The position of the agnostic as written in the proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. — god must be atheist

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.”

~ Thomas Huxley

So, what position were you talking about?

If I am agnostic, I claim no knowledge of god. But god would certainly have knowledge of god. So to claim that an agnostic thinks he or she is god while he claims no knowledge of god despite being god himself or herself is the stupidest conclusion anyone could draw. — god must be atheist

I am agnostic (a slightly modified version of Huxlian agnosticism). Who is the agnostic claiming to be god. I have never heard of this?

Please look back to the previous page for the answer of your question. It is quoted in the same fucking goddamned post I left that you are questioning me about.

180 Proof
827
What do you mean by "wrong?" Please define it.
— Frank Apisa
This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many time as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: what is wrong is that you have not defined the gods - classes or particular ones - that you claim not know whether or not they exist; saying "all gods" says nothing definite.

For example, I'm agnostic about a class, or concept, of divinity termed 'pandeism' and another 'animism' which are conventionally defined; on the other hand, I believe - as you insist that I have a belief - that the 'negation of theism' (also defined) is true, which makes me an anti-theist and only by implication also an atheist.

I provide the above link again to a prior post where I argued that what is wrong with your alleged "agnosticism" is that it's incoherent because your use of "gods" is wholly undefined. — 180 Proof

What do you mean by the word "wrong?"

What do you mean by the word "wrong?" — Frank Apisa

Nonsense (or in your crotchety parlance - "bullshit"!) Not. Even. False.

180 Proof
829
What do you mean by the word "wrong?"
— Frank Apisa
Nonsense (or in your crotchety parlance - "bullshit"!) Not. Even. False. — 180 Proof

So, now you are saying that what I am saying is nonsense.

Why didn't you use "nonsense" in the first place instead of "wrong?"

Stop trolling.

180 Proof
833
↪Frank Apisa Stop trolling. — 180 Proof

I do not troll.

I sometimes give pests a taste of their own medicine.

You seem to be shuddering. Must not taste good...

...right?:wink:

This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many time as it takes for you to get the gist. — 180 Proof

LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall... he simply does not comprehend what is being said and goes back to his one single line about atheism, which he never tires of repeating.

LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall... he simply does not comprehend what is being said and goes back to his one single line about atheism, which he never tires of repeating. — Nobeernolife

What I say about atheism is correct. That seems to be what bothers you. Stop allowing me to bother so easily.

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...use it because their either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The pretense that they do it just because they lack a "belief" (in) a god...is farce.

One can lack that "belief"...and choose not to use the word. The choice is predicated on the "beliefs" I mentioned...not on a definition in some dictionaries.

Not sure why that bothers you so.

It shouldn't.

You actually know it to be true.

LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall... — Nobeernolife

Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. What a hypocrite though: he allows himself to define "atheism" in a self-serving manner but does not allow anyone else to define "agnosticism" - even for the sake of discussion - in any way other than the way he does. And then he wonders why he's the piñata du jour. :yawn:

LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall...
— Nobeernolife
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. — 180 Proof

When you show him black-on-white, quoting him, that he is wrong, he will call you an asshole and go on with his own beloved self-created stickhorse. His stick-horse, however, is a one-trick pony and we have seen all it could perform, over and over and over again.

I used to know a guy in a social setting back twenty-thirty years ago who very vehemently had some views on the relationship between intellect and literacy; and he proposed it in a very aggressive and provocative way; it always incited someone in the company to respond and argue with him, but that's all he did. He was otherwise a kind, friendly, helpful sort of feller, he was not jealous, greedy, defiant, or unreasonable otherwise.

180 Proof
839
LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall...
— Nobeernolife
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. What a hypocrite though: he allows himself to define "atheism" in a self-serving manner but does not allows anyone else to define "agnosticism" - even for the sake of discussion - in any way other than the way he does. And then he wonders why he's the piñata du jour. :yawn: — 180 Proof

I'm allowing you guys to beat the piss out of yourselves...and laughing each time I get to the keyboard.

You guys are too easy, though. I like when I have to put some effort into an exchange. But on those occasions where I can get opponents to damage themselves...the best I can do is to enjoy the show.

Thanks guys.

atheist: A word people use to describe themselves when they "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Ya know..."believers"...like the theists they mock so often.

Agnostic: Ummm...various things. But my agnosticism is:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Ohhh...atheists do not like that at all. It cuts through their bullshit...and even they realize the superiority of that position over the goof-ball nonsense they try to sell.

:lol:

god must be atheist
2k
LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall...
— Nobeernolife
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him.
— 180 Proof

When you show him black-on-white, quoting him, that he is wrong, he will call you an asshole and go on with his own beloved self-created stickhorse. His stick-horse, however, is a one-trick pony and we have seen all it could perform, over and over and over again.

I used to know a guy in a social setting back twenty-thirty years ago who very vehemently had some views on the relationship between intellect and literacy; and he proposed it in a very aggressive and provocative way; it always incited someone in the company to respond and argue with him, but that's all he did. He was otherwise a kind, friendly, helpful sort of feller, he was not jealous, greedy, defiant, or unreasonable otherwise. — god must be atheist

It applies to you also.

Troll is as troll does ... :mask:

It applies to you also. — Frank Apisa

You're in over your head in this, Frank. When you are reduced to comebacks that lose their effectiveness past grade three, you know you have run your course and out of ammunition. Time for you to migrate to Philosophynow.org.

Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. What a hypocrite though: he allows himself to define "atheism" in a self-serving manner but does not allows anyone else to define "agnosticism" - even for the sake of discussion - in any way other than the way he does. And then he wonders why he's the piñata du jour. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Oh, he is a well-known troll around here? I had sort of written it off as senility. Either way, I plonk him, but if it is not Alzheimers I scrap the sympathy too.

