Fact David, why don't you suck my balls?

[old.Tohtori]

Where's the f*cking swedes when you need 'em, they tend to translate the meanings well between english-english and nordic-english

 

[Krazeh]

Surely that's just not knowing, or is there a difference in that? Aka, agnostic. It's neither denying it, or confirming it.

Gnosticim/agnosticm, for the umpteenth time, is about whether or not you can know if god exists. It's about knowledge and it's not a third option to theism/atheism. If you're agnostic you're saying that we can't know whether or not god exists but you're still a theist or atheist based on whether or not you believe god does exist. I prefer not to even get into the question of whether we can know if god exists or not, I think it's as pointless a question as asking the same about pink unicorns or fairies.

Could also ask; why does it have to be this complicated, what's the purpose of it?

It's not really that complicated, plenty of other people have been able to grasp it quite simply.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's not really that complicated, plenty of other people have been able to grasp it quite simply.

Again, these kind of answers are not helpful and it doesn't mean complicated as in "don't understand". Complex a better word for you?

On your other; isnt that just a wordplay on the word belief? As in, pointless definition that holds no real value on the matter.

Also it IS a cultural thing by the way, english seem to focus on single words a LOT more then you should, while ignoring the meaning and context. As can be seen here.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I cana gree with Scouse on religious debates though, but it's not due to simply being on opposing sides. It's because of not sticking to the big picture and every religious discussion going into some minor this or that, as is with the whole us vs them IDIOTIC mentality of most theist/atheist groups.

I prefer agnostics, they can discuss the matter with little if any hatred.

 

[caLLous]

There's no hatred here - just exasperation because you refuse to grasp a pretty simple concept. It's not complicated or complex, either.

What do you mean "english seem to focus on single words a LOT more then you should"? If single words weren't important then we might as well leave them out of the sentence altogether. Single words are put together to GIVE a sentence context and meaning. :s

 

[Krazeh]

I prefer agnostics, they can discuss the matter with little if any hatred.

Agnostics are either theists or atheists. Being agnostic doesn't have any impact on whether or not you believe god exists. Gnosticism/agnosticism is a completely different thing to theism/atheism.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, no hatred, just look at the reasonable posts by Scouse with no malice

I'm not refusing the concept either, i'm asking for definition. I know perfectly well how they are different, neve had any problems in that. You just get pissy because you don't understand, or try, what someone is asking.

What i mean by concentrating on single words too much is in this discussion, just saying"it's not complicated, it's easy to understand" when complicated means that it could be done much simpler; ergo yes/no/maybe, with no needed effort for extra faffing.

It's all around, but i wouldn't expect someone native to notice it as it IS cultural.

Example for you;

Agnostics are either theists or atheists. Being agnostic doesn't have any impact on whether or not you believe god exists. Gnosticism/agnosticism is a completely different thing to theism/atheism.

More pedantic fuckery, ignoring the meaning of the sentence.

 

[Scouse]

There's no hatred here - just exasperation because you refuse to grasp a pretty simple concept. It's not complicated or complex, either.

This.

What do you mean "english seem to focus on single words a LOT more then you should"? If single words weren't important then we might as well leave them out of the sentence altogether. Single words are put together to GIVE a sentence context and meaning. :s

Has he pulled out the "lets not get hung up on the word belief" card, again?

It's a bit rich, since it's an argument about it. That's why it's got it's own special word - belief - which describes it's own special thing - believing.

Lulz. Enjoy. I've xmas prezzies to buy. I'll enjoy on my return

 

[caLLous]

It's all around, but i wouldn't expect someone native to notice it as it IS cultural.

It's not cultural; it's part of the language.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's not cultural; it's part of the language.

Just because you posted JUST that, kind of proves my point.

English(british, whatnot)get too focused on little tidbits of things, discussions, posts, color of beans. You can see it in discussions, per example, i have with our swedish friends here. There's a LOT less confusion and the matter is cleared WAY faster.

 

[Genedril]

The above post by Scouse is the problem you see, it's an attitude problem of not explaining it, but referring to insults and cop-outs.

Genedril, there's no problem in understanding how they are different, but what the difference is. Been trying to say that for a long time. It seems to me it's just a fear(or other suitable word) to get near the word belief, which seems silly.

Isn't the end result still the same?

If you could provide another example of the same situation, without pointless terms like belief/faith(which are at best just made up to categorise), it would help in explaining it.

I used belief/faith as there is no other word I can come up with. The is no evidence (by scientific standards) of either the existence or non-existence of a higher being. Therefore it's an act of belief or faith that either 'You cannot disprove God therefore he exists' (see (a) above) or 'You cannot prove there is a God so therefore he does not exist' (see (b) above). I'd like to point out that I'm not using either belief or faith in a pejorative manner and they are probably interchangeable for (a) and (b).

((c) above) is maybe best explained as 'You cannot disprove God and yet you cannot prove there is a God so therefore I have no belief/faith in either assertion'.


If we remove God\Flying Spaghetti Monsters\Allah\Budha\(any others I've forgotten) out of the question:

There might be a bloke called Bob who lives round the corner who you may or may not have met or may be able to disprove

I DO believe in Bob (a - you've met him) - I DO believe there is NO Bob (b - you've never met him and you know that the house that people claim he lives in is actually occupied by Sid who lives on his own).

(a) and/or (b) != I DO NOT believe in Bob (c - you've never met him but you're not neccesarily ruling out that he may be there and you might bump into him in the future, just that currently there is no evidence for his existence).

Of course, in this example it's easy to prove or disprove but it's ultimately the same princple.

In addition I believe that there are variying degrees of theism / atheism if I remember my Dawkins (just to add to the confusion).

I found this - maybe it'll help

 

[Krazeh]

More pedantic fuckery, ignoring the meaning of the sentence.

Unless the meaning of what you said wasn't that you 'prefer to discuss it with agnostics rather than theists/atheists' then I don't see how I ignored the meaning of the sentence when pointing out agnostics are theists/atheists.

 

[old.Tohtori]

To get back on the issue, i'll try and ask what i've been asking many times here, in some terms i think will be much clearer to answer;

How does the end result change in believing in non-existance and not believing in god?

What is the gain? What is the definitive difference? What is, outside adding or removing a word, the purpose of the differentiation?

the difference has never been an issue here and i don't want to read another "one is believing" post, because i've never said i don't get that, quite the opposite.

Unless the meaning of what you said wasn't that you 'prefer to discuss it with agnostics rather than theists/atheists' then I don't see how I ignored the meaning of the sentence when pointing out agnostics are theists/atheists.

The meaning was "claimed atheist and religious folk tend to be more dicks then those claiming to be agnostic". The exact definitions of the terms, aka wording, etc is not meaningful to what i said. It's in general terms, populary terms of agnostic/believer/atheist.

You treied saying that agnostic are theist/atheist, and as such muddy the meaning of what i said, which i explain right there. That is a problem with focusing too much on meanings and definitions.

Genedril; bit of a long read for work, will get to it later though

Still from what i read on your post, it's still lacking the answer to the question posed; why.

 

[caLLous]

Just because you posted JUST that, kind of proves my point.

English(british, whatnot)get too focused on little tidbits of things, discussions, posts, color of beans. You can see it in discussions, per example, i have with our swedish friends here. There's a LOT less confusion and the matter is cleared WAY faster.

Well, whatever. Go talk to your swedish friends then because nobody else here has the slightest problem comprehending. You saying it's cultural is still incorrect though; go to any English speaking country and it's the same. Hell, it's the same in French.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, whatever. Go talk to your swedish friends then because nobody else here has the slightest problem comprehending. You saying it's cultural is still incorrect though; go to any English speaking country and it's the same. Hell, it's the same in French.

It's not about comprehension! You not comprehending it is ironic

Just to make sure you focus on it, reposting this;

How does the end result change in believing in non-existance and not believing in god?

What is the gain? What is the definitive difference? What is, outside adding or removing a word, the purpose of the differentiation?

the difference has never been an issue here and i don't want to read another "one is believing" post, because i've never said i don't get that, quite the opposite.

 

[caLLous]

I don't know how repeatedly asking people to explain something because you don't get it can be described as anything other than incomprehension. Seems like a pretty apt word tbh!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well out of all this, it seems it's either A: not getting through to you what i'm asking or B: avoiding the question becauwe there is no answer.

Either way, not going to bother asking again, people can read and comprehend, or some other person can post the question in the secret english code.

 

[Krazeh]

What is the gain? What is the definitive difference? What is, outside adding or removing a word, the purpose of the differentiation?

The purpose of the differentiation is that they're different things. It's that simple.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The purpose of the differentiation is that they're different things. It's that simple.

 

[Genedril]

To get back on the issue, i'll try and ask what i've been asking many times here, in some terms i think will be much clearer to answer;

How does the end result change in believing in non-existance and not believing in god?

What is the gain? What is the definitive difference? What is, outside adding or removing a word, the purpose of the differentiation?

the difference has never been an issue here and i don't want to read another "one is believing" post, because i've never said i don't get that, quite the opposite.

Believing in the non-existence of a higher being is a matter of faith. Some may view this as illogical as believing there is a higher being.

Not believing could be seen as sticking to scientifc method or (as in my case) an epic case of fence sitting. After all, I'm a bleeding heart liberal so it's only correct that I indulge in some fence sitting.

I too am at work and I'm running out of ways to explain this (not that I don't want to). I thought this would be simple but I'm laughing at my own over confidence .

 

[old.Tohtori]

That actually explains it pretty well, so if i understand it correctly it's a matter of defining how you view the world, either through relying solely on evidence(thus needing to define the lack of faith from those who don't need evidence to not believe in god), or as you said, to define fence sitting. Basically like explaining that yes i like women, but only redheads

Additional definition to a preposition so one can see where the viewpoint comes from, even if it doesn't necessarily differentiate in the end result of said pre-position.

thanks for sticking to it

 

[Genedril]

That actually explains it pretty well, so if i understand it correctly it's a matter of defining how you view the world, either through relying solely on evidence(thus needing to define the lack of faith from those who don't need evidence to not believe in god), or as you said, to define fence sitting. Basically like explaining that yes i like women, but only redheads

Additional definition to a preposition so one can see where the viewpoint comes from, even if it doesn't necessarily differentiate in the end result of said pre-position.

thanks for sticking to it

That's grossly over simplified on my behalf and no doubt someone disagrees with it but that's the joy of human interaction.

 

[Wij]

Damn - you beat me to posting this

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html

In a normal discourse kind of way Toht is right. There isn't much difference between the cognitive states:

"I understand the definition of x and choose not to believe it exists"

And

"I understand the definition of x and choose to believe it does not exist"

It's not worth getting worked up about and it doesn't lead to the conclusion that atheism is an equivalent belief to theism.

If you really want to understand it beyond normal discourse then read the article fully.

 

[gohan]

It is all semantics tbh, what you're basically saying is you don't belive in god but you don't actively believe there is no god, ergo you believe that the existance of God is possible.

If you were having the conversation,
Do you believe in God? no.
ok do you believe there is no god? no


so you believe there is a god then? no

so what do you beleive?

 

[Scouse]

Disagree with you gohan. PM'd ya

Edit:

so what do you beleive?

I don't...

 

[Roalith]

It's all about the tits if you ask me!

 

[rynnor]

Merry Yule to the lot of you

 

[Raven]

Bump, he is at it again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27099700

Its probably less Christian since his last mad claim.

 

[throdgrain]

This is historically a Christian country.

For the time being anyway. Then it can become a Muslim country.

 

[old.user4556]

This country needs a reboot.

New politics, no religion.