Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Religion
Reply to "Online Bible Study for Agnostic "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]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. [/quote] 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? [quote]Why is Dawkins’ self-identification so important to you that you’re being dishonest about it? [/quote] 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. [quote]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.[/quote] "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: [img]http://www.stanleycolors.com/wp-content/uploads/atheism.jpg[/img][/quote] 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.[/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