Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

Turtwig

cursai wrote: »

I did Malty and i appreciate the effort and the articulation in it. But my points still stand. I give up. Please just close this thread. I cant convince my brother to be more open to ideas. I sure as hell wont convince strangers. Ha Ha.
Ps. that post from Galvasean was uncalled for and the work of something i wouldn't want to have a pint with.

Ok Just to put it really briefly.

Agnostics is NOT a position of belief, it is a qualifier of belief that means not knowing.
Theism, atheism, deism are a positions of belief.

So you can be any of the following.
Agnostic theist.
Agnostic atheist.
Agnostic theist.
Agnostic scientist.
Agnostic Power Ranger on Zorgon's plan.
Agnostic Politician regards if civil partnership is healthy.

etc. etc.
You are trying to logically compare apples and oranges. You are also trying to conflate religious faith, with faith in humanity and other people.

cursai

strobe wrote: »

Scobaly dosobaly dobaly doo.

Exactly. small willys make the man! But i wouldnt have judged you on that alone!

cursai

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok Just to put it really briefly.

Agnostics is NOT a position of belief is a position of knowledge and not knowing.
Theism, atheism, deism are a positions of belief.

Belief in what. We are limited by Science and our VERY limited grasp on the universe and even ourselves

So you can be any of the following.
Agnostic theist.
Agnostic atheist. (thats make atheism redundant)
Agnostic theist.
Agnostic scientist.
Agnostic Power Ranger on Zorgon's plan.
Agnostic Politician regards if civil partnership is healthy.

etc. etc.
You are trying to logically compare apples and oranges. You are also trying to conflate religious faith, with faith in humanity and other people.

NO NO NO Atheism and its definition was based and defined on its relationship or opposing relationship with religious faith. No many how many subsequent definitions have come into place over the years the classical definition is still the legitimate definition.

strobe

cursai wrote: »

Exactly. small willys make the man! But i wouldnt have judged you on that alone!

Bogally dobally doubally doop.

Turtwig

cursai wrote: »

NO NO NO Atheism and its definition was based and defined on its relationship or opposing relationship with religious faith. No many how many subsequent definitions have come into place over the years the classical definition is still the legitimate definition.

But that's anti-theism.

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

Why make stupid offensive comments!!

cursai wrote: »

Ps. that post from Galvasean was uncalled for and the work of something i wouldn't want to have a pint with.

Don't like it? Report it.

Or alternatively try and debate me. Go on... TRY.

The Mad Hatter

cursai wrote: »

NO NO NO Atheism and its definition was based and defined on its relationship or opposing relationship with religious faith. No many how many subsequent definitions have come into place over the years the classical definition is still the legitimate definition.

We're using the classical definition. You're using a common misconception of the definition. That's where your problem is.

robindch

cursai wrote: »

Atheism is the absence of belief of other 'higher' being.

cursai wrote: »

Atheism and its definition was based and defined on its relationship or opposing relationship with religious faith.

Bad grammar aside, it usually takes more than 21 minutes for a poster to flat-out contradict themselves, even around midnight.

Try reading some of the posts in this thread to understand what atheism and agnosticism is. Your very first response, in one short sentence, puts it fairly clearly:

amacachi wrote: »

I don't that I believe God doesn't exist, I just don't believe there is a God, which is the definition of Atheism.

liamw

Dades wrote: »

After 4+ pages we get this:

Apologies to those who responded, but this thread is another farce where the OP has shown no interest in taking on board any replies.

Closed to avoid wasting people's time.

Should have left it closed

Dades

cursai wrote: »

NO NO NO Atheism and its definition was based and defined on its relationship or opposing relationship with religious faith. No many how many subsequent definitions have come into place over the years the classical definition is still the legitimate definition.

cursai, I am regretting opening up this thread again.

Your whole point is based on a flawed interpretation of the definition of atheism that you are refusing to give up, despite the ongoing attempts of many actual atheists to clarify your misconceptions.

I'm not going to re-iterate the arguments again as they are there for you to read, and you have decided to ignore them.

So given that you aren't willing to move on your personal definition of atheism, can you offer a reason for this thread to remain open?

amacachi

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't like it? Report it.

Or alternatively try and debate me. Go on... TRY.

Never mind MMA they should just throw you in a cage with a theist opposite a table and sell it on PPV.

Mark Hamill

amacachi wrote: »

Never mind MMA they should just throw you in a cage with a theist opposite a table and sell it on PPV.

Given the quality of cursais' posts, I'd imagine it would like this :

Galvasean

...who showed you my dance moves?

cursai

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't like it? Report it.

Or alternatively try and debate me. Go on... TRY.

As the kids say whatever!!! I hate arrogant people!!! Too much of a clique in here. Like debating on the other religious forums. Too much fanaticism!!!!

cursai

Dades wrote: »

cursai, I am regretting opening up this thread again.

Your whole point is based on a flawed interpretation of the definition of atheism that you are refusing to give up, despite the ongoing attempts of many actual atheists to clarify your misconceptions.

I'm not going to re-iterate the arguments again as they are there for you to read, and you have decided to ignore them.

So given that you aren't willing to move on your personal definition of atheism, can you offer a reason for this thread to remain open?

No!! close it. i'm wasting my time.

Dades

cursai wrote: »

No!! close it. i'm wasting my time.

No, you've clearly wasted our time.