Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: The Whelks of Science

andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 9:14:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Its never long before the next illiterate monkey-man raises from his big boy chair and makes the following redundant kind of statements:

"No evidence for God in science!"
and,
"Science is much better than religion because it actually studies sh*t!"

Lets take these two 'tarded statements and examine the matter.

First lets establish what "science" is. Science is the study of observable phenomena, down through an assumed infinite chain of cause and effect. This might not be the definition of science, but it is the reality of science.

Consider a character in a computer game.
This character can look around and realize that his world is governed by law. But if he synthetically limits his explanatory scope to the study of observable causes, he is ultimately forced to deduce that the universe which he lives somehow exists necessarily. He can never get to the source code on the hard drive or enter the world which it exists. He cannot find positive evidence that the game world was created, even though its all around him, encoded into all of the 'natural' laws which support his existence. This is the ignorant position of Big Boy and his best friends who rely on science as the ultimate explicator of our existence.

But, released of this synthetic explanatory parameter, a critical thinking character might ask "how the power of the laws were set?", "where are they set?", "why are all of these laws contingent; working together in perfect amounts to produce a coherent, stable, productive universe?", "why should it be that this experience is always challenging?", "why is there a narrative?". Released of the synthetic dogma which limit his explanatory scope, this critical thinking character has the means to arrive closer to the truth.

There may be astonishing inferential evidence that the game world was created. The probability of it arising somehow naturally could literally be 0. But to the dogmatic atheist and naturalist with their synthetic parameters of explanation, it must be true that the game world just exists necessarily.

Their premise that nothing exists outside of the "natural" or observable world is the basis for their faulty conclusion.

Big Boys who think that "No evidence for God in science!" is even relevant, have been completely brainwashed.

In the real world, not only is it impossible to find positive scientific evidence for God, but the "discoveries", of science are tried to use against the notion of God!

Not only that, but they arrive at this conclusion through patently circular logic;

"Hey bro. How do we explain complex life within our inherently atheistic science paradigm?"

"Well bro, there is only one possible way which could even be respectable.. somehow inanimate molecules came to life and somehow, imperceptibly over billions of years, they got more complex".


"Cool bro. Hey, i found a bunch of skulls all different sizes. When i line them up in order of size i can imagine that one morphed into another."


"Wow bro. That proves it then. Better phone cardinal Dawkins so he can write a book about how evolution disproves God".

The real world is literally this ridiculous. There is no positive evidence for evolution, it is all inferred deductively through that totally faulty premise which says there "must" be a naturalistic explanation.

So, whenever one of your local Big-Boy science-whelks try and argue that somehow science disproves God, or tries to create a dichotomy between God and science, or tries to claim that there is no evidence for God in science... Understand....

...This is a person who doesn't even understand what science is, or where its limits are. This is a person who's ideology is so monstrous that he actually dispenses of all reason and synthetically limits his explanatory power to support it. This person is not a representative of honesty, logic, reason or truth. This is a village idiot. Throw him 50c for some new underwear, and get on with your day.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 9:50:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:14:29 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Its never long before the next illiterate monkey-man raises from his big boy chair and makes the following redundant kind of statements:

"No evidence for God in science!"
and,
"Science is much better than religion because it actually studies sh*t!"

Lets take these two 'tarded statements and examine the matter.

First lets establish what "science" is. Science is the study of observable phenomena, down through an assumed infinite chain of cause and effect. This might not be the definition of science, but it is the reality of science.

Consider a character in a computer game.
This character can look around and realize that his world is governed by law. But if he synthetically limits his explanatory scope to the study of observable causes, he is ultimately forced to deduce that the universe which he lives somehow exists necessarily. He can never get to the source code on the hard drive or enter the world which it exists. He cannot find positive evidence that the game world was created, even though its all around him, encoded into all of the 'natural' laws which support his existence. This is the ignorant position of Big Boy and his best friends who rely on science as the ultimate explicator of our existence.

But, released of this synthetic explanatory parameter, a critical thinking character might ask "how the power of the laws were set?", "where are they set?", "why are all of these laws contingent; working together in perfect amounts to produce a coherent, stable, productive universe?", "why should it be that this experience is always challenging?", "why is there a narrative?". Released of the synthetic dogma which limit his explanatory scope, this critical thinking character has the means to arrive closer to the truth.

There may be astonishing inferential evidence that the game world was created. The probability of it arising somehow naturally could literally be 0. But to the dogmatic atheist and naturalist with their synthetic parameters of explanation, it must be true that the game world just exists necessarily.

Their premise that nothing exists outside of the "natural" or observable world is the basis for their faulty conclusion.

Big Boys who think that "No evidence for God in science!" is even relevant, have been completely brainwashed.


In the real world, not only is it impossible to find positive scientific evidence for God, but the "discoveries", of science are tried to use against the notion of God!

Not only that, but they arrive at this conclusion through patently circular logic;

"Hey bro. How do we explain complex life within our inherently atheistic science paradigm?"

"Well bro, there is only one possible way which could even be respectable.. somehow inanimate molecules came to life and somehow, imperceptibly over billions of years, they got more complex".


"Cool bro. Hey, i found a bunch of skulls all different sizes. When i line them up in order of size i can imagine that one morphed into another."


"Wow bro. That proves it then. Better phone cardinal Dawkins so he can write a book about how evolution disproves God".

The real world is literally this ridiculous. There is no positive evidence for evolution, it is all inferred deductively through that totally faulty premise which says there "must" be a naturalistic explanation.


So, whenever one of your local Big-Boy science-whelks try and argue that somehow science disproves God, or tries to create a dichotomy between God and science, or tries to claim that there is no evidence for God in science... Understand....

...This is a person who doesn't even understand what science is, or where its limits are. This is a person who's ideology is so monstrous that he actually dispenses of all reason and synthetically limits his explanatory power to support it. This person is not a representative of honesty, logic, reason or truth. This is a village idiot. Throw him 50c for some new underwear, and get on with your day.

This is actually a very good read from someone attacking atheism, definitely one of the better ones I've seen so far and an argument that I use from time to time against atheists as an agnostic.

One question though:

As science progresses to explain what it can, the naturalistic world, it does show that certain things are inarguable if you accept certain assumptions. For example, your example about skull progression gets your point across, but you're obviously intelligent enough to know that it's wrong. Radiometric dating, the fossil record, geological evidence, etc. are all indeed based on specific assumptions, but when the assumptions link together, it makes the probability of falsehood lower and lower. Yes, there are holes. But those holes are constantly meshed up tighter and tighter, solidifying a foundation for the truth in a very clear pattern of constant improvement, you can't really chalk that up to bias.

