[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

Nothing I've posted utilizes "lofty phrases" or "pomposity and pseudo intellectual references". It's plain English. Perhaps you are simply dimwitted.

Does everyone else's posts "sound smart" to you too?

Well, in my own opinion, you use a lot of specious arguments, non sequitur, a little straw man here and there, plus you don't settle on terminology.

These things could be deliberate, or they could be careless, but that's not what's important here.

If you do truly want to, not only 'seem' smart, but actually be smart, you will Read the KJV1611 cover to cover and accept Jesus into your life.

YiC
DAM

[Looney Jack]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

Writing in lofty phrases with fifty cent words, well larded with pomposity and pseudo intellectual references does not make you smart. It makes you seem like a college sophmore trying to sound informed and smart. No one is fooled. At the end of the day, heathen, we all know you are going to Hell and don't even know it, though it is constantly pointed out to you. You can never pass as smart here.

Nothing I've posted utilizes "lofty phrases" or "pomposity and pseudo intellectual references". It's plain English. Perhaps you are simply dimwitted.

Does everyone else's posts "sound smart" to you too?

[Alvin Moss]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

No, the position holder would simply have to make a choice, conscious or otherwise. In the absence of definitive knowledge, mere belief is inherently a matter of acceptance or denial. If a person cannot in truth state that they believe in the existence of a god(s); they do not believe in the existence of a god(s). Their open-mindedness to the idea of there being a god(s) does not negate the reality of their disbelief. The lack of a formal denial does not negate the reality of their disbelief.



You are the second individual to make a "sound smart" comment. The very aspect of pointing it out as such would indicate you believe it sounds smart. Otherwise, what is the basis of the initial assertion?

Writing in lofty phrases with fifty cent words, well larded with pomposity and pseudo intellectual references does not make you smart. It makes you seem like a college sophmore trying to sound informed and smart. No one is fooled. At the end of the day, heathen, we all know you are going to Hell and don't even know it, though it is constantly pointed out to you. You can never pass as smart here.

Also, I have finally seen the tree in the forest. Even a saved Christian fails to see the obvious from time to time. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck- it's a duck. I have come to the conclusion that you are likely a seminarian at a Jesuit institution and thus, probably already a sodomite (I am also the second person to make a "sodomite" comment. The very aspect of pointing it out as such would indicate that it sounds like sodomy.) You bridge too many obstacles with smoke and mirrors to be a real Jesuit. They would come up with false "facts" and lies to cover the ridiculous holes in their arguments. You are learning to be a Jesuit and just fencing here. I believe you are already lost and likely beyond redemption. I think you come here to practice your Jesuit disputations.

Also, your ability to believe with absolute certainty in the schemes and theories you come up with leads me to believe you are a Democrat or a Communist. A Jesuit and a Communist: God have mercy on your soul.

I will pray for you, priest, but I doubt it will make any difference. It is really all up to you, but perhaps the Lord will have mercy on you and cause you to see the truth.

Praying for your soul. Also- Note Scriptural reference below.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

You are the second individual to make a "sound smart" comment. The very aspect of pointing it out as such would indicate you believe it sounds smart. Otherwise, what is the basis of the initial assertion?

Another failure to sound smart.

You really put the dummy in sodomy.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

Agnosticism is more a rejection of belief.

There is no such thing as an agnostic. <--- Read it. It's a message that bears repeating.

This species' males have effectively evolved into a female testicle. That's a pretty drastic transformation.

The species couldn't have survived if the females had to wait millions of years for the males to evolve.

[Looney Jack]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

Your first statement infers that the position holder would have to know all things and have an opinion on them. In my experience, only teenagers know all things and have an opinion on them. Adults lose that ability.

No, the position holder would simply have to make a choice, conscious or otherwise. In the absence of definitive knowledge, mere belief is inherently a matter of acceptance or denial. If a person cannot in truth state that they believe in the existence of a god(s); they do not believe in the existence of a god(s). Their open-mindedness to the idea of there being a god(s) does not negate the reality of their disbelief. The lack of a formal denial does not negate the reality of their disbelief.

Also, you talk like a Jesuit, as I noted before, but most Jesuits are actually pretty smart, just unsaved You are trying to sound smart and you are unsaved.

You are the second individual to make a "sound smart" comment. The very aspect of pointing it out as such would indicate you believe it sounds smart. Otherwise, what is the basis of the initial assertion?

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

Hi Lone Jack,


I remembered an analogy I heard once about atheism.

In a court of law (secular) everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But the prospect of innocence gets no traction after that. The proceedings are concerned only with the dichotomy of guilt. Which is why the verdict is guilty or not guilty, and the onus is on the claimant (prosecutor). All the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt to the claim.

The nature of dichotomy being: something is or isn't one particular thing. I get the feeling you interpret it differently. As long as there is even the possibility of a third choice, there is no dichotomy. For instance if you say something is either black or white, we know this is ridiculous because it could be blue. So something would have to be either black, or not black etc.

Now in this court case, a juror could well believe that the defendant is guilty, or certainly not innocent. But if the evidence does not support the claim the only verdict is 'not guilty'.

Now substitute 'God exists' for 'not guilty' in the above, and therein lies the atheist position.

Having said that, it is not only wrong, but absurd.

In reality the evidence of God is so crushingly obvious and prevalent, theism is the default position, and the onus lay with those whom refuse to open their eyes and look around them.

It is like claiming water isn't wet, don't you think you would have some explaining to do? I could hose you down with a supersoaker and that would be the end of it. It follows that it should be enough to just wake up and see the sun to prove God's existence.

Acknowledging that, a quick flip though Genesis will confirm that it is the Christian God which is watching over and judging us.

Genesis 1:1-7

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.



God Bless
DAM

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

If you do not believe, you automatically disbelieve.

I had an electric sewing machine for a while, until it broke. I took the cover off and looked at the wires for a while then all of a sudden I got an electric shock

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

In terms of being agnostic towards gods and goddesses, yes, they don't have to commit to belief or disbelief. However, a person must hold either a current positive or a negative position on any given subject.

First part yes and no, they commit that an argument either way is pointless as the subject matter is unknowable.

Null hypothesis: : a statistical hypothesis to be tested and accepted or rejected in favor of an alternative; specifically : the hypothesis that an observed difference (as between the means of two samples) is due to chance alone and not due to a systematic cause

This merely states that given the set of data, no convincing arguments can be made

The default position in any argument is denial of belief due to the burden of proof not having been met by the claimant. This does not mean that you believe no god exists, it means you haven't been convinced that one does. Hence "I don't know"

If I ask you, "Do you believe in any god(s)?", any answer other than "yes", is an admission of disbelief. If you believed in a god(s) you would answer "yes".

I think that the main issue we are having is with semantics. I don't want to be pedantic, but we need to be specific about our meanings and terminology. I'm with you so far however.

So clearly, they do not believe in any god(s) even though they may be open to the idea. The only reason an agnostic does not outright deny the existence of a god(s) is that they acknowledge their inherent human ignorance.

Correct (your statement, not agnosticism)

Where as an atheist would say, "No, there is no god". The atheist does not acknowledge human ignorance, but rather, professes an absolute knowledge concerning a negative based on their personal perception that there is no knowledge to be had.

Again, this is an antitheist. consider it like this someone that is asymptomatic has no symptoms of a particular disease, but it does not mean they do not have it.

If an atheist allows for the possibility of there being a god(s), they would not be atheists. They would be agnostics. Otherwise, there is no difference.

There isn't much, in God's eyes, and mine.
Atheism is about addressing the evidence and stating that God has not been proven to exist.
Agnosticism is about addressing that no hard evidence exists because it can't, or can't yet be detected
Anti-theism is about stating that the available evidence proves there is no god(s)

So my question to you is: Is there a substantial difference in regards to the agnostic and atheist outlook on god(s)?

It really depends on what you feel is substantial. To my mind, no, they are all hellbound. To a secular academic, there is a world of difference as to the cause, but little to the effect.

