Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

It's even sadder...

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:58:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That the Christians in the other thread don't seem to understand how utterly disrespectful, selfish, patronizing, and deeply offensive their "sympathy" seems to someone who doesn't share their ideas.

Regardless of one's beliefs at death, theist or otherwise, I would respect their choices and hope that they have lived their lives as fully as happily as they could. His afterlife is none of my concern, nor is it anyone's.

I find it strange how as an agnostic, I'm so much more capable of tolerance, acceptance, and respect than a lot of the hard-core theists.

Theists: How do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the fact that you should exhibit respect and religious tolerance?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:07:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 8:58:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That the Christians in the other thread don't seem to understand how utterly disrespectful, selfish, patronizing, and deeply offensive their "sympathy" seems to someone who doesn't share their ideas.
What other thread? Can you post it? (Now that I'm looking, I guess it's the "It's Sad" thread, right?)

Regardless of one's beliefs at death, theist or otherwise, I would respect their choices and hope that they have lived their lives as fully as happily as they could. His afterlife is none of my concern, nor is it anyone's.
I agree wholeheartedly. As someone who has lost several close relatives and friends, I stand in solidarity on this point.

I find it strange how as an agnostic, I'm so much more capable of tolerance, acceptance, and respect than a lot of the hard-core theists.
Well, agnosticism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. I myself am an agnostic-theist. Actually, virtually all theists I know are agnostic-theists. How about yourself: are you an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist?

Theists: How do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the fact that you should exhibit respect and religious tolerance?
Just like with any other issue regarding beliefs: there is a time for jest and a time for seriousness. Actually, I'd say it's even more serious when it comes to the issue of religion.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 8:58:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That the Christians in the other thread don't seem to understand how utterly disrespectful, selfish, patronizing, and deeply offensive their "sympathy" seems to someone who doesn't share their ideas.

Regardless of one's beliefs at death, theist or otherwise, I would respect their choices and hope that they have lived their lives as fully as happily as they could. His afterlife is none of my concern, nor is it anyone's.

I find it strange how as an agnostic, I'm so much more capable of tolerance, acceptance, and respect than a lot of the hard-core theists.

Theists: How do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the fact that you should exhibit respect and religious tolerance?

kleptin, are you the agnostic which says "I don't really know whether God exists" or whether you are the agnostic which says "the knowledge of God's existence is impossible"?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:10:45 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 5/30/2012 8:58:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That the Christians in the other thread don't seem to understand how utterly disrespectful, selfish, patronizing, and deeply offensive their "sympathy" seems to someone who doesn't share their ideas.

Regardless of one's beliefs at death, theist or otherwise, I would respect their choices and hope that they have lived their lives as fully as happily as they could. His afterlife is none of my concern, nor is it anyone's.

I find it strange how as an agnostic, I'm so much more capable of tolerance, acceptance, and respect than a lot of the hard-core theists.

Theists: How do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the fact that you should exhibit respect and religious tolerance?

kleptin, are you the agnostic which says "I don't really know whether God exists" or whether you are the agnostic which says "the knowledge of God's existence is impossible"?

The latter. I have argued against atheists as well.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:16:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:07:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Well, agnosticism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. I myself am an agnostic-theist. Actually, virtually all theists I know are agnostic-theists. How about yourself: are you an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist?

I don't like that hyphenation because it gives the illusion that one's religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs of knowledge can occupy the same space. An Agnostic-theist is essentially someone who operates on faith and logic separately or in denial. An agnostic-atheist is someone who operates on logic without acknowledging its limits.

I'm more likely an agnostic-atheist but as time goes by, I'll likely shift further into neutrality.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:22:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:16:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:07:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Well, agnosticism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. I myself am an agnostic-theist. Actually, virtually all theists I know are agnostic-theists. How about yourself: are you an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist?

I don't like that hyphenation because it gives the illusion that one's religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs of knowledge can occupy the same space.
I guess, I never thought that much about a hyphen. These two do occupy the same space as in the space being the person; ie you or I so...

An Agnostic-theist is essentially someone who operates on faith and logic separately or in denial.
I can see that! Sometimes in denial knowingly, and sometimes unknowingly!