However, that's not your argument and so, neither should it be mine. Our focus is on the fact that however much science may progress, it is still LIMITED by the naturalistic world. A blind man standing still with a ten foot stick will undoubtedly conclude that the universe is ten feet in radius and that assuming anything else is absurd.

However, how do you respond to the notion that our capabilities of thought simply need not expand beyond the naturalistic approach? If we are a bunch of brains floating in vats, is there any integrity in pursuing a philosophy that we have no control over?

The problem with your argument is that it isn't an argument. Rather, it is a proposed opening of our method of understanding this world. The problem is that it doesn't provide us with any benefit unless we accept some other portions of doctrine that become progressively more absurd.

The Bible as the literal word of God, for example. A supreme being, creator of humans, that is curiously specifically anthropomorphic.

The beauty of your argument (and I do find it beautiful) is that it is an argument for my favorite position ever: Agnosticism. And all it really does is highlight how both Theism and Atheism fall flat. Each represents an extreme, each represents a form of mental restriction. Every fault you list with the dogmatic naturalists that subscribe to Atheism is also a fault in every Theist.

Very interesting post.
: 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.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:12:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:50:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/25/2014 9:14:29 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Its never long before the next illiterate monkey-man raises from his big boy chair and makes the following redundant kind of statements:

"No evidence for God in science!"
and,
"Science is much better than religion because it actually studies sh*t!"

Lets take these two 'tarded statements and examine the matter.

First lets establish what "science" is. Science is the study of observable phenomena, down through an assumed infinite chain of cause and effect. This might not be the definition of science, but it is the reality of science.

Consider a character in a computer game.
This character can look around and realize that his world is governed by law. But if he synthetically limits his explanatory scope to the study of observable causes, he is ultimately forced to deduce that the universe which he lives somehow exists necessarily. He can never get to the source code on the hard drive or enter the world which it exists. He cannot find positive evidence that the game world was created, even though its all around him, encoded into all of the 'natural' laws which support his existence. This is the ignorant position of Big Boy and his best friends who rely on science as the ultimate explicator of our existence.

But, released of this synthetic explanatory parameter, a critical thinking character might ask "how the power of the laws were set?", "where are they set?", "why are all of these laws contingent; working together in perfect amounts to produce a coherent, stable, productive universe?", "why should it be that this experience is always challenging?", "why is there a narrative?". Released of the synthetic dogma which limit his explanatory scope, this critical thinking character has the means to arrive closer to the truth.

There may be astonishing inferential evidence that the game world was created. The probability of it arising somehow naturally could literally be 0. But to the dogmatic atheist and naturalist with their synthetic parameters of explanation, it must be true that the game world just exists necessarily.

Their premise that nothing exists outside of the "natural" or observable world is the basis for their faulty conclusion.

Big Boys who think that "No evidence for God in science!" is even relevant, have been completely brainwashed.


In the real world, not only is it impossible to find positive scientific evidence for God, but the "discoveries", of science are tried to use against the notion of God!

Not only that, but they arrive at this conclusion through patently circular logic;

"Hey bro. How do we explain complex life within our inherently atheistic science paradigm?"

"Well bro, there is only one possible way which could even be respectable.. somehow inanimate molecules came to life and somehow, imperceptibly over billions of years, they got more complex".


"Cool bro. Hey, i found a bunch of skulls all different sizes. When i line them up in order of size i can imagine that one morphed into another."


"Wow bro. That proves it then. Better phone cardinal Dawkins so he can write a book about how evolution disproves God".

The real world is literally this ridiculous. There is no positive evidence for evolution, it is all inferred deductively through that totally faulty premise which says there "must" be a naturalistic explanation.


So, whenever one of your local Big-Boy science-whelks try and argue that somehow science disproves God, or tries to create a dichotomy between God and science, or tries to claim that there is no evidence for God in science... Understand....

...This is a person who doesn't even understand what science is, or where its limits are. This is a person who's ideology is so monstrous that he actually dispenses of all reason and synthetically limits his explanatory power to support it. This person is not a representative of honesty, logic, reason or truth. This is a village idiot. Throw him 50c for some new underwear, and get on with your day.

This is actually a very good read from someone attacking atheism, definitely one of the better ones I've seen so far and an argument that I use from time to time against atheists as an agnostic.

One question though:

As science progresses to explain what it can, the naturalistic world, it does show that certain things are inarguable if you accept certain assumptions. For example, your example about skull progression gets your point across, but you're obviously intelligent enough to know that it's wrong. Radiometric dating, the fossil record, geological evidence, etc. are all indeed based on specific assumptions, but when the assumptions link together, it makes the probability of falsehood lower and lower. Yes, there are holes. But those holes are constantly meshed up tighter and tighter, solidifying a foundation for the truth in a very clear pattern of constant improvement, you can't really chalk that up to bias.

However, that's not your argument and so, neither should it be mine. Our focus is on the fact that however much science may progress, it is still LIMITED by the naturalistic world. A blind man standing still with a ten foot stick will undoubtedly conclude that the universe is ten feet in radius and that assuming anything else is absurd.

However, how do you respond to the notion that our capabilities of thought simply need not expand beyond the naturalistic approach? If we are a bunch of brains floating in vats, is there any integrity in pursuing a philosophy that we have no control over?

The problem with your argument is that it isn't an argument. Rather, it is a proposed opening of our method of understanding this world. The problem is that it doesn't provide us with any benefit unless we accept some other portions of doctrine that become progressively more absurd.

The Bible as the literal word of God, for example. A supreme being, creator of humans, that is curiously specifically anthropomorphic.

The beauty of your argument (and I do find it beautiful) is that it is an argument for my favorite position ever: Agnosticism. And all it really does is highlight how both Theism and Atheism fall flat. Each represents an extreme, each represents a form of mental restriction. Every fault you list with the dogmatic naturalists that subscribe to Atheism is also a fault in every Theist.

Very interesting post.

Also an interesting post. Agnosticism is a tricky position, though, don't you think? You said that bit about mental restriction... it doesn't seem to me that mental restriction is necessarily a bad thing.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:48:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:14:29 PM, andymcstab wrote:
First lets establish what "science" is. Science is the study of observable phenomena, down through an assumed infinite chain of cause and effect. This might not be the definition of science, but it is the reality of science.

Strawman and unsupported assertion.

There may be astonishing inferential evidence that the game world was created. The probability of it arising somehow naturally could literally be 0. But to the dogmatic atheist and naturalist with their synthetic parameters of explanation, it must be true that the game world just exists necessarily.

