Thread: Purpose - An argument for belief in God

Originally Posted by Xei

Sure..? Though like I said the possibility of such an event occurring is precluded for most gods.

Precluded for "most" and not "all" right? What about other God(s) that do not fall into the "most" category. Do you have the same confidence or would you say that Lack of evidence applies to your disbelief in those God(s) as well?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Wait it was being discussed in the other thread???

I was speaking in future tense.

A second ago you were making a massive issue about the distinction between 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' and now you've swapped one term for the other. Are you trying to trap me or something? Man, this is sad. :/

I have no idea what the point of this is, where it's going (circles apparently) or how it's relevant to anything... I've already said, I don't have a belief in any God because there is a lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by Xei

A second ago you were making a massive issue about the distinction between 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' and now you've swapped one term for the other. Are you trying to trap me or something? Man, this is sad. :/

Please, get over yourself, no one is trying to trap you. Why are you always so paranoid whenever we start debating something? anyway..

Originally Posted by Xei

I have no idea what the point of this is, where it's going (circles apparently) or how it's relevant to anything... I've already said, I don't have a belief in any God because there is a lack of evidence.

Now, since we are here. You lack belief because of insufficient evidence to support the claim of a God. So how is this any different than Agnosticism?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Please, get over yourself, no one is trying to trap you. Why are you always so paranoid whenever we start debating something? anyway..

Oh, so you did confuse the two terms you were previously arguing about. Okay thanks.

Now, since we are here. You lack belief because of insufficient evidence to support the claim of a God. So how is this any different than Agnosticism?

Holy shit, after all that it turns out you were talking total BS and all you wanted to do was argue about definitions again. Are you actually kidding me?

Ok Xei whatever, I see as usual, you're not going to take any of this conversation seriously.

Ne-yo here is something you might find interesting:

Agnostic - A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

There is a significant difference between believing something is unknowable and not believing in something due to lack of evidence.

@dajo To him though, the issue isn't subjective. He claims his argument applies to everybody. It isn't dependent on what different people value. He thinks it's illogical for anyone not to believe in some divine purpose.

A 2-page-long argument over the definitions of agnosticism and atheism? Really? If I ever get his answer, I think I'll have to start a new thread, this one's too messy.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Ok Xei whatever, I see as usual, you're not going to take any of this conversation seriously.

I'm being serious. You're either a troll or have mental problems. I explained about five times that you obviously can't determine "is a baby an atheist?" if the people in the discussion don't agree on a definition for 'atheist' (if it's a disbelief or a lack of belief), so we should just talk about "does a baby have a belief in God" and then there's no problems about misunderstandings. You refused to do this, tried to argue about atheism again, I explained it for you a couple more times, you said you had some kind of point to make, asked me a series of questions and then it turned out you were just arguing that atheism means a disbelief yet again as if none of the last page of text had ever happened. Now tell me, are you being serious? If so, what is wrong with you?

The important thing is that he got to dismiss your contributions for appearance's sake. When one is arguing a bullshit position (fundamentalist christianity) one is not trying to persuade the people one is arguing with but all the people reading it that aren't participating. One is trying to get the fence sitters and, in particular, the fence sitters that have just been skimming over and not paying full attention to the debate. That is, those that have missed the incredible idiocy which must be indulged to argue a perspective like fundamentalist christianity.

So then they see something like "whatever Xei" and it sinks in (even if just a little) that your behavior has been such as to be exasperating. This reinforces their willingness to assign credibility to Ne-yo's ideas. It's a purely rhetorical device.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm being serious. You're either a troll or have mental problems. I explained about five times that you obviously can't determine "is a baby an atheist?" if the people in the discussion don't agree on a definition for 'atheist' (if it's a disbelief or a lack of belief),

First of all I don't troll. Our conversation was more about your position as an Atheist and what is your lack of belief based on. That was our conversation.

Originally Posted by Xei

so we should just talk about "does a baby have a belief in God" and then there's no problems about misunderstandings. You refused to do this, tried to argue about atheism again, I explained it for you a couple more times, you said you had some kind of point to make, asked me a series of questions and then it turned out you were just arguing that atheism means a disbelief yet again as if none of the last page of text had ever happened. Now tell me, are you being serious? If so, what is wrong with you?

