Are you an atheist? (6 Viewers)

[dan-cat]

(I did know a smart person here once, but I think he came from somewhere else--he gave me a computer, generator, and satellite hookup and taught me how to think/type, but I'm pretty sure I'm getting it wrong).

That would of have been me. No hang on, I'm a real hillbilly so that can't be right.

 

[Alisa]

As I said earlier there would be no car race commentator who would give a disclaimer free commentary on the car race if he missed the start.

My point exactly. I am declining to comment on the race since we missed the start. You on the other hand are not - even with no evidence, i.e., you missed the start, you are stilling willing to say that god did it.

 

[KenHigg]

My point exactly. I am declining to comment on the race since we missed the start. You on the other hand are not - even with no evidence, i.e., you missed the start, you are stilling willing to say that god did it.

Is this a nascar race? If so it shoud be a restrictor plate event, things are going to fast for me -

 

[Alisa]

That is agnostic. You only allow for other possibilities when your are not 100%

I think we are getting into semantics here. As I said before, in one sense of the word, I am agnostic, because I allow for the possibility. But when you are talking about "agnostics" as a group of people, rather than just the descriptive term, I don't think I fit into that category because what other people who call themselves agnostics believe is signficantly different than what I believe.

 

[Mike375]

My point exactly. I am declining to comment on the race since we missed the start. You on the other hand are not - even with no evidence, i.e., you missed the start, you are stilling willing to say that god did it.

He comments on the race but with the comment like......however, we did not see the start of the race.

You have made heaps of comments on evolution. Go back to the earlier parts of the thread.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

My point exactly. I am declining to comment on the race since we missed the start.

Seems like you are commenting extensively.

 

[Mike375]

I think we are getting into semantics here. As I said before, in one sense of the word, I am agnostic, because I allow for the possibility. But when you are talking about "agnostics" as a group of people, rather than just the descriptive term, I don't think I fit into that category because what other people who call themselves agnostics believe is signficantly different than what I believe.

You are either 100% atheist or agnostic. Nothing semantic. It is not a crime to say you are not sure.

Plenty of agnostics are like you except they call themselves agnostic.

100% does not allow for other possibilities. Allowing for other possibities = not sure = agnostic

 

[KenHigg]

Check out the banner ads for this thread -

'Date Atheist Women' -

 

[KenHigg]

You are either 100% atheist or agnostic. Nothing semantic. It is not a crime to say you are not sure.

Plenty of agnostics are like you except they call themselves agnostic.

100% does not allow for other possibilities. Allowing for other possibities = not sure = agnostic

C'mon, cut her some slack... As she said you're on semantics now and not even on the issue. I think it's pretty clear to everyone where she (or we for that matter) stand...

 

[Alisa]

He comments on the race but with the comment like......however, we did not see the start of the race.

You have made heaps of comments on evolution. Go back to the earlier parts of the thread

I guess I misunderstood your analogy. Are you trying to say that without an explanation for the begining of everything that it is not possible to figure out an explanation for anything?
I hardly think that argument makes any sense. Just because you don't recall your birth doesn't mean that you can't deduce that it took place.
Furthermore, even if you insert god as an explanation for the begining of everything, you still haven't explained how god came to exist, so you haven't found a way out at all.

 

[Alisa]

You are either 100% atheist or agnostic. Nothing semantic. It is not a crime to say you are not sure.

Plenty of agnostics are like you except they call themselves agnostic.

100% does not allow for other possibilities. Allowing for other possibities = not sure = agnostic

But I am sure. I am sure that based on the evidence available TODAY that there is not a god. However, how can I be sure that the evidence won't be different in the FUTURE? I can't, since I can't predict the future. Since I don't know what evidence will be available in the future, I can't predict that I will always be sure.

An agnostic is someone, who based on the evidence available TODAY, thinks there might be a god.

It is totally different.

 

[Mike375]

I guess I misunderstood your analogy. Are you trying to say that without an explanation for the begining of everything that it is not possible to figure out an explanation for anything?
I hardly think that argument makes any sense. Just because you don't recall your birth doesn't mean that you can't deduce that it took place.
Furthermore, even if you insert god as an explanation for the begining of everything, you still haven't explained how god came to exist, so you haven't found a way out at all.

Don't try and be so black and white.

Perhaps if we knew how life started then lizard to snake would be easy. Does not necessarily mean God but what it might mean is Richard Dwkins stuff has plenty of holes. He already knows that which is why he sticks to "half an eye" is better than no eye so as to skip the problem of being in limbo for millions of years.

 

[Mike375]

C'mon, cut her some slack... As she said you're on semantics now and not even on the issue. I think it's pretty clear to everyone where she (or we for that matter) stand...

It's not semantics Ken

Agnostic is unsure and 100% does not allow for other possibilities. As you know people remove all other possibilitie before they declare 100%.

 

[Alisa]

Don't try and be so black and white.

It was your analogy. Feel free to elaborate if I misunderstood the intent of the analogy, which I appear to have done twice now.

 

[Alisa]

It's not semantics Ken

Agnostic is unsure and 100% does not allow for other possibilities. As you know people remove all other possibilitie before they declare 100%.

Speaking of being black and white . . .
I do not agree with your definition of atheist vs. agnostic. I have stated what I percieve the differences between the two to be. If we disagree on those definitions, then yes, that is an issue of semantics.

 

[Mike375]

However, how can I be sure that the evidence won't be different in the FUTURE? I can't, since I can't predict the future. Since I don't know what evidence will be available in the future, I can't predict that I will always be sure.
An agnostic is someone, who based on the evidence available TODAY, thinks there might be a god.

It is totally different.

You are the same as me. I allow for the possibility that Hawking and Co or whoever/whenever will find the answer whereas you allow for them not finding the answer. We are both agnostics.

 

[Mike375]

Speaking of being black and white . . .
I do not agree with your definition of atheist vs. agnostic. I have stated what I percieve the differences between the two to be. If we disagree on those definitions, then yes, that is an issue of semantics.

Alisa,

You agree agnostic is "not sure", "don't know" etc and etc.

Does 100% allow for any unsure etc. The answer is no.

If a balloon is 100% air tight it will not lose air. If it is 99% air tight it will lose air.

 

[Alisa]

Alisa,

You agree agnostic is "not sure", "don't know" etc and etc.

Does 100% allow for any unsure etc. The answer is no.

If a balloon is 100% air tight it will not lose air. If it is 99% air tight it will lose air.

You are missing the distinction I am making, so I will clarify it again.

The agnostic type of uncertainty is: I'm not sure if there is a god, or I think there is a god but I can't prove it, or I think there is a god but it is not possible to for humans to know whether there is a god or not so we will never know for sure.

The atheist type of uncerntainty is: There is no god, but I reserve the right to change my mind if new evidence becomes available in the future. Atheists believe that although you can't prove the negative (you can't prove that god doesn't exist) and therefore you must allow for the theoretical possibility that he does, the lack of evidence to prove the positive (that god does exist) is reasonable grounds to assume that he doesn't for the time being.

These two types of uncertainty are very very different.

 

[Rich]

Which god are you referring to

Why the hell should she answer that when all the bible punchers here ignore the question and instead continue to deliver their sermon on the mount?

 

[Rich]

Richard Dwkins stuff has plenty of holes.

Unlike the Bible eh