a position you hold to.

An Yes Lack of belief without proof of some type, is a neutral position that you will find to be true in the world of Science, Logic, and Common Sense.

As I am not targeting anyone, but instead explaining why I do not hold to that position, do to my common sense structured, self discovery and understanding I have gain through my endeavors leading up to my life style and bloated education.

Agnostic is and will always be a irrational non-choice do to (hindrance) to take a position.


Tell me If I was to say Zombies are going to attack your town, are you Agnostic to that idea, if I am not willing to give you any form of evidence for it. Are you going to load your guns and hide in the corner tomorrow just in case I was telling you the truth, even if I had no evidence for my claims, other than some 9 year old comic book told me so.
286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Where the sky rea...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10
K.. I get your point.

1. From Anonymous:

"There once was an Entity walking up in the clouds... One day, He rose up above the clouds, never to be recorded in the Book of Ages ever again. Few centuries later, the first man came into existence. He plucked up a lily, whiffs at its airy scent, and wonders about the coming being of his existence."

^-- I believe the fundamentals of this story

I was gonna list 2., 3., 4. , 5.

But this argument would be most interesting.
67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:




We only seem that way to some people because are remarks hit cords with your belief system, an so it twangs at them harder than it would if it was not a position you hold to.

An Yes Lack of belief without proof of some type, is a neutral position that you will find to be true in the world of Science, Logic, and Common Sense.

As I am not targeting anyone, but instead explaining why I do not hold to that position, do to my common sense structured, self discovery and understanding I have gain through my endeavors leading up to my life style and bloated education.

Agnostic is and will always be a irrational non-choice do to (hindrance) to take a position.


Tell me If I was to say Zombies are going to attack your town, are you Agnostic to that idea, if I am not willing to give you any form of evidence for it. Are you going to load your guns and hide in the corner tomorrow just in case I was telling you the truth, even if I had no evidence for my claims, other than some 9 year old comic book told me so.


I don't know about hitting chords in my belief system but calling me a pussy and using terms such as cowardly to describe me (since I most closely identify at the moment with agnostic) will definitely generate a response. Perhaps not one you would like.

Thing is, you don't express a lack of belief. however you choose to dress it up, your posts and attitude reflect an aggressive disbelief.

Going to your Zombie example which is similar to one a responded to earlier. If -YOU- a stranger on the internet told me that zombies were going to attack the Thornhill/willowdale region of Toronto because a comic book told you so. I'd be laughing my ass off.

If my Roomie burst into my work place yelling "Get yer guns, there's an army of zombies coming down the street" I'd do as he suggested at least until an extended period of time passed with no zombies or the evidence of their passing sighted.

You and Dom fortress come across as the sort of 5th business characters who prove how dangerous the zombies are, Or provide the main characters with a moral dilemma as they have decided between staying to convince you or fleeing for their own lives. You express yourself here as the sort who'd deny the existence of zombies until one was feeding on your skull and WORSE you'd actively attempt to thwart the efforts of others to flee.

THAT is NOT a neutral position it's a position as wrong headedly arrogant as any "true believer's".


31 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Cairns, Australia
Offline
Posted 8/6/10
I would not agree that agnostics are illogical for that would suggest that to hold a series of beliefs yet to be modified and proven over time and experience is to assume that anyone in a state of belief that something is real dispite 'absolute' proof is illogical. This is not what I believe to be the right term to refer to the state of belief of an agnostic. For to have a hypothesis about any other subject matter woud be respected. For example to compare the notion that the universe is theoretically endless or the prescensce of a God, both have many followers of such a belief and both, please don't deny the unexplained 'may' not be expalined by the presensce of a God, have substantial evidence of their existence to provide a basis for better understanding. To provide prooff of such things is highly improbable with the current level of scientific technology and documentation available. Therefore I believe it is unfair to judge or discriminate someone for giving spiritual and social kinowledge higher standing in their life than the cold hard facts of science'; which may I add are 'assumed' facts, of which have been disproven and modified over time.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:




We only seem that way to some people because are remarks hit cords with your belief system, an so it twangs at them harder than it would if it was not a position you hold to.