The last question I asked you was how was "your" assertion regarding your atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God different than someone who is agnostic? You didn't answer this question instead you retorted to becoming hostile making statements about me being mentally slow and trolling. Look Xei, if you don't like the questions then you don't have to respond to it. Just because you have your little blue stars doesn't mean you have an all access pass to be belligerent toward others who are not atheist. You're a moderator who is supposed to "Moderate" this form and not "Provoke". Think about it. Now the question is open you can answer it, however, if you do not like the question then don't. Simple as that.

How is your lack of belief in a God as a result of lacking evidence is anyway different than someone who is agnostic?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Random stuff......

Stop instigating.

"atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God" - wtf you've done it again, a page ago your entire argument was that atheism is a belief in a lack of god and not a lack of belief in god.

To answer your question with no relevance to absolutely anything that was being discussed: for those gods where there is no evidence of their non-existence, but there is no evidence of their existence either, my position is that I do not believe in them. If by agnostic you mean 'somebody who does not believe in god' then I share that view for these gods.

Originally Posted by Xei

a page ago your entire argument was that atheism is a belief in a lack of god and not a lack of belief in god.

This is an inaccurate observation on your part. I never stated this. I've searched back to my previous posts to see if I could find this and I couldn't, so could you please quote where I made this statement.

Originally Posted by Xei

To answer your question with no relevance to absolutely anything that was being discussed: for those gods where there is no evidence of their non-existence, but there is no evidence of their existence either, my position is that I do not believe in them.

lol...ok Xei, I have no further questions.

Originally Posted by Xei

If by agnostic you mean 'somebody who does not believe in god' then I share that view for these gods.

That's not what I mean by agnostic. The part of your quotes I highlighted in bold.... You know what? don't worry about it. Thanks for your time, see you around.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Stop instigating.

I'm not instigating. I'm calling you out on your snaky creationist bullshit. You're here twisting around everything you possibly can trying convert people. That's what you're doing and I'm calling you out on it.

It's like the casual dismissive tone you're taking towards Xei right now and which you've taken towards pretty much everyone that tries to argue with you. For people that are used to thinking socially and not rigorously, that's persuasive shit. It shows confidence in your position which is enough to contribute to persuading a lot of people. It's not enough to be persuasive to somebody that is able to think rigorously about this stuff but they're not going to be persuaded by your snaky creationist garbage anyways. So then when somebody that comes in here expecting rational discussion and runs across your trash gets justifiably frustrated, social thinking construes that as them demonstrating a lack of confidence in their position. Of course somebody rigorously following the conversation won't fall for it but, again, somebody rigorously following the conversation won't be persuaded by your snaky creationist bullshit to begin with so you haven't lost anything. So it's in your favor to say increasingly ridiculous things to maneuver rational people into getting irritated with you. I'm talking about things like completely ignoring points, redefining words as you go along, etc.

Either that you're your just either a troll or an idiot. My guess is that I've got you pegged though and you're a snaky creationist missionary.

EDIT:
I just realized that I overlooked the obvious possibility that you're a troll, an idiot and a snaky creationist missionary. I don't think you're an idiot though. So you're just trolling for christ for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This is an inaccurate observation on your part. I never stated this. I've searched back to my previous posts to see if I could find this and I couldn't, so could you please quote where I made this statement.

Ne-Yo: "A baby's lack of belief is really not anywhere near the same as an Atheist disbelief"

Spartiate: they will believe in the christian god?
Ne-Yo: Will they disbelieve in one?

JussiKala: Atheism is literally the lack of belief in a god (NOTE: It is NOT (I repeat, NOT) disbelief in a god).
Ne-Yo: Atheism is a disbelief in God, bottom line. If not, then that person is Agnostic and not Atheist.

Good, so now we've established that either:

1. You have serious memory problems, or
2. You've failed so hard here at coming up with any kind of argument that you've resorted to blatant lies as a distraction.

lol...ok Xei, I have no further questions.

That's not what I mean by agnostic. The part of your quotes I highlighted in bold.... You know what? don't worry about it. Thanks for your time, see you around.

So I'm not agnostic then. LOL after all that you had no point at all to make and tried to cover your ass with this ridiculous 'nvm ur too stupid for me cya' cop-out. Oh well, see ya next time you want to take another shot.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm not instigating. I'm calling you out on your snaky creationist bullshit. You're here twisting around everything you possibly can trying convert people. That's what you're doing and I'm calling you out on it.

All of that and you're not asking the most fundamental question of all. Ask me if I care about what you think? I know you're a troll and you make it very obvious, which is why I ignore you majority of the time.

