Atheists are sounding more like evangelical Christians.

[Thurnez Isa]

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Let me put it this way.

I don't know (and Im not using absolute certainty here) if our models for Abiogenesis is completely correct, and therefore I can't believe it is. So agnostic about question can still mean your lack belief in the claim... make sense?

That's not being agnostic about abiogenesis.  Agnostic about abiogenisis would be 'I don't know, and there's no way to find evidence, so I'm not going to bother with the question'.

but it not a question it's a claim...
When someone says they believe in a specific God (and theres thousands of them/ possibly billions since everyone has their own definitions) they are making a specific claim no matter how vague and insignificant it may be.
Even if you say your not going to bother with the claim your still not believing the claim.
Not bothering with the claim is not believing the claim, not matter how irrelevant the claim is

Even if you say the claim is possible until you believe that claim your still atheistic about the claim, in other words your still a nonbeliever in the claim. Believing in a possibility doesn't mean you believe the outcome

[Thurnez Isa]

When it comes to a claim of a God (and theres tons of different ones) it's either yes or no when it comes to acceptance of that claim, but with various degrees.
You can have a no I don't accept but there's still a possibility, there's a yes there's a likely possibility but Im not positive, there's a no I need more evidence, there's a yes and Im sure, and there's tons of others.
By saying maybe, or the claim is irrelevant in terms of study, your still kind of saying your not accepting the claim, but to a very light degree. Until you accept it and become Theistic about the claim (believing) your ATheistic (not believing) - no matter how you got there.

[Thurnez Isa]

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

I hate Taoism too

What is your opinion on the worship of Mothra?

Can't
I have a horrible singing voice

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This may be a rare instance where E-Prime makes more sense:

Based on the current evidence available to me, there may or may not be some sort of god. However, most but not all of the systems I've studied have yet to make a compelling argument for God as they defined it. There may be a god named YHVH,  who is victim to a terrible PR firm that has completely flummoxed his image. There might be a god that we have no system to describe. Cthulhu may be real, but everything I've seen on the topic appears to support his existence as a fictional entity only.

[Template]

By saying maybe, or the claim is irrelevant in terms of study, your still kind of saying your not accepting the claim, but to a very light degree. Until you accept it and become Theistic about the claim (believing) your ATheistic (not believing) - no matter how you got there.

NO FUCK YOU.  This is improper usage of the terms "theistic" and "atheistic".  Theism as a label applies strictly to the belief in a god.  The words come from theos, 'god'.

If you want to use labels that rely on "to be", use credulous and incredulous: believing and disbelieving.  Or credulous and dubious.  Curiously, credible and dubious also seem to be opposites.  Fucking English.

Atheistic indicates the "ism" of no-god, at least it does now.

This would all be easier if we just assumed that God existed, and the question was whether or not we had to do anything about him.

This may be a rare instance where E-Prime makes more sense:

Based on the current evidence available to me, there may or may not be some sort of god may or may not exist. However, most but not all of the systems I've studied have yet to make a compelling argument for the existence of God as they* defined it. There may be a A god named YHVH,  who is --possibly victim to a terrible PR firm that has completely flummoxed his image--may or may not exist. There might be a A god that we have no system to describe might exist. Cthulhu may be really exist, but everything I've seen on the topic appears to support his existence as a fictional entity only. confine him to fiction.**

*: they who?
**: this edit was more a matter of style.

Remember, if you wish to say "E-Prime" on its own--and get anywhere with it--you must use no form of "to be".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

By saying maybe, or the claim is irrelevant in terms of study, your still kind of saying your not accepting the claim, but to a very light degree. Until you accept it and become Theistic about the claim (believing) your ATheistic (not believing) - no matter how you got there.

NO FUCK YOU.  This is improper usage of the terms "theistic" and "atheistic".  Theism as a label applies strictly to the belief in a god.  The words come from theos, 'god'.

If you want to use labels that rely on "to be", use credulous and incredulous: believing and disbelieving.  Or credulous and dubious.  Curiously, credible and dubious also seem to be opposites.  Fucking English.

Atheistic indicates the "ism" of no-god, at least it does now.

This would all be easier if we just assumed that God existed, and the question was whether or not we had to do anything about him.

This may be a rare instance where E-Prime makes more sense:

Based on the current evidence available to me, there may or may not be some sort of god may or may not exist. However, most but not all of the systems I've studied have yet to make a compelling argument for the existence of God as they* defined it. There may be a A god named YHVH,  who is --possibly victim to a terrible PR firm that has completely flummoxed his image--may or may not exist. There might be a A god that we have no system to describe might exist. Cthulhu may be really exist, but everything I've seen on the topic appears to support his existence as a fictional entity only. confine him to fiction.**

*: they who?
**: this edit was more a matter of style.

Remember, if you wish to say "E-Prime" on its own--and get anywhere with it--you must use no form of "to be".

Very Good... all the way round

[Thurnez Isa]

yhnmzw first I was relaying how these terms are being used, and then using them to question the validity of a position, and I don't believe I was being a jerk about it. And since you decided to come and to be a jerk I will no longer be considering anything you say from now on
Please do not respond to any of my post cause this will be the last response you get

thank you

[Kai]

You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right? 

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right? 

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there.

Hey, thats a snazzy motorcycle Kai.

[Thurnez Isa]

You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right? 

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there.

I'm not arguing though. Have we gotten to a point that any disagreements discussion appears as an argument?

And to be honest these questions have been occupying my mind a lot this summer, ever since I don't have fossilized pond scum to occupy my mind with

[Template]

yhnmzw first I was relaying how these terms are being used, and then using them to question the validity of a position, and I don't believe I was being a jerk about it. And since you decided to come and to be a jerk I will no longer be considering anything you say from now on
Please do not respond to any of my post cause this will be the last response you get

thank you

I thought it was an important matter of usage, but you have my apologies.  I'd not been following this thread, and now that you mention it, I'd also have a hell of a time expressing the idea the way I thought it should go.  It set off alarms in my mind, is all.

[Requia ☣]

You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right? 

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there.

I thought we were arguing about semantics. 

[Kai]

You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right?  

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there.

I thought we were arguing about semantics.  

arguing about arguments

[Requia ☣]

Nope, I stand by arguing about semantics.  At least I am.

[Kai]

Nope, I stand by arguing about semantics.  At least I am.

Is that right?



Now we're arguing about arguing about arguing. This is meta-argument at it's finest.