Jump to content

Assume Nothing

Members
  • Posts

    4194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Assume Nothing

  1. Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

     

    Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

     

    This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument.

     

    Lame? Dumb?

     

    Do you really think that supports your blank assertions?

     

    ag·nos·tic

    noun /agˈnästik/ 

    agnostics, plural

     

    A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

     

     

    a·the·ist

    noun /ˈāTHēˌist/ 

    atheists, plural

     

    A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

    - he is a committed atheist

     

     

    A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief.

     

    If you can't figure out the fine line between those two definitions, you're hopeless. I'm reading what you copy/pasted and they're clearly different. Life would be easier for you if you can comprehend these terms better.

     

    If you're going to judge, then the onus is on you to prove otherwise. I'd use the definition of agnosticism where it only asserts 'I do not know whether a deity exists or not'. What's your definition, then?

     

    Life would be easier if you weren't so unnecessarily hostile.

  2. I don't follow. Agnosticism doesn't claim disbelief, nor claim belief because it's not asserting/denying either - it's answering the question 'do you know if god/gods exists?' I realise that there are inconsistent dictionary definitions, but I'll operate on the ones that are most meaningful + least ambiguous. It also explains the use of terms such as 'agnostic atheist', or 'gnostic theist' too.

  3. I'm not sure what we're actually talking about. Is it immortality, or life-extension? A distinction needs to be made before any meaningful discussion could be made out of this.

  4. Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

     

    Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

     

    This is a lame attempt on your part to change the definition of either word. Someone can't be both agnostic AND an atheist. So yes, they're mutually exclusive of each other. What a dumb argument.

     

    Lame? Dumb?

     

    Do you really think that supports your blank assertions?

     

    ag·nos·tic

    noun /agˈnästik/ 

    agnostics, plural

     

    A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

     

     

    a·the·ist

    noun /ˈāTHēˌist/ 

    atheists, plural

     

    A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

    - he is a committed atheist

     

     

    A person who does not believe does not have to know to do so, unless you're misdefining belief.

  5. You can't. Or rather, you could give God an arbitrary definition in the same way you can say:

    All cups are green.

    Socrates is a cup.

    Therefore, Socrates is green.

     

    And someone could answer:

     

    All tables are pink.

    Socrates is a table.

    Therefore Socrates is pink.

     

    [Edited, that was very unclear]

    I'm just saying, if god is supposed to be infinitely smarter than me, and i'm smart enough to question that, then shouldn't god be smart enough to question that as well?

    What does that mean?

  6. I don't see it as exploitative to pay them sub-par wages. It's just opportunistic whilst at the same time providing opportunities for those in the third-world. Does sweatshop-esque labour not raise their standard of living?

     

    EDIT - Oh, missed the part about fairtrade. I don't know enough about it, but surely it'll be inefficient to pay more - unless it's cutting out the middleman?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.