Well why didn't yall think of this sooner...
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Since one cannot "know" if God exists or not, it follows that your definitions must be erroneous.
First of all, I didn't make up the definitions. Do a little research, starting with the definition of agnostic[^]. Second of all, some people claim to know that there's a God. They've "felt him in their heart", or "seen him performing miracles on TV". Those are the gnostic theists. Most theists are actually agnostic though, as you pointed out. They believe despite having no knowledge. Then there are gnostic atheists, who claim to know with a high degree of certainty that God does not exist. They base their knowledge on lack of evidence and logic (eg., I know leprechauns don't exist, so I don't believe in them). And finally, there are agnostic atheists, which is where most atheists fall. They don't know if there's a God, so they prefer not believing in him.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
One's claim to special knowledge or not is irrelevant. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, theism is the belief there is a God and agnosticism is a refusal to establish a belief. If you state that absolute knowledge about the existence of God is unatainable and believe that there is no God, then you are, plain and simply, an atheist. You seem to be confusing zealousness of belief with agnosticism. Those are two very different things.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
You don't read what I write. I said I'm an atheist, but I also say that I go one step further and dismiss everything you have to say about god(s). I think you are foolish to believe in it, since you have not a shred of evidence for your proposition.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
why try to convince others of your non-belief
I suppose it's a misplaced streak of altruism on my part. My bad.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
It can only be altruism if your position is the correct one. And that you are truly freeing people from their oppressive dreams of a creator. But, in that assumption you are no different than Fundamentalist Christians. Yes, I am agnostic. And I do read what you write. You have a condescending attitude towards anything religious. I imagine to protect yourself mentally, but then you assume a position of the enlightened and take it upon yourself to ridicule those who disagree with you in some vague attempt at misconstrued altruism, hoping to save the poor savages from their mental crutches. But just like the religious, you are swinging in the dark, making assumptions you can't prove, all the while claiming lack of proof as your foundation. How convenient.
This statement was never false.
-
It can only be altruism if your position is the correct one. And that you are truly freeing people from their oppressive dreams of a creator. But, in that assumption you are no different than Fundamentalist Christians. Yes, I am agnostic. And I do read what you write. You have a condescending attitude towards anything religious. I imagine to protect yourself mentally, but then you assume a position of the enlightened and take it upon yourself to ridicule those who disagree with you in some vague attempt at misconstrued altruism, hoping to save the poor savages from their mental crutches. But just like the religious, you are swinging in the dark, making assumptions you can't prove, all the while claiming lack of proof as your foundation. How convenient.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But, in that assumption you are no different than Fundamentalist Christians.
I am nothing like them. I don't rely on hearsay and fairy tales.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But just like the religious, you are swinging in the dark, making assumptions you can't prove, all the while claiming lack of proof as your foundation. How convenient.
I am not the one with ridiculous propositions (i.e., I'm not the one swinging in the dark). I feel quite comfortable with that, thank you very much.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
It can only be altruism if your position is the correct one. And that you are truly freeing people from their oppressive dreams of a creator. But, in that assumption you are no different than Fundamentalist Christians. Yes, I am agnostic. And I do read what you write. You have a condescending attitude towards anything religious. I imagine to protect yourself mentally, but then you assume a position of the enlightened and take it upon yourself to ridicule those who disagree with you in some vague attempt at misconstrued altruism, hoping to save the poor savages from their mental crutches. But just like the religious, you are swinging in the dark, making assumptions you can't prove, all the while claiming lack of proof as your foundation. How convenient.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Yes, I am agnostic.
And also apparently a liar.[^]
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And to clarify again, I'm a Christian as well.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But, in that assumption you are no different than Fundamentalist Christians.
I am nothing like them. I don't rely on hearsay and fairy tales.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But just like the religious, you are swinging in the dark, making assumptions you can't prove, all the while claiming lack of proof as your foundation. How convenient.
I am not the one with ridiculous propositions (i.e., I'm not the one swinging in the dark). I feel quite comfortable with that, thank you very much.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I am nothing like them. I don't rely on hearsay and fairy tales.
Christianity is based on historical eyewitness texts. By contrast, your atheism, like mysticism, is based on your own invented and baseless beliefs.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I am nothing like them. I don't rely on hearsay and fairy tales.
Christianity is based on historical eyewitness texts. By contrast, your atheism, like mysticism, is based on your own invented and baseless beliefs.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Dumbass.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Dumbass.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Mystic.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But, in that assumption you are no different than Fundamentalist Christians.
I am nothing like them. I don't rely on hearsay and fairy tales.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But just like the religious, you are swinging in the dark, making assumptions you can't prove, all the while claiming lack of proof as your foundation. How convenient.
I am not the one with ridiculous propositions (i.e., I'm not the one swinging in the dark). I feel quite comfortable with that, thank you very much.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm not the one swinging in the dark
If it makes you feel better to say so. Prove it.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Yes, I am agnostic.
And also apparently a liar.[^]
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And to clarify again, I'm a Christian as well.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Yep. An Agnostic Christian, as I don't think modern Christianity has it right. Yet I follow Jesus. I guess an Agnostic Jesusonian is more correct. I believe in God, yet I don't rule out that I don't know. So I do suspend belief. Contradiction? Maybe. I'll leave you to figuring out your own cognizant dissonance. But I am not so arrogant as to state that I know there is a God. Just that my own experiences lead me to believe so. But logic dictates that its altogether possible I'm wrong in my belief. That's the problem I have with fundamentalism. Orthodoxy. There's no room for questioning, yet it is during this questioning that we discover and grow. To each his own Red. You can champion your cause of making soapbox posters look dumb. That's your superhero mission alongside pimping anything in the neo-con manual. I'll continue to think for myself regardless of how many think my theories are whack. At least I know they are just theories.
This statement was never false.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm not the one swinging in the dark
If it makes you feel better to say so. Prove it.
This statement was never false.
It's tiresome to argue with people who just don't understand.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
It's tiresome to argue with people who just don't understand.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Exactly.
This statement was never false.