Reply to Online Bible Study for Agnostic

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Online Bible Study for Agnostic "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

OK.

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

at 1:04 he explains his scale and that a 6 is "[b]de-facto[/b] atheist", which is what he is.  "[b]Agnostic[/b] 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.
[/quote]

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 [b]”as if”[/b] 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 “[b]agnostic[/b].”

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.

[/quote]

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![/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics