This entry was posted
on Monday, February 22nd, 2010 at 1:26 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
25 Responses to “Re: How to debate an Athiest & always win”
Thanks for the response. I strobgly urge you to facilitate the incorporation of your simple definition into the dictionaries of the world. It could help further undertanding.
Is there such a thing as concrete definition of atheism (i.e., universally accepted)? A person who is not a theist would seem to be practicing a doctrine…
Perhaps we can agree that this point about “derision” has been exhausted? Regardless of who said what about it it is no longer constructive, if it even ever was.
No. I cannot understand what I originally posted that could be characterized as derisive…nothing, per say, “pissed me off.”
I am not here to alter opinions or beliefs. I am here to understand and issue some commentary. That is all. I made my observation based on what I was reading. I did not characterize any arguments or points made by the writer. I simply offered mine.
“2#”according to this postulate, there would be life on other planets evolved to suit their environment”
Change “would” to “may” and this statement that you treat with derision becomes actually pretty reasonable.”
This is the statement that pissed you off, correct?
I just want to be clear, i said rather specifically
“this statement that you treat with derision”
You considered the statement so self evidently ridiculous that it is discarded out of hand.
you mock it
you treat it with derision
It is also worth noting that in some philosophies that agnosticism and THEISM are not necessarily mutually exclusive. My knowledge is limited on the specifics but as I understand it it is held that the nature of “god” is unknowable however it is ALSO held as a article of faith that he/she/it exists.
For the first time in this discussion it feels like you are actually thinking rather that repeating back by rote apologist talking points.
Despite your preconceptions, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Think of it perhaps as “insufficient evidence thus far”, gods the way you for instance understand them, may exist. However for your (and other religious texts) to be accurate and to have left nothing in the way of tangible evidence beggars belief.
“The lack of belief in a god or gods,” … okay, from where did you obtain this definition? How does this definition differ from that of agnosticism? This definition does not indicate any sort of action on the part of a person…it conjures up in my mind’s eye something more in terms of stasis. This, to me, is more akin to agnosticism.
There is no “sect” of atheists of any form the only requirement for the label of atheist is not believing in any gods. There are many philosophical stances that are not mutually exclusive to atheism but NONE of them are required.
It is NOT a difficult concept.
Here’s an easy way to think of it, an atheist is NOT a theist.
That’s all.
My point is this…From what I have observed here at UTube, there are a substantial number of professed atheists on these boards. I am receiving (currently) three definitions of what “atheism,” is…
How do you define it? My understanding of your actual state of being is closer to agnosticism than atheism.
“But you are correct in stating you cannot know. This exempts you from atheism.”
Again, you are incorrect, I cannot say with omniscient clarity that THERE IS NO GOD, however there is no reason to expect there to be a god, not even circumstantial evidence.
At best there is hearsay.
p.s. PLEASE tell me you were aware that I was being sarcastic.
Ooooooh you clever bugger, I’ve NEVER heard this one before.
NO i haven’t then i guess i can’t know if god exists if i haven seen everything can I?
Maybe he’s hiding in the secret corners of the universe and we just haven’t found him yet so i better just have FAITH. I’ll go and convert right now!
But as this video has more to do with the subject of atheism than the subject of life’s origins and diversity, let us take a moment to pose the following two questions:
1) Have you been everywhere?
2) Have you seen everything?
You will notice these questions require nothing more than a simple “yea,” or “nay.”
Poor grammar, uh? And how do you have access to 1000 characters in your posts? I only have 500…
By the way, you open with a run-on sentence. Exchange the comma after the word “yourself,” with a period…then insert a comma after the word “characters.” And capitalize the lower case i between “think,” and “care.”
You explained nothing except to your own mind…If science, as you claim, knows nothing about the observable world (as you claim), then by what standard should any RATIONAL person cede acknowledgement to any of your arguments as to scientific knowledge concerning UNOBSERVED EVENTS?
Slams?
Get over yourself, if I can show you are at best grossly misinformed and at worst lying in less than a thousand characters do you really think i care about your poorly worded grammatically awkward attempts at vitriol?
What is your kink about the word derision? Have a look through my comments and you will see i never said anything like that.
As to MY comment about you talking out of your arse, ie. making stuff up about which you are woefully uninformed, i explained quite thoroughly as to where it is clearly shown.
Nothing more.
You just lost your temper about being called out.
And now you can state that there is DERISION in my comments…Happy now?
I was going to type more descriptive and derisive slams, but I do not want to become good at doing something I do not like to do…the more you practice something the better you become…I will leave that to you…
From complaining about derision to the most absolute display of such…I wonder what kind of creature you are…if there was to be proof of DEVOLUTION you would be the POSTER CHILD…
For you to make claims of WHAT SCIENCE KNOWS about conditions that will never be possible to observe because of the length of time supposedly involved (i.e., it took so long for us to evolve we cannot replicate or observe) and then to state we cannot mimic observable conditions, you FIT THE CLOSING STATEMENT!!!
You never said our star system, and even so you are still wrong, Io and Titan for instance we can’t replicate those conditions because we don’t know them with any great deal of accuracy. Venus and Mercury our concepts of the soil there is basic. The pressure, composition and wind speed of the gas giants MAY be doable in a shock tube for fractions of a second which in the realms of biology may as well not even exist for all the good the will do.
You are talking out of your arse.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
@unbeliever1000 if God does not exist prove it?…
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Thanks for the response. I strobgly urge you to facilitate the incorporation of your simple definition into the dictionaries of the world. It could help further undertanding.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
There is no doctrine or dogma.
Theism=belief in a god
Polytheism=belief in more than one god
Atheism=no belief in gods
It really is that simple.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Agreed.
