Oh oh oh oh, me me me!!!
Sorry, knew the answer again, and it went right to my head. 
1 Like
Yes I noticed that a single part of the quote SEEMED to support his position, but when you read the link entirely, that part was being explained as an erroneous position many theists take. Almost as if he’d Googled what he wanted, and when that text appeared in his search, he just copied the link without reading the rest. Otherwise it’s hard to see why he’d link two separate sources when they both roundly contradicting his claims?
Wow I have learned so much by just reading through this thread. Because I didn’t have to shake myself from ingrained beliefs I studied theism or atheism in the same way or depth that you all did and, I assume, continue to do. Atheist Republic will provide me with a foundation for my beliefs. Thanks
this thread is a great example why I don’t argue with people who try to redefine the word atheist, or agnostic.
3 Likes
I can’t disagree though I feel as though I have had some success. I think I get more bent by listening to people professing atheism and spewing nonsense than Christians spewing nonsense. We expect it of the Christians. At the same time, I think there is a ‘belief’ based atheist movement. Especially in atheist churches. A kind of “No gods exist, group think” position is being perpetuated by those calling themselves atheist. The recent Street Pirate group, for example. “We are atheists, let’s target the religious. We will follow them around and rip down all their signs and pretend we are making the city pretty.” Bigotry by any definition of the term. And all they need to do to fix it is take down all the illegal signs without targeting any specific group. Just do community work. But no, they want to be bigots. (By the way, I had no response to the letters I sent to the organization. I’m going to write a letter to the Editor of the LA Times and see if they will post it.
Anyway, atheists professing nonsense irk me more than Christians doing the same. But I think I have had some success with the atheists. More than with the religious anyway.
3 Likes
Gentleman, and others who may be viewing as well, I must confess that I have been compelled to reexamine agnosticism and my view on fence sitting, and I’m happy to say that I stand corrected on the issue.
I also just read “The God Delusion” by Professor Richard Dawkins the past few days because I foremost wanted to see his views on agnosticism and what his thoughts were about it , something i actually should of done years ago when i quit Christianity and dropped my theistic beliefs, but actually never had read Professor Dawkins book until now. Better late than never i suppose.
Thanks to feeling compulsed because of the responses made to me here, it was made ever more clear through Richard Dawkins book , where I saw my problem and the justified contentions that my views had raised with my fellow atheists, i now feel more informed and better prepared and will for the future employ future postings under the category of temporary agnosticism , and understand why my personal views and thoughts should always remain open scientifically rather than through a rigid closed position that mirrors theistic methodology on matters that have yet to be settled.
With that, i must thank you for causing me pause while i researched the definition of agnosticism in more depth and am now able to see the points made here and cleared my ignorance on the matter.
5 Likes
It’s always good to be provided insight into someone displaying humility and learning. Good for you! Thank you for sharing that.
Now I’d suggest you examine what might be the flaw in this:
2 Likes
There is a phrase that is synonymous with unfalsifiable, it is “not even wrong”. This phrase encompasses the idea that when we are wrong we have learned something, parenthetically when we can’t admit to being wrong it follows we can learn nothing. Debates are easy to win, but pursuing the truth requires that we are always ready to admit when we are wrong, and that even objective facts are not immutable, and must remain tentative in the light of new evidence. This does not mean they’re unreliable, it just acknowledges that we are fallible, and being open minded is a necessary tool to help us remove subjective bias as much as we can.
Follow the objective evidence, and bend beliefs to it, and if you value the truth then set a standard for credulity that makes it more likely your beliefs will be true, and apply it to all claims, without favour or prejudice.
Atheist is not who or what I am, it is only my reaction to a particular claim, and it reflects the standard I set for credulity, and so must apply to all claims.
… “and others”
@CoffeeBean thanks for posting how you’ve digested the information.
I learnt a long time ago - Always reserve the right to change your mind based upon new information.
Signed,
An other
2 Likes
Gentlemen?.. In HERE???.. Uh, just to be sure, you DO know you are posting on the AR, right? Now, if you had said, “Ladies and others…”, that would have been fine. We do have some highly upstanding and intelligent ladies here. But, GENTLEMEN? Careful, Coffee. You’re treading on thin ice with that one. Remember, you’ve been warned.
Otherwise, I’m glad we could help you with the information you were seeking. Granted, not sure I did much of anything to help, but I’ll gladly take credit when it’s offered. How else do you think I maintain this facade of superiority?
Oh my. What have i gotten myself into?
Perhaps i should have used french…
Mesdames et Messieurs!
Im such a cad. Of course, ladies first. :0)
1 Like
Im never going to be forgiven for my impropriety with greeting my fellow posters properly… i so appreciate your humor in the closing of your post.
