Posts by Joey Jo-Jo

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

bohm, i think we have diferent ways of thinking things through, do you know what logical fallacies are? all i have to do is to show that your arguments are selt contradictory, the other is that you can not answer any of my questions but only by your terms.

you can not accept the existence of god based on the lack of evidence? this the second time i am asking this.

a judge is not an atheist, if there were, many innocent people would be guilty due to a lack of evidence. i am telling you again that i am not a theist, i dont claim or do the existence of gods due to a lack of evidence. (null hypothesis)

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

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?

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

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?

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

This is what Richard Dawkins has to say about agnostics, skip to 14:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTz0mc0MRlY&list=FLR1k0ksLME_RHblIEG_EiGg&index=1&feature=plpp_video

92

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

by nicolaou in

many here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.

nonsense!

it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.

Joey Jo-Jo

NewChapter wrote- As an atheist, I believe there is no evidence for a god.

Does that mean that there is evidence for not believing in a god?

92

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

by nicolaou in

many here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.

nonsense!

it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.

Joey Jo-Jo

Thanks nicolaou, I will have some more reading to do. I think it's a healthy discussion provided it does not get heated in childish puns and slurs.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

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.

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.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

hi bohn, i much prefer these topics done publicly than on forums as there could be misunderstandings.

but i will try my best.

my definition of a possible deity is vague because i dont know, this to you is evidence that deities do not exist, am i correct?

you wrote on your last post how scientists failed hypothesis to prove that the universe was created by a god, would it be rational to conclude that these tests were done with what we humans currently know and understand? do you think these understanding could change in future changing our view on certain topics? do you see science as a set of laws or a form of free acquisition?