Online Bible Study for Agnostic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

In your link, Dawkins is talking about OTHER people who identify as atheists. Not about himself. He reproduces OTHER people’s’ 346 statements about why THEY identify as atheists.

I find it very hard to understand how you can be so abusive to others in defense of your own flawed position. Honestly, you call others trolls and idiots and then you produce this irrelevant link?

Produce a link from Dawkins himself where he calls himself an atheist, and we’re all willing to listen to you. Until then, your abuse and ad hominems are no argument.

OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

at 1:04 he explains his scale and that a 6 is "[b]de-facto atheist", which is what he is. "Agnostic but with the same level of belief in god that I have in faries or unicorns".

He explains that this is because he cannot prove a negative. No one can prove something doesn't exist, including gods. An extension of Russel's Celestial Teapot concept.

Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SjXowlJD0

"a de-facto [/b]atheist would be someone who lives their life as if there is no supernatural being, and that is certainly what I am".

This is a thoughtful, eruidite and nuanced position, so I guess it is understandable that you are having difficulty grasping it. What you most misunderstand is the definition that Atheists use for Atheism, which means having no religious belief, and that certainly includes Richard Dawkins.

So a day later you pull out this link and accuse people of “having trouble grasping a nuanced argument” in, um, retrospect? You really are a piece of work.

I’ve bolded the part where Dawkins calls himself “agnostic.” You’re the one having trouble with nuance. Can’t you see that a “de facto” atheist is not a strict atheist? And that living your life ”as if” you’re an atheist is also not the same exact thing as being full-on certain of your atheism? Which is why Dawkins, being more intellectually honest than you’re willing to be, calls himself “agnostic.”

Put a different way: Dawkins is using a theological definition. And, being more intellectually honest than you, he has to call himself “agnostic” and he has to modify the term atheist with the words “de facto.”

None of which is to say that you can’t use the epistemiological definition to define yourself as an atheist. I encourage you to google it. Or heck, if you’re more certain than Dawkins (no teapots for you and you proved that negative), then call yourself an atheist by the theological definition as well.

But for the love of small “g” gods, stop abusing posters who are being more nuanced and intellectually honest than you’re being.

For the fifth time or so: YES I KNOW DAWKINS CALLS HIMSELF AGNOSTIC AS WELL AS ATHEIST. I do also. So do nearly all atheists. Now you are the one parsing the terms with "strict atheist" which means nothing except maybe "gnostic atheist" of which there are very, very few. This has also been explained numerous times.

He uses the term "de-facto" ("in fact"! Look that up too.) because of people like you who don't understand the word!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

In your link, Dawkins is talking about OTHER people who identify as atheists. Not about himself. He reproduces OTHER people’s’ 346 statements about why THEY identify as atheists.

I find it very hard to understand how you can be so abusive to others in defense of your own flawed position. Honestly, you call others trolls and idiots and then you produce this irrelevant link?

Produce a link from Dawkins himself where he calls himself an atheist, and we’re all willing to listen to you. Until then, your abuse and ad hominems are no argument.

OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

at 1:04 he explains his scale and that a 6 is "[b]de-facto atheist", which is what he is. "Agnostic but with the same level of belief in god that I have in faries or unicorns".

He explains that this is because he cannot prove a negative. No one can prove something doesn't exist, including gods. An extension of Russel's Celestial Teapot concept.

Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SjXowlJD0

"a de-facto [/b]atheist would be someone who lives their life as if there is no supernatural being, and that is certainly what I am".

This is a thoughtful, eruidite and nuanced position, so I guess it is understandable that you are having difficulty grasping it. What you most misunderstand is the definition that Atheists use for Atheism, which means having no religious belief, and that certainly includes Richard Dawkins.

So a day later you pull out this link and accuse people of “having trouble grasping a nuanced argument” in, um, retrospect? You really are a piece of work.

I’ve bolded the part where Dawkins calls himself “agnostic.” You’re the one having trouble with nuance. Can’t you see that a “de facto” atheist is not a strict atheist? And that living your life ”as if” you’re an atheist is also not the same exact thing as being full-on certain of your atheism? Which is why Dawkins, being more intellectually honest than you’re willing to be, calls himself “agnostic.”

Put a different way: Dawkins is using a theological definition. And, being more intellectually honest than you, he has to call himself “agnostic” and he has to modify the term atheist with the words “de facto.”

None of which is to say that you can’t use the epistemiological definition to define yourself as an atheist. I encourage you to google it. Or heck, if you’re more certain than Dawkins (no teapots for you and you proved that negative), then call yourself an atheist by the theological definition as well.

But for the love of small “g” gods, stop abusing posters who are being more nuanced and intellectually honest than you’re being.

For the fifth time or so: YES I KNOW DAWKINS CALLS HIMSELF AGNOSTIC AS WELL AS ATHEIST. I do also. So do nearly all atheists. Now you are the one parsing the terms with "strict atheist" which means nothing except maybe "gnostic atheist" of which there are very, very few. This has also been explained numerous times.

He uses the term "de-facto" ("in fact"! Look that up too.) because of people like you who don't understand the word!