Therefore I shall be absent for a short time while i refer to the proper sources to ensure future forum etiquette is followed. I fear I may become bruised a bit too easily as I am justifiably pummeled over my impropriety. :OD
Suffice to say , I also discovered the virtue and benefit of saying, “I am wrong” and adjust accordingly with any valid new information , for which there is no shame in conceding ones former views as this was addressed as well in Richard Dawkins , “God Delusion” when i got into the later chapters.
I actually found it quite a joy to concede that I am wrong as opposed to being embarrassed , likely due to the fact that things have been well explained and well reasoned as it relates to my error rather than being readily dismissed without being told any reasons whatsoever to why I’m wrong or am in error.
I will always appreciate corrections and valid criticisms although admittedly I’m not a perfect person, as I’m prone to these kind of things and will have to go through the crucible often in order to be refined well enough to engage the various topics and situations that I will undoubtedly face in the future going forward.
I appreciate these kind of lessons because it only leads to brighter and more clear engagements which is actually what I personally seek.
1 Like
Certainament meilleur, ami.
1 Like
He’s wrong. He invented some scale and included agnosticism in the belief category. Everyone knows his scale of Atheism is wrong.
It was like pulling teeth… Hey, Cogs school of dentistry! I think I am qualified now. You’re not the first to learn a thing or two. I’m guessing almost everyone on the site has picked up a thing or two from someone. The only way you can test your beliefs is to let them hang out for the world to see. It takes a bit of bravery, But it takes ethics and guts to admit that you have shifted a long held belief.
3 Likes
I do remember arguments were comparatively made between Dawkins and Hitchens as it pertains to Atheism and Agnosticism.
For now, i find i resonate more with Dawkins on the matter.
1 Like
He gets so much wrong:
A defacto atheist is a person born an atheist and never introduced to the idea of God or gods. You are born a defacto atheist. That is Church Dogma. You are born a sinner and separated from god. The definition of sin is “separation from god.” You do acts that separate you from god. These are the acts labeled sinful.
A strong atheist and a de-facto atheist are no place near one another on any scale. Like all atheists, they do not believe in God or gods but for extremely different reasons.
The weak theist is the 'Doubting Thomas." The 'Pascal’s Wager" theist. It’s better to believe and get to heaven than be wrong and get sent to hell/ There may be no god, but this person is playing it safe. I prefer 'Agnostic Christian or Agnostic theist."
Then he Jumps to “Pure Agnostic” Where in the F did that come from. It’s the first time we have seen Agnostic in his scale. He plops it in the middle and calls it “Pure.” Is there unpure agnosticism someplace? Perhaps above? Perhaps below. The fact is, it does not belong in this scale at all. It does not fit.
A weak Atheist is next… is that some sort of non-pure agnostic as well? I know it is an agnostic atheist. An atheist that has not seen any good evidence for the existence of a god. An atheist who knows every point on Dawkins’ scale is a point of agnosticism because the Gods so far introduced are unfalsifiable. The God hypothesis has not been supported. We can discard all current arguments and apologetics because of a lack of support or evidence for their claims.
The strong atheist or the antitheist is more of a position, in my mind than a person. The people out there who profess ‘NO GODS EXIST’ are about as whacked as the Christians who profess ‘God Exists.’ The universe is a big place, and we have not yet turned over every rock. I happen to believe no gods exist, but I will not make the claim as I know it can not be supported any more than the claim that a god exists. With that said, I will argue against specific gods. If a theist defines their god, I may take an agnostic Atheist position or an antitheist position. It depends on the god.
Every position in the Dawkins scale is an agnostic position. They are all agnostic because even when you talk to people who 'KNOW" there is a god. Step by step their positions can usually be broken apart and debunked (especially if they are being honest). Eventually, they fall back to the only belief-saving position they have. “You just gotta have faith.” At this point, I know I have them. There is nothing that can not be believed based on faith.
2 Likes
Hmmm, actually, one could believe in nothing, based on faith…therefore, ergo, and thusly, your statement may be misleading, if taken to mean that you are saying that nothing cannot be believed in, based on faith?
Now, personally I don’t believe in nothing, or anything for that matter, based on faith.
Since “nothing” has not been shown to exist, belief in such would indeed require some application of the notion of faith…
Now, of course any belief in faith would be based on faith…
Sorry to have to slap your faith like this…
Language, language, language
“There is nothing that can be believed in.” VS "Nothing can be believed in.’ I think your reaching.
WTF? finish the sentence.( i.e.) “I think your reaching this conclusion is in error”…or “I think your reaching is what has made your back hurt”.
Now, if you in fact meant “I think you’re reaching”, well, be that as it may, and I doubt that it is, just because I am reaching does not mean that I am grasping…or not…maybe.
Edit: days of yore with your oar
1 Like