So yes and no

That would be the equivalent of a Mormon explaining to a Baptist that he is unable to form an opinion concerning the Book of Mormon without first conferring with Mormons in order to know what he is talking about. As if the Baptist is incapable of reading the Book of Mormon himself and coming to his own conclusion.

Knowing how a group defines themselves is important. Baptists and morons are different in many ways. We follow The Bible strictly, while morons...well... are out of their minds and it would be more informative to ask an antelope if it likes cheese puffs

This is, in actuality, an extremely irrational approach as there are more proposed gods and goddesses touted by mankind than I can count on my fingers and toes. Furthermore, the doctrines of some are in many cases directly conflicting with others.

Correct! All but one conflict with the Truth!

Therefore how could simply believing in the concept of a god be rational when many theistic institutions demand more than mere belief and/or the outright denial of opposing institutions?

Because Hell sucks

How does one define the criteria for what living "as though God exists" is with so many ways provided by so many gods?

Still just one, The Christian God, as defined in The Bible

How does one determine which of the myriad of gods one is to seek in order to "believe in God"?

By reading The Bible

Zeus? Odin? Amun Ra? Yahweh? Anu? Quetzalcoatl? Brahma? Mithra? Ahura Mazda? Mother Earth? Cthulhu? The Demiurge? The list goes on and on.

Yes, it does. The world is full of deceptive practices. I have no idea why so many people would turn their backs on The Truth, but they do.

I think that your position lacks focus, you play fast and loose with definitions and concepts as well as commit non sequitur.

If you are looking for a reason to believe, you won't find it in your head, but your heart. Jesus can't make you love Him, you have to get there on your own two.


God Bless
DAM

[Alvin Moss]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

However, a person must hold either a current positive or a negative position on any given subject.



So my question to you is: Is there a substantial difference in regards to the agnostic and atheist outlook on god(s)?

Your first statement infers that the position holder would have to know all things and have an opinion on them. In my experience, only teenagers know all things and have an opinion on them. Adults lose that ability.

As to your question: Who cares? They are neither saved and both will go to Hell. I always tell my kids that it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you act like an idiot, you will get treated like an idiot.

Also, you talk like a Jesuit, as I noted before, but most Jesuits are actually pretty smart, just unsaved You are trying to sound smart and you are unsaved. Thus, atheist or agnostic, it is to Hell you will go and once you have arrived, it won't make any difference how you got there.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

In terms of being agnostic towards gods and goddesses, yes, they don't have to commit to belief or disbelief. However, a person must hold either a current positive or a negative position on any given subject..

I haven't read any more of your post yet, but will do so in a minute. A friend of mine was explaining to me that there's strong atheism (which is about knowlwdge, she said) “a strong atheist knows there is no God” for example The Fool in Psalm 14.

Weak atheism, sha suggested, is about belief either not believing claims about God (for example from the Patriarch of Moscow) or not believing that a god or gods exist.

I'll continue reading now.

[Looney Jack]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

You can say "I don't know" and not have to commit to belief or disbelief.

In terms of being agnostic towards gods and goddesses, yes, they don't have to commit to belief or disbelief. However, a person must hold either a current positive or a negative position on any given subject.

If I ask you, "Do you believe in any god(s)?", any answer other than "yes", is an admission of disbelief. If you believed in a god(s) you would answer "yes". So clearly, they do not believe in any god(s) even though they may be open to the idea. The only reason an agnostic does not outright deny the existence of a god(s) is that they acknowledge their inherent human ignorance. Where as an atheist would say, "No, there is no god". The atheist does not acknowledge human ignorance, but rather, professes an absolute knowledge concerning a negative based on their personal perception that there is no knowledge to be had. If an atheist allows for the possibility of there being a god(s), they would not be atheists. They would be agnostics. Otherwise, there is no difference.

So my question to you is: Is there a substantial difference in regards to the agnostic and atheist outlook on god(s)?

Repeating yourself does not make you look smarter

What is it about anything I've written that would make you think I am trying to "look smarter"? The very aspect of pointing it out as such would indicate you believe it sounds smart. Otherwise, what is the basis of the initial assertion?

Such a statement seems contrary.

