Forum fun...

[Scouse]

Agnosticism requires some form of concious deliberation, thus babies cannot fall in to that category. They lack any form of theistic belief, ergo they're atheists. QED.

I'll second your QED. But chances are they're religious people, so not only does the notion of an absence of belief probably offend them, they can't understand it.

So this is my last post on this subject. It's been done to death

 

[Grits]

They lack any form of theistic belief, ergo they're atheists. QED.

How do you know that for certain? Sounds like an article of faith to me.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Agnosticism requires some form of concious deliberation, thus babies cannot fall in to that category. They lack any form of theistic belief, ergo they're atheists. QED.

I would say their not having any preconceived notion about it either way more closely aligns them with the agnostic. Being an atheist requires a rejection of belief in a known ideal of a higher power.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Who gives a fuck?

You are agnostic.

 

[Krazeh]

How do you know that for certain? Sounds like an article of faith to me.

I think the statement was made in the context of our current understanding of a newborn baby's conciousness and level of knowledge. And until someone can demonstrate a baby/child that, without any exposure to anything at all related to religion or the existence of dieties, spontaneously starts discussing god or religion then I think it's a fairly safe statement to make.

I would say their not having any preconceived notion about it either way more closely aligns them with the agnostic. Being an atheist requires a rejection of belief in a known ideal of a higher power.

I would have thought this would have begun to sink in now but being an atheist requires nothing of the sort. You do not have to reject any belief in order to be an atheist, you do on the other hand need to lack a belief in any known ideal of a higher power.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

You answer the question about the existence of Unicorns.

I don't remember a question about the existence of unicorns being posed... But.. Since you've thrown it out... I don't believe there has ever been a proven instance of a unicorn recorded. However.. I can't really dis-prove one either. I'm agnostic to the existence of unicorns.

 

[Scouse]

Being an atheist requires a rejection of belief

Ok. So I said I wouldn't post on this again but WRONG!


Atheism is the absence of a belief. It is NOT the rejection of a belief.

Atheism does not require you to DO anything. Rejection is an action.


Show your hand. Are you religious? If you are, because of how the human mind works, it's highly unlikely that you're capable of understanding this concept.

Yes. Religious belief does hamper more enlightened understanding in some areas, I'm very sorry to say.

 

[Krazeh]

I don't remember a question about the existence of unicorns being posed... But.. Since you've thrown it out... I don't believe there has ever been a proven instance of a unicorn recorded. However.. I can't really dis-prove one either. I'm agnostic to the existence of unicorns.

So you do hold a belief they can exist even tho there is no evidence to support such a belief?

 

[SWtarget]

Surely its about the people in the country, and the people in that countries attidude to one and another - I noticed a number of you was slating the NHS at the start but atleast we don't leave people do die; I was watching a documentary a while back about Americans who were left to die of cureable cancers/desieses because of rich and greedy insurance companies - its a disgrace

After this little gem, you folks on your side of the pond have no leg to stand on with all the accusations against storch and others that they have somehow fallen for "propaganda". Apparently the rest of the world takes the silly "Sicko" type propaganda films created by the left in this country as Gospel (pun intended given the current tangent).

 

[nath]

How do you know that for certain? Sounds like an article of faith to me.

Fair point, though it's not an article of faith but an assumption.

I would say their not having any preconceived notion about it either way more closely aligns them with the agnostic. Being an atheist requires a rejection of belief in a known ideal of a higher power.

How can one reject theistic belief if it is never offered to them? Of course I'm aware of religious belief but that fact alone does not put me in the agnostic category. The way my mind works is that I will belief something if there is proof of it, I will think it's quite likely if there is enough evidence to suggest that it's likely (e.g. evolution). To my knowledge, there is absolutely zero evidence in support of any theistic belief and therefore I lack belief in theism. Lack of belief in theism makes you an atheist, albeit a "weak" atheist. Agnosticism is a much less scientific/logical approach and simply means "meh, who knows!".

Given that you're from flamewarriors I'll put it in a slightly less diplomatic way. If you're agnostic or have theological beliefs, you're a fucking idiot. If you're a strong-atheist you're misguided and if you're a weak-atheist you are (at least on that matter) thinking logically and rationally.

 

[Krazeh]

Given that you're from flamewarriors I'll put it in a slightly less diplomatic way. If you're agnostic or have theological beliefs, you're a fucking idiot. If you're a strong-atheist you're misguided and if you're a weak-atheist you are (at least on that matter) thinking logically and rationally.

If I could i'd rep you for that.

 

[nath]

After this little gem, you folks on your side of the pond have no leg to stand on with all the accusations against storch and others that they have somehow fallen for "propaganda". Apparently the rest of the world takes the silly "Sicko" type propaganda films created by the left in this country as Gospel (pun intended given the current tangent).

Actually I was the one having a go at storch for that particular attitude. Gwadien and I do not share the same brain so it's not really reasonable to lump us together in that respect. Michael Moore is the other side of the fox news coin, he's utterly full of shit and quite happy to bend truths and use dodgy editing to make his point stronger. Something which, despite being a liberal and thus theoretically on his side, I find completely unacceptable.

 

[SWtarget]

There is zero evidence for the existence of a God.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. "Athiests" simply refuse to recognize it when presented.

 

[Krazeh]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. "Athiests" simply refuse to recognize it when presented.

Oh really, please enlighten us to this verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

 

[SWtarget]

Gwadien and I do not share the same brain so it's not really reasonable to lump us together in that respect.

Fair point and fairly taken.

 

[Grits]

I think the statement was made in the context of our current understanding of a newborn baby's conciousness and level of knowledge. And until someone can demonstrate a baby/child that, without any exposure to anything at all related to religion or the existence of dieties, spontaneously starts discussing god or religion then I think it's a fairly safe statement to make.

Maybe, maybe not. Lots of Feminists say that male and female roles and actions are 100% conditioned and have no genetic hard wiring. After observing my Nephew and Niece grow up I totally reject that idea. Before my Nephew could even speak he was always getting in my way as I worked on cars or motorcycles, he loved tools and "helping" me in the garage. Before my Niece was even old enough to walk she loved dolls and pink stuff. So, like the Feminists, you can say that is a safe statement to make, but you dont really know for sure nor can you. I am not saying babies do have any religion in them at birth, but to say you know for sure they do not is a matter of faith and not fact.

 

[storch]

I see, so you don't even know when one of your most important civic buildings was constructed. Or the date on which the UK outlawed slavery. Classic.

Do you guys know anything about history that the internet doesn't tell you?

jesus christ on crutches boy! arguing with you guys like like arguing with a woman!

what does this drivel you post in reply have to do with the fact that slavery was imported to the new world by you people?

try to stay on topic son. the tedium of attempting to enlighten someone so dense and the number of the dense amongst you is taxing.

regarding gubmint housing, only nanny staters like you place any significance on those structures.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Ok. So I said I wouldn't post on this again but WRONG!


Atheism is the absence of a belief. It is NOT the rejection of a belief.

Atheism does not require you to DO anything. Rejection is an action.


Show your hand. Are you religious? If you are, because of how the human mind works, it's highly unlikely that you're capable of understanding this concept.

How do you feel about the Church of England? Do you accept their teachings and beliefs or do you reject them? The ideal of ANY bearded father figure in the sky, looking down upon us and judging us? Do you accept that or reject it? The ideal of ANY intelligent design? Do you acknowledge it or reject it?

Yes. Religious belief does hamper more enlightened understanding in some areas, I'm very sorry to say.

Stop being a smug prick; it detracts from your argument.

As for me... As I think I've stated before... I think organized religion is silly bullshit. It is mostly designed to control people.

HOWEVER... I am not so smug as to think that in an infinite universe there is no possibility for a higher power.

I am a fence sitting agnostic.

 

[nath]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. "Athiests" simply refuse to recognize it when presented.

This atheist is fascinated and more than willing to listen. I'm not asking for every bit, but if you could back up that statement with at least one bit of evidence for the existence of a deity. Before you think of something, I'll also recommend you run any evidence you decide on by the following:

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Son of Sluggish]

So you do hold a belief they can exist even tho there is no evidence to support such a belief?

No more or less belief than yours in the absence of a higher power.

 

[Scouse]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. "Athiests" simply refuse to recognize it when presented.

Not true. As a practicer of science I would love to be presented with this "proof".

Unfortunately, at some point this "proof" would require me to take a leap of faith. Therefore it would not be "proof" but just another religious belief.


If you had proof of the existence of God, you'd bet your ass I'd believe it -because it would be in my own selfish interests to do so. But you don't.

Only in your whacked-out sky-fairly worshipping mind is it "proof"

 

[storch]

You pretty much answered it in your own post. This unwavering belief in how correct and wonderful your country and way of life is to the point that you get thoroughly aggressive on an internet forum to defend your ideas. You're defending it as if it were a religious belief.

I see where you are coming from. the complete awesomeness of americanism has completely shocked your senses. the truth has that effect on the deluded.


take a vacation (holiday to you english impaired) visit the great united states you'll become a changed lemming, hell you might morph into a squirrel.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Fair point, though it's not an article of faith but an assumption.



How can one reject theistic belief if it is never offered to them? Of course I'm aware of religious belief but that fact alone does not put me in the agnostic category. The way my mind works is that I will belief something if there is proof of it, I will think it's quite likely if there is enough evidence to suggest that it's likely (e.g. evolution). To my knowledge, there is absolutely zero evidence in support of any theistic belief and therefore I lack belief in theism. Lack of belief in theism makes you an atheist, albeit a "weak" atheist. Agnosticism is a much less scientific/logical approach and simply means "meh, who knows!".

Given that you're from flamewarriors I'll put it in a slightly less diplomatic way. If you're agnostic or have theological beliefs, you're a fucking idiot. If you're a strong-atheist you're misguided and if you're a weak-atheist you are (at least on that matter) thinking logically and rationally.

Taking a theory and believing it as fact is EXTREMELY unscientific.

 

[nath]

How do you feel about the Church of England? Do you accept their teachings and beliefs or do you reject them? The ideal of ANY bearded father figure in the sky, looking down upon us and judging us? Do you accept that or reject it? The ideal of ANY intelligent design? Do you acknowledge it or reject it?

Have you stopped beating your wife or not?

Your questions are designed to constrain responses in to an answer that confirms your point. The questions are flawed.

Taking a theory and believing it as fact is EXTREMELY unscientific.

You misred me, I said "I will think it's quite likely" with respect to evolution, because there is plenty of evidence but it remains a theory.

I see where you are coming from. the complete awesomeness of americanism has completely shocked your senses. the truth has that effect on the deluded.


take a vacation (holiday to you english impaired) visit the great united states you'll become a changed lemming, hell you might morph into a squirrel.

A cute attempt to get a rise out of me, this isn't flamewarriors and I ended my shouty internet argument phase about 10 years ago. Incidentally I've been to Ameeeerkah several times and I love it there, it's a fantastic place. New York is utterly fantastic and exciting. Shit, I even liked Wisconsin and as I understand, all they've got going for them is cheese.

 

[Grits]

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love Occam's razor. I dont want to hijack this already horribly hijacked thread, but Occam's razor invalidates most Anthropogenic Global Warming science/religion.

 

[SWtarget]

Oh really, please enlighten us to this verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

One of the most visible is the Bible and the evidence it contains, including prophecies given that came to pass well after the original words were written. Getting more generic, every human culture had a belief system in a diety or dieties, or powers beyond the realm of the physical world we can see and touch. If there was no such other-worldly power, it would seem some athiest-baby at some point would have developed a wonderfully advanced civilization without any such belief system -- but it has never happened.

I don't expect you to accept such evidence, but that is your choice.

 

[Krazeh]

I am not saying babies do have any religion in them at birth, but to say you know for sure they do not is a matter of faith and not fact.

Where did I or anyone else say that it was known for sure that babies do not have any religion in them? Any claims made about babies not havign a concept of religion is made on the basis of our current understanding. And I don't believe looking at the evidence we have available and making a rational, logical deduction can be described as a matter of faith, certainly not in the way faith is meant in terms of religion.

I realise the following isn't aimed directly at me but I thought i'd answer anyway.

How do you feel about the Church of England? Do you accept their teachings and beliefs or do you reject them?

Given I don't have any belief in the existence of a diety then I think their teachings are mostly nonsensical.

The ideal of ANY bearded father figure in the sky, looking down upon us and judging us? Do you accept that or reject it?

I don't have a belief in the existence of any such ideal.

The ideal of ANY intelligent design? Do you acknowledge it or reject it?

Again not having any belief in the existence of a diety I can only view the ideal of intelligent design as what it is, second rate science with no evidence to back up any of it's claims.

No more or less belief than yours in the absence of a higher power.

I don't have a belief in the absence of a higher power, I have the absence of a belief in a higher power. Very different thing.

 

[Scouse]

Stop being a smug prick; it detracts from your argument.

I'm not being a smug prick. It was a serious argument made in the only way I know how to make it, and it contained an apology because I know that people can take offence (for it was taken, not given) when presented with such a harsh but true fact.

It is, in it's essence, the reason why the religion "argument" goes on and on. It's not possible for a person who performs the act of "believing" to correctly understand the concept of "lack of belief".

It's not a slight on your intelligence, although I know you will take it that way. It is, unfortunately, a strange (and deeply annoying) happenstance of life.


If you understood that, you'd also realise that your questioning about the Church of England was misplaced and irrelevant...

 

[Scouse]

No more or less belief than yours in the absence of a higher power.

Q.E.D once again.

I don't "believe" in the absence of a higher power. I simply don't "believe" in anything.

Still struggling? It's not your fault. You can't help it.

Bless

 

[storch]

That's the thing though Sluggish, the British resolve to stand firm is legendary. Look up Rorke's Drift as a start. Google the history of Britain and see how we stand proud even in defeat.

I do hope that you stick around for I have enjoyed your debates in this thread, I am just sorry that I have not been around enough over the weekend to participate (far too much drinking to be had!).

rorke's drift is indeed an impressive victory and a testament to the discipline of your military and the courage of your underclasses. the very same folk who left your shores to take up residence in the americas.

at the end of the day it was well drilled discipline of a professional soldier and superior firepower over a mob with pointy stabbing sticks.

don't get too chest thumpy over that.