180 Proof
841
↪Frank Apisa Troll is as troll does ... :mask: — 180 Proof

You are an amateur.

But...let's not make this thread about you and your errors.

god must be atheist
2k
It applies to you also.
— Frank Apisa

You're in over your head in this, Frank. When you are reduced to comebacks that lose their effectiveness past grade three, you know you have run your course and out of ammunition. Time for you to migrate to Philosophynow.org. — god must be atheist

I most assuredly am not "in over my head"...which is the kind of thing that loses its effectiveness once out of the sandbox.

But let's not make this about you and your errors.

Nobeernolife
341
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. What a hypocrite though: he allows himself to define "atheism" in a self-serving manner but does not allows anyone else to define "agnosticism" - even for the sake of discussion - in any way other than the way he does. And then he wonders why he's the piñata du jour. :yawn:
— 180 Proof

Oh, he is a well-known troll around here? I had sort of written it off as senility. Either way, I plonk him, but if it is not Alzheimers I scrap the sympathy too. — Nobeernolife

If you could logically show any of my arguments to be illogical...you would have done it.

You haven't. All you've done is what Trump does so often...claim a victory of some sort.

If you could logically show any of my arguments — Frank Apisa

There was no argument, let alone several. Now go away, troll.

Nobeernolife
343
If you could logically show any of my arguments
— Frank Apisa

There was no argument, let alone several. Now go away, troll. — Nobeernolife

So you cannot.

Okay...I didn't think you could.

And I am not going anywhere.

Hi Frank, still at it I see. I found this in the bible this morning and thought it might be helpful...

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

Edit: NIV Hebrews 10: 26-27

Antidote
137
Hi Frank, still at it I see. I found this in the bible this morning and thought it might be helpful...

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." — Antidote

I have no problem with the concept of sin, Antidote...providing "sin" is thought of as "doing something someone considers wrong, unnecessarily harmful, or evil." If it is simply defined as "doing something that offends (a god)"...then all bets are off. If a particular god demands that everyone kiss its ass as often as possible...and deems not doing so to be "sin"...we have parted company. Big time!

Perhaps your confusing religion with faith.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." — Antidote

So... this says, literally, that if you sin, after receiving the knowledge of truth, then
-- all enemies of god will be consumed by fire
-- We, the deliberate continuers of sinning, can fearfully expect judgment and the fire that consumes the enemies of god
-- but it does not say that we've become the enemies of god.

---------------------

Furthermore, it states by omission, but definitely follows from it:
-- the enemies of god will not be consumed by fire if WE (we, who are a body independent of body of the enemies of god; by "body" I mean group of people) don't continue deliberately sinning.

This is the word of thy God, asshole.

I wasn't trying to offend, I stated it came from the bible so that it was clear. If it's not helpful, by all means ignore it. I believe you have just described forgiveness. I guess the question remains if you have received the knowledge of truth or not.

If it's not helpful, by all means ignore it. — Antidote

No. People like you ignore evil, unhelpful things. I, and people like I, fight against them.

The Bible quote -- was it a quote? or your paraphrasing a section? You ought NEVER to paraphrase the Bible, and you MUST ALWAYS give line and reference numbers, as well as name of translation -- was a completely meaningless statement, or else it was badly paraphrased.

WHY DO YOU DO THINGS LIKE THAT???!!!???

It wasn't paraphrased, but I did forget the reference. My apologies. NIV Hebrews 10: 26-27.

I feel I may have caused confusion, so here's the full paragraph: NIV Hebrews 10:26-31

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So what are the things that define your concept of "God"? — Pfhorrest

One existential thought about God could relate to the meaning of life. If God is Life, we would wonder if he/she is the essence of Life. Can we know the essence of life through metaphysical knowledge/consciousness? Can we know it through some paradoxical knowledge about thought itself, against the background of the truth concerning the world? Or rather can we know it, and truly know it (both objectively and subjectively), only in and through Life itself.

The paradox there would be that we can know the essence of God only in God. Just like you only know yourself, yourself. What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. (Even still, we don't really know our true selves because we are constantly changing.)

So what does life really mean? Existentially, life could consist of a pure subjective experience of oneself which seems to perpetually oscillate between suffering and joy. A "sentient experience" is not an impersonal, blind and insensitive force like the objective forces we meet in nature, but a living and sensible force experienced, from within, that results from an inner desire and effort of the will to satisfy it.

Life then could be invisible by nature because it never appears in the exteriority of a look. The fact of seeing does in effect presuppose the existence of distance/separation between what is seen and the one who sees. Or, between the object that is perceived and the subject who perceives it. A feeling (whether from seeing a color or listening to music or experiencing love), for example, can never be seen from the exterior, it never appears in the "horizon of visibility" of the world; it feels itself and experiences itself from within the living of life. Love cannot see itself (any more than hatred). Feelings are felt in the secrecy of our hearts, where no look can penetrate.

In the same way, when we look at a person's face, it is not the person that we see, but only an image of a face, a visible appearance in the world. But, we as humans, have a will to be seen, heard, felt, loved, et al.

What kind of truth does life present to us? I think we have to start there.

Most of that seems to be about the difference between first- and third-person experience, and I don’t think I disagree with it much if at all (to the extent that I understand it), but I don’t really see an explanation of what you take God to be in there. Perhaps you are saying that only God can have an experience of himself? But that still doesn’t tell me what you take God to be. So far, I get a generally noncognitivist vibe, mostly from the “God is Life” bit, but I’m not sure about that.