Strawman of the atheist position; it is not the case that it must be the case, merely that based on present available evidence it is most reasonable to assume it be the case. New evidence would of course change this. Just as it would for the person in the game world. I've seen some models that suggest it is statistically more likely that our world is a simulation than a 'base' reality and they make some good points. That still doesn't mean there is a single verifiable or identifiable bit of evidence for design. Quite the opposite; design is a self-defeating proposition because if everything is designed then we have no referential comparison point of 'not designed' against which we can make sense of it. The semantic content of 'designed' in this context is then actually the same as that of 'exists' and tells us nothing.

This is why design-theists often say things that they consider to be meaningful but are actually tautologies or otherwise nonsense.

"Well bro, there is only one possible way which could even be respectable.. somehow inanimate molecules came to life and somehow, imperceptibly over billions of years, they got more complex".

'Life' is simply a term we give to matter when it behaves according to certain rules. It is not some special state of matter that requires a magical spark be introduced to make it 'alive'. Many theists seem to have staggering amounts of trouble in understanding this, as they're working from the assumption of a soul and life having some special status. It does not, other than that which we accord it.

I was going to go into more detail, but your post was so full of ranting, ad hominems and outright delusion that I decided it probably isn't worth the time because all I'm going to get back is the usual ignorant chest-beating nonsense.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 6:26:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then that nothing became a bigger nothing, which erupted into a universe. Then that universe formed itself into self-replicating molecules for no reason whatsoever, which then became complex life.

This is what atheists actually believe.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is actually a very good read from someone attacking atheism, definitely one of the better ones I've seen so far and an argument that I use from time to time against atheists as an agnostic.

One question though:

As science progresses to explain what it can, the naturalistic world, it does show that certain things are inarguable if you accept certain assumptions. For example, your example about skull progression gets your point across, but you're obviously intelligent enough to know that it's wrong. Radiometric dating, the fossil record, geological evidence, etc. are all indeed based on specific assumptions, but when the assumptions link together, it makes the probability of falsehood lower and lower. Yes, there are holes. But those holes are constantly meshed up tighter and tighter, solidifying a foundation for the truth in a very clear pattern of constant improvement, you can't really chalk that up to bias.

However, that's not your argument and so, neither should it be mine. Our focus is on the fact that however much science may progress, it is still LIMITED by the naturalistic world. A blind man standing still with a ten foot stick will undoubtedly conclude that the universe is ten feet in radius and that assuming anything else is absurd.

However, how do you respond to the notion that our capabilities of thought simply need not expand beyond the naturalistic approach? If we are a bunch of brains floating in vats, is there any integrity in pursuing a philosophy that we have no control over?

The problem with your argument is that it isn't an argument. Rather, it is a proposed opening of our method of understanding this world. The problem is that it doesn't provide us with any benefit unless we accept some other portions of doctrine that become progressively more absurd.

The Bible as the literal word of God, for example. A supreme being, creator of humans, that is curiously specifically anthropomorphic.

The beauty of your argument (and I do find it beautiful) is that it is an argument for my favorite position ever: Agnosticism. And all it really does is highlight how both Theism and Atheism fall flat. Each represents an extreme, each represents a form of mental restriction. Every fault you list with the dogmatic naturalists that subscribe to Atheism is also a fault in every Theist.

Very interesting post.

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:09:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:50:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:

This is actually a very good read from someone attacking atheism, definitely one of the better ones I've seen so far and an argument that I use from time to time against atheists as an agnostic.

One question though:

As science progresses to explain what it can, the naturalistic world, it does show that certain things are inarguable if you accept certain assumptions. For example, your example about skull progression gets your point across, but you're obviously intelligent enough to know that it's wrong. Radiometric dating, the fossil record, geological evidence, etc. are all indeed based on specific assumptions, but when the assumptions link together, it makes the probability of falsehood lower and lower. Yes, there are holes. But those holes are constantly meshed up tighter and tighter, solidifying a foundation for the truth in a very clear pattern of constant improvement, you can't really chalk that up to bias.

However, that's not your argument and so, neither should it be mine. Our focus is on the fact that however much science may progress, it is still LIMITED by the naturalistic world. A blind man standing still with a ten foot stick will undoubtedly conclude that the universe is ten feet in radius and that assuming anything else is absurd.

However, how do you respond to the notion that our capabilities of thought simply need not expand beyond the naturalistic approach? If we are a bunch of brains floating in vats, is there any integrity in pursuing a philosophy that we have no control over?

The problem with your argument is that it isn't an argument. Rather, it is a proposed opening of our method of understanding this world. The problem is that it doesn't provide us with any benefit unless we accept some other portions of doctrine that become progressively more absurd.

The Bible as the literal word of God, for example. A supreme being, creator of humans, that is curiously specifically anthropomorphic.

The beauty of your argument (and I do find it beautiful) is that it is an argument for my favorite position ever: Agnosticism. And all it really does is highlight how both Theism and Atheism fall flat. Each represents an extreme, each represents a form of mental restriction. Every fault you list with the dogmatic naturalists that subscribe to Atheism is also a fault in every Theist.

Very interesting post.

Thanks, I am glad you enjoyed the read.

"Radiometric dating, the fossil record, geological evidence, etc. are all indeed based on specific assumptions, but when the assumptions link together, it makes the probability of falsehood lower and lower. Yes, there are holes. But those holes are constantly meshed up tighter and tighter, solidifying a foundation for the truth in a very clear pattern of constant improvement, you can't really chalk that up to bias."

The fossil record, for one, doesn't support evolution. I am no scientist but I am much more inclined to trust scientists who aren't scared to speak against the paradigm, and i could provide a host a quotes from people who should know, such as:

Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them " . I will lay it on the line"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

""Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, p. 216"

There are plenty of claims of evidence which I don't understand, but instinctively and probably due to other patterns i see which are indirectly relevant, i am inclined to believe the emperor has no clothes. By "other patterns i see which are indirectly relevant", i am referring to the development of "science" itself, and the domination of most of the world by self-proclaimed Luciferian secret societies. Science only inherited its atheistic paradigm as a result of the French "Enlightenment". Which I know was promulgated by these various societies. (huge topic im not even going to try to get into. "Illuminati, Freemasons and the French Revolution", good book). Before then science used to simply be "the philosophy of X" (biology whatever). I see alot of parallels between evolution, atheism and Luciferianism, even though I am not convinced by Christianity.
They all share many characteristics. All infer that I am the only authority, basically the core Luciferian doctrine. Atheists, through evolution, entertain the idea that they can one day become as God.. " I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." - Lucifer.

Atheism then is a good mid point if you wanted to lead alot of people away from Christianity, for example, and towards Luciferianism. Eventually towards Luciferian world religion and governance. This is an agenda I could provide a lot of evidence for.

I realize stating these things matter-of-factly can be hard to swallow, but when pushed i could substantiate. Just outlining my position takes alot of words.

"However, how do you respond to the notion that our capabilities of thought simply need not expand beyond the naturalistic approach? If we are a bunch of brains floating in vats, is there any integrity in pursuing a philosophy that we have no control over?"

Well, the thing is, its not a case of "they need not expand", its more a case of "they need not be contracted for no good reason." After all, we have concluded a creator throughout history, not vice versa. We can keep a naturalistic approach, but nobody should sell it as an ultimate explicator of our existence.

"The problem with your argument is that it isn't an argument. Rather, it is a proposed opening of our method of understanding this world. The problem is that it doesn't provide us with any benefit unless we accept some other portions of doctrine that become progressively more absurd.

The Bible as the literal word of God, for example. A supreme being, creator of humans, that is curiously specifically anthropomorphic.
"

Maybe the conclusion "there is no God", indicates a certain character, a character developed through freedom of will..

But also, the world we have, has great philosophical significance in just about all of its properties. For example, i see 12hrs day and 12hrs night as an artistic choice, mirrored in our human existence. Happiness, sadness, success, failure, warth, cold, love, hate. We watch a seed grow into a mighty tree, and slowly die, but with 1000 offspring, and it imparts to us wisdom for our experience of life. In this case, I think the assumption of a creator is very beneficial. Someone who excludes the has no basis to go and look at the world as an artistic expression and learn what, perhaps, we are meant to learn.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:37:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty, while atheism deals with whether you believe or lack belief in God. If you don't know that, you know almost nothing about what you're talking about. Look up the differences between "gnostic atheism", "gnostic theism", "agnostic theism" and "agnostic atheism."
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:48:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:37:22 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty, while atheism deals with whether you believe or lack belief in God. If you don't know that, you know almost nothing about what you're talking about. Look up the differences between "gnostic atheism", "gnostic theism", "agnostic theism" and "agnostic atheism."

Yah, the thing is, im not going to look up some necessarily contorted definitions, which have been fantasized into existence to try and defend people who want to sell books asserting atheism and defending agnosticism.

Agnostic deals with KNOWLEDGE, not certainty. Certainty is irrelevant, it is an unobtainable, imaginary standard. Neither theist or the atheist are certain, it goes without saying. The classification just denotes what is assumed, to any degree of certainty.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:59:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:48:03 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:37:22 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty, while atheism deals with whether you believe or lack belief in God. If you don't know that, you know almost nothing about what you're talking about. Look up the differences between "gnostic atheism", "gnostic theism", "agnostic theism" and "agnostic atheism."

Yah, the thing is, im not going to look up some necessarily contorted definitions, which have been fantasized into existence to try and defend people who want to sell books asserting atheism and defending agnosticism.

Agnostic deals with KNOWLEDGE, not certainty. Certainty is irrelevant, it is an unobtainable, imaginary standard. Neither theist or the atheist are certain, it goes without saying. The classification just denotes what is assumed, to any degree of certainty.

There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. But once he lacks knowledge, the agnostic can practically live life as an atheist (pretending there is no God, although he is unsure and ignorant about that) = agnostic atheist or as a theist(pretending there is a god, although here is unsure and ignorant about that)= agnostic theist. A term like an "agnostic agnostic" doesn't exist. Agnostic or not, atheism and theism(general theism which includes pantheism and other categories) is a binary value you should decide upon, although you could be an apatheist who doesn't give a damn about this binary value, but this is another story.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:01:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 6:26:01 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then that nothing became a bigger nothing, which erupted into a universe. Then that universe formed itself into self-replicating molecules for no reason whatsoever, which then became complex life.

This is what atheists actually believe.

How many times will it take for you to be told what atheism is before you get the message.

Fuk there are dumb people on this website.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:05:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.

All atheists reject the claim made by men that god/s exist. No science needed.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:09:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:59:43 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:48:03 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:37:22 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty, while atheism deals with whether you believe or lack belief in God. If you don't know that, you know almost nothing about what you're talking about. Look up the differences between "gnostic atheism", "gnostic theism", "agnostic theism" and "agnostic atheism."

Yah, the thing is, im not going to look up some necessarily contorted definitions, which have been fantasized into existence to try and defend people who want to sell books asserting atheism and defending agnosticism.

Agnostic deals with KNOWLEDGE, not certainty. Certainty is irrelevant, it is an unobtainable, imaginary standard. Neither theist or the atheist are certain, it goes without saying. The classification just denotes what is assumed, to any degree of certainty.

There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. But once he lacks knowledge, the agnostic can practically live life as an atheist (pretending there is no God, although he is unsure and ignorant about that) = agnostic atheist or as a theist(pretending there is a god, although here is unsure and ignorant about that)= agnostic theist. A term like an "agnostic agnostic" doesn't exist. Agnostic or not, atheism and theism(general theism which includes pantheism and other categories) is a binary value you should decide upon, although you could be an apatheist who doesn't give a damn about this binary value, but this is another story.

"There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. "

No, the agnostic doesn't lack knowledge. The position is

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

You love definitions, don't you? This is a real definition, not a phrase. You know because I am telling you it is.

The agnostic maintains that the question of God is just so far beyond our explanatory power, that we can have NO knowledge about his existence or nature.

Then you are returning to your necessarily slew of definitions, all concocted to hide the truth.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:12:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:09:34 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:59:43 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:48:03 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:37:22 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty, while atheism deals with whether you believe or lack belief in God. If you don't know that, you know almost nothing about what you're talking about. Look up the differences between "gnostic atheism", "gnostic theism", "agnostic theism" and "agnostic atheism."

Yah, the thing is, im not going to look up some necessarily contorted definitions, which have been fantasized into existence to try and defend people who want to sell books asserting atheism and defending agnosticism.

Agnostic deals with KNOWLEDGE, not certainty. Certainty is irrelevant, it is an unobtainable, imaginary standard. Neither theist or the atheist are certain, it goes without saying. The classification just denotes what is assumed, to any degree of certainty.

There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. But once he lacks knowledge, the agnostic can practically live life as an atheist (pretending there is no God, although he is unsure and ignorant about that) = agnostic atheist or as a theist(pretending there is a god, although here is unsure and ignorant about that)= agnostic theist. A term like an "agnostic agnostic" doesn't exist. Agnostic or not, atheism and theism(general theism which includes pantheism and other categories) is a binary value you should decide upon, although you could be an apatheist who doesn't give a damn about this binary value, but this is another story.

"There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. "

No, the agnostic doesn't lack knowledge. The position is

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

You love definitions, don't you? This is a real definition, not a phrase. You know because I am telling you it is.

The agnostic maintains that the question of God is just so far beyond our explanatory power, that we can have NO knowledge about his existence or nature.

Then you are returning to your necessarily slew of definitions, all concocted to hide the truth.

Philosophic terms are not defined by dictionaries. The fact that you insist on using dictionaries to define something and refer to that as the truth is called a "dictionary fallacy" in logic.

Terms are human conventions. I gave you how 99% atheists define themselves as agnostic atheists. Few atheists (I only know one in my whole life) believe God doesn't exist in a 100% certainty. Good luck thinking all atheists are like him.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:05:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.

All atheists reject the claim made by men that god/s exist. No science needed.

1:So what do people who don't believe there is a god call themselves?
2: If this is the position of atheists, why do teh vast majority of atheists try and provide evidence against Gods existence? Either referring to science, or history, or refutation of the bible etc? This is extraneous to the mere position of "i reject your claim", it is "I think your claim is wrong, because". Evidently most atheists do not merely "reject" the claim, which agnostics necessarily already do.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:43:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:12:08 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:09:34 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:59:43 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:48:03 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:37:22 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:32:35 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 9:21:48 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:

1- Atheism != Dogmatic naturalism. Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who subscribes to panpsychism, for example.

2- Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm myself an agnostic atheist. His argument (which you even admit is not a proper argument) could undermine gnostic atheism, but it doesn't undermine agnostic atheism. Moreover, naturalism and theism are not the only two alternatives, but he assumes they are. His post was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while.

1:I am referring to atheists. The majority of atheists believe there is no God, every atheist who tries to use arguments from science, is attempting to produce evidence to substantiate that there is no God.
What does every person who believes there is no God call themselves?
Do you think there are people who believe there is no God, who call themselves Atheist?

2: Agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

There is not a single mechanism by which one can assume atheism or theism, without breaking this definition. They are mutually exclusive.
The atheist who assumes his atheism because his car broke down.. He can only associate God with his car breaking down, through the assumption of knowledge of the nature or existence of God.

You still need to remove your vote from my debate, sir.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty, while atheism deals with whether you believe or lack belief in God. If you don't know that, you know almost nothing about what you're talking about. Look up the differences between "gnostic atheism", "gnostic theism", "agnostic theism" and "agnostic atheism."

Yah, the thing is, im not going to look up some necessarily contorted definitions, which have been fantasized into existence to try and defend people who want to sell books asserting atheism and defending agnosticism.

Agnostic deals with KNOWLEDGE, not certainty. Certainty is irrelevant, it is an unobtainable, imaginary standard. Neither theist or the atheist are certain, it goes without saying. The classification just denotes what is assumed, to any degree of certainty.

There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. But once he lacks knowledge, the agnostic can practically live life as an atheist (pretending there is no God, although he is unsure and ignorant about that) = agnostic atheist or as a theist(pretending there is a god, although here is unsure and ignorant about that)= agnostic theist. A term like an "agnostic agnostic" doesn't exist. Agnostic or not, atheism and theism(general theism which includes pantheism and other categories) is a binary value you should decide upon, although you could be an apatheist who doesn't give a damn about this binary value, but this is another story.

"There is a difference between "certainty" and full 100% certainty. An agnostic lacks knowledge about God because there are many things he is uncertain about, and therefore doesn't have enough knowledge of. "

No, the agnostic doesn't lack knowledge. The position is

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

You love definitions, don't you? This is a real definition, not a phrase. You know because I am telling you it is.

The agnostic maintains that the question of God is just so far beyond our explanatory power, that we can have NO knowledge about his existence or nature.

Then you are returning to your necessarily slew of definitions, all concocted to hide the truth.

Philosophic terms are not defined by dictionaries. The fact that you insist on using dictionaries to define something and refer to that as the truth is called a "dictionary fallacy" in logic.

Terms are human conventions. I gave you how 99% atheists define themselves as agnostic atheists. Few atheists (I only know one in my whole life) believe God doesn't exist in a 100% certainty. Good luck thinking all atheists are like him.

agnosticism & atheism (philosophical definition)

(agnosticism)
"...The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists."

How can you possibly hold the position "We cannot know whether or no God exists", concurrently with denying Gods existence? Its schitzophrenic. The denial is completely extraneous.

"knowledge Lat. cognitio; Ger. Wissen}

Justified true belief. Since Plato, nearly all Western philosophers have accepted this deceptively simple statement of the three necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for knowledge. That is, I know a proposition if and only if:

I sincerely affirm the proposition,
the proposition is true, and
my affirmation is genuinely based upon its truth.
"

http://www.philosophypages.com...

Now to argue back your going to need the dictionary definition of atheism.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:49:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians only need to keep their religious superstitious beliefs out of science and there will be harmony. Science isn't paraded into the churches on Sunday in an attempt to disprove religion.

If Christians would just consider themselves immune to what science says and what science learns in the future they can go on happily practicing their faith.

Christians can ignore the evidence of science just as science can ignore the evidence of creationism.

We all have to understand that one is not an argument against the other. It's not rational for "EITHER" side to try!

simple example: Science tells us that the earth is billions of years old.
Christian argument based on science: None!

simple example: Christianity tells us that their God created the earth.
Science's argument based on religious teaching and beliefs: None!
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:52:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
agnosticism & atheism (philosophical definition)

(agnosticism)
"...The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists."

How can you possibly hold the position "We cannot know whether or no God exists", concurrently with denying Gods existence? Its schitzophrenic. The denial is completely extraneous.

"knowledge Lat. cognitio; Ger. Wissen}

Justified true belief. Since Plato, nearly all Western philosophers have accepted this deceptively simple statement of the three necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for knowledge. That is, I know a proposition if and only if:

I sincerely affirm the proposition,
the proposition is true, and
my affirmation is genuinely based upon its truth.
"

http://www.philosophypages.com...

Now to argue back your going to need the dictionary definition of atheism.

Philosophypage.com is not an academic website, but a .com website ran by one person who doesn't give any credentials or has any, because his website is not Edu.

Atheist academics have provided definitions, if you don't want to accept how atheists defne themselves, then I'll define you as a Satanist Neo-Lutheran homosexual.