Originally Posted by Xei

LOL after all that you had no point at all to make and tried to cover your ass with this ridiculous 'nvm ur too stupid for me cya' cop-out. Oh well, see ya next time you want to take another shot.

Cop-out huh? To be honest with you Xei, I was actually trying to save you face so that you do not look like a complete idiot in front of all of your little atheist colleagues who put you high up on a pedestal. However, since you've invited me to take another shot, lets pick up where we left off.

This is apparently where you and I bumped heads. We'll actually we didn't bump heads, but I saw what you did there..lol.

Originally Posted by Xei

"atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God" - wtf you've done it again, a page ago your entire argument was that atheism is a belief in a lack of god and not a lack of belief in god.

Now you've quoted me in your reply. However, what I don't understand is why didn't you quote entire sentence? If you chop up my sentence in the way that you did, it gives the impression as though I'm making a direct statement. Which in-turn makes it appear as if I'm making two generalizations that are contradictive toward each other. Actually that's pretty clever what you did and quite funny, but what makes you think I wouldn't catch it? Now when you add the entire sentence as it should be. It appears differently.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The last question I asked you was how was "your" assertion regarding your atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God different than someone who is agnostic?

As many times I've argued it up with you, I know how you operate. Let's just say I got you pegged. Notice how I included the words ("your" assertion) in quotations in my original sentence. This is an objective possessive pronoun, in other words it's not subjective to me. This was "your" idea, "your" statement, "your" assertion not mine. You made the statement that you're an Atheist because of lack of belief in a God. That's not my statement. I said Atheist have a disbelief in a God. but you tried to switch it and make it appear as though I'm making both statements. That's messed up Xei, thats real messed up how you try to play me. But it's all good.

Now that we've gotten that cleared up. You are left with a question to answer in which you never answered it.

The last question I asked you was how was "your" assertion regarding your supposed atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God different than someone who is agnostic?

Ganbatte!

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The last question I asked you was how was "your" assertion regarding your supposed atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God different than someone who is agnostic?

Ganbatte!

This is where your lack of skills with the english language fails.

Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground.

Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Not belief in god (in any way, be it lack of belief or disbelief). Also could be called non theism.
Agnosticism = Not knowing that god exists. Also could be called non gnosticism.
Gnosticism = Knowing that god exists.

They are 2 different scales. Theism, and gnosticism. Agnosticism is not a part of the theist scale, it's part of the gnosticism scale. The fact that an atheist (who lacks belief) can be an agnostic is clear. Get used to it. A theist can also be a gnostic, but usually not.

Get it?

Originally Posted by Ne-Yo

Cop-out huh? To be honest with you Xei, I was actually trying to save you face so that you do not look like a complete idiot in front of all of your little atheist colleagues who put you high up on a pedestal. However, since you've invited me to take another shot, lets pick up where we left off.

Yeah nobody's falling for it man.

This is apparently where you and I bumped heads. We'll actually we didn't bump heads, but I saw what you did there..lol.
Now you've quoted me in your reply. However, what I don't understand is why didn't you quote entire sentence? If you chop up my sentence in the way that you did, it gives the impression as though I'm making a direct statement. Which in-turn makes it appear as if I'm making two generalizations that are contradictive toward each other. Actually that's pretty clever what you did and quite funny, but what makes you think I wouldn't catch it? Now when you add the entire sentence as it should be. It appears differently.

As many times I've argued it up with you, I know how you operate. Let's just say I got you pegged. Notice how I included the words ("your" assertion) in quotations in my original sentence. This is an objective possessive pronoun, in other words it's not subjective to me. This was "your" idea, "your" statement, "your" assertion not mine. You made the statement that you're an Atheist because of lack of belief in a God. That's not my statement. I said Atheist have a disbelief in a God. but you tried to switch it and make it appear as though I'm making both statements. That's messed up Xei, thats real messed up how you try to play me. But it's all good.

I assumed you were making the statement because I assumed you weren't lying. Oops! Pretty stupid mistake really.

Okay then, please show me where the hell I've asserted that my lack of belief is atheistic?

If you can't do this, can you agree that you are a liar? Yes?

Now that we've gotten that cleared up. You are left with a question to answer in which you never answered it.

The last question I asked you was how was "your" assertion regarding your supposed atheistic position as a Lack of Belief in a God different than someone who is agnostic?

Ganbatte!