An Yes Lack of belief without proof of some type, is a neutral position that you will find to be true in the world of Science, Logic, and Common Sense.

As I am not targeting anyone, but instead explaining why I do not hold to that position, do to my common sense structured, self discovery and understanding I have gain through my endeavors leading up to my life style and bloated education.

Agnostic is and will always be a irrational non-choice do to (hindrance) to take a position.


Tell me If I was to say Zombies are going to attack your town, are you Agnostic to that idea, if I am not willing to give you any form of evidence for it. Are you going to load your guns and hide in the corner tomorrow just in case I was telling you the truth, even if I had no evidence for my claims, other than some 9 year old comic book told me so.


I don't know about hitting chords in my belief system but calling me a pussy and using terms such as cowardly to describe me (since I most closely identify at the moment with agnostic) will definitely generate a response. Perhaps not one you would like.

Thing is, you don't express a lack of belief. however you choose to dress it up, your posts and attitude reflect an aggressive disbelief.

Going to your Zombie example which is similar to one a responded to earlier. If -YOU- a stranger on the internet told me that zombies were going to attack the Thornhill/willowdale region of Toronto because a comic book told you so. I'd be laughing my ass off.

If my Roomie burst into my work place yelling "Get yer guns, there's an army of zombies coming down the street" I'd do as he suggested at least until an extended period of time passed with no zombies or the evidence of their passing sighted.

You and Dom fortress come across as the sort of 5th business characters who prove how dangerous the zombies are, Or provide the main characters with a moral dilemma as they have decided between staying to convince you or fleeing for their own lives. You express yourself here as the sort who'd deny the existence of zombies until one was feeding on your skull and WORSE you'd actively attempt to thwart the efforts of others to flee.

THAT is NOT a neutral position it's a position as wrong headedly arrogant as any "true believer's".




On the contrary, i would be curious and seek out the evidence, as that is part of my nature. Finding no such evidence I would confront the person who said such remarks, and ask him where he gather such information. After gathering what he knows I look into his information. If I find his information is a dead end, and their is no evidence of Zombies from my own observation, I would take the Neutral claim of not believing the nut job. Hence how most intelligent scientist and Atheist think. But I would change my mind once new evidence presents my self but not till that time.


Atheism is not denial, its lack of belief do to their being no evidence.
67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:




We only seem that way to some people because are remarks hit cords with your belief system, an so it twangs at them harder than it would if it was not a position you hold to.

An Yes Lack of belief without proof of some type, is a neutral position that you will find to be true in the world of Science, Logic, and Common Sense.

As I am not targeting anyone, but instead explaining why I do not hold to that position, do to my common sense structured, self discovery and understanding I have gain through my endeavors leading up to my life style and bloated education.

Agnostic is and will always be a irrational non-choice do to (hindrance) to take a position.


Tell me If I was to say Zombies are going to attack your town, are you Agnostic to that idea, if I am not willing to give you any form of evidence for it. Are you going to load your guns and hide in the corner tomorrow just in case I was telling you the truth, even if I had no evidence for my claims, other than some 9 year old comic book told me so.


I don't know about hitting chords in my belief system but calling me a pussy and using terms such as cowardly to describe me (since I most closely identify at the moment with agnostic) will definitely generate a response. Perhaps not one you would like.

Thing is, you don't express a lack of belief. however you choose to dress it up, your posts and attitude reflect an aggressive disbelief.

Going to your Zombie example which is similar to one a responded to earlier. If -YOU- a stranger on the internet told me that zombies were going to attack the Thornhill/willowdale region of Toronto because a comic book told you so. I'd be laughing my ass off.

If my Roomie burst into my work place yelling "Get yer guns, there's an army of zombies coming down the street" I'd do as he suggested at least until an extended period of time passed with no zombies or the evidence of their passing sighted.

You and Dom fortress come across as the sort of 5th business characters who prove how dangerous the zombies are, Or provide the main characters with a moral dilemma as they have decided between staying to convince you or fleeing for their own lives. You express yourself here as the sort who'd deny the existence of zombies until one was feeding on your skull and WORSE you'd actively attempt to thwart the efforts of others to flee.

