by Joey Jo-Jo 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Unfortunately..... even if your explanation is clear as water..... wont make a difference: Joey is set to be agnostic... whatever Joey thinks that is.
So be it. Fine Joey, Agnostic is correct for you ok?
Why ask in the first place?
Oh useless thread.
Hey Cyber...Yeah I know. These conversations always end up as twisted word games because of some weird aversion or fear of the word atheist.
Oh also, thanks Zid and Cyber for you comment.
I personally aren't really into labels, as when people ask if I believe in god I just say no. If they asked if I am atheist, I would just say yes and whether they think I just disbelieve in a god or believe there is no chance of there being a god...well, that's their problem not mine. Agnostic doesn't even enter the mix of whether I believe or not because it's a different kettle of fish.
If they pushed what they think it is, I just go tell them to go to the dictionary and look up what the "a" before "theist" stands for, just like asexual, amoral, atypical, asymmetrical and then come back and tell me I take a positive position on the non-existence of a god. If they did, well then I would perceive them as being willfully dishonest and discontinue the conversation.
"If they pushed what they think it is, I just go tell them to go to the dictionary and look up what the "a" before "theist" stands for, just like asexual, amoral, atypical, asymmetrical and then come back and tell me I take a positive position on the non-existence of a god. ..." Aptly-named ZeusRocks, above...
Wow, ZeusRocks...
That one's a keeper...
May I borrow it, once in a while???
Pleeeezzzzeee??
Sure you can Zid.
bohm, its clear but i don't agree on some points. i dont agree about what man made books says abouts gods like the creation account, and there is strong evidence to refute these books, but this facet does not give us an answer as to how the cosmos came to be, neither does science yet. so from this if we dont know what is certain how can one say if god exists or not??
so your evidence to disprove god is through a lack of evidence? hypothetically, it would be a great injustice if someone received the death penalty through a court system that the decision was established through a lack of evidence, how is this any diferent from your no god claim?
ZeusRocks wrote If someone asks you if you believe in god or a god, and your answer is no, then you are atheist. You cannot answer this question with "I don't know". You weren't asked whether you know a god exists or not, the question is whether you believe a god exists.
and
but if someone asks you if you believe in god, you cannot state that you are agnostic as that has nothing to do with the question being asked.
I wrote - So by your logic, if I asked you - Have you stopped beating your wife? you could only give me a yes or no answer, keeping in mind that both answers will incriminate you. ;) You might want to google plurium interrogationum.
ZeusRocks wrote That kind of question has nothing to do with the subject of belief. I'm not talking about asking someone about beating their wife. I'm talking about belief.
I agree that my question has nothing to do with belief, I understand your question but your assuming that the question if you believe in god can only have two answers, YES or No as you wrote You cannot answer this question with "I don't know". I am showing you the lack of sound reasoning in your answers, asking -do you believe in god?- isn't any diferent to asking -Will you die in 5 years? It's the injustified presumption (Yes or No)
You either believe the proposition of a god (theist) or you don't (atheist). That's it. You're not being asked if you know whether there is a god or if a god is knowable or unknowable. Theist and atheist has to do with belief or disbelief, Honestly, how hard is that to comprehend. You might like to say your agnostic, but that says nothing about what you believe, it's just a stance of a claim of knowledge.
So what happens when you can not believe nor disbelieve?
And what came first, the chicken or the egg?
I am showing you the lack of sound reasoning in your answers, asking -do you believe in god?- isn't any diferent to asking -Will you die in 5 years? It's the injustified presumption
Once again you are using a ridiculous follow up question example and it is very different from my question.
"Will you die in 5 years?" I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer. You have flipped from my question regarding belief with your question regarding knowledge.
So what happens when you can not believe nor disbelieve?
If you cannot believe or disbelieve then you are absent of belief or without belief, which is the root meaning of the word ATHEIST. It is no claim to knowledge which you seem to completely ignore, because for some reason you don't like the word atheist.
The is the last time I will say it...If you do not BELIEVE in a god, whether just absent of belief or complete disbelief then you are atheist by definition. Add agnostic to it if you want, but the word atheist exists do describe someone who is not a theist.
dang, double post again.
Jojo:
You have the charming habbit of misunderstanding people in such a way you can apply very simple arguments to your opponent and its very frustrating to deal with. i have a sincere advice: read what is posted and try to understand what is meant.
For instance, you wrote:
so your evidence to disprove god is through a lack of evidence? hypothetically, it would be a great injustice if someone received the death penalty through a court system that the decision was established through a lack of evidence, how is this any diferent from your no god claim
i do not set out to disprove god i do not accept the existence of god. Let me quote myself from my previous post:
For me to accept the (complex) hypothesis god exist and made the universe I need evidence. If i have no evidence, i cannot accept it anymore than any of many other (arguably less amazing!) ideas for how the universe came about. They are, at the very best, equally likely, and that mean "god made the universe" must be unlikely indeed.
I call that being an "atheist" because i can safely state: I do not accept the existence of God.
and again from the first page:
To me being an atheist is shorthand for "I do not feel compelled to accept the existence of any of the gods", ie. a 6 on the dawkins scale. It is not an expression of absolutely certainty.
heck, why not take an example from the second page as well:
I still do not believe such a God exist because i see no evidence the hypothesis is true and it is quite a formidable hypothesis. I call that being an "atheist" with respect to your X-God
I do not claim to have a direct disproof of any odd claim about what happened before the universe came into existence how could i. I claim i do not accept any specific claim, and i call the being an atheist.
With respect to your analogy of the court system. To make your analogy work, suppose there are multiple ideas for how a given murder was carried out and by who. One of them is: "Godoth did it". There is no evidence for any of the ideas, and it is easy to come up with more ideas for how the murder could have happened.
any odd judge would be an atheist, ie. be highly sceptical and not accepting, of your claim "Godoth did it".
bohm: You have a PM.