Oops! Another lie LOL. Man you just can't help yourself, can you, even when it's right there in front of you:

Originally Posted by Xei

To answer your question with no relevance to absolutely anything that was being discussed: for those gods where there is no evidence of their non-existence, but there is no evidence of their existence either, my position is that I do not believe in them. If by agnostic you mean 'somebody who does not believe in god' then I share that view for these gods.

And after all this you're STILL just trying to continue this futile argument about definitions of atheist and agnostic. You can't make any valid points so your only path is to try to get generate some contradictions by obfuscating definitions. It's so pathetic, are you seriously convincing yourself? JHC...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

All of that and you're not asking the most fundamental question of all. Ask me if I care about what you think? I know you're a troll and you make it very obvious, which is why I ignore you majority of the time.

No because I don't care if you care what I think. In fact, I'm pretty sure by now that you don't. I was putting it out there for other people. Contrary to the impression that you, as a snaky creationist missionary, want to create, this thread doesn't revolve around you. I don't really care what you think.

FWIW, it's obvious that you were going to call me a troll

I have the avatar because I got banned (I still think unjustifiably) for trolling and, being a smart ass, thought it would be funny to have a troll avatar. I posted a satirical piece and it was moved to senseless banter "to avoid a trolling infraction". I said that I would rather have an infraction and my say than have it moved and the admin responsible took that as an admission of an intent to troll. It was deleted and I got the infraction. Then when I reposted it (I have a hard time dealing with incompetent/unfair authority) I got predictably banned. And that's the story.

I generally try to contribute to rational conversations around here and may be a bit harsh with people peddling bullshit. I'm not a troll.

You are.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No because I don't care if you care what I think.

You do care. because if you didn't you wouldn't have even responded.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I have the avatar because I got banned (I still think unjustifiably) for trolling and, being a smart ass, thought it would be funny to have a troll avatar. I posted a satirical piece and it was moved to senseless banter "to avoid a trolling infraction". I said that I would rather have an infraction and my say than have it moved and the admin responsible took that as an admission of an intent to troll. It was deleted and I got the infraction. Then when I reposted it (I have a hard time dealing with incompetent/unfair authority) I got predictably banned. And that's the story.

We'll I'm sorry you got banned bro. FWIW, we have different opinions and perhaps we do not get along very well as a result of our different views. But from this day forward, I'm going to respect you as a human being on the other side of that computer. But if you offend my family and if you offend the ShaoLin Temple, I'm gonna enter the Dragon and get all Bruce Lee on you...LOL.

@ JussiKala, I normally do not respond to users who haven't contributed a lot of time in the R/S sub-forum because usually, I do not get a response back and they tend to disappear for whatever reason. Nevertheless, I'll respond to you because you've posted rebuttals twice for me and I see you are interested in participating. So if you're ready then lets start.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

This is where your lack of skills with the english language fails.

Ok, so I'm sure you'll help to correct my skills in the English language.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground.

Agnosticism = Not knowing that god exists. Also could be called non gnosticism.

I would like to pay special attention to Agnosticism and perhaps you can help me understand this better.

Now, in regards to Agnosticism, in the case as "God" being the subject matter, means "not knowing that a God exist".

Would you say this means "Not knowing in the sense of being Oblivious" or Not knowing as a factor of Uncertainty?

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Agnosticism = Not knowing that god exists. Also could be called non gnosticism.
Gnosticism = Knowing that god exists.
They are 2 different scales. Theism, and gnosticism. Agnosticism is not a part of the theist scale, it's part of the gnosticism scale.

Ok, I see where you're getting at. However, I'm a bit confused by something and perhaps you could elaborate more on this to help me better understand.

If Agnosticism is part of the gnosticism scale in which you state that "Gnosticism= Knowing that god exists." Then in the case of "Agnosticism = Not knowing that god exists." Then what exactly is the not knowing part based on?

I ask this because if one knows that a God exist as in the case of Gnosticism this is a certainty and this certainty is supported by something. Would you not agree? Rather it be faith, an experience, evidence whatever... But something affirms this certainty. So in short the certainty that God exist is based on something.

Now Agnosticism would be the opposite of certainty right? Based off the way you explained it. In other words "not certain" or "uncertain" with regards to God existing. So my question to you is this.

In the case of Agnostics being uncertain of God's existence what is the uncertainty based on?

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay then, please show me where the hell I've asserted that my lack of belief is atheistic?
If you can't do this, can you agree that you are a liar? Yes?

Here on Page #4.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Let's discuss this seriously. Why do you say as an Atheist you have a Lack of Belief in a God?

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh I have a lack of belief in God because I've never seen any evidence for a God and a lot of evidence that discredits a large class of Gods. Is that an answer to your question?

I asked you specifically "why do you say as an Atheist" you have a Lack of belief?
Instead of saying "we'll my lack of belief is not Atheist" you answered the question anyway, confirming that you think your lack of belief is Atheistic

Originally Posted by Xei

To answer your question with no relevance to absolutely anything that was being discussed: for those gods where there is no evidence of their non-existence, but there is no evidence of their existence either, my position is that I do not believe in them. If by agnostic you mean 'somebody who does not believe in god' then I share that view for these gods.

Why are you trying to trip me up with an appeal to ignorance? You know that your statement here is an informal logical fallacy but you did it anyway.

Originally Posted by Xei

#1 for those gods where there is no evidence of their non-existence,

We have no evidence that points to God not existing therefore we must conclude that God does exist.

Originally Posted by Xei

#2 but there is no evidence of their existence either,

We have no evidence that points to God existing therefore we must conclude that God does not exist.
And you are aware that, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You're statement is highly ambiguous, how do you explain this?

So based off your two concepts I would like to direct your attention to that double negative in the first half of your reply.

Originally Posted by Xei

for those gods where there is no evidence of their non-existence, my position is that I do not believe in them.

Let me ask you this. Is this a complete "absolute universal certainty" that there is no evidence of God not existing and based off this absolute certainty therefore you do not believe in a God?

Am I correct on this first half of your position? If not please clarify.

Instead of saying "we'll my lack of belief is not Atheist" you answered the question anyway, confirming that you think your lack of belief is Atheistic

No, saying "what is this" and asking "is this an answer to your question?" confirms I didn't even understand what you were talking about. Why would I say 'lack of belief isn't atheist' when I've spent the entire thread trying to get it into your skull that we shouldn't use the word atheist if there's ambiguity or disagreement about what it means.

Why are you trying to trip me up with an appeal to ignorance? You know that your statement here is an informal logical fallacy but you did it anyway.

Point to where the fallacy is please and explain why it is one? Because you're basically making stuff up again.

We have no evidence that points to God existing therefore we must conclude that God does not exist.
And you are aware that, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You're statement is highly ambiguous, how do you explain this?

Let me ask you this. Is this a complete "absolute universal certainty" that there is no evidence of God not existing and based off this absolute certainty therefore you do not believe in a God?

Am I correct on this first half of your position? If not please clarify.

What are you even talking about? Seriously, I made a small point a while back that we shouldn't argue about definitions and you've now managed to spend more than a page saying you had some point to make about that and saying absolutely nothing at all. What are you even talking about now? Why are you trying to argue about my religious position? This has absolutely no relevance to anything I ever said in this thread.

Which statement was ambiguous? Everything I said was totally well defined and lucid and I stick to it. Do you know what ambiguous means? To repeat what I said: there is no evidence for a God so I don't have a belief in a God, just like there's no evidence for a teapot orbiting the sun and I don't have a belief that there is one. Obviously I can't assert that there isn't evidence somewhere in the universe because I'm not omnipotent, dur. I can only make a judgement based on the evidence that has or has not been presented to me.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You do care. because if you didn't you wouldn't have even responded.

non-sequiter. It would work if I said "I don't care what you think" but I said "I don't care if you care what I think." The implication being that I'm pretty much going to say what I want to say to you and about you and pretty much not let anything you say influence my perspective unless you happen to say something rational which I have never known to occur.

We'll I'm sorry you got banned bro. FWIW, we have different opinions and perhaps we do not get along very well as a result of our different views. But from this day forward, I'm going to respect you as a human being on the other side of that computer. But if you offend my family and if you offend the ShaoLin Temple, I'm gonna enter the Dragon and get all Bruce Lee on you...LOL.

You're a funny guy Ne-yo.

I wonder how many threads in R/S have devolved into an argument over the meaning of atheist...?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I wonder how many threads in R/S have devolved into an argument over the meaning of atheist...?

I think a good majority of arguments here are not based on anything of importance, and instead devolve into semantic nonsense about the meaning of a word, as if redefining the word were to somehow redefine the people who associate with it in some context.

It is my opinion that that is an acurate description of most religious disagreement. If instead of trying to portray the opposition as 'wrong' and instead actually try to see the world from another's perspective, most of us would realize that our essential beliefs are pretty much the same.