An agnostic-atheist is someone who operates on logic without acknowledging its limits.
I'm not sure about that one. I'd ascribe that to a gnostic-atheist. I think that an agnostic-atheist knows the limits of logic and tries to abide by them.

I'm more likely an agnostic-atheist but as time goes by, I'll likely shift further into neutrality.
Neutrality? That wouldn't be a position on belief or knowledge of God's existence. Are you referring to ignostic?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:24:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:12:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:10:45 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 5/30/2012 8:58:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That the Christians in the other thread don't seem to understand how utterly disrespectful, selfish, patronizing, and deeply offensive their "sympathy" seems to someone who doesn't share their ideas.

Regardless of one's beliefs at death, theist or otherwise, I would respect their choices and hope that they have lived their lives as fully as happily as they could. His afterlife is none of my concern, nor is it anyone's.

I find it strange how as an agnostic, I'm so much more capable of tolerance, acceptance, and respect than a lot of the hard-core theists.

Theists: How do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the fact that you should exhibit respect and religious tolerance?

kleptin, are you the agnostic which says "I don't really know whether God exists" or whether you are the agnostic which says "the knowledge of God's existence is impossible"?

The latter. I have argued against atheists as well.

Do you think your position is the most reasonable position on the existence of God?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:24:30 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:12:14 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:10:45 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 5/30/2012 8:58:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That the Christians in the other thread don't seem to understand how utterly disrespectful, selfish, patronizing, and deeply offensive their "sympathy" seems to someone who doesn't share their ideas.

Regardless of one's beliefs at death, theist or otherwise, I would respect their choices and hope that they have lived their lives as fully as happily as they could. His afterlife is none of my concern, nor is it anyone's.

I find it strange how as an agnostic, I'm so much more capable of tolerance, acceptance, and respect than a lot of the hard-core theists.

Theists: How do you reconcile the strength of your beliefs with the fact that you should exhibit respect and religious tolerance?

kleptin, are you the agnostic which says "I don't really know whether God exists" or whether you are the agnostic which says "the knowledge of God's existence is impossible"?

The latter. I have argued against atheists as well.

Do you think your position is the most reasonable position on the existence of God?

I think my position is the most reasonable position in discussing the existence of God.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:42:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:22:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I guess, I never thought that much about a hyphen. These two do occupy the same space as in the space being the person; ie you or I so...

I think I meant "philosophical space" but that term doesn't seem to mesh well. It would be better for me to just say that experiencing the world through faith and through logic are both valid, but separate.

An Agnostic-theist is essentially someone who operates on faith and logic separately or in denial.
I can see that! Sometimes in denial knowingly, and sometimes unknowingly!

Usually, those in denial just haven't thought about it enough. Agnostic-theists who think about things more just operate on them separately, which I think is fine.

I'm not sure about that one. I'd ascribe that to a gnostic-atheist. I think that an agnostic-atheist knows the limits of logic and tries to abide by them.

Explain to me why an atheist thinks it's possible to declare that a being that definitively supercedes the fabric of existence, the universe, and logic itself, cannot exist by virtue of the logic it supercedes.

Neutrality? That wouldn't be a position on belief or knowledge of God's existence. Are you referring to ignostic?

Either ignosticism or willful ignorance.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:30:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:42:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Explain to me why an atheist thinks it's possible to declare that a being that definitively supercedes the fabric of existence, the universe, and logic itself, cannot exist by virtue of the logic it supercedes.

I have never believed that God supersedes logic.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 9:42:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:22:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I guess, I never thought that much about a hyphen. These two do occupy the same space as in the space being the person; ie you or I so...

I think I meant "philosophical space" but that term doesn't seem to mesh well. It would be better for me to just say that experiencing the world through faith and through logic are both valid, but separate.
Yes. I can certainly appreciate that.

I'm not sure about that one. I'd ascribe that to a gnostic-atheist. I think that an agnostic-atheist knows the limits of logic and tries to abide by them.
Explain to me why an atheist thinks it's possible to declare that a being that definitively supercedes the fabric of existence, the universe, and logic itself, cannot exist by virtue of the logic it supercedes.
Again, I would think that an gnostic-atheist might say that. However, from a logical standpoint the above isn't really a question and therefore there's nothing to answer.