You should look here

Ask them your questions about the distinctions they create for themselves. I'm not defending their stupid positions, but it helps to know what you're talking about.

That would be the equivalent of a Mormon explaining to a Baptist that he is unable to form an opinion concerning the Book of Mormon without first conferring with Mormons in order to know what he is talking about. As if the Baptist is incapable of reading the Book of Mormon himself and coming to his own conclusion.

The rational approach is actually Pascal's Wager

Can't argue there

This is, in actuality, an extremely irrational approach as there are more proposed gods and goddesses touted by mankind than I can count on my fingers and toes. Furthermore, the doctrines of some are in many cases directly conflicting with others. Therefore how could simply believing in the concept of a god be rational when many theistic institutions demand more than mere belief and/or the outright denial of opposing institutions?

How does one define the criteria for what living "as though God exists" is with so many ways provided by so many gods?

How does one determine which of the myriad of gods one is to seek in order to "believe in God"?

Zeus? Odin? Amun Ra? Yahweh? Anu? Quetzalcoatl? Brahma? Mithra? Ahura Mazda? Mother Earth? Cthulhu? The Demiurge? The list goes on and on.

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

[QUOTE]

Agnosticism is more a rejection of belief.

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.



atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny

You cannot both not believe and not disbelieve.

You can say "I don't know" and not have to commit to belief or disbelief.

If you do not believe, you automatically disbelieve.

Disbelief is not a belief

disbelief [ˌdɪsbɪˈliːf]n refusal or reluctance to believe

The mitigating factor being that you have not ruled out the possibilities. You acknowledge that you simply do not know. Atheism, on the other hand, strikes me as the outright assertion of a negative.

Antitheism is outspoken opposition to theism and religion.

It's not enough to not believe, but furthermore, the affirmation of knowing there is no god; as if the non-existence of anything deemed "metaphysical" were a fact.

Repeating yourself does not make you look smarter

Otherwise, I fail to see any relevant distinction between the two.

You should look here

Ask them your questions about the distinctions they create for themselves. I'm not defending their stupid positions, but it helps to know what you're talking about.

"God cannot be proven" is, in my opinion, akin to "no object can travel faster than the speed of light". On what grounds do we make such assumptions? Does ignorance and current limitations constitute evidence of a negative? I think not. In the absence of absolute knowledge the only rational approach is "I don't know".

The rational approach is actually Pascal's Wager

Dude.



You're overdoing it.

Can't argue there

I may use it again, per say.

Didymus:1
Other atheist dick:0

[Looney Jack]

Re: The Triplewart Sea Devil

Well, there are many factors that come into play. The official atheist stance is "God cannot be proven, therefore I will not believe" it is a rejection of a belief. There is no official atheist claim, it is the (incorrect) rejection of a claim.

This is of course smoke, mirrors and artful dodgery. Atheist DO in fact KNOW in their hearts God exists, and atheism is the act of either trying to wish God away, or an active deception because they are working for Satan.

In truth, neither scenario makes one iota of difference, they are equally damning

YiC
DAM

Agnosticism is more a rejection of belief. You cannot both not believe and not disbelieve. If you do not believe, you automatically disbelieve. The mitigating factor being that you have not ruled out the possibilities. You acknowledge that you simply do not know. Atheism, on the other hand, strikes me as the outright assertion of a negative. It's not enough to not believe, but furthermore, the affirmation of knowing there is no god; as if the non-existence of anything deemed "metaphysical" were a fact.

Otherwise, I fail to see any relevant distinction between the two.

"God cannot be proven" is, in my opinion, akin to "no object can travel faster than the speed of light". On what grounds do we make such assumptions? Does ignorance and current limitations constitute evidence of a negative? I think not. In the absence of absolute knowledge the only rational approach is "I don't know".

You talk like a Jesuit.

There is a special place in... [blah blah blah]

Dude.



You're overdoing it.

The term is "per se".

Please don't use it.

I may use it again, per say.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Hey, evolutionist.. oh, good: one's turned up

..how would this thing survive when it only had ½ a light

What about when it only had of a light?

scientific method blah to prove a negative. blah

YES