There is no such thing as Agnosticism. Agnostics do not exist!

by nicolaou 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nicolaou

  Hi Slim'. Atheism IS boring, it has to be as it has absolutely nothing to say. It makes no statement about the nature of reality, offers no insight into the human condition, offers no hope for the future or comfort for the suffering.

  And, as atheism can only ever exist in the context of a theistic society it will most notably reflect the absence of the gods in vogue. None of this really matters as atheism isn't a philosophy to follow or even a choice to be made.

  What matters is how we treat each other and atheists can be arseholes as much as the faithful, it's just that atheism doesn't promote arseholiness in the same way that much theistic doctrine does.

  I don't think it's too surprising that many atheists embrace the far more positive philosophy of humanism.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Atheism IS boring, it has to be as it has absolutely nothing to say.

  It makes no statement about the nature of reality.

  Atheism helps into finding out and making discoveries about nature so how can that be boring.
  

  Nature of reality stands by itself with or without deity beliefs.

  Many find the practical evidence of nature fascinating, wonderful and awe inspiring, such as myself.
  

  Theism usually involves false imagination, ignorance and contrived illusive lying restrained within itself.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think the article is saying the atheism of Dawkins for example is not very "interesting" in the sense that it lacks substance and does not engage with the most thoughtful expressions of theism. It doesn't mean to say it's boring in the sense that it would send you to sleep. Dawkins picks out, for example, the idea of God as a complex being to refute, ignoring thousands of years of theological reflection on the nature of God which either views him as a simple being or and being beyond being. His refutation therefore misses the mark and looks ill-informed about the subject. The idea that God does not exist and that he doesn't not exist. That human ontological categories cannot intelligibly be applied to God. We can appreciate that ascribing certain characteristics such as tallness to God might be mistaken. But what about the category of being itself? What if this is a misconceived way of formulating the question in relation to God?
• 

  nicolaou

  Making god so fuzzy and indefinable that nothing can stick to him is a semantic trick I'm not wasting my time on.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief that god does exist. Think about that. There is no such thing as agnosticism, it's not a middle ground because there is no middle ground to occupy.

  You are absolutely wrong. Take Cofty for example, he is 100% convinced no god or no intelligent life or creator for our origins of life. For him all by chance, no chance of anything behind it. He is atheist.

  Now me, I see how there can be intelligent design in life. Whether biological scientists created us, other dimensional beings (spirits), us being enclosed and part of a simulation, a God as religions belief, etc. Science hasn't figured the origin of everything, and no way to know which religion if any are right, or if another intelligent design completely absent of any religion, etc. That makes me more so agnostic.
• 

  cofty

  You are absolutely wrong. Take Cofty for example, he is 100% convinced no god or no intelligent life or creator for our origins of life. For him all by chance, no chance of anything behind it. He is atheist. - EOM

  Yes I am an atheist but I don't much care for the word. Why should not believing in something deserve a label?

  I am FOR rational thinking, an evidence-based worldview, humanism, secular morality and much more. Not believing in the god of christian theism is simply a corollary of that.

  On the other hand when somebody says they are an atheist that tells us very little about them. I know of atheists who believe in all sorts of irrational woo.

  An agnostic is just somebody who needs to do a bit more thinking as EOM demonstrated above.

  I am totally convinced that it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the god of Jesus does not exist. Same goes for the god of the pedophile prophet of Islam. Same goes for any specific god you want to discuss.

  When people say that you can't prove there is no god they can only say that by being as vague as possible about the words "prove" and "god". Define "god" and of course we can prove it is nothing but a human construct.

  As for the vacuous waffle we just saw above from SBF it is not worth wasting a single heartbeat even contemplating.

  God can exist and not-exist, or neither, without being bound by definitions. When I think of God I think of God in these terms, or not in these terms, as the case may be.

  It is unmitigated mental masturbation and I wish he would do it in private.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Argumentum ad lapidem, again.

  A humanistic rational approach cannot disprove apophatic conceptions of God, hence the resort to ridicule. Karen Armstrong is particularly good describing this approach to God.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology
  
• 

  cofty

  A humanistic rational approach cannot disprove apophatic conceptions of God

  You define god as something that does exist AND also doesn't exist and then expect intelligent people to take you seriously.

  It is literally ridiculous.
  
  
• 

  EndofMysteries

  When people say that you can't prove there is no god they can only say that by being as vague as possible about the words "prove" and "god". Define "god" and of course we can prove it is nothing but a human construct.

  Take god and religion out of the discussion and instead replace it with intelligent design. It seems many think that intelligent design automatically equates to a god of any past belief, as if it's not one of those then there is no other possibility. If you still want the word there, I'll define god as, "the conscious intelligence that engineered life on Earth". I believe genetic engineering alone proves this to be a possibility. I completely dismiss the excuse that if it was another biological form that created "Earth life" that doesn't answer the origin of their life, etc,etc. It doesn't matter if "our" origin is the start of it all or further on the chain, if there is a chain, you must move up it to get to the original source. Ignoring parts if they turn to be true because it doesn't reach the final answer looked for just means you'll never move up the chain.
• 

  cofty

  "the conscious intelligence that engineered life on Earth"

  "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." - Pierre-Simon Laplace