Jump to content


Photo

Am I An Atheist?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#21 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:59 AM

Falc, I would put myself at maybe 95% to 99% on your scale.
I think that the possibility of god (gods) is low enough that I needn't worry about it and I live my life as though there isn't one (aren't any).

#22 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:06 AM

Ok, I'll try not to unintentionally break the rules in future then. I hope we can move on.

Here's another representaion of how I understand atheism, theism, agnosticism and it's not original.

100%------------------------------0%------------------------------100%
Theist Agnostic Atheist

We could all place ourselves somewhere along this line.


I stopped reading right there.

I cannot place myself "somewhere along this line". I place myself at the ENDPOINT, 100% Theist, 100% sure. I am also making the assumption here that by your wording you think it's not possible to be placed at this endpoint. I'm sure I'm not the only Christian here who is as certain about God as I am. After all, early Christians were thrown to the lions yet never doubted their faith. Faith based on historical facts, eyewitness accounts, science, logic, and personal experiences, not "blind" faith.

#23 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:17 AM

It's NOT the same question. This is where the game is.

The example you give here:

"example, my wife will tell you that she believes in ghosts, psychics etc. Yet she will readily admit that she could be wrong." necessitates doubt. Doubt negates certainty. Just because one tacks on "but I could be mistaken" doesn't excuse the fact that they are introducing DOUBT.

The operative word is CERTAINTY, thinking you are correct. That is the heart of the matter. Not knowing if you are correct is not the point nor the heart of the question.


Well, thank you for explaining my position so well. That is exactly my point.
Believe = room for doubt (the reason I objected to the question in the first place)
Absolutely Certain = No room for doubt
Sure = No room for doubt

Why did you say "It's not the same question"?
I looked up the definition of the word "sure" just to be sure I was answering your question correctly.
3 of the 5 definitions in Oxford's leave no room for doubt, two definitions do leave room for doubt
I assumed you meant to to use "sure" in the sense of defintions 1, 3 or 4
Am I misunderstanding the meaning of sure?

SURE:



free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc.,of something: to be sure of one's data.


2.
confident, as of something expected: sure of success.


3.
convinced, fully persuaded, or positive: to be sure of aperson's guilt.


4.
assured or certain beyond question: a sure victory.


5.
worthy of confidence; reliable; stable: a sure messenger.



#24 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:20 AM

But let's not get hung up on words, I already stated where I sit on Falcones scale and stated that I am not absolutely certain.
And wy, after making myseld clear was I accused of playing a game?

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:20 AM



The answer is quite simple really. All you have to do is answer these two questions honestly (i.e. no dithering, equivocating, or quibbling) with a yes or no:

1- I believe there is NO God (are NO gods etc...)------------------------YES___ NO___ (check one)
The word Atheist is defined as "NO God"

2- I don't know IF there is a God (are gods etc...) or not----------------YES___ NO___ (check one)
The word Agnostic is defined as "NO knowledge"



You're asking for no dithering, no equivocating yet you chose to use the word "Believe" which gives me a LOT of wiggle room.

example, my wife will tell you that she believes in ghosts, psychics etc. Yet she will readily admit that she could be wrong.

So, could you rephrase the question?



NO, no “rephrase” is needed. If you say “there is NO God (or gods)”, you are doing so by faith. If you say “I don't know IF there is a God (are gods etc...)” you are doing so by faith as well. If I say I know, or I Believe, there is a God (or gods)” I am doing so by faith too.

You can ONLY have a YES or NO answer to either of the questions I posted. And, as I said, no “dithering, equivocating, or quibbling” as falcone is attempting to do. He has been doing that for years at this forum. And he has done it for the last time!

Please take note; as wasting time, trolling and equivocation is not allowed here. Read the rules of the forum if there are any questions.

Attached Files



#26 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:42 AM

Ron, a level of doubt acompanies my "Belief" that there is no god. In other words, I could use the phrase, "I believe" and still reserve the possibility that I may be wrong.
That's why I objected to the question.

In your opinion, does "Believe" equal absolute certainty? This will help me answer your question.

On to the biger picture, would you prefer that I change my status to Agnostic?

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:51 AM



It's NOT the same question. This is where the game is.

The example you give here:

"example, my wife will tell you that she believes in ghosts, psychics etc. Yet she will readily admit that she could be wrong." necessitates doubt. Doubt negates certainty. Just because one tacks on "but I could be mistaken" doesn't excuse the fact that they are introducing DOUBT.

The operative word is CERTAINTY, thinking you are correct. That is the heart of the matter. Not knowing if you are correct is not the point nor the heart of the question.



Well, thank you for explaining my position so well. That is exactly my point.
Believe = room for doubt (the reason I objected to the question in the first place)
Absolutely Certain = No room for doubt
Sure = No room for doubt



Ron, a level of doubt acompanies my "Belief" that there is no god. In other words, I could use the phrase, "I believe" and still reserve the possibility that I may be wrong.
That's why I objected to the question.

In your opinion, does "Believe" equal absolute certainty? This will help me answer your question.

On to the biger picture, would you prefer that I change my status to Agnostic?


Just to squelch this before you get too carried away in your prevarications.

Believe: “transitive verb to accept that something is true or real” (i.e. No matter what You "believe", [atheisim, agnosticisim, or theisim] that is what you accept as TRUE or REAL)

- True: "conforming with reality or fact"
- Real: "verifiable as actual fact"

Absolutely Certain is redundant statement, as both words mean the same thing. But, be that as it may, adding the words together is for emphasis:

Certain: “having no doubts about something” which is the same as “accept that something is true or real


Sure: “unquestionably true or real and not in doubt” which is the same as ““having no doubts about something” which is the same as “accept that something is true or real”

Now, if you want to go elsewhere and equivocate over definitions, YOU can consider this as a warning as well.
**MOD HAT ON** If you continue to equivocate, you will be removed from this forum! I suggest that you re-read the forum rules that you agreed to adhere to prior to being accepted to this forum! **MOD HAT OFF**

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:54 AM

But let's not get hung up on words, I already stated where I sit on Falcones scale and stated that I am not absolutely certain.
And wy, after making myseld clear was I accused of playing a game?


Are you sure? As falcones scale was fabricated upon equivocation, smoke and mirrors.

And, as a good friend here use to say "Words mean things", and you cannot simply wave them aside by saying "But let's not get hung up on words"...

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:04 AM



I see the distinction, but don't see that they are mutually exclusive.

I believe there are no gods, but I will readily admit that I don't actually know. Hence 'yes' and 'yes'.

Regarding absolutes, you're right. It is something in many cases which is more associated with a believer's wiring. I wouldn't be surprised if you were in general surer of your convictions than I.

BTW, I used to be an atheist on this forum but I changed to agnostic as I think that better defines me when there is no sliding scale in which to position myself. That said, this is supposed to be about Buckaroo, not me :)


You made this about you when you chimed in with your equivocating.

One is either an atheist or an agnostic. The game you are playing is claiming to be both (at this point in time). Taking both questions together, in context, necessarily dictates different answers. The game you are playing is separating the questions, making them stand alone and not considering them jointly. While you win this silly game on a technical issue the bottom line is you're being intellectually dishonest.


That was falcone's usual M.O. equivocation without representation... He would make many-many claims, then fail to actually back it up. You can see a couple of others attempting it in this thread, but that won't last long either, as, if you read the FORUM RULES this is about honest conversation, not "Changing definitions to meet one's needs".

#30 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:12 AM

Ron I joined this forum but I was unsure whether or not to go by agnostic or atheist.
That was the only intent in starting this thread.
Thank you for clarifying. The ONLY reason I hesitated is that i want to be certain that I convey my true feelings and beliefs.
so my answer is...

Q1 no

Q2 yes

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:29 AM

Ron I joined this forum but I was unsure whether or not to go by agnostic or atheist.
That was the only intent in starting this thread.
Thank you for clarifying. The ONLY reason I hesitated is that i want to be certain that I convey my true feelings and beliefs.
so my answer is...

Q1 no

Q2 yes


That is fine, but there are others here who attempt to play the "word"/"definition" game in order to further their agenda. That is why it is squelched as soon as it is noticed. But, the individual is ALWAYS afforded the chance to back out of such dishonest games.

As an aside; I purposfully used the word "believe" because I knew the "equivocators" would attempt to missapply it to their benifit.

#32 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:39 AM

I knew you were being mischievous in your choice of words. Is that really necessary???

#33 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:40 AM

If I read that right, I am being accused of being dishonest? Really???
I hope I'm wrong... But if I'm not, I'm gone.

#34 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:48 AM

Keep in mind, typing stuff out in a forrum... it is easy for there to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and whether you like it or not, words like "Sure" (and I agreed 100% with your definition) can mean different things depending on how they are used and the intent of the person using them. I still want to know if you prefer me to change my profile to agnostic. And if you think you have enough information abut me to make that distinction.

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 12:37 PM


I knew you were being mischievous in your choice of words. Is that really necessary???



First, there was absolutely nothing “mischievous” about it. I used a word within the context of the conversation, that those who have been KNOWN to be dishonest, use said word to BE dishonest. As I provided earlier, ALL the words tied together and are interchangeable. Only the DISHONEST person would attempt to twist the definition, in order to further their agenda.

And YES, it is “really necessary”, because it smokes out those who wish to be DISHONEST.


If I read that right, I am being accused of being dishonest? Really???


If you would have continued to argue, in the face of contrary facts, then YES you would have been DISHONEST in your discourse. But freely you admitted your misunderstanding of the subject. Therefore, NO, you weren’t being dishonest.


I hope I'm wrong... But if I'm not, I'm gone.


If you’re going to be offended for not being accused of being DISHONEST, then no one is going to stop you from leaving. But if you’re going to be offended for being DISHONEST, then no one is going to stop you from leaving.

But, as it stands, no one is accusing you of being DISHONEST, you have only been corrected where you erred, and you freely admitted your mistake. No harm, no foul.. .


Keep in mind, typing stuff out in a forrum... it is easy for there to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and whether you like it or not, words like "Sure" (and I agreed 100% with your definition) can mean different things depending on how they are used and the intent of the person using them. I still want to know if you prefer me to change my profile to agnostic. And if you think you have enough information abut me to make that distinction.


Typing in a forum is no different than speaking on a telephone, or most any other medium of communications. When the words are used, and kept within the context of the conversation, the only way to misconstrue the conversation is to take the conversation out-of-context, or not use the correct definition within the context. There are very few exceptions to contextual meanings, as far as definitions are concerned. And, as I pointed out, there are those here (and elsewhere) who purposefully attempt to definition defilers.

Based upon your own words, you are an agnostic (as long as what you said, were your true views), and I never said that I “have enough information”. Further, it is not my job to TELL you what you are. But as an administrator here, it IS my job to insure that the conversation remains honest, on topic, and that no Trolls, Time Wasters, sock accounts, misinformers (etc…) cause problems at this forum.

As an aside; you can change that yourself by accessing your profile and changing it.

#36 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

That WAS falcone's usual M.O. equivocation without representation...


:gotcha:

#37 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:07 PM

Thanks Ron.

#38 Buckaroo

Buckaroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ventura, Ca

Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:20 PM

Why do you suppose that so many agnostics (by your strict definition) prefer to call themselves atheist?
I can tell you that very few atheists, in fact none that I know, feel 100% certain that there is no god/gods.
Yet we continue to call ourselves atheists...

#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:08 PM

Thanks Ron.


No Problem.

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:04 PM


Why do you suppose that so many agnostics (by your strict definition) prefer to call themselves atheist?
I can tell you that very few atheists, in fact none that I know, feel 100% certain that there is no god/gods.
Yet we continue to call ourselves atheists...



I know of NO agnostics who refer to themselves as atheists; but I know of plenty atheists who are crypto-agnostics (atheists who describe themselves AS atheists, but when all is said and told, the description is that of an agnostic). This is mainly because one cannot (in reality) live as an atheist, because, when cornered, they will fall back on Bradlaugh’s excuse and waffle on the definition.

There were some (Madeline Murray O'Hare for example) who attempted to live as strict atheists, but their argumentation was weak at best, and they (Madeline Murray O'Hare for example) attempted to bully non-atheists with volume and many words (a type of “Argumentum ad Baculum” and “Elephant Hurling”), at times being very shrill when arguing. And others attempted logical debate (see Bahnsen VS Stein, “the Great Debate, Does God Exist”) and yet find themselves and their world-view indefensible.

Further, having been an atheist (until I was in my early twenties), I was (and am) very acquainted with MANY atheists and agnostics. And a great many atheists will often claim with 100 percent certitude that there is no God. But when they get into actual debates, they will attempt to fall back into the agnostic safety net.Further, I have done a large amount of post-grad work into the studies of World Philosophies, histories, and linguistics. And here is the nuts and bolts of it:

Atheism
Main Entry: athe•ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Merriam Webster dictionary

a•the•ism
Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

—Related forms an•ti•a•the•ism, adjective, noun pro•a•the•ism, noun

Reference.com


Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities.

Etymology

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative α- + θεος "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th Century BCE, severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs ("atheism"). Cicero transliterated atheos into Latin. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other
Psychology-wiki


Now, I can go a lot deeper into what “Atheism” actually means, and not what some atheists WANT it to mean. I can also go further into what Agnosticism means (and not what some atheists and agnostics WANT it to mean). But the bottom line is this: Atheist is defined as “NO GOD”, and Agnostic is defined as “I Have NO KNOWLEDGE”.

You can slice and dice it up all you want, and attempt to paint varying shade of gray, but at the end of the day, you haven’t really affected what the definitions really are.

Dr. William Lane Craig (renown scholarly philosopher) , when asked about the contradictory “weak argument” of atheism by atheists, he went into great detail, then summed it up in this:

“So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, ‘So is there a God or not?’ ”




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users