You’re the one parsing Dawkins’ words to pretend he’s saying something he didn’t say. In about 4-5 places on this short thread you’ve said Dawkins calls himself atheist as well as agnostic. He does not. He calls himself agnostic and when he uses the term “atheist” he modifies it with nuance words like “de facto.” This distinction involving “de facto” is obvious on its face, it means “not, but acting like,” which I’m sure you can see. The distinction involving “de facto” is obviously important to Dawkins, or he wouldn’t have used it.

Yet you leave off the “de facto” bit in every one of your posts above. Your omission deliberately drops all the nuance of Dawkins’ argument, and Dawkins’ own reasoning for calling himself agnostic not (unmodified) atheist.

Why is Dawkins’ self-identification so important to you that you’re being dishonest about it?

In any case, it’s clear you don’t want to get the nuance that Dawkins is so careful to use. I’m sure it’s obvious to you, but apparently it’s inconvenient because you’re so invested in this I’ve guy. I’m done here—its useless trying to get you to admit what you know Dawkins is actually saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

In your link, Dawkins is talking about OTHER people who identify as atheists. Not about himself. He reproduces OTHER people’s’ 346 statements about why THEY identify as atheists.

I find it very hard to understand how you can be so abusive to others in defense of your own flawed position. Honestly, you call others trolls and idiots and then you produce this irrelevant link?

Produce a link from Dawkins himself where he calls himself an atheist, and we’re all willing to listen to you. Until then, your abuse and ad hominems are no argument.

OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

at 1:04 he explains his scale and that a 6 is "[b]de-facto atheist", which is what he is. "Agnostic but with the same level of belief in god that I have in faries or unicorns".

He explains that this is because he cannot prove a negative. No one can prove something doesn't exist, including gods. An extension of Russel's Celestial Teapot concept.

Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SjXowlJD0

"a de-facto [/b]atheist would be someone who lives their life as if there is no supernatural being, and that is certainly what I am".

This is a thoughtful, eruidite and nuanced position, so I guess it is understandable that you are having difficulty grasping it. What you most misunderstand is the definition that Atheists use for Atheism, which means having no religious belief, and that certainly includes Richard Dawkins.

So a day later you pull out this link and accuse people of “having trouble grasping a nuanced argument” in, um, retrospect? You really are a piece of work.

I’ve bolded the part where Dawkins calls himself “agnostic.” You’re the one having trouble with nuance. Can’t you see that a “de facto” atheist is not a strict atheist? And that living your life ”as if” you’re an atheist is also not the same exact thing as being full-on certain of your atheism? Which is why Dawkins, being more intellectually honest than you’re willing to be, calls himself “agnostic.”

Put a different way: Dawkins is using a theological definition. And, being more intellectually honest than you, he has to call himself “agnostic” and he has to modify the term atheist with the words “de facto.”

None of which is to say that you can’t use the epistemiological definition to define yourself as an atheist. I encourage you to google it. Or heck, if you’re more certain than Dawkins (no teapots for you and you proved that negative), then call yourself an atheist by the theological definition as well.

But for the love of small “g” gods, stop abusing posters who are being more nuanced and intellectually honest than you’re being.

For the fifth time or so: YES I KNOW DAWKINS CALLS HIMSELF AGNOSTIC AS WELL AS ATHEIST. I do also. So do nearly all atheists. Now you are the one parsing the terms with "strict atheist" which means nothing except maybe "gnostic atheist" of which there are very, very few. This has also been explained numerous times.

He uses the term "de-facto" ("in fact"! Look that up too.) because of people like you who don't understand the word!

Now you’re using the phrase “de facto” in a sense Dawkins obviously didn’t mean in the context he was setting, when he contrasted “de facto atheist” with his assertion that he’s agnostic.

We all know—at least I hope you do—that a “de facto” government, parent, pet, whatever is not the same thing as a *real* and definitionally/semantically/legally/politically legitimized government or whatever, although they may act “as if” (Dawkins’ own words again).

Why are you contorting yourself and Dawkins like this? Why does it affect you?

[Anonymous]

Yet you leave off the “de facto” bit in every one of your posts above. Your omission deliberately drops all the nuance of Dawkins’ argument, and Dawkins’ own reasoning for calling himself agnostic not (unmodified) atheist.

I left it off? I typed "de-facto" 3 times in my posts above. Including the time I quoted Dawkins directly. You even bolded it once. What do you have to gain by lying about that?

Why is Dawkins’ self-identification so important to you that you’re being dishonest about it?

It's not his definition that is important to me. It's the general understanding of what the atheist position is, because it is quite logical and does not claim certainty that there are no gods.

In any case, it’s clear you don’t want to get the nuance that Dawkins is so careful to use. I’m sure it’s obvious to you, but apparently it’s inconvenient because you’re so invested in this I’ve guy. I’m done here—its useless trying to get you to admit what you know Dawkins is actually saying.

"You're done here" because you are wrong. The nuance IS important, which is why Dawkins and NEARLY ALL ATHEISTS also call themselves agnostic, much to your burden-of-proof dismay.