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]"

[1] Harrison, Alexander James (1894). The Ascent of Faith: or, the Grounds of Certainty in Science and Religion. London: Hodder and Stroughton. p. 21. OCLC 7234849. OL 21834002M. "Let Agnostic Theism stand for that kind of Agnosticism which admits a Divine existence; Agnostic Atheism for that kind of Agnosticism which thinks it does not."

[2] Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11. "Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."

[3] Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781569756775. OL 24313839M. "People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:03 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
agnosticism & atheism (philosophical definition)

(agnosticism)
"...The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists."

How can you possibly hold the position "We cannot know whether or no God exists", concurrently with denying Gods existence? Its schitzophrenic. The denial is completely extraneous.

"knowledge Lat. cognitio; Ger. Wissen}

Justified true belief. Since Plato, nearly all Western philosophers have accepted this deceptively simple statement of the three necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for knowledge. That is, I know a proposition if and only if:

I sincerely affirm the proposition,
the proposition is true, and
my affirmation is genuinely based upon its truth.
"

http://www.philosophypages.com...

Now to argue back your going to need the dictionary definition of atheism.

Philosophypage.com is not an academic website, but a .com website ran by one person who doesn't give any credentials or has any, because his website is not Edu.

Atheist academics have provided definitions, if you don't want to accept how atheists defne themselves, then I'll define you as a Satanist Neo-Lutheran homosexual.

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]"

[1] Harrison, Alexander James (1894). The Ascent of Faith: or, the Grounds of Certainty in Science and Religion. London: Hodder and Stroughton. p. 21. OCLC 7234849. OL 21834002M. "Let Agnostic Theism stand for that kind of Agnosticism which admits a Divine existence; Agnostic Atheism for that kind of Agnosticism which thinks it does not."

[2] Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11. "Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."

[3] Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781569756775. OL 24313839M. "People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."

So lets summarize.

You aren't able to describe agnostic atheism by standard definitions. atheism = "the disbelief/lack of belief in god", is clearly incompatible with agnosticism: "we can know nothing about the existence or nature of God". For an agnostic to step over to be atheist, some knowledge has to be assumed about gods existence or nature.

So you wanted to claim a "dictionary fallacy", and refer to agnosticism as a philosophical term.
Used as a philosophical term, Agnosticism refers to one "who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists", but atheism is also one who "denies that God or Gods exist", while to know something is essentially to affirm that something is true, which is true - be certain.

Philosophically then you can be an agnostic with some degree of knowledge, but not enough to make a decision. But you cannot be an atheist agnostic because to deny something assumes a level of certainty against the proposition.

In philosophical terms then, atheism and agnosticism are irrational.

So you want to pick the dictionary definition of atheism, and the philosophical definition of agnosticism, and only in this imaginary world the two shall twine.

I don't doubt that atheists writers who spend half their time trying to show that god doesn't exist, also try and make a case that they don't have to defend anything more than agnosticism. This is par for the course, the sources are blatantly bias.

Not that it matters but,
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"the truth values of certain claims " particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities " are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. Agnosticism, in both its strong (explicit) and weak (implicit) forms, is necessarily a non-atheist and non-theist position"

It does go on to say "though an agnostic person may also be either an atheist", and gives a definition of an agnostic atheist, but it doesn't assess the coherency of that definition, which is what is in doubt here.

In other places "agnostic" is never even considered a philosophical term
http://global.oup.com...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 1:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:55:03 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:52:03 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
agnosticism & atheism (philosophical definition)

(agnosticism)
"...The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists."

How can you possibly hold the position "We cannot know whether or no God exists", concurrently with denying Gods existence? Its schitzophrenic. The denial is completely extraneous.

"knowledge Lat. cognitio; Ger. Wissen}

Justified true belief. Since Plato, nearly all Western philosophers have accepted this deceptively simple statement of the three necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for knowledge. That is, I know a proposition if and only if:

I sincerely affirm the proposition,
the proposition is true, and
my affirmation is genuinely based upon its truth.
"

http://www.philosophypages.com...

Now to argue back your going to need the dictionary definition of atheism.

Philosophypage.com is not an academic website, but a .com website ran by one person who doesn't give any credentials or has any, because his website is not Edu.

Atheist academics have provided definitions, if you don't want to accept how atheists defne themselves, then I'll define you as a Satanist Neo-Lutheran homosexual.

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]"

[1] Harrison, Alexander James (1894). The Ascent of Faith: or, the Grounds of Certainty in Science and Religion. London: Hodder and Stroughton. p. 21. OCLC 7234849. OL 21834002M. "Let Agnostic Theism stand for that kind of Agnosticism which admits a Divine existence; Agnostic Atheism for that kind of Agnosticism which thinks it does not."

[2] Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11. "Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."

[3] Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781569756775. OL 24313839M. "People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."

So lets summarize.

You aren't able to describe agnostic atheism by standard definitions. atheism = "the disbelief/lack of belief in god", is clearly incompatible with agnosticism: "we can know nothing about the existence or nature of God". For an agnostic to step over to be atheist, some knowledge has to be assumed about gods existence or nature.

So you wanted to claim a "dictionary fallacy", and refer to agnosticism as a philosophical term.
Used as a philosophical term, Agnosticism refers to one "who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists", but atheism is also one who "denies that God or Gods exist", while to know something is essentially to affirm that something is true, which is true - be certain.

Philosophically then you can be an agnostic with some degree of knowledge, but not enough to make a decision. But you cannot be an atheist agnostic because to deny something assumes a level of certainty against the proposition.

In philosophical terms then, atheism and agnosticism are irrational.

So you want to pick the dictionary definition of atheism, and the philosophical definition of agnosticism, and only in this imaginary world the two shall twine.

I don't doubt that atheists writers who spend half their time trying to show that god doesn't exist, also try and make a case that they don't have to defend anything more than agnosticism. This is par for the course, the sources are blatantly bias.

Not that it matters but,
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"the truth values of certain claims " particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities " are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. Agnosticism, in both its strong (explicit) and weak (implicit) forms, is necessarily a non-atheist and non-theist position"

It does go on to say "though an agnostic person may also be either an atheist", and gives a definition of an agnostic atheist, but it doesn't assess the coherency of that definition, which is what is in doubt here.

In other places "agnostic" is never even considered a philosophical term
http://global.oup.com...

You just contradicted yourself, dear. "Non-theist" is a synonym for atheist. Prefixes "a-" and "non-" mean exactly the same thing.