What I mean is that there are things in the "question" that are meaningless and thus render the entire collection of words meaningless. For example: "supersedes the fabric of existence" is a meaningless term to me. As far as being "outside of" or superseding logic would necessarily mean an instanciation of a contradiction. If we are willing to accept that, then ANYTHING follows. So then such a God can be possible and impossible at the same time. Gibberish and nonsense would be able to exist.

Neutrality? That wouldn't be a position on belief or knowledge of God's existence. Are you referring to ignostic?
Either ignosticism or willful ignorance.
Lol! Willful ignorance goes a long way, I can vouch for that. As far as ignosticism, it's a totally bogus concept and does not answer any questions pertaining to God and ergo is not a position on the matter. Not answering a question isn't an answer to a question. Not having a position isn't a position.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:50:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is in fact only one reasonable de facto position on the issue of God - the reasonable de facto position is "strict" agnosticism - we cannot know if God exists.

Expressing a belief one way or the other despite this fact moves you into the realm of theism/atheism. This isn't to say that there are not (reasonable) reasons one cannot hold a belief either way, but rather that the first step in the inquiry is admitting the default agnostic position.

Also:

As far as ignosticism, it's a totally bogus concept and does not answer any questions pertaining to God and ergo is not a position on the matter. Not answering a question isn't an answer to a question. Not having a position isn't a position.

Ignosticism is not a non-answer - it's a request for clarification. Ignosticism is basically an extension of agnosticism - without the information about what the questioner means by god, the answerer cannot know.

But more importantly, ignosticism does not pertain to belief. It pertains to knowledge (not to be confused with theological noncognitivism). Ignosticism doesn't seek to provide an answer to the question of God's existence - it challenges the format of the question itself as being unanswerable.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:12:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:50:40 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
There is in fact only one reasonable de facto position on the issue of God - the reasonable de facto position is "strict" agnosticism - we cannot know if God exists.

Expressing a belief one way or the other despite this fact moves you into the realm of theism/atheism. This isn't to say that there are not (reasonable) reasons one cannot hold a belief either way, but rather that the first step in the inquiry is admitting the default agnostic position.
Agree.

As far as ignosticism, it's a totally bogus concept and does not answer any questions pertaining to God and ergo is not a position on the matter. Not answering a question isn't an answer to a question. Not having a position isn't a position.
Ignosticism is not a non-answer - it's a request for clarification.
A request for clarification is NOT an answer to the question; ergo, it is a non-answer. If you do NOT accept the question (for lack of clarification, or whatever reason) then you cannot answer it. But not answering it is NOT an answer nor does it address anything pertaining to the question.

Ignosticism is basically an extension of agnosticism - without the information about what the questioner means by god, the answerer cannot know.
Regardless, it does not answer the question. At best, ignosticism is a "moving the goal posts" fallacy; at worst it is a non-answer that relates NO new information.

But more importantly, ignosticism does not pertain to belief. It pertains to knowledge (not to be confused with theological noncognitivism). Ignosticism doesn't seek to provide an answer to the question of God's existence - it challenges the format of the question itself as being unanswerable.
Ergo it is not an answer to the question, as I have stated. It relays NO new information. As such, it cannot claim that the question is unanswerable if it doesn't even accept the premise.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:39:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 12:12:01 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

A request for clarification is NOT an answer to the question; ergo, it is a non-answer. If you do NOT accept the question (for lack of clarification, or whatever reason) then you cannot answer it. But not answering it is NOT an answer nor does it address anything pertaining to the question.

I'm not aware that it even claims to offer an answer, so the point is moot... Your original critique was that it fails to provide a position. This is like saying that your blender does a poor job keeping food cold.

Regardless, it does not answer the question. At best, ignosticism is a "moving the goal posts" fallacy; at worst it is a non-answer that relates NO new information.

How is it a moving the goalposts fallacy? It just wants to know where the goalposts are so it can take the shot. And further, saying it relates no new information is completely disingenuous, because it requests clarification for the specific purpose of being able to answer the question. Again - not to be confused with noncognitivism here.

Ergo it is not an answer to the question, as I have stated. It relays NO new information. As such, it cannot claim that the question is unanswerable if it doesn't even accept the premise.

Ignosticism doesn't claim that the question is unanswerable per se - it just claims that the question as asked doesn't have enough information, but given more, could be answerable. Unanswerable per se is noncognitivism.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:34:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:30:11 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/30/2012 9:42:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Explain to me why an atheist thinks it's possible to declare that a being that definitively supercedes the fabric of existence, the universe, and logic itself, cannot exist by virtue of the logic it supercedes.

I have never believed that God supersedes logic.

Logic is the box within which human beings can process information about and understand the universe, per our needs. Our capacity for that is limited by the fact that we are basically a bag of chemicals.

The vast majority of people believe that logic has the capacity to dictate rules, laws, and existence-statuses for anything, but they forget the addendum that it is a self-enclosed mechanism.

Our logic is based on our interactions with the natural world, we can only make claims about what we can interact with an observe. The axioms upon which we base our logical systems, such as contradiction and identity, are a necessity for our comprehension of the universe, not for the state of the universe being the way it is.

In other words, logic doesn't set the rules of the universe. It sets our capacity to make sense of it. A capacity I am not secure enough in saying is absolute.

We exist in four dimensions, and even the notion that we exist in "time" is a little sketchy. God is described as being omnipontent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It is unlikely that whatever creator of the universe theists believe in, occupies the same plane of existence we do, in the exact same manner, in an observable sense. Something that is omniscient probably exists across all time.

How exactly is it possible for something like that to fit into a box of logic?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:34:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 12:39:30 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 5/31/2012 12:12:01 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
A request for clarification is NOT an answer to the question; ergo, it is a non-answer. If you do NOT accept the question (for lack of clarification, or whatever reason) then you cannot answer it. But not answering it is NOT an answer nor does it address anything pertaining to the question.

I'm not aware that it even claims to offer an answer, so the point is moot...
Actually, it does pretend to have a position on "knowledge pertaining to the existence God," when in fact it has NO position on the matter. It is also evident by you claiming that it's not a "non-answer" when in fact it is.

Your original critique was that it fails to provide a position.
It does fail to provide a position on the "knowledge pertaining to the existence God": a question is not answer to a question. Additionally, a question is NOT a position on anything.

This is like saying that your blender does a poor job keeping food cold.
Precisely: ignosticism conveys NOTHING about "knowledge pertaining to the existence God"...or anything else for that matter.

Regardless, it does not answer the question. At best, ignosticism is a "moving the goal posts" fallacy; at worst it is a non-answer that relates NO new information.
How is it a moving the goalposts fallacy? It just wants to know where the goalposts are so it can take the shot.
I meant that it can be not that it always is. That's why I mentioned 2 different things: best/worst. Regardless, there are ENDLESS volumes upon volumes of information about any specific God or gods: if it isn't clear by now to an "ignostic" it'll never be. That's what I meant by moving goal posts.

And further, saying it relates no new information is completely disingenuous, because it requests clarification for the specific purpose of being able to answer the question. Again - not to be confused with noncognitivism here.
How does the request for more information relay any new information? It doesn't. Look, I don't have a problem with requesting information BUT I do have a problem with thinking that requesting information is a position on anything, let alone a position on "knowledge pertaining to the existence God." What REALLY pisses me off is when I ask them if they're atheist or theist and they answer ignostic!

Ergo it is not an answer to the question, as I have stated. It relays NO new information. As such, it cannot claim that the question is unanswerable if it doesn't even accept the premise.
Ignosticism doesn't claim that the question is unanswerable per se - it just claims that the question as asked doesn't have enough information, but given more, could be answerable. Unanswerable per se is noncognitivism.
A question that cannot be answered is by definition unanswerable...at least to the person who is unable to answer it. Whether or not it is ULTIMATELY unanswerable by anyone is perhaps another issue. The point is that ignosticism doesn't ACKNOWLEDGE the question to begin with because it does not accept the concept of God. If it does not accept the concept of God, then the question becomes meaningless; ergo, not a question at all. It makes it as much a question as "asdfa asd fa4s fa sd%fa" is.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.