raw_thought wrote:Ok Hobbes you are also a unicorn agnostic and not a unicorn athiest.
"unicorn atheist" is meaningless.
You are confusing yourself.
Good grief!!! Are you that dim?
I was obviously referring to a person that believes that unicorns do not exist.
Talk about anal! Do you have aspergers? I realize some can only think in regimented patterns.
PoeticUniverse wrote:Hobbes is clearly and sensibly relating that he doesn't have to support the proposal of an unknown, unshown supernatural realm headed by a fundamental, First, all-powerful Person with a system mind referred to as 'God' (faith's honest meaning), as it is reasonless and is thus on based on a wish, belief, desire, feeling, etc., none of which above states that he is indicating or showing the opposite (which doesn't set up the straw man that is the silly, human trick of the article).
Nor does the unbased whole house of cards of all that is layered upon the original supposition as the large structure of religion have to be accepted with no evidence.
Other typical human tricks, even unknowingly sometimes, are to so much believe in something as to fall into the dishonesty of stating that the object of the belief is truth and fact, for one isn't as likely to obtain followers when being ethical and saying only that maybe it could be so.
When we don't know something for sure such as whether the sun will 'rise' tomorrow we trust (not have faith) that it will because there is a precedent and so that forms the reasoning as a good probability judgment. There is no reasoning by/through faith. When there is no precedent, we can only fall back to probability alone to estimate the question, yet probability stances can be underlain by reasoning, which can change the odds from 50/50 to something else.
All in all, though, what hasn't been established needn't even be addressed, which position, again, does not automatically mean one has totally contrary stance as one of the characters in the Wizard of Oz.
Agreed. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with our debate.
Yes, I agree an anthropormorphic God is silly. Sophisticated theists are not included in that group. As I said, I am an agnostic and that does not mean that I do not care if God exists or not. To be like that is to be silly. Having no curiosity about the big questions shows a trivial mundane character.
Of course you will accuse me of being a closet theist. I am not. But even to suggest that is to distract from the debate.
Some athiests want to be known as skeptics, while saying that there is no God. Obviously, that is a contradiction.
I simply, briefly made the point that I am an agnostic (someone that does not know if God exists or not). and all of a sudden Im a fundamentalist spy with an agenda to destroy atheism. This is so silly. That instead of a substantive debate, we have spent pages about the definitions of words.
It is simply more efficient to say that agnosticism is the lack of certainty (belief).To say that agnosticism is just another word for atheism, implies that we should just get rid of term atheism. It is no longer theists bs athiests its theists vs agnostics.
So what is your word for someone that believes that God doesnt exist. Most people would say athiest works.
So an athiest acknowledges that it is possible that God exists. That just makes for convoluted thinking that goes nowhere. Like this purely semantic (arguing about the definitions of words) thread.
Like I said,lets move on to something actually philosophical. Lets forget the silly semantics and agree that the only honest answer to the question,"does God exist" is "I don't know".
raw_thought wrote:If you must know, I am very doubtful of God's existence. And if he does exist, our happiness is not one of his priorities.
In other words I believe that if God exists "he" is unconventional.
Actually, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with the validity of my argument. But since some have accused me of being a closet fundamentalist attempting to disingenuously destroy atheism, I have quoted my previous post.
raw_thought wrote:Lets forget the silly semantics and agree that the only honest answer to the question,"does God exist" is "I don't know".
Is applying this logic to the question of a god the same for you as applying this logic to any other question of something's existence? Meaning, would you answer "I don't know" to any other question of something existing (such as faeries or mermaids or gremlins or spirits) which may seem very real to some people, but ridiculous to others? Is the only honest answer to these questions also "I don't know"? I'm asking because I'm wondering if you (or others) apply different logic for the idea/belief of a god?
raw_thought wrote:OK,
I will agree that I am agnostic about unicorns and not a unicorn athiest. Its possible (but highly unlikely ) that somewhere on earth is a unicorn.
In other words I dont know with 100% certainty that no unicorns exist. However, it is unlikey. In science there is never 100% certainty. However, one can measure the probability.
Id say
Unicorns= 80% certainty that they do not exist.
Elvis alive= 75% certainty that he is not
Extraterrestrial = 98% certainty
That extraterrestrials have visited earth= 20% that they have.
I dont know if "horror " is the right word. I think "silly" is a better fit for arguing about the definition of "agnostic" rather then if admitting that one does not know if God exists is the only rational response.
raw_thought wrote:Ok Hobbes you are also a unicorn agnostic and not a unicorn athiest.
"unicorn atheist" is meaningless.
You are confusing yourself.
Good grief!!! Are you that dim?
I was obviously referring to a person that believes that unicorns do not exist.
Talk about anal! Do you have aspergers? I realize some can only think in regimented patterns.
There is no word for people who do not beleive in unicorns, if there was it would not be 'unicorn atheist'. You are dim.
You have a poor grasp of english. This is a philosophy site (not cite), and the use of words is important to philosophy. I am trying to make this as simple as possible for you.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
raw_thought wrote:OK,
I will agree that I am agnostic about unicorns and not a unicorn athiest. Its possible (but highly unlikely ) that somewhere on earth is a unicorn.
In other words I dont know with 100% certainty that no unicorns exist. However, it is unlikey. In science there is never 100% certainty. However, one can measure the probability.
Id say
Unicorns= 80% certainty that they do not exist.
Elvis alive= 75% certainty that he is not
Extraterrestrial = 98% certainty
That extraterrestrials have visited earth= 20% that they have.
Fuck, if you are taking the trouble to answer your own questions you might want to try a bit harder. This is fucking moronic.
raw_thought wrote:Lets forget the silly semantics and agree that the only honest answer to the question,"does God exist" is "I don't know".
Is applying this logic to the question of a god the same for you as applying this logic to any other question of something's existence? Meaning, would you answer "I don't know" to any other question of something existing (such as faeries or mermaids or gremlins or spirits) which may seem very real to some people, but ridiculous to others? Is the only honest answer to these questions also "I don't know"? I'm asking because I'm wondering if you (or others) apply different logic for the idea/belief of a god?
I know what you mean because I'm having the same problem with Gustav and Inglorious elsewhere. P.T. Barnum knew perfectly well that there's a bit of the voyeur in all of us which finds fascination with the grotesque. I think could pass on the bearded lady or the two-headed dwarf but I'd pay top dollar to see Eccentrica Gallumbits, the triple-breasted whore from Eroticon Six, whose erogenous zones are purported to extend a full four miles beyond her body.
It's hard not to gawk in horror. 