Moreover, I've explained to you how I'm an agnostic(in terms of certainty) atheist(in terms of belief) and you ignored that. But I don't care what you call me, really. Agnostic or agnostic atheist, arguing while using different definitions won't get us nowhere.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 1:08:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:14:29 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Its never long before the next illiterate monkey-man raises from his big boy chair and makes the following redundant kind of statements:

"No evidence for God in science!"
and,
"Science is much better than religion because it actually studies sh*t!"

Lets take these two 'tarded statements and examine the matter.

First lets establish what "science" is. Science is the study of observable phenomena, down through an assumed infinite chain of cause and effect. This might not be the definition of science, but it is the reality of science.

Consider a character in a computer game.
This character can look around and realize that his world is governed by law. But if he synthetically limits his explanatory scope to the study of observable causes, he is ultimately forced to deduce that the universe which he lives somehow exists necessarily. He can never get to the source code on the hard drive or enter the world which it exists. He cannot find positive evidence that the game world was created, even though its all around him, encoded into all of the 'natural' laws which support his existence. This is the ignorant position of Big Boy and his best friends who rely on science as the ultimate explicator of our existence.

But, released of this synthetic explanatory parameter, a critical thinking character might ask "how the power of the laws were set?", "where are they set?", "why are all of these laws contingent; working together in perfect amounts to produce a coherent, stable, productive universe?", "why should it be that this experience is always challenging?", "why is there a narrative?". Released of the synthetic dogma which limit his explanatory scope, this critical thinking character has the means to arrive closer to the truth.

There may be astonishing inferential evidence that the game world was created. The probability of it arising somehow naturally could literally be 0. But to the dogmatic atheist and naturalist with their synthetic parameters of explanation, it must be true that the game world just exists necessarily.

Their premise that nothing exists outside of the "natural" or observable world is the basis for their faulty conclusion.

Big Boys who think that "No evidence for God in science!" is even relevant, have been completely brainwashed.


In the real world, not only is it impossible to find positive scientific evidence for God, but the "discoveries", of science are tried to use against the notion of God!

Not only that, but they arrive at this conclusion through patently circular logic;

"Hey bro. How do we explain complex life within our inherently atheistic science paradigm?"

"Well bro, there is only one possible way which could even be respectable.. somehow inanimate molecules came to life and somehow, imperceptibly over billions of years, they got more complex".


"Cool bro. Hey, i found a bunch of skulls all different sizes. When i line them up in order of size i can imagine that one morphed into another."


"Wow bro. That proves it then. Better phone cardinal Dawkins so he can write a book about how evolution disproves God".

The real world is literally this ridiculous. There is no positive evidence for evolution, it is all inferred deductively through that totally faulty premise which says there "must" be a naturalistic explanation.


So, whenever one of your local Big-Boy science-whelks try and argue that somehow science disproves God, or tries to create a dichotomy between God and science, or tries to claim that there is no evidence for God in science... Understand....

...This is a person who doesn't even understand what science is, or where its limits are. This is a person who's ideology is so monstrous that he actually dispenses of all reason and synthetically limits his explanatory power to support it. This person is not a representative of honesty, logic, reason or truth. This is a village idiot. Throw him 50c for some new underwear, and get on with your day.

We have no idea about things that started the universe. Before the big bang we have little to no understanding.

And for the order must have a cause argument, isn't your god an ordered being? Then why does he not require a cause? And if your god is an exception, then why can the universe not be an exception?

By the way, evolution is pretty much as proven as anything can be. Sure we weren't there, but the fossil evidence and DNA evidence is fairly compelling. I mean, once we date an animal, we never seem to find it in soil significantly deeper, or next to other creatures that it is not supposed to be. Evolution could be disproven in a day but it isn't.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:07:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If a god tapped me on the shoulder and was somehow able to provide tangible evidence that it was indeed the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, blah, blah, blah being and creator of everything, then I might believe.

Until that time comes, I'll reserve the right to think that there is no god.

I THINK that obama is a bad president.
I THINK that democrats are idiots.
I THINK that there is no god.

I'm never going to convince people that think the opposite of those (3) things, that I'm correct, just like they're never going to convince me otherwise.

Arguments can be presented to refute what I think, but I'll not be convinced to think otherwise, unless solid, tangible, evidence is provided to the contrary.

(Not attempting to politicize my comment. Just listed those as examples of what I think, to give a baseline)
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:33:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 3:07:40 PM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
If a god tapped me on the shoulder and was somehow able to provide tangible evidence that it was indeed the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, blah, blah, blah being and creator of everything, then I might believe.

So, for me, it says something of your character that you are so dogmatic. That you require this kind of positive evidence to even consider the notion. Like, if i made dinner for you and you got no positive evidence it was made, it just appeared, and was tasty. Is it right for you to reject that i made dinner for you, and assume it existed necessarily, just because i didn't stick your face in the mixing bowl?

Its a certain kind of lack of respect, lack of courteousness which I think is indicated in the character of a person who rejects God apriori.

But doesn't it say something of your character that you don't naturally infer God? That you are so resistant?
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:04:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 3:33:13 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 3:07:40 PM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
If a god tapped me on the shoulder and was somehow able to provide tangible evidence that it was indeed the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, blah, blah, blah being and creator of everything, then I might believe.

So, for me, it says something of your character that you are so dogmatic. That you require this kind of positive evidence to even consider the notion. Like, if i made dinner for you and you got no positive evidence it was made, it just appeared, and was tasty. Is it right for you to reject that i made dinner for you, and assume it existed necessarily, just because i didn't stick your face in the mixing bowl?

Its a certain kind of lack of respect, lack of courteousness which I think is indicated in the character of a person who rejects God apriori.

But doesn't it say something of your character that you don't naturally infer God? That you are so resistant?

Are you inferring that I have a lack of respect & courteousness, because I don't think there's a god? And in inferring the aforementioned, that I somehow don't respect you or your opinion/thoughts on the topic?

On the contrary. I have respect for faith. If someone will blindly follow, believe, think about XYZ without any physical/tangible evidence proving absolutely that XYZ is fact, I can & do respect that.

I don't have the ability to do that, and I respect, envy even, people/persons that can. I'm just not one of those folks.

OR...

are you just saying that people that don't believe in god are lacking of character, respect & courteousness in general?

Which is it?

And thank you for putting dinner in front of me. It was yummy. Did you cook it? I have no idea. It was placed in front of me, and I ate it. It was yummy, or it wasn't.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 1:08:40 PM, Lordgrae wrote:


We have no idea about things that started the universe. Before the big bang we have little to no understanding.

And for the order must have a cause argument, isn't your god an ordered being? Then why does he not require a cause? And if your god is an exception, then why can the universe not be an exception?