Is there such a thing as concrete definition of atheism (i.e., universally accepted)? A person who is not a theist would seem to be practicing a doctrine…
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Perhaps we can agree that this point about “derision” has been exhausted? Regardless of who said what about it it is no longer constructive, if it even ever was.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
No. I cannot understand what I originally posted that could be characterized as derisive…nothing, per say, “pissed me off.”
I am not here to alter opinions or beliefs. I am here to understand and issue some commentary. That is all. I made my observation based on what I was reading. I did not characterize any arguments or points made by the writer. I simply offered mine.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
“2#”according to this postulate, there would be life on other planets evolved to suit their environment”
Change “would” to “may” and this statement that you treat with derision becomes actually pretty reasonable.”
This is the statement that pissed you off, correct?
I just want to be clear, i said rather specifically
“this statement that you treat with derision”
You considered the statement so self evidently ridiculous that it is discarded out of hand.
you mock it
you treat it with derision
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
It is also worth noting that in some philosophies that agnosticism and THEISM are not necessarily mutually exclusive. My knowledge is limited on the specifics but as I understand it it is held that the nature of “god” is unknowable however it is ALSO held as a article of faith that he/she/it exists.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
For the first time in this discussion it feels like you are actually thinking rather that repeating back by rote apologist talking points.
Despite your preconceptions, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Think of it perhaps as “insufficient evidence thus far”, gods the way you for instance understand them, may exist. However for your (and other religious texts) to be accurate and to have left nothing in the way of tangible evidence beggars belief.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“The lack of belief in a god or gods,” … okay, from where did you obtain this definition? How does this definition differ from that of agnosticism? This definition does not indicate any sort of action on the part of a person…it conjures up in my mind’s eye something more in terms of stasis. This, to me, is more akin to agnosticism.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Atheism=the lack of belief in a god or gods.
That’s all there is to it.
There is no “sect” of atheists of any form the only requirement for the label of atheist is not believing in any gods. There are many philosophical stances that are not mutually exclusive to atheism but NONE of them are required.
It is NOT a difficult concept.
Here’s an easy way to think of it, an atheist is NOT a theist.
That’s all.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Sarcastic in reference to what?
My point is this…From what I have observed here at UTube, there are a substantial number of professed atheists on these boards. I am receiving (currently) three definitions of what “atheism,” is…
How do you define it? My understanding of your actual state of being is closer to agnosticism than atheism.
What is your definition of the word, “know?”
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:42 pm
“But you are correct in stating you cannot know. This exempts you from atheism.”
Again, you are incorrect, I cannot say with omniscient clarity that THERE IS NO GOD, however there is no reason to expect there to be a god, not even circumstantial evidence.
At best there is hearsay.
p.s. PLEASE tell me you were aware that I was being sarcastic.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Well, I wanted to live up to the “derisive,” characterization you hung on me in your intitial response to my initial post…
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
No. Do not feel obligated to convert. You are not. But you are correct in stating you cannot know. This exempts you from atheism.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I made two posts in reply to your comment, one was not enough, three was one too many.
“if there was to be proof of DEVOLUTION you would be the POSTER CHILD…”
This isn’t awkward to you?
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Ooooooh you clever bugger, I’ve NEVER heard this one before.
NO i haven’t then i guess i can’t know if god exists if i haven seen everything can I?
Maybe he’s hiding in the secret corners of the universe and we just haven’t found him yet so i better just have FAITH. I’ll go and convert right now!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:19 pm
But as this video has more to do with the subject of atheism than the subject of life’s origins and diversity, let us take a moment to pose the following two questions:
1) Have you been everywhere?
2) Have you seen everything?
You will notice these questions require nothing more than a simple “yea,” or “nay.”
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Poor grammar, uh? And how do you have access to 1000 characters in your posts? I only have 500…
By the way, you open with a run-on sentence. Exchange the comma after the word “yourself,” with a period…then insert a comma after the word “characters.” And capitalize the lower case i between “think,” and “care.”
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
You explained nothing except to your own mind…If science, as you claim, knows nothing about the observable world (as you claim), then by what standard should any RATIONAL person cede acknowledgement to any of your arguments as to scientific knowledge concerning UNOBSERVED EVENTS?
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Slams?
Get over yourself, if I can show you are at best grossly misinformed and at worst lying in less than a thousand characters do you really think i care about your poorly worded grammatically awkward attempts at vitriol?
In a word, no.
Just so we’re clear on that.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 pm
What is your kink about the word derision? Have a look through my comments and you will see i never said anything like that.
As to MY comment about you talking out of your arse, ie. making stuff up about which you are woefully uninformed, i explained quite thoroughly as to where it is clearly shown.
Nothing more.
You just lost your temper about being called out.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
And now you can state that there is DERISION in my comments…Happy now?
I was going to type more descriptive and derisive slams, but I do not want to become good at doing something I do not like to do…the more you practice something the better you become…I will leave that to you…
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 pm
From complaining about derision to the most absolute display of such…I wonder what kind of creature you are…if there was to be proof of DEVOLUTION you would be the POSTER CHILD…
For you to make claims of WHAT SCIENCE KNOWS about conditions that will never be possible to observe because of the length of time supposedly involved (i.e., it took so long for us to evolve we cannot replicate or observe) and then to state we cannot mimic observable conditions, you FIT THE CLOSING STATEMENT!!!
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am
You never said our star system, and even so you are still wrong, Io and Titan for instance we can’t replicate those conditions because we don’t know them with any great deal of accuracy. Venus and Mercury our concepts of the soil there is basic. The pressure, composition and wind speed of the gas giants MAY be doable in a shock tube for fractions of a second which in the realms of biology may as well not even exist for all the good the will do.
You are talking out of your arse.