To be clear, again:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yet you leave off the “de facto” bit in every one of your posts above. Your omission deliberately drops all the nuance of Dawkins’ argument, and Dawkins’ own reasoning for calling himself agnostic not (unmodified) atheist.

I left it off? I typed "de-facto" 3 times in my posts above. Including the time I quoted Dawkins directly. You even bolded it once. What do you have to gain by lying about that?

Why is Dawkins’ self-identification so important to you that you’re being dishonest about it?

It's not his definition that is important to me. It's the general understanding of what the atheist position is, because it is quite logical and does not claim certainty that there are no gods.

In any case, it’s clear you don’t want to get the nuance that Dawkins is so careful to use. I’m sure it’s obvious to you, but apparently it’s inconvenient because you’re so invested in this I’ve guy. I’m done here—its useless trying to get you to admit what you know Dawkins is actually saying.

"You're done here" because you are wrong. The nuance IS important, which is why Dawkins and NEARLY ALL ATHEISTS also call themselves agnostic, much to your burden-of-proof dismay.

To be clear, again:

Your cartoon is totally irrelevant because Dawkins isn’t using those particular definitions.

Dawkins uses a different definition, which is theological not epistemological or cartoonish. By his theological definition he’s agnostic not atheist.

This is why he intentionally, carefully, clarified that “de facto” means “in effect”, not “in fact” like you tried to translate. You tried to totally wipe out the nuance that Dawkins used so carefully.

[Anonymous]

Atheist poster: OP calls herself agnostic and it’s not on you to call her anything else. Dawkins, does too, not that it matters, but it’s not on you to call him anything else, or to ignore how he deliberately says the word “de facto” means “in effect” not “in fact” like you tried to re-interpret for him.

You don’t get to define other people for them.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

can all the assholes on here who just like to argue offer some actual resources for OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You just proved you’re wrong—did you mean to do this? De facto atheist =\= strong atheist. Dawkins calls himself the former.

The definition of “agnostic” is pure BS. Doubt OP or anybody else calling themselves agnostic would agree that “God’s existence or non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

Who cares about “atheist about most of the gods”? Honestly now you’re just putting crap out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A quick search says this about BSF:

"BSF is an in-depth, interdenominational Bible study that helps people know God and equips them to effectively serve the Church throughout the world."

Not the OP, but somebody similar. I attend a UU church and definitely believe in a higher being, but not in Jesus. I want to know the Bible more because I live in a world where it seems like knowing the Bible is important to understand literary references, certain cultural phenomenons, of people's points of views. I want a Bible study that looks more at the cultural and connotations behind the words. I don't want a Bible study that wants to convert me, though I know that is a tall order.

Is BSF Catholic Christian or Protestant Christian? Or are they non Christian and just reading the Bible from a literary point of view?

Using the word Church with an upper case C is something I’ve seen the Catholic Church use, so that’s why I’m wondering about the affiliation of this group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your cartoon is totally irrelevant because Dawkins isn’t using those particular definitions.

Dawkins uses a different definition, which is theological not epistemological or cartoonish. By his theological definition he’s agnostic not atheist.

This is why he intentionally, carefully, clarified that “de facto” means “in effect”, not “in fact” like you tried to translate. You tried to totally wipe out the nuance that Dawkins used so carefully.

Nope. He is using those distinctions, with different terms. They are equal.

Your comment that “de facto” means “in effect”, not “in fact” is pretty damned funny. I'll accept either! If you are trying to say "de-facto atheist" means "not atheist" though, you are carrying the bag at the back of the horse there.

You are trying to paint "atheist" into the corner to share the burden of proof. No go there pal. It's on you.

Have a nice day!

Signed,

Atheist and Agnostic (like virtually all atheists).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You just proved you’re wrong—did you mean to do this? De facto atheist =\= strong atheist. Dawkins calls himself the former.

The definition of “agnostic” is pure BS. Doubt OP or anybody else calling themselves agnostic would agree that “God’s existence or non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

Who cares about “atheist about most of the gods”? Honestly now you’re just putting crap out there.

Different poster.

[Anonymous]

NP just throwing out more definitions. Because it's just that easy to just make up definitions.

OP (and PPs) can call themselves whatever they want. We don't have strict or even "industry standard" definitions.

And the last pic was just for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP just throwing out more definitions. Because it's just that easy to just make up definitions.

OP (and PPs) can call themselves whatever they want. We don't have strict or even "industry standard" definitions.

And the last pic was just for fun.

Yes, there are multiple definitions. Dawkins uses a very specific definition to define himself as an agnostic while being a de facto (in effect NOT in fact) atheist. To talk about Dawkins, you need to use the definition he uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP just throwing out more definitions. Because it's just that easy to just make up definitions.

OP (and PPs) can call themselves whatever they want. We don't have strict or even "industry standard" definitions.

And the last pic was just for fun.

Yes, there are multiple definitions. Dawkins uses a very specific definition to define himself as an agnostic while being a de facto (in effect NOT in fact) atheist. To talk about Dawkins, you need to use the definition he uses.

Lol again trying to say "in effect" and "in fact" are different definitions of "de facto". Either works dude! You are making points against yourself!