By the way, evolution is pretty much as proven as anything can be. Sure we weren't there, but the fossil evidence and DNA evidence is fairly compelling. I mean, once we date an animal, we never seem to find it in soil significantly deeper, or next to other creatures that it is not supposed to be. Evolution could be disproven in a day but it isn't.

I think that argument is what begins to exist, has a cause.
You need to understand what this argument is - people using science to conclude ideas about God. Its not a theistic argument, more of an anti science-whelk atheist argument.

For your question, "And for the order must have a cause argument, isn't your god an ordered being? Then why does he not require a cause? "

When we explain something, we don't need to explain the explanation, to recognise it as the best. When we see a creation, we don't need to explain the creator to recognise it is the best explanation of a creation.
When we see a cigarette stub in the middle of a forest, we don't need to explain how humans got there, to recognise that humans being there are the best explanation for the phenomena. This logic would undermine the whole of science if applied. Nothing could be accepted as an explanation until the explanation of the explanation is explained, ad infinitum

Its important to restate this argument is not trying to prove God it is just inference to the best explanation, which would suggest an eternal transcendental creator.

" it would be a funny kind of atheism, not deserving of the name, which allows for a transcendent creator of the universe who sits outside of space and time and is all-powerful in his scope to effect change inside the creation, or destroy it, or create a million others.

But even if you want to argue that this could be a human with vastly superior technology, and we ARE inside his universe on a hard drive.. You still face the problem of infinite regress which a necessarily eternal God resolves..

" then why can the universe not be an exception". All the evidence does suggest the universe began to exist
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:10:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Damn it. Again. I started my answer then changed direction and forgot to delete it. Please Ignore the whole of;
"it would be a funny kind of atheism, not deserving of the name, which allows for a transcendent creator of the universe who sits outside of space and time and is all-powerful in his scope to effect change inside the creation, or destroy it, or create a million others.

But even if you want to argue that this could be a human with vastly superior technology, and we ARE inside his universe on a hard drive.. You still face the problem of infinite regress which a necessarily eternal God resolves..

" then why can the universe not be an exception". All the evidence does suggest the universe began to exist""


I am an idiot.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:42:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 4:04:05 PM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 3/26/2014 3:33:13 PM, andymcstab wrote:


So, for me, it says something of your character that you are so dogmatic. That you require this kind of positive evidence to even consider the notion. Like, if i made dinner for you and you got no positive evidence it was made, it just appeared, and was tasty. Is it right for you to reject that i made dinner for you, and assume it existed necessarily, just because i didn't stick your face in the mixing bowl?

Its a certain kind of lack of respect, lack of courteousness which I think is indicated in the character of a person who rejects God apriori.

But doesn't it say something of your character that you don't naturally infer God? That you are so resistant?

Are you inferring that I have a lack of respect & courteousness, because I don't think there's a god? And in inferring the aforementioned, that I somehow don't respect you or your opinion/thoughts on the topic?

On the contrary. I have respect for faith. If someone will blindly follow, believe, think about XYZ without any physical/tangible evidence proving absolutely that XYZ is fact, I can & do respect that.

I don't have the ability to do that, and I respect, envy even, people/persons that can. I'm just not one of those folks.

OR...

are you just saying that people that don't believe in god are lacking of character, respect & courteousness in general?

Which is it?

And thank you for putting dinner in front of me. It was yummy. Did you cook it? I have no idea. It was placed in front of me, and I ate it. It was yummy, or it wasn't.

Its just an idea which i chew over. Im not casting it on you that you reject God because you are bad, but the truth may not be too far away from that idea. It comes from introspection, that I observe this phenomena of being more inclined to openly reject God AFTER i have done whatever i shouldn't.
I would love to get at the core psychology of people who don't merely hold "non belief", but actively reject God or deny God (95% of those who call themselves atheist)

" If someone will blindly follow, believe, think about XYZ without any physical/tangible evidence proving absolutely that XYZ is fact"

Don't you think that's completely irrational? Do you avoid shady looking people loitering in alleys on dark nights? Was it proven to you "absolutely", that they would have mugged you... Or did you assume a belief, which you acted on, for your personal preservation? This is basically all that theistic people are doing.
When your dad told you not to stick your fingers in a plug as a child.. Did you have faith? Or did you need to be electrocuted first?
You see, its not reasonable to require proof. Reason saved your life 1000 times already, proof, probably, never.

So again, this is why i keep meeting this question about the character of people who require cast-iron proof for God. One would be inclined to think there are some reasons why such a person would would create this insurmountable demand for proof.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 9:42:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 4:05:48 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:08:40 PM, Lordgrae wrote:


We have no idea about things that started the universe. Before the big bang we have little to no understanding.

And for the order must have a cause argument, isn't your god an ordered being? Then why does he not require a cause? And if your god is an exception, then why can the universe not be an exception?

By the way, evolution is pretty much as proven as anything can be. Sure we weren't there, but the fossil evidence and DNA evidence is fairly compelling. I mean, once we date an animal, we never seem to find it in soil significantly deeper, or next to other creatures that it is not supposed to be. Evolution could be disproven in a day but it isn't.

I think that argument is what begins to exist, has a cause.
You need to understand what this argument is - people using science to conclude ideas about God. Its not a theistic argument, more of an anti science-whelk atheist argument.

For your question, "And for the order must have a cause argument, isn't your god an ordered being? Then why does he not require a cause? "

When we explain something, we don't need to explain the explanation, to recognise it as the best. When we see a creation, we don't need to explain the creator to recognise it is the best explanation of a creation.
When we see a cigarette stub in the middle of a forest, we don't need to explain how humans got there, to recognise that humans being there are the best explanation for the phenomena. This logic would undermine the whole of science if applied. Nothing could be accepted as an explanation until the explanation of the explanation is explained, ad infinitum

Its important to restate this argument is not trying to prove God it is just inference to the best explanation, which would suggest an eternal transcendental creator.





" it would be a funny kind of atheism, not deserving of the name, which allows for a transcendent creator of the universe who sits outside of space and time and is all-powerful in his scope to effect change inside the creation, or destroy it, or create a million others.

But even if you want to argue that this could be a human with vastly superior technology, and we ARE inside his universe on a hard drive.. You still face the problem of infinite regress which a necessarily eternal God resolves..

" then why can the universe not be an exception". All the evidence does suggest the universe began to exist

Look, my argument is not that we need to explain the cause of the cause, my argument is simply that you are not solving the ad infinitum that your god attempts to solve in this argument. In the end, no matter whether we accept god or not, we are left with ad infinitum.

Why is your god an exception to the causal chain, but energetic events (the big bang) not?
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved