Originally posted by @fmfThat's right FMF. Just keep hanging around here all day everyday using "faith" in eternal life and those who believe in God as a springboard to bolster your empty and vacuous self styled religious system.
Well if your religious beliefs give you purpose, make you feel your life has substance and you deem all these perceptions of yours to be "authentic" [as opposed to those of others], then that's fine. It's what your religion is for, I suppose, and the same goes for all the other religions.
You are an excessively religious person.
Originally posted by @secondsonWell if you don't like my contributions here, there's not much I can do about that. I don't see myself as religious because the definition of religion I use [at least for the kinds of things discussed by this community) is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". so my agnostic atheism doesn't correspond to that.
That's right FMF. Just keep hanging around here all day everyday using "faith" in eternal life and those who believe in God as a springboard to bolster your empty and vacuous self styled religious system.
You are an excessively religious person.
Originally posted by @secondsonHere's the definition again:
What's so lucid about your stance?
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
I have illustrated lucidly how this stance applies to me and others like me, and I have also demonstrated lucidly that the religionist objection and rejection of the stance that you are able to muster doesn't amount to much and, when it wears thin, which I thought it did after 2-3 posts, it just depicts you as a bit bitter and irritated and equipped only with a few assertions rooted in your own beliefs.
Originally posted by @fmfYou keep talking, but your words carry empty meaning. There's no substance. Just a stream of words strung together that you think define some truth. Or whatever you decide is truth.
Well if you don't like my contributions here, there's not much I can do about that. I don't see myself as religious because the definition of religion I use [at least for the kinds of things discussed by this community) is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". so my agnostic atheism doesn't correspond to that.
You're just one of billions. Your words fall flat because there's nothing in your vocabulary that carries the weight of authority or conviction. Although I'm sure you wish it did.
Originally posted by @secondsonWell, like I said, if you don't like my contributions to what goes on in the discussions and debates in this community, there's not much I can do to satisfy you I think.
You keep talking, but your words carry empty meaning. There's no substance. Just a stream of words strung together that you think define some truth. Or whatever you decide is truth.
Originally posted by @secondsonI acknowledge and respect your conviction but I don't see how you have demonstrated the presence of any "weight of authority" in any of your posts. If you think there was something that you posted that most clearly illustrates the "authority" carried by your words, please repeat it/paste it in reply to this.
You're just one of billions. Your words fall flat because there's nothing in your vocabulary that carries the weight of authority or conviction. Although I'm sure you wish it did.
Originally posted by @secondsonAren't you too? There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world. You're just one of billions too, are you not?
You're just one of billions.
Originally posted by @secondsonIf I were to self-identify as a Zoroastrian or a Sikh, for example, would I escape this withering critique of yours, or would I ~ in your view ~ have to be a Christian?
In other words, what you think you are, an agnostic atheist, isn't anything at all. It means nothing. It's pointless. It does nothing. It is nothing. It will take you nowhere because that's what it means.
Originally posted by @fmfNo. I'm not just one of billions. I'm a son of the one and only true God who gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice to save me from death.
Aren't you too? There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world. You're just one of billions too, are you not?
You have no excuse. You have heard and know the truth, but you reject it because you claim to be an agnostic atheist and embrace utter nonsense.
Originally posted by @secondsonAnd what exactly does your own religious dogma have to do with the meaning of "agnostic atheism"? And what does it have to do with the fact that I don't believe in your "I'm a son of the one and only true God who gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice to save me from death" stuff?
No. I'm not just one of billions. I'm a son of the one and only true God who gave His only begotten Son as a sacrifice to save me from death.
You have no excuse. You have heard and know the truth, but you reject it because you claim to be an agnostic atheist and embrace utter nonsense.
Originally posted by @secondsonI take it the word "truth" the way you use it here refers to your own religion. The notion that I have should provide you with "excuses" ~ that you'd maybe accept ~ for not subscribing to your religion is interesting.
You have no excuse. You have heard and know the truth, but you reject it
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou have not sought to establish any such thing. If you are referring to SecondSon's efforts, he seems to be making 'arguments' that are emotional - and that reflect his earnestness - rather than "intellectual" arguments.
[Agnostic atheism] is intellectually untenable for the reasons discussed.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfAsk yourself this, is your agnostic atheism based upon reasoned evidence or a lack of it? I'm sure you can agree it is based upon a lack of evidence. Then ask yourself about the intellectual position of a belief system that is solely based upon a lack of evidence. Maybe it will sink in.
You have not sought to establish any such thing. If you are referring to SecondSon's efforts, he seems to be making 'arguments' that are emotional - and that reflect his earnestness - rather than "intellectual" arguments.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerMy lack of belief in ghosts is based on a lack of evidence. Is that an "intellectual position" you object to? My lack of belief in reincarnation is based on a lack of evidence that there is any such thing. Is that an "intellectual position" you think suffers from a lack of reasoning?
Ask yourself this, is your agnostic atheism based upon reasoned evidence or a lack of it? I'm sure you can agree it is based upon a lack of evidence. Then ask yourself about the intellectual position of a belief system that is solely based upon a lack of evidence. Maybe it will sink in.
My position about a god or gods is that they may well exist. You claim that a creator has revealed himself to you and you have adopted him as your god figure. If that satisfies you, good for you. It does not satisfy me. I am unaware of a god or gods having revealed themselves to anyone.
So I am not a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or Hindu for the same reason.
My sense that there may possibly be a god or gods that created us and our world, as you know, is based on the evidence of our human nature and on the nature of the universe.
Your claim that the god figure you worship may be responsible for this has revealed himself to you - and that you will have eternal life because you believe in him - is not convincing.
Nor am I convinced that I will be reincarnated as Hindus tell me I will.
There is nothing wrong with these "intellectual positions".