THAT is NOT a neutral position it's a position as wrong headedly arrogant as any "true believer's".




On the contrary, i would be curious and seek out the evidence, as that is part of my nature. Finding no such evidence I would confront the person who said such remarks, and ask him where he gather such information. After gathering what he knows I look into his information. If I find his information is a dead end, and their is no evidence of Zombies from my own observation, I would take the Neutral claim of not believing the nut job. Hence how most intelligent scientist and Atheist think. But I would change my mind once new evidence presents my self but not till that time.



Oh really? Because the evidence of your behaviour on the subject of religion here on ED seems at odds with your declaration above.


13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

In the end, the Neutral position for a person on any matter is Lack of belief.

If their is no evidence for Godzilla walking around in Japan, not believing it is the neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zombies walking around your town, than lack of belief is the Neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zeus , or Odin, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for Me telling you pixies at night rape children, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for GODS or a God, than lack of belief is both the logical and neutral position.
Agnosticism my good friends is baseless, useless, an just a lack of position do to indecisiveness.

Atheism is the neutral position.


I've said this quite a few times in this thread, but some people seem to just purposefully ignore it.

Possible does not mean probable, and it definitely does not mean inevitable.
(These are all estimated numbers)
If no one tells me zombies are attacking, there is still a possibility that zombies are attacking. Probability: ~0.001% - negligible

If a random stranger tells me zombies are attacking. Probability: ~1%

If a classmate tells me zombies are attacking. Probability: ~10%

If my best friend tells me zombies are attacking. Probability: Depends if the friend is a prankster/dickwad.

If my gf tells me zombies are attacking. Probability: ~50%

If my mom tells me zombies are attacking. Probability: ~90%

If I see a zombie eating another person. Probability: ~95%

If I see a zombie ripping off the head of someone I know and I just talked to. Probability: 99.999%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for something you're probably more interested in.
The probability of a man-made-god actually existing in reality: 0.001%

The probability of the existence of a sentient being who created the Earth: 0.01%
---who created the Solar System: 0.03%
---who created the universe: 0.1%

The probability of something, either sentient or non-sentient, creating the universe: 10%

The probability of something, sentient or non-sentient, entity or phenomenon, creating the universe: 25%

The probability of something we haven't been able to conceive creating the universe: 75%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this make it a little easier to understand? It's not that we agnostics are completely impartial to any and all possibilities, we still have our favorites. The only difference between me and an atheist is how I can accept belief in religion to be a legitimate belief, but simply not my cup of tea; instead of trying to choke someone just because they believe in God.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



Why would you be curious if you already decided it was not a possibility? The only reason for someone to seek out evidence is if they actually believed, no matter how small, that there is a possibility.
53804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

In the end, the Neutral position for a person on any matter is Lack of belief.

If their is no evidence for Godzilla walking around in Japan, not believing it is the neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zombies walking around your town, than lack of belief is the Neutral position.
If their is no evidence for Zeus , or Odin, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for Me telling you pixies at night rape children, than lack of belief is the neutral position
if their is no evidence for GODS or a God, than lack of belief is both the logical and neutral position.
Agnosticism my good friends is baseless, useless, an just a lack of position do to indecisiveness.

Atheism is the neutral position.


Agnostic means doubt, undecided, and one step further is whether to believe in a god. I figured that what you were shooting at but, was not completely sure so I ran with the Agnostic part living the God stuff out. God that so boring to me But that just devil in me speaking out. Is there a God I doubt it if there is one I want to tell were it can shove it. So I am atheist. To hear a great fishing story tolled a thousand time there a minnow behind it. Luck chance to beat the odds happen often. but not often enough to put casinos out of business. At this point in time I becoming agnostic about DNA evidence there been stories that women can have more than one type So what I though was a sound science may not be. Do I believe in a higher power I don not. As a mans interpretation of god that for horse will not work for me. Would I like to think that there a nice place to go yes will it happen no
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



Why would you be curious if you already decided it was not a possibility? The only reason for someone to seek out evidence is if they actually believed, no matter how small, that there is a possibility.


1, Everyone is born a atheist. Because no one was born knowing of God or needing one in their lives, Gods are introduced into their lives by other people.
And So yes I start out lacking belief in something if I did not know about it. But a Atheist seeks out the truth, then pass judgment on it.
If you said Zombies are attacking I would go look for some form of evidence for that claim. Than choose if that was true or not.
Atheist usually took a look into the God Idea and asked where is the evidence? Is This Logical? Do we need a god with what we know about how things happen? Then used their heads to decide that their is no evidence for a god, their is no outstanding reason for a god existence with are understanding of the world, And such claims of a god have been nothing but baseless blind faith with no backing. And so the logical path to take was to be Atheist.

Again Lack of belief and Denial are not the same thing.

17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:




We only seem that way to some people because are remarks hit cords with your belief system, an so it twangs at them harder than it would if it was not a position you hold to.

An Yes Lack of belief without proof of some type, is a neutral position that you will find to be true in the world of Science, Logic, and Common Sense.

As I am not targeting anyone, but instead explaining why I do not hold to that position, do to my common sense structured, self discovery and understanding I have gain through my endeavors leading up to my life style and bloated education.

Agnostic is and will always be a irrational non-choice do to (hindrance) to take a position.


Tell me If I was to say Zombies are going to attack your town, are you Agnostic to that idea, if I am not willing to give you any form of evidence for it. Are you going to load your guns and hide in the corner tomorrow just in case I was telling you the truth, even if I had no evidence for my claims, other than some 9 year old comic book told me so.


I don't know about hitting chords in my belief system but calling me a pussy and using terms such as cowardly to describe me (since I most closely identify at the moment with agnostic) will definitely generate a response. Perhaps not one you would like.

Thing is, you don't express a lack of belief. however you choose to dress it up, your posts and attitude reflect an aggressive disbelief.

Going to your Zombie example which is similar to one a responded to earlier. If -YOU- a stranger on the internet told me that zombies were going to attack the Thornhill/willowdale region of Toronto because a comic book told you so. I'd be laughing my ass off.

If my Roomie burst into my work place yelling "Get yer guns, there's an army of zombies coming down the street" I'd do as he suggested at least until an extended period of time passed with no zombies or the evidence of their passing sighted.

You and Dom fortress come across as the sort of 5th business characters who prove how dangerous the zombies are, Or provide the main characters with a moral dilemma as they have decided between staying to convince you or fleeing for their own lives. You express yourself here as the sort who'd deny the existence of zombies until one was feeding on your skull and WORSE you'd actively attempt to thwart the efforts of others to flee.

THAT is NOT a neutral position it's a position as wrong headedly arrogant as any "true believer's".




On the contrary, i would be curious and seek out the evidence, as that is part of my nature. Finding no such evidence I would confront the person who said such remarks, and ask him where he gather such information. After gathering what he knows I look into his information. If I find his information is a dead end, and their is no evidence of Zombies from my own observation, I would take the Neutral claim of not believing the nut job. Hence how most intelligent scientist and Atheist think. But I would change my mind once new evidence presents my self but not till that time.



Oh really? Because the evidence of your behaviour on the subject of religion here on ED seems at odds with your declaration above.





My ED actions are that in accordance as creating a debate. I find aggressive stance is the best action to draw a person into a real debate, other-wise shields are up and mask are on, and the debate goes no where.

On another note Being aggressive is only do to mirroring those I compete against. to continually evolve for the situation. As my rival parts aka the dogmatic play aggressive so shale I. As my Agnostic counterparts play aggressive so shall I!

On another note if one does not rock the boat ones Ideas only fall flat on deaf ears. While you do not like rocking the boat, I find it necessary in order to draw attention to my Ideals, and to draw in people to debate them, hence my reasoning for a aggressive stance for said debate is to draw in poster for the debate.

A Idea no matter how good it is; is useless if it fails to get peoples attention. (hence their is a form of logic with my aggressive nature in